Athletes and entertainers can be good politicians.
Governmental positions have always been competitive for humankind. People love to earn good money and be in a high level position jobs, so they compete with each other to earn these places. These kinds of jobs need some abilities and knowledge. Some people think they are not good in these kinds of works, because they are not in the same major and these positions are not easy at all. On the other hand, some people think otherwise. In my view, I believe that athletes and entertainers can be qualify for these positions.
First and foremost, a politician should communicate well. As a matter of fact, these mentioned groups of people have a strong ability to communicate effective with others. Consequently they will be fit for governmental positions. In another word, everybody have always saw some smart people with a weak talent in communication. These kinds of people are not successful in governmental positions. For instance, a president should tell his/her ideas really clear. If a president cannot tell his/her thoughts with confidence, people would not accept his/her talks.
Second, sport guys and show mans are usually smart. A politician should be smart enough to learn everything as quick as possible. They should be knowledgeable in many majors such as history and mathematic, so smart people like these two categories of citizens, are suitable for these positions.
Last but not least, being famous is a huge chance for being successful in these majors. For example, Hillary and Donald are both famous. They have never had a governmental job, but people know them well. As everybody knows, Trump was an entertainer in TV, so many people know him well.
Additionally, athletes and entertainers have a positive effect on residence. People saw them in their best situations such as a TV show or a game. Psychologically, they have an effective influence on human's mind. Whenever people see them, people think they are doing a same job as well and they can trust them.
To sum up, although being in sensitive positions is not easy, these two groups of people are qualified to be in these positions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-02 | YasamanEsml | 83 | view |
| 2023-07-02 | Vivian Chang | 70 | view |
| 2023-04-10 | KimiaKermanshahian | 70 | view |
| 2023-03-31 | sonyeoso | 90 | view |
| 2023-03-27 | mzt123 | 70 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Your job has moreeffect on your happiness than your social life does. 3
- Do you agree or disagree that universities should spend money on improving facilities (labs and general requirements) than hiring famous teachers? 80
- TPO-12 - Independent Writing Task Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People should have hobbies and do physical activities that are very different from their own work. 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: in twenty years there will be fewer cars on the road than there are today. 60
Comments
Sorry, the site didn't show
Sorry, the site didn't show me, so I thought I didn't submit it right.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 172, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Consequently,
...y to communicate effective with others. Consequently they will be fit for governmental posit...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 269, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'sawed', 'sawn', 'seen'.
Suggestion: sawed; sawn; seen
... In another word, everybody have always saw some smart people with a weak talent in...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'consequently', 'first', 'if', 'really', 'second', 'so', 'well', 'for example', 'for instance', 'such as', 'as a matter of fact', 'in my view', 'to sum up', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.224438902743 0.229887763892 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.142144638404 0.158761421928 90% => OK
Adjectives: 0.117206982544 0.0866891130778 135% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0648379052369 0.046263068375 140% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0423940149626 0.0685040099705 62% => OK
Prepositions: 0.117206982544 0.118717715034 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0199501246883 0.0351676179071 57% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.79699964095 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0149625935162 0.0309702414327 48% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00249376558603 0.00188951952338 132% => OK
Determiners: 0.0947630922693 0.0887237588012 107% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0224438902743 0.0209618222197 107% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00249376558603 0.0139019557991 18% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2114.0 2387.08602151 89% => OK
No of words: 353.0 408.028673835 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.98866855524 5.86048508987 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33454660006 4.48200974243 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.334277620397 0.338922669872 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.218130311615 0.251872472559 87% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.169971671388 0.174417080927 97% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.14447592068 0.112833075102 128% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79699964095 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 212.727598566 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.507082152975 0.524397521467 97% => OK
Word variations: 53.5590477781 59.2087087015 90% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6684587814 121% => OK
Sentence length: 14.12 20.5533526081 69% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.0874990652 48.84282405 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.56 120.699889404 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.12 20.5533526081 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.6 0.644075263715 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.5376344086 132% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.54480286738 36% => OK
Readability: 35.9330311615 45.7405998639 79% => OK
Elegance: 1.45 1.45489161554 100% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.157498181063 0.300154397459 52% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0846671443763 0.103427244359 82% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0997998575918 0.0752933317313 133% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.453774056764 0.497263757937 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.171707094056 0.151897553556 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0555887347852 0.114077575197 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0812066257363 0.0781384742642 104% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.220944390025 0.336927656856 66% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0966956445655 0.067059652881 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0897133729885 0.210909579961 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.06594081577 0.0618886996521 107% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 21.0 11.8870967742 177% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.86379928315 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.91756272401 20% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 14.0 8.42114695341 166% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 2.4623655914 122% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.75985663082 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 17.0 13.6433691756 125% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.