Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
The distinctive income between professional athletes and other outstanding carriers opens a contradiction between two groups. First is the group who willingly accept that gap, and others confront that as inequality.
For some people who are having a better understanding of athletic professions, they will strongly confirm that famous sportsman can easily attract the costumers. It is undoubted reality that an expert athlete has more than a thousand fans in the entire world. Consequently, the customers possibly buy products that are attached to their stars. Expert advertisers will use the sportsman as their iconic brand of products due to their popularity. As a result, the expert athletes have source of income more than one. Commonly, they are contracted by most big companies from shoe production until hair foam production.
In another side, the opposition will conceive that phenomena as a trick of business experts. The customers are more unconsciously fooled by advertisement. The fans buy a product that is unnecessary to them. They buy hair spray that is used by the player even though some of them are bold. And most importantly, there are other jobs that contribute more to wider society than athletes can make, but still, need an incentive fund support them. Unfortunately, businessman underestimates about their participation in making profits. The programmer is the prominent job that remains today. Google is the great example of that. If the stakeholders can support sufficiently to programmer, there will be more than one profit web corporation than Google.
Above all, I supportively agree that expert sportsman can get extra money fair enough due to their popularity. In spite of that, we cannot alienate others jobs because they are infamous or unprofitable. We have to support and trust them due to success always stays within trustworthy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 484, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'sourced'.
Suggestion: sourced
.... As a result, the expert athletes have source of income more than one. Commonly, they...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, if, so, still, as a result, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 30.0 24.0651302605 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 41.998997996 67% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1576.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 295.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34237288136 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00602860702 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603389830508 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 20.2975951904 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.7673121998 49.4020404114 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.8 106.682146367 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.75 20.7667163134 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.25 7.06120827912 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
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: 0.142342520126 0.244688304435 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0383037439049 0.084324248473 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0347104833346 0.0667982634062 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0845526298267 0.151304729494 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0141056365061 0.056905535591 25% => 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: 11.1 13.0946893788 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.81 50.2224549098 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.1 12.4159519038 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 78.4519038076 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.1190380762 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.