The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment.
Proper judgement can be done only with disinterested mind. In fact, when the person who is judging someone that he or she already knows, there can be some fallacy in the judgement. The prompt suggests that the real talent of the musician can only be properly discerned when the fame of that "popular" musician is not officious. In my honest opinion, I mostly agree with this suggestion and argue that people who needs to assess the real talent of the musician should not be bewildered by the fame of the musician, as such could deviate the assessment process.
To begin, when a song is being published by a musician, the number of audience at that time, who would listen to that song would be surely affected by the popularity of that particular musician. But, when the talent is to be assessed, at that time when the song is just released, the accurate assessment cannot be determined. For instance, If we judge a song by Ed Sherean right now, we would be predilected by the number of fans or followers he have, and our judgement would definitely would be a biased one. But, if we judge Bob Dylan right now, we would not be interfered by the fame he possesses, and an honest assessment is possible. Thus, we cannot properly judge a musician right when they are at their prime, but the same can be done once the popularity or the fame is reduced.
Further, when a popular musician brings his composition out, people go wild about it. This would affect the process of assessing the real talent as their are counter agreement saying, "If he wouldn't have talent, how would he make this large fan following?" But if the composition remains evergreen and the upcoming generations also opts to listen the composition of the deceased musician, their needs no other proof of his/her talent. For intance, the Blues and the Jazzs musician of 60s are yet being loved and enthusiastically listened to. This shows the talent they possessed. But, their might be some random songs which once was a global hit, and topped the trending list on youtube, but everyone now has forgotten about it. This assessment also shows, if we would have judged that musician of random hit at that particular time, we might hold some predilection, but now, seeing the present scenario where everyone have forgotten that musician, it is easy to judge the talent of that particular singer, whereas the musicians who composed the Blues or the Jazzs.
Although, I mostly agree with the prompt given here, I would definitely say, it would not take time as long as mentioned, "dead for several generations" to bring proper assessment of the talent. Every singer has their eras, or most precisely decades, and once their decades of prime is over, the musician can be assessed with their talent. For instance, the Pink Floyd , to assess the talent of Pink Floyd , we need not wait for the generations to pass or the death of the musicians. The talent of those incredible musicians can be assessed seeing how people of multiple generations are loving those musicians.
- The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been pr 69
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Proper judgement can be done only with d...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ld deviate the assessment process. To begin, when a song is being published...
^^^^
Line 5, column 451, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'has'.
Suggestion: has
...d by the number of fans or followers he have, and our judgement would definitely wou...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...popularity or the fame is reduced. Further, when a popular musician brings ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 153, Rule ID: THEIR_IS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'there'?
Suggestion: there
...process of assessing the real talent as their are counter agreement saying, 'If ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 201, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...e counter agreement saying, 'If he wouldnt have talent, how would he make this lar...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 778, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had judged'?
Suggestion: had judged
...t it. This assessment also shows, if we would have judged that musician of random hit at that par...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o composed the Blues or the Jazzs. Although, I mostly agree with the prompt...
^^^
Line 13, column 382, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...eir talent. For instance, the Pink Floyd , to assess the talent of Pink Floyd , we...
^^
Line 13, column 419, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...oyd , to assess the talent of Pink Floyd , we need not wait for the generations to...
^^
Line 13, column 597, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...eing how people of multiple generations are loving those musicians.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, thus, whereas, as for, for instance, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.4196629213 193% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 11.3162921348 221% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 54.0 33.0505617978 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2544.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 525.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84571428571 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73859733899 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44380952381 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 785.7 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 6.24550561798 240% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 3.10617977528 290% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 78.945719281 60.3974514979 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.894736842 118.986275619 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6315789474 23.4991977007 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.31578947368 5.21951772744 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 7.80617977528 141% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => 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: 0.334253264329 0.243740707755 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120841921111 0.0831039109588 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0631759376075 0.0758088955206 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225632532883 0.150359130593 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.032160952286 0.0667264976115 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.8420337079 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.1743820225 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.1639044944 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 100.480337079 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.