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 concept of heroism has long been woven into the fabric of society, inspiring admiration and reverence. However, the assertion that contemporary society can no longer regard any living individual as a hero due to the impact of media scrutiny invites a contemplation on the evolving nature of heroism. While media scrutiny can indeed cast a critical light on public figures, it is essential to consider the broader implications of this phenomenon.
The reason behind the claim stems from the pervasive influence of media in contemporary society. The relentless scrutiny to which public figures are subjected often leads to the exposure of their flaws, mistakes, or controversial actions. This can erode the perceived virtue and moral standing of these individuals in the eyes of the public. For example, a revered politician who is exposed for engaging in corrupt practices may see their heroic image shattered in the eyes of many.
Media scrutiny tends to simplify complex individuals into easily digestible narratives. This reductionism can undermine the nuanced understanding of a person's character, achievements, and contributions. Consider the case of a celebrated artist whose personal struggles or controversial statements are amplified in the media. Such simplification may overshadow their artistic achievements, leading to a diminished perception of their heroism.
However, it is important to recognize that media scrutiny does not negate the potential for individuals to exhibit heroic qualities. There are instances where public figures, despite facing intense scrutiny, continue to demonstrate extraordinary courage, integrity, and selflessness. For instance, a whistleblower who exposes corporate wrongdoing, even in the face of personal risk and public backlash, can be regarded as a hero for their commitment to truth and justice.
The evolving nature of media and its impact on public perception necessitate a reevaluation of what constitutes heroism. In the digital age, individuals have unprecedented access to information, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of public figures. This heightened awareness can lead to a more discerning assessment of heroism, where individuals are celebrated not for flawless virtue, but for their capacity to overcome adversity, inspire change, and contribute meaningfully to society.
In conclusion, the assertion that society can no longer regard any living individual as a hero due to media scrutiny is a notion that warrants careful consideration. While media scrutiny can indeed cast a critical light on public figures, it does not negate the potential for individuals to exhibit heroic qualities. As society grapples with evolving notions of heroism, it is imperative to recognize that heroism is not synonymous with perfection, but with the capacity to inspire, lead, and make a positive impact on the world.
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future 66
- In any field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions 50
- In order for any work of art for example a film a novel a poem or a song to have merit it must be understandable to most people 66
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 66
- Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoni 66
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...ndermine the nuanced understanding of a persons character, achievements, and contributi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, so, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2450.0 2235.4752809 110% => OK
No of words: 434.0 442.535393258 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.64516129032 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21592627806 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 215.323595506 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493087557604 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 795.6 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.9273682645 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.5 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.7 5.21951772744 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => 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: 0.182791571623 0.243740707755 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0587394578022 0.0831039109588 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0605549756603 0.0758088955206 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10229727201 0.150359130593 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0411085424567 0.0667264976115 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.49 12.1639044944 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.81 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 100.480337079 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...ndermine the nuanced understanding of a persons character, achievements, and contributi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, so, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2450.0 2235.4752809 110% => OK
No of words: 434.0 442.535393258 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.64516129032 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21592627806 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 215.323595506 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493087557604 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 795.6 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.9273682645 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.5 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.7 5.21951772744 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => 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: 0.182791571623 0.243740707755 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0587394578022 0.0831039109588 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0605549756603 0.0758088955206 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10229727201 0.150359130593 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0411085424567 0.0667264976115 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.49 12.1639044944 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.81 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 100.480337079 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.