QQQQQ2 :Some people believe famous people's support towards international aid organizations draws the attention to problems, while others think celebrities make the problems less important. Discuss both views and give your opinions.
Recently, the impact of celebrities' aid, such as donations, on ordinary people has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that influencers can contribute to an increase in the level of attention to problems by supporting charities, while others argue otherwise. Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with the former stance. In the following essay, both views will be discussed alongside relevant examples.
On the one hand, those who claim that renowned people who support socially disadvantaged people negatively affect the masses do so for several reasons. Proponents of this argument insist that some entertainers exploit charitable activities in an undesirable way, causing individuals to become less interested in social problems. To exemplify, Lee Ki-Hun who is a singer in South Korea, patronised a charity, which enabled him to achieve fame from the public. However, according to an article released by the Seoul Times, it turned out that the main purpose of his donation was receiving tax waivers. Given these points, some people hold the view that celebrities can worsen the essence of aid.
My opinion, however, is that well-known people's support toward charitable foundations exerts a beneficial effect on the public. Perhaps the most compelling reason is that not only can celebrities inform the public of serious problems but also they are able to raise awareness amongst the masses considering that famous people are often exposed to media. In addition, a multitude of fans of celebrities have a predisposition to participate in aid when their idols partake in it. As an illustration, Lionel Messi spent approximately 3 million US dollars on a charitable organisation in South Africa to deal with global hunger in 2018, which made it possible for his keen supporters across the globe to pay attention to poverty, leading them to donate around 5 million US dollars. In light of the above, I find these more persuasive.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that celebrities' help brings with it positives in society for the reasons discussed above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 241, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an undesirable way" with adverb for "undesirable"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ertainers exploit charitable activities in an undesirable way, causing individuals to become less int...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 386, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e Ki-Hun who is a singer in South Korea, patronised a charity, which enabled him ...
^^
Line 3, column 550, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...at the main purpose of his donation was so as to receive tax waivers. Given these points...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that celebrit...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, well, while, as to, in addition, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 7.30460921844 219% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 33.0 24.0651302605 137% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 41.998997996 138% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1818.0 1615.20841683 113% => OK
No of words: 345.0 315.596192385 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26956521739 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3097767484 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94732015096 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 176.041082164 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.634782608696 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 581.4 506.74238477 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.6268343533 49.4020404114 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.625 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5625 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1875 7.06120827912 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.282829745688 0.244688304435 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0786198699554 0.084324248473 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0701466500673 0.0667982634062 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161657488386 0.151304729494 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0672698942428 0.056905535591 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.