When living in the digital era, social media pervasively brings extra exposure of our present lives and disclosure to our past. Some people can’t help but begins to state individuals, whom society regards as heroes, lose their validity due to the diminishing reputation brought by social media scrutiny. However, the validity of any individual to be regarded as a society’s hero when it comes to social media scrutiny is heavily dependent on the part an individual plays within the context of the society. Celebrities who work in the entertaining industries and politicians would face the diminishing reputation by social media scrutiny in terms of scandals and shady and contentious political strategies. While at the same time, scientists, on the contrary, could build up their reputation and expand the knowledge to the population through social media scrutiny.
Celebrities who work in the entertaining industries are much more dependent on the power of social media to expand their audience, but at the same time, the exposure of personal life has the potential to diminish their reputation by being scrutinized by social media.
Nowadays, the majority of celebrities are imbued with wealth at a very young age, fame and wealth bring them to temptations that easily lead to scandals. For instance, Justin Bieber debuted with catchy songs that brought him fame and wealth, as well as being regarded by young generations as a role model for his positive image. While being extolled by the young population, the exposure of him to being tempted to drug abuse and drinking problems, which scandalized him and gradually his reputation ebbed away. Thus, as the example illustrates, celebrities accumulate wealth rapidly and face scandal-leading temptations, and therefore are more at risk of reduced reputation due to massive exposure by social media.
Despite in the entertaining industries where celebrities are targeted by exposure, social media has been playing a role in the political arena in the past and continues to play an essential part in decreasing politicians’ reputation in the present time. The extra exposure by social media of governmental and official’s shady operations by social media provides the public information besides the positive image the politicians have been building and propagating. This negative revelation, like the whistleblower’s disclosed documents of President Donald Trump, coerced Ukraine to investigate his political rival by intentionally holding the aid to Ukraine, indeed, imperils his reputation. The negativity brought by the examination of social media inevitably belittles a politician’s reputation.
However convenient this claim and reason may be, the invalidity of an individual being regarded as a hero due to diminishing reputation brought by social media scrutiny doesn’t hold true when it comes to scientists. The digital era permits the building of a scientist’s reputation to be a role model and the expansion of the knowledge to the broader population. People used to acquaint themselves with knowledge through textbooks and traditional media like newspapers, which provide little access for extensive knowledge, let alone close association with scientists and scholars. With the help of being scrutinized by social media in this day and age, scientists, like the 2019 Nobel laureates in physics with their research and efforts on lithium rechargeable batteries, are drawn closer to the public, and thus made more influential. With that being said, social media doesn’t always create negative incentives as reputation downgrading concerning the enhancement of scientist’s positive role in society and how more knowledge can be brought to the public.
To conclude, the pessimistic view of individuals losing the legitimacy to be perceived as heroes with a diminishing reputation in respect of more publicity created by social media is conditional on the roles individuals play in society. For celebrities in entertainment industries as well as politicians, their reputation perishes when connected to revealed scandals and shady operations. Scientists, on the contrary, are likely to build up their reputation and have more knowledge to reach the public easier by the exposure of social media.
- Claim Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future Reason Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate Write a response in which you discus 68
- Claim No act is done purely for the benefit of others Reason All actions even those that seem to be done for other people are based on self interest Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the rea 68
- 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. 66
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agre 75
- Claim: The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models.Reason: Heroes and role models reveal a society's highest ideals.Write a response 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for instance, as well as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 14.8657303371 175% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 110.0 58.6224719101 188% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3660.0 2235.4752809 164% => OK
No of words: 655.0 442.535393258 148% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.58778625954 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.05894927669 4.55969084622 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24316496508 2.79657885939 116% => OK
Unique words: 291.0 215.323595506 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44427480916 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1164.6 704.065955056 165% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 42.8457978884 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 166.363636364 118.986275619 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.7727272727 23.4991977007 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.86363636364 5.21951772744 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
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: 0.200675889922 0.243740707755 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.072827229667 0.0831039109588 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0488084464626 0.0758088955206 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119432138996 0.150359130593 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0504778605437 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.8 14.1392134831 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.12 48.8420337079 51% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 12.1743820225 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.73 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 180.0 100.480337079 179% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 11.8971910112 134% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.