Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue ...

Quixotic goals

Policy, which alleviates the elementary problems of the society, are necessary to be implemented for the striving of the nations. However, during the formulation of it, fervor argument develops between the politician and policy maker- should our political goal be based on the idealism or realistic? Evaluating the both sides, the policy depended on common grounds are likely to be successful, prevents the further suffering of citizen and leads to faster development of a country.

Quixotic goal, unlike real goal, are appealing when some politician gives speech about it, their goal seems grandiose, but rarely are achieved because in idealistic goal various parameter helping to shape an aim are trifle compared to actual need of parameter for achieving such goal. Nepal is reach in hydro resource, for instance, it has potential to generate upto 1200 Megawatt electricity. However, since the country lacks various infrastructure- funding, technical man power- and potential water resources are located in inaccessible areas, it is hard for Nepal to achieve optimum utilization of water resources. However, policy to harness the full power of resources has been implemented for 20 years and completion rate is not more than 5 percent. Instead, if policy makers had focused only on the accessible, low funding resources, the hydro electricity production would have been higher now. The achievement success is higher in goals based on sound reasoning and grounds rather than idealistic goal.

Furthermore, if any politician is obsessed with their grandiose plan and policy, then it will prompt many suffering to citizen. if a country, for example, where higher power personnel wants to increase their military power despite poor economic condition of country, then the citizen will suffer from dire fate. They have to pay higher tax, other facilities such as health, education-character for promoting quality of life- are focused insignificantly by government. Because it is supposed that North Korea spends large amount of budget in military personnel, we heard about suffering of many north- Korean people. Similarly, During the construction of Taaj-mahal, which was a grandiose plan, requiring enormous amount of capital and took 30 years for completion, most citizen had to pay high taxes, gave higher portion of harvest, causing them to live a miserable life. It also emptied the state money and subverted defensive power, thus making country vulnerable to attack and other havoc in country.

However, some may argue that quixotic goals are example of something unachievable, making the people believe that everything is possible. However, to achieve such goals, insurmountable of resources are required, so such aim are barely successful. If we compare successfulness between goal achieved on reasonable grounds and ideal grounds, then measure of grounds based aim are much higher than the latter. Therefore, for the rapid development of any country, society or community, policy maker should focus on reasonable grounds.

In conclusion, quixotic goals can hardly be achieved, obscures basic need of people, causing them to live in tribulation, but reasoned based goals aid in developing of the country as it has high success rate. Therefore, Politician, I believe that, should focus on policy hinged on realistic grounds.

@paras01
I am confuse on what are you want us to write in comment box, either an answer based on opinion and fact or essay critique for your writing skill, since you didn't told us in advance.

I prefer the realistic one. But~
I believe that everyone has their own idealism or some people prefer to called it their principal of life. They choose it based on what they want to choose, not based on how many profit or loss they could count. They choose it based on which profit they want to take or loss they want to left behind, once again, not on how much it can be counted.

In North Korea case, the government chose their idealism for absolute power to control their country without any critiques from their citizen. Surely, it already brings them into poor economical conditions but with the power to protect their country with full mode on military for defense and ability to give an attack for their offense in the future. That's what being called as loss but still profitable.

That's a half different with Trump's condition in US these days. With full of liberty and good economical condition, he can't fully control US citizen's act to hate him for his unrealistic idea.

That's my argument. I'm sorry if it'll sound like amateur's comment for you.
Good luck.

Paras, please make sure that you develop an original title for your essay next time. Do not use the prompt as the title because I need the complete prompt included with the essay posting in the text box. That way I can immediately give you an accurate review of your work, along with a possible score instead. Please remember that the other members of our community will not be able to participate in your thread if they do not know what topic you are trying to discuss and what exam you are taking. In this case, I am familiar with both the prompt requirement and the test that you are taking so I will be able to offer you advice on how to improve your essay. I am just sad that the other will not be able to participate in the thread due to the missing prompt requirement. Please provide that as soon as you can so that the others can also offer you their help.

In reference to the work that you did. The full requirement of the GRE essay requires you to take the stance that is closest to the personal position that you have. The statement of this position should be located in the opening statement along with the restatement or paraphrasing of the topic for discussion. You failed to do that in this essay. In fact, you did not indicate your position on the discussion until the concluding paragraph. So you will be scored less due to that oversight on your part.

There is also the problem of English grammar accuracy on your part. Please note that there is a difference between the terms "reach" and "rich". "Reach" means to "stretch out an arm in a specified direction in order to touch or grasp something." or "a continuous extent of land or water, especially a stretch of river between two bends, or the part of a canal between locks.", while "rich" means "having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy." You must always aim to use the correct English term for your essay or you will lose points for using the wrong word in the sentence. This is a problem with like sounding words. Be very careful about this because it has the ability to change the meaning or create confusion about the meaning of what you want to say.

Due to the problems with your discussion, I feel that in an actual test setting, the work that you did cannot gain you a score higher than a 4. The score is based on the problems with your writing style and grammar and usage.

@paras01

The issues I see that needs tweaking are grammatical errors. Take note that you need to observe proper parallelism in your sentences. Also the excessive use of commas are present here. Tempting as it may to put pauses within sentences, it would be easier to shorten or fuse the idea in one sentence to be more straightforward in your point.

Examples:

Policy alleviates the elementary problems of society as it is necessary to be implemented for the striving of nations.

Quixotic goal, unlike real goal, are appealing ...

Amongst other goals, the Quixotic is appealing when politicians give speeches about it. Their goal seems grandiose but is rarely achieved because it is....