Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term, realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Modern day society tends to view celebrities as demigods and places them on pedestals. It is natural for youth to crave the adulation received by famous personalities and pursue goals leading to the spotlight. However, going after a realistic goal is much more beneficial than temporary fame. I strongly agree with the statement, and will present my view with three points.
Firstly, fame is temporary and it is not a sustainable career path. Many people pursue fame at the cost of their education and conventional careers. This is not prudent as they may not have anything to fall back on once their popularity dies. For every successful actor or model there are thousands who could not make it and had to give up their dreams. This harsh reality is hardly highlighted, making the path to fame appear like a walk through the park. Popular culture is full of one hit wonders who are no longer relevant or given any attention. On the other hand pursuing a career in a field which will always be required by society, such as the sciences or education, will be long term and fruitful. A career in such fields also lends a degree of financial stability that cannot be guaranteed by fame.
Furthermore, in the process of seeking fame people might resort to tactics that they might regret later on. It is very difficult to stand out in an industry saturated with talent, and one might resort to outlandish acts to get attention. Present day social media "influencers" have all their actions recorded on the internet. A single perhaps self-deprecating" prank intended to make them go viral may be the only thing associated with them for the rest of their lives if their popularity fizzles out. The ephemeral nature of fame means that one might eventually have to pursue other jobs. Without prior experience, and their antics available for public viewing future employment may become a difficult task.
Finally, pursuing realistic goals may lead to more satisfaction. Being passionate about a domain in which fame is a part and parcel like music or acting differs from wanting fame itself. Long term, realistic goals allows an individual to dive deeply into a field and make valued contributions to the domain throughout their career. In contrast, seeking fame just for recognition is neither beneficial to them nor society in the long run.
In conclusion, one might say we have only one life and we should utilize it however we want, but there are many other things satisfactory things that can be pursued without having to deal with the negatives of short term recognition. Thus, I believe it is better to pursue long term goals and realistic career paths over 15 minutes of fame.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...l present my view with three points. Firstly, fame is temporary and it is not...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y that cannot be guaranteed by fame. Furthermore, in the process of seeking f...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...loyment may become a difficult task. Finally, pursuing realistic goals may le...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to them nor society in the long run. In conclusion, one might say we have onl...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, so, thus, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2246.0 2235.4752809 100% => OK
No of words: 456.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92543859649 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62105577807 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83250150735 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559210526316 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 695.7 704.065955056 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.7853193845 60.3974514979 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.5833333333 118.986275619 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.45833333333 5.21951772744 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 21.0 10.2758426966 204% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230855190939 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0630884357321 0.0831039109588 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0457469833472 0.0758088955206 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13728972793 0.150359130593 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399432456092 0.0667264976115 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.1392134831 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 100.480337079 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.