Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term, realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition.
Everyone has a dream in their life which they follow to achieve. People are that responsible for every action from their previous decisions which reconciles to the future. Young people chase their goal diligently but not all people get dame and recognition even if they are imbibed with great talent.
First of all, the speaker claim is ambiguous. Every individual is unique in their own way. If we consider a particular field, then there are abundant of more talented individuals than those who are popular. For example, Leonardo Dicaprio is one of the eminent artist of this generation. But there are few actors who might be as talented as him which aren’t famous. This depends on predefined destiny of an individual which leads them towards their path.
Secondly, callow people in a particular field should not be judged by his capability. Not everyone will get success hand in hand without hard-work. Failure guides us to reach our goal. There are few individuals who fought for their triumph more than their threshold without thinking about immediate fame. For example, Thomas Edison famously known for discovery of light bulb. He flunked for more than 100 times. But eventually lead to the discovery.
However, people must be penetrating to be not ingenious all the time. There might be possibility that a colleague might get promotion for its obsequious nature. For example, If a colleague is street-smart being sycophant towards boss, then this could lead to his promotion. Sometime being incisive to take a short path can be effective.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that short term path can lead to burgeoning of growth not every time. Nevertheless, diligently working towards goal for years will eventually lead to exorbitant of jubilant.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 207, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntually lead to exorbitant of jubilant.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, no doubt, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 58.6224719101 49% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1473.0 2235.4752809 66% => OK
No of words: 288.0 442.535393258 65% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11458333333 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.55969084622 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68558600736 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 215.323595506 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.579861111111 0.4932671777 118% => OK
syllable_count: 453.6 704.065955056 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 23.0359550562 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.1257874086 60.3974514979 47% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 66.9545454545 118.986275619 56% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 13.0909090909 23.4991977007 56% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 5.31818181818 5.21951772744 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167968844155 0.243740707755 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0451317750921 0.0831039109588 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0493376068721 0.0758088955206 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0895049228371 0.150359130593 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0398128556532 0.0667264976115 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.2 14.1392134831 65% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.28 48.8420337079 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.1743820225 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.47 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 100.480337079 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 11.2143820225 64% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.