Q2 Some people believe famous people s support towards international aid organizations draws attention to problems Others think celebrities make the problems less important Discuss both views and give your opinion

Essay topics:

Q2 : Some people believe famous people’s support towards international aid organizations draws attention to problems. Others think celebrities make the problems less important. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Recently, the impact of celebrities' assistance, such as donations, on individuals has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that renowned people can contribute to an increase in people's attention to social problems by supporting charities, while others argue otherwise. Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with the former stance. In the following essay, both views will be discussed before a conclusion is reached with my opinion.

On the one hand, those who claim that influencers helping socially disadvantaged people can detrimentally affect ordinary people do so for several reasons. Proponents of this argument insist that some entertainers exploit charitable activities in an undesirable way, causing individual people to become less interested in serious problems. As an illustration, Kim Ki-Hun who is a singer in South Korea patronised a charitable organisation, and as a result, he achieved fame. However, according to an article released by the Seoul Times, it turned out that the main reason for his donation was receiving tax waivers. Given these points, some people hold the view that celebrities can worsen the essence of help.

My opinion, however, is that well-known people's aid towards charitable foundations can exert a beneficial influence on everyday people. Perhaps the most compelling reason is that not only can celebrities inform the masses of the importance of support, but they are also able to raise awareness amongst the public. Furthermore, a multitude of fans of public figures have a predisposition to participate in charitable work when their idols partake in it. To exemplify, Lionel Messi spent approximately 3 million US dollars on a charitable institution in South Africa in order to alleviate global hunger in 2015, which made it possible for a myriad of his keen support to pay attention to poverty, leading them to donate around 5 million US dollars. In light of the above, I find these more persuasive.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that public figures' aid brings with it positives for the reasons discussed above.

Votes
Average: 8.9 (2 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2023-04-16 thisisntt 11 view
2021-09-04 idid382002 89 view
2021-08-09 idid382003 89 view
2021-08-04 idid382003 89 view
2021-07-15 Minyuu_Ivy 73 view
Essays by user idid382003 :

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 245, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an undesirable way" with adverb for "undesirable"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ertainers exploit charitable activities in an undesirable way, causing individual people to become le...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that public f...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, so, well, while, in conclusion, such as, as a result

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 24.0651302605 137% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1874.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 351.0 315.596192385 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33903133903 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32839392791 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04495368178 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 176.041082164 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.638176638177 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 603.0 506.74238477 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6088108464 49.4020404114 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.125 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9375 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5625 7.06120827912 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248352074072 0.244688304435 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0689952902194 0.084324248473 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0742959131742 0.0667982634062 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144459319038 0.151304729494 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0690327900927 0.056905535591 121% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.94 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 78.4519038076 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 245, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an undesirable way" with adverb for "undesirable"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ertainers exploit charitable activities in an undesirable way, causing individual people to become le...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that public f...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, so, well, while, in conclusion, such as, as a result

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 24.0651302605 137% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1874.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 351.0 315.596192385 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33903133903 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32839392791 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04495368178 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 176.041082164 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.638176638177 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 603.0 506.74238477 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6088108464 49.4020404114 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.125 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9375 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5625 7.06120827912 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248352074072 0.244688304435 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0689952902194 0.084324248473 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0742959131742 0.0667982634062 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144459319038 0.151304729494 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0690327900927 0.056905535591 121% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.94 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 78.4519038076 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.