Some people think that famous people can help international aid organizations to draw attention to important problems. Others believe that the celebrities can make the problems seem less important. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
From the perspective of some people, aid agencies can take advantage of celebrities’ fame to raise public awareness towards certain matters of importance. Others, however, hold the view that such method may only bring counterproductive results. Personally, I find the latter more convincing.
Those who support the idea of using famed individuals’ assistance have their own justifications. First of all, people who are considered role models apparently have a considerable amount of influence on the public. Emma Watson, for instance, being a prominent actress, is currently the goodwill ambassador for the United Nations, promoting gender equality and undoubtedly drawing a great deal of attention from her admirers. Furthermore, a wider range of population can be reached if an organisation’s campaign is represented by a popular star. In many parts of the world, some film stars are even more well-known to the locals than the organisation itself owing to their appearance in familiar cinematic products. Therefore the introduction of a humanitarian campaign can be further facilitated thanks to the artists.
Nevertheless, I can understand why other people are against inviting celebrities for assistance. When relying on the fame of some people to attract more public attention, an aid programme can also be affected by their scandals. Mass public disapproval may arise from a representative receiving a speeding ticket or getting caught using illegal drugs, undervaluing the significance of the aid programme. Another foreseeable drawback is that the public might take the presence of famous entertainers as a mere publicity stunt. Without the evidence of real actions taken to mitigate a problem such as participating in a voluntary team to help the people in need, famous people may fail to draw the attention of people to the situation.
In conclusion, while some people have reasons to believe in the success of celebrities in getting people to pay attention, I tend to think that such approach might not prove to be effective for aid organisations as expected.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 716, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...earance in familiar cinematic products. Therefore the introduction of a humanitarian camp...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, first, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.3376753507 204% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1765.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 324.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4475308642 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.27638103509 2.80592935109 117% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611111111111 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 559.8 506.74238477 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.1998193312 49.4020404114 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.666666667 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.86666666667 7.06120827912 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.2493263888 0.244688304435 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0733507204423 0.084324248473 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0713990336592 0.0667982634062 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147976143218 0.151304729494 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0692907895542 0.056905535591 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 78.4519038076 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.