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 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 social issues by supporting global charities, while others argue otherwise. Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with the former stance. In the following essay, both views will be discussed before a conclusion is reached with my opinion.
On the one hand, those who claim that public figures' helping socially disadvantaged people negatively affect the general public do so for several reasons. Proponents of this argument insist that some entertainers exploit charitable activities in order to obtain wealth and fame, causing individuals to become less interested in social problems. As an illustration, a Korean singer named Kim Hun patronised a global charitable foundation in 2010, resulting in him becoming popular. However, according to an article released by the Seoul Times, it turned out that the main purpose of his donation was receiving tax waiver. Given these points, some people hold the view that renowned people can worsen the essence of assistance.
My opinion, however, is that celebrities' help toward international charitable institutions exerts a positive influence on individual people. Perhaps the most compelling reason is that not only can well-known people inform the importance of charitable work of the masses, but they are also able to raise awareness amongst the public given that they are often exposed to mass media. In addition, a multitude of fans of celebrities have a predisposition to participate in charitable work when their idols partake in it. To exemplify, Lionel Messi spent 3 million US dollars on a global charitable foundation in South Africa so as to deal with global hunger in the year 2015, which made it possible for a myriad of his fans across the globe to pay attention to poverty. As a result, they donated 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' support toward to international charities is beneficial for the reasons discussed above.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 114, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...advantaged people negatively affect the general public do so for several reasons. Proponents o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 622, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...l charitable foundation in South Africa so as to deal with global hunger in the year 201...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 868, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he above, I find these more persuasive. In conclusion, it is undeniable that the...
^^^^^
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, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 24.0651302605 141% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 41.998997996 140% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1945.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 369.0 315.596192385 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27100271003 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96639422798 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 176.041082164 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612466124661 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 627.3 506.74238477 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.204567057 49.4020404114 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.411764706 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7058823529 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11764705882 7.06120827912 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224561287631 0.244688304435 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0625281065273 0.084324248473 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0623539561847 0.0667982634062 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140965964591 0.151304729494 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0597388994368 0.056905535591 105% => 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: 9.56 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 78.4519038076 145% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 114, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...advantaged people negatively affect the general public do so for several reasons. Proponents o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 622, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...l charitable foundation in South Africa so as to deal with global hunger in the year 201...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 868, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he above, I find these more persuasive. In conclusion, it is undeniable that the...
^^^^^
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, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 24.0651302605 141% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 41.998997996 140% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1945.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 369.0 315.596192385 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27100271003 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96639422798 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 176.041082164 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612466124661 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 627.3 506.74238477 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.204567057 49.4020404114 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.411764706 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7058823529 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11764705882 7.06120827912 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224561287631 0.244688304435 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0625281065273 0.084324248473 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0623539561847 0.0667982634062 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140965964591 0.151304729494 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0597388994368 0.056905535591 105% => 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: 9.56 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 78.4519038076 145% => 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.