Sports stars and movie stars have an obligation to behave as role models for the young people who look up to them. In return for the millions of dollars that they are paid, we should expect them to fulfill this societal responsibility.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
The idea that a public person has to refrain certain behaviors and act as a role model at all times represents a potentially contentious topic. Sports stars and movie stars are, inherently, humans, and it is wrong of society to expect them to rise to a standard that is not expected of other people. Both athletes and actors are just regular people doing their job. Therefore, I believe the assumption that they owe our society to be permanently mindful of their actions' impact on young people to be fundamentally flawed.
Firstly, the amount of money they make is disjoint to their societal responsibility. As any other citizen, sports and movie stars have both rights and obligations, but it is unfair to expect more from them because of their salary. For example, even though a band can make millions of dollars, people do not expect them to behave immaculately or to refrain from certain behaviours for the benefit of their audience. Furthermore, athletes and actors are not payed for being role models; they get payed according to contracts for doing their job: playing in a game, acting in a commercial, etc. It follows that society should not expect them to do anything extra due to their income.
Secondly, while young people are easily manipulated and influenced by what they see in the media, it is not a public person's job to teach them about what is right or wrong. The job of raising children is limited to their parents, who should control what they are able to watch and immitate. If a parent is bothered by an athelete's behavior, he or she should prevent the child from having access to sources which cite said behavior.
It can be argued that while parents can try to supervise what a teenager follows, young people know how to get access to the information they want, and cannot be controlled at all times. However, a good education starts early in the life of a child, and he or she should be taught to distinguish between bad and good. Children should learn not to immitate any action they witness without thinking about the consequences. For example, if a young adult knows that smoking has a deleterious effects, he or she will be less likely to smoke when seeing a movie star who does.
People who put themselves in the position of having a public life, such as sports stars or movie stars, do so out of passion for their craft. As any other jobs, theirs has ups and downs, and they are allowed, as humans, to make mistakes once in a while. Thus, thinking of them as exceptions who owe society because of the ammounts of money they make is unequitable. Instead of debating whether stars should live their life freely or not, we could elicit a much bigger issue: raising our children to be autonomous and capable of smart decisions, no matter the actions of the people around them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 15, column 489, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'effect'?
Suggestion: effect
...lt knows that smoking has a deleterious effects, he or she will be less likely to smoke...
^^^^^^^
Line 19, column 571, Rule ID: NOUN_AROUND_IT[1]
Message: Consider using 'the surrounding people'?
Suggestion: the surrounding people
...art decisions, no matter the actions of the people around them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, while, as to, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 33.0505617978 148% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2333.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 494.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.72267206478 5.05705443957 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71445763274 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54575722923 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504048582996 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 709.2 704.065955056 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => 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: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4837628098 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.65 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.21951772744 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.33140011142 0.243740707755 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0985186795174 0.0831039109588 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0594819207432 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187175337662 0.150359130593 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0612190580671 0.0667264976115 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 48.8420337079 131% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.1639044944 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.