Scandals help focus on the problem
Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Scandals have long been known to disrupt the normal functioning of an institution, society, or a complete nation. While, many few would refer to scandals as a source of chaos and mass hysteria, I would refer them as events that bring about change. The situations that occur due to a scandal brings the eyes of many people to the situation and creates awareness at a greater scale.
India has been an epicentre for scandals over the past decade. A very well-known scandal that turned the eyes of many living in India was the "2G Scam". It was a scandal that had its roots until the upper reaches of the government at that time. The scandal involved members of the parliament taking bribes that amounted to a colossal monetary sum. The scandal helped the citizens realize the misgivings of the government at that time along with the illicit methods that the members of the parliament were taking to amass a great amount of money. This scandal, along with a few other dubious acts on the part of the government resulted in the government unable to win the elections for the following term. These scandals shed light on the various acts of the government that was preventing the country from progressing.
India is a country that is home to many religious communities as well as political parties. Chauvinism is prevalent in India at a very grandiose scale. Owing too which, speakers and reformers find it sometimes challenging to raise voice against the dominating religious groups as well as the political parties. There is a sense of free pass awarded to these groups and anyone who tries to go against them has to face heavy repercussions. These speakers or reformers are either paid to remain silent or are threatened with their life. A society like this will forbid the right information to come out to the masses and this will mean that the citizens here will turn a blind eye towards it since the information is not something that will grab their attention. In times like these, whistle-blowers are the main source for scandalous information. Edward Snowden, the person who worked at NSA, was responsible for leaking the information that the United States Government along with NSA were guilty of illegally getting their hands on the personal information of many US citizens. Scandals and news like these, helps focus the attention on the problems faced by the people. In this case, the problem of violating the privacy of many individuals.
The only drawback of such an approach would be the fear of mass panic and the fear of riots in the country. If a scandalous information surfaces in the news regarding two religious sects. There is a high likelihood that communal rights can crop up in the nation and within a few hours, situation can get out of hand and out of the control of whoever is the ruler of the nation.
Therefore, I would like to conclude by stating that I am a staunch supporter of the ideology, that scandals help getting the focus of many individuals to the problem, in ways no speaker or reformer could do. But such a path can also have massive consequences on the overall peace of a nation.Holt Educational Consultant - / 14,835 
4783 The phrase "many few" is a contradiction in terms. It is either there are many or there are few. You cannot refer to both. While it sounds creative, it does not create clarity in your sentence presentation. This is a major drawback for your writing skill. There is a missing reference to the discussion method proposed in the original prompt. You need to express a clear measurement of your agreement with topic as a part of the first paragraph. While the GRE allows you to begin an immediate discussion of your opinion, you first, need to clearly express that opinion within the opening statement.
You are not offering a defensive argument against possible contradictions to your position. The essay requires you to anticipate any counter arguments and respond to them. The essay clearly lacks an analytical representation as you failed to present any possible debatable positions that you presented a defense for. Based on these observations, it is safe to say that your essay could probably score within the 3 range. Mostly because you presented a limited position and did not anticipate an expanded discussion based on additional, related topics.
