Claim: It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.
Reason: The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
In today's world, with easy access to different forms of media and enhanced capabilities to capture and mete information, people tend to get enamored by watching famous people from multidue of fields they witness. Ironically, the same meida and the coverage have the potential to damage the reputation of the famous people. The prompt suggests that it is no longer possible for a society to regard any person as their role model because any person subjucted to immense scrutiny will succumb to infamy. However, I personally feel that this is not true in all case and one should not generalise this trend acorss various fields.
To begin with, during the birth of television and various forms of media through which people get to know about different personalities, there was not much information available about the personal lives of the famous personalities. This is in part due to the limited capabilities of the media networks at that time or the public not showing much interest in knowing their role models more personally. However, with the advent of the internet, the power of broadcasting information is endowed to each and every individual who has access to it and consequently, people who are in close proximity of the famous personalities are able to put thier experiences with with them on the internet. Moreover, the media networks have also became capable of closely scrutinizing the lives of the people whom the public considers as their role models. Thus, we see on a daily basis, famous people getting caught in a scandal or they tend to have a defiled past that tarnishs their present. After being exposed such aspersions, the public suddenly starts to consider them as nondescript. This will eventually diminish the image of the role models and the reason quoted in the prompt looks credible.
However, this cannot be generalized to every field. It is true that the image of politicians and film actors is damaged due to such meticulous scrutiny. In contarst, there are ceratin fields, namely - Education, Scientific Research, etc that do not fall prey to such scrutinies. For instance, let us take the example of Astro-Physics. Stephen Hawking is considered as the best researcher in the field of Astro-Physics. No matter how deeply one delves into his personal and social life, and try to search for fallacies, there is absolutely no way one can find any flaws in his demeanor. Thus, he will always continue to be a role model who aspire to become researchers in his field. As we can see, the reason cited in the prompt is significanlty weakened when one considers the above example.
To recapitulate, the reason stated in the prompt does not apply to all the fields. It is more often than not that the stated reason applies to fields like politics, films etc. However, as stated above the reasons seems to not have much weight when it comes to fields like Research, Education etc.
- smart cars 76
- Although innovations such as video computers and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students these technologies all too often distract from real learning Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree 62
- Several recent studies have shown a link between health and stair usage One recently completed study shows that people who live in stairs only apartment buildings that is buildings without elevators live an average of three years longer than do people who 68
- The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine In 1975 a wildlife census found that there were seven species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park with abundant numbers of each species However in 2002 only four species of amphibians 66
- Archaeologists have long thought that an artifact called the pemchint was used by Dodecan people solely as a musical instrument Pemchints consist of hollowed pieces of bone shell or wood that are tied together with long straps When whirled in the air the 79
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 579, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'proximity'.
Suggestion: proximity
... it and consequently, people who are in close proximity of the famous personalities are able to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 657, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: with
...ities are able to put thier experiences with with them on the internet. Moreover, the med...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 728, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'become'.
Suggestion: become
... Moreover, the media networks have also became capable of closely scrutinizing the liv...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, however, if, look, moreover, so, thus, for instance, such as, it is true, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2422.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 490.0 442.535393258 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94285714286 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70488508055 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73786938225 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514285714286 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 767.7 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.065652926 60.3974514979 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.090909091 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2727272727 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.86363636364 5.21951772744 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.14387760884 0.243740707755 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0384110928463 0.0831039109588 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0445359744028 0.0758088955206 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0817575913719 0.150359130593 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0312124113431 0.0667264976115 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.1639044944 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 100.480337079 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.