Celebrities make a very good living out of media attention and have chosen to live in the public spotlight. They have no right to complain when they feel the media are intruding on their privacy. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
It is evident that the nature of media has evolved and reshaped the public perception, which has raised many questions of the safety of celebrities’ privacy. Although, The proposal of limiting the media intrusion on their privacy sounds reasonable, I disagree with this view.
There are a great number of reasons why celebrities should not complain about their privacy invasion. First, Famous people usually have more prodigious competence and charismatic appearance than any ordinary individuals. This will provoke the public curiosity of the discrepancies between the life of celebrities between that of normal ones, forcing the famous people to gratifying their demand. Second,any libel or slander defamation activities against individuals with high reputation can be easily brought to trial, resulting in significant liabilities of the media. This, there by, acts as a deterrent for media corporations from failing to meet the industry standards on privacy issues, especially when involving celebrities.
It should be acknowledged that fame and media attention should be tied to each other. First, Celebrities can expect a reasonable level of intrusion upon seclusion and biases from media companies. This suggest a mutual reponsibility on privacy issues rather than an attribution of all the blames to the media. Second, Personal life of famous ones is an effective medium of public attraction. This means that the limitations of media invasion on the famous people’seclusion will contribute to the fall in the number of celebrity-related articles on the media companies’ newspaper, leading to a remarkable decrease in the reader proportions.
In conclusion, chụy believes that recognized people should accept the media invasion on privacy as it í the inevitable product of fame. Media and individuals with high reputation should corporated for the mutual benefits in the long term.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 403, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , any
...eople to gratifying their demand. Second,any libel or slander defamation activities ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, second, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1631.0 1615.20841683 101% => OK
No of words: 288.0 315.596192385 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.66319444444 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26101935028 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 176.041082164 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.579861111111 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 507.6 506.74238477 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.269769613 49.4020404114 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.5 106.682146367 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5714285714 20.7667163134 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.92857142857 7.06120827912 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212401132939 0.244688304435 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.07420274824 0.084324248473 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0300494023813 0.0667982634062 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137022305389 0.151304729494 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384997602117 0.056905535591 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 50.2224549098 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.55 12.4159519038 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.0 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.