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.
The crux of the topic is living man or woman could no longer be considered as a hero because anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny, his personality will be diminished. I partially disagree with the statement and I am going to provide some example to bolster my stance.
First of all, the topic presented media scrutiny in a negative way. The tone of the topic is like regardless it is good or bad the media portrays a person image in a profligated way, which is not always true and it is important to scrutinize an image of the person who is a public figure, by that way the truth came out as well as the person's true intentions. For example, a chicanery politician who portrays himself as magnanimous when he or she goes through scrutiny, the true intentions came out.
There are many people who lived in society as a hero even with media coverage. A person's veracity could not be harmed if their intentions are real. For example, Abdul Kalam, even with the president of India and with under continuous media coverage he was still considered as a hero in the society. He used media as a platform to influence others.
People might argue that the medias role in our modern society is maleficial and they could defame anyone and false news to make breaking news. But even with the defamation if a person is steadfast to the truthfulness, the media scrutiny could not harm him.
At the epilogue of the topic, I would say that it is true media sometimes portrays a person in the wrong way or the bad side of those persons. Many peoples carrier was diminished because of the false presentation or the scandalous news. But, Media's job is not to defame others but to question the establishment and to present the truth to the people, so that not a single pretentious harm the society.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-10-24 | MistyRabbit | 50 | view |
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speakers or reformer ever could 50
- TPO-06 - Independent Writing TaskDo you agree or disagree with the following statement?Life today is easier and more comfortable than it was when your grandparents were children.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 73
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors."Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, and today low-fat products abound in many f 50
- The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 66
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 50, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a negative way" with adverb for "negative"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...all, the topic presented media scrutiny in a negative way. The tone of the topic is like regardle...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 82, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...y as a hero even with media coverage. A persons veracity could not be harmed if their i...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 148, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
... or the bad side of those persons. Many peoples carrier was diminished because of the f...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, so, still, well, for example, as well as, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 58.6224719101 63% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1470.0 2235.4752809 66% => OK
No of words: 321.0 442.535393258 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.57943925234 5.05705443957 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63553611268 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 215.323595506 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.507788161994 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 478.8 704.065955056 68% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.2036006213 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.0 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9285714286 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.85714285714 5.21951772744 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185415780241 0.243740707755 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0663269920437 0.0831039109588 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0807689829245 0.0758088955206 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109568042799 0.150359130593 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.074732805439 0.0667264976115 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.1392134831 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.8420337079 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.58 12.1639044944 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 100.480337079 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.