Claim: It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living 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.
Some may argue that as media develops and their coverage has developed as technology developed, the once thought of “heroes,” despite their gender, may not no longer exist; as media scrutiny may try to find every fault of someone regarded as a hero. This argument does have its ground. However, I would like to contend that there are still heroes who may successively bore the media scrutiny. There may be some cases, though, that people once regarded as a hero has fallen into bad reputation due to media, especially in recent years; but that would not harm the fact that we still can have a hero.
First, although some might have fallen into bad reputation as media scrutinize these heroes, there are still newly come up to the public as a hero. Moreover, thanks to the development of media, we can even find out more individuals as heroes; simply put, we can find more news regarding new-coming heroes. For instance, we can now find articles from all around the world about a brave firefighter who saved so many lives due to his or her distinctive ability during the mission. However, in older days if that firefighter was from some remote island from nowhere, then we would hardly recognize him or her as a hero. Maybe some locals would appreciate the braveness of that firefighter from listening to the local news. However, as technology developed and access to news have become wider and deeper due to technological development, we can hear the news from all around the world.
Furthermore, new social media can now show us someone who deserved to be a hero but neglected due to the ignorance of media. Nowadays everyone who has an access to the internet can post their feelings, photos, and news or some messages. It can be true that as these media developed, it could possibly harm the reputation of some once called heroes; it is more likely to shed light to darker side of the world with private media, and people can easily find a fault with them. However, this mean that the once called hero was not a hero, that person was just falsely gained fame with their misbehaviors; they were not heroes. True heroes without such fault can still rise, and this case even without the help of media. True heroes can bear scrutiny of other people finding their faults. Moreover, as people acknowledge their faults can easily compromised through this way, they will even care more out their behaviors. Although at this moment, that some heroes are fallen apart due to tight scrutiny, some others may be aware of this fact and do nothing wrong, which may mar their reputation.
Last but not least, wrongly accused fame or values are always in target for scrutiny and there are revaluation of every aspect of famous, or powerful people, such as heroes. History is always questioning whether a person deserve a right reputation; for some, their reputation had fallen, while some forgotten heroes may arise. This was happening even before the development of media scrutiny. For example, president’s policies can always revisited, and evaluate at different standards regarding the newly risen rules or ideas. This can and should applied to the heroes as well. Media scrutiny cannot hamper the rise of new brave, heroes; we had and are and will try to evaluate historical and current people regarding their values. For wrongly accused people should not deserve their fame. This is not only applied to media but broadened to maybe historical way of scrutinizing.
In conclusion, new media scrutiny will not diminish new heroes. Some people, who deserved to be a hero, will come again and again as we can learn more with technology; and those people should always be evaluated, and this was happening even before this era. Myths should not exist, but heroes should and will exist.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
1. the first reason is not exactly right on the topic.
2. need to pay attention to the topic that is about 'any living man or woman'
3. need to argue 'The reputation will eventually be diminished'
-------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 646 350
No. of Characters: 3040 1500
No. of Different Words: 262 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.041 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.706 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.342 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 199 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.276 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.208 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.724 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.311 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.471 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.151 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
Some may argue that as media develops and their covera...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 129, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...eloped, the once thought of 'heroes,' despite their gender, may not no longe...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'access'.
Suggestion: access
...nce of media. Nowadays everyone who has an access to the internet can post their feelings...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 286, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
... true that as these media developed, it could possibly harm the reputation of some once called...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, still, then, well, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 40.0 12.4196629213 322% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 28.0 14.8657303371 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 33.0505617978 172% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3149.0 2235.4752809 141% => OK
No of words: 646.0 442.535393258 146% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8746130031 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.0414809386 4.55969084622 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53630342621 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 280.0 215.323595506 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.433436532508 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 998.1 704.065955056 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 20.0 6.24550561798 320% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8202695893 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.586206897 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.275862069 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.93103448276 5.21951772744 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.154175575411 0.243740707755 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0498616429448 0.0831039109588 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0302539518413 0.0758088955206 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104268804099 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0272971586046 0.0667264976115 41% => 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: 12.6 14.1392134831 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.8420337079 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 100.480337079 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.