Claim: It is no longer possible for a society to regard anyliving 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.
Extensive and detailed coverage on an individual by media is getting any less intense in the current era. The claim stated above is based on this situation and concludes that no individual can remain as a hero after such harsh inspection by the journalism. There are indeed fewer and fewer heroes who can survive from the media's critiques these days. However, the claim is precipitous to conclude that society can't have a living person hero. Two main reasons support this, which I will explain in the following section.
First, we should acknowledge that media scrutiny over public figures does not necessarily diminish the person's reputation every time. A recent increase of media coverage on a popular or famous person is instead an enriched evaluation of the person's deeds, and not all of them are disdainful canards on the person. A person's misconduct can indeed be revealed more quickly in the current era; it is not equivalent to that no individual can survive from the inspection from media. Instead, media coverage on a person enables people to develop a balanced understanding of a person and decide if the person can be regarded as a hero.
Bill Gates can be an excellent example in this regard. As a former CEO of a multi-national corporate, Bill Gates often faced harsh criticisms from media because his company was responsible for hedging other small companies to develop and sell innovative computer programs. Nevertheless, Bill Gates, as a person, still is considered a hero for many people. It is because of all the good deeds he has done for the world by founding a non-profit foundation and leading innovative projects to alleviate poverty. Because of the massive media coverage, people could consider his positive and negative aspects. And many of them seemed to agree that he can be regarded as a hero in our society. As this example shows, extensive media coverage does not always end up demeaning a hero.
Even if the media successfully take down a person's reputation to the ground, it is not equivalent to that the person is not a hero anymore. Hero, unlike the claim, is presuming, is not just about his/her reputation. In fact, a hero might not have a society-wide reputation at all. It is easy to regard that a hero is only a person who is covered by mass media, but we can think of many other everyday heroes in our lives. Firefighters are a good example. Each one of them is not covered and examined by media coverage, but they are undoubtedly heroes considering they are saving lives and do goods for our society. Volunteers and educators who work in an underprivileged area are also heroes, even though the media does not cover the people on an everyday basis and do not have any societal-wide reputation. Media scrutiny might turn many of the public figures to dishonorable celebrities, but they do not make everyday heroes as a false idea.
As explained above, the claim that many heroic figures in the contemporary world are losing their reputation as heroes is compelling. However, it should be noted that the claim is exaggerated because there are living examples of heroes who survived after all the attention from the media. It should also be considered that public reputation is not equal to being a hero, as we can see from everyday heroes in our lives.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 411, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...is precipitous to conclude that society cant have a living person hero. Two main rea...
^^^^
Line 2, column 104, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...gures does not necessarily diminish the persons reputation every time. A recent increas...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 44, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...n if the media successfully take down a persons reputation to the ground, it is not equ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, after all, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 33.0505617978 127% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2733.0 2235.4752809 122% => OK
No of words: 564.0 442.535393258 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84574468085 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87326216964 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76663191904 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450354609929 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 917.1 704.065955056 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.9983476432 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.222222222 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8888888889 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.74074074074 5.21951772744 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 22.0 10.2758426966 214% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216824163672 0.243740707755 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0672210741315 0.0831039109588 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0322570278557 0.0758088955206 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133174372022 0.150359130593 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0248834628738 0.0667264976115 37% => 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: 11.9 14.1392134831 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.1639044944 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.