Some people think that famous people’s support towards international aids organisations draws attention to problems, while other think that celebrities make the problems less important.
Discuss both sides and give your opinion.
A charitable organization usually assume much of the responsibility for aiding the needy, providing health care, and taking care of the victims of natural disasters and so on. However, whether the assistance from the celebrities has an inspiring role to play has ignited public debate. From my perspective, wonderful as celebrity effect seems, they can also be propagandists.
It is reasonable to argue that international charities can take advantage of celebrities’ participation. Evidently, as notable individuals hold the superiorities to draw media attention, it is commonly thought that the famous images can invoke broader recognition of given issues. For this reason, the activities or campaigns of international organisations can be publicised immediately, and the audience, especially adoring fans, are likely to answer the appeal of these celebrities and take concrete actions such as donating money to help deal with problems in other countries.
Nevertheless, I believe it is through rose-coloured spectacles that most advocates look at celebrities’ involvement. The primary reason for my worry is that celebrities’ motives behind their dedication to charity are not always out of love and sympathy. Instead, celebrities may tend to choose the areas with higher exposure rate. One possible consequence is that more media attention may be given to the famous person’s involvement rather than the actual aid organisation, leading to an insufficient consideration on the problem itself. Another concern is that celebrity involvement may mislead the public into confusing endorsement with representation. If a famous person’s image is damaged in the media for a particular reason like being arrested when using drugs, serious repercussions are very likely to occur to the international aid organisation and the crisis it is to solve as people may lose interest in that charity.
In conclusion, though iconic figures may play a positive role in addressing certain social issues, charitable organisations should be very cautious when considering celebrity endorsement.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-18 | brianarcher | 89 | view |
- In the modern society, schools are no longer necessary as we could have so much information throughout the internet that children could study at home as well. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 11
- Space exploration is much too expensive and the money should be spent on more important things.What is your opinion? 89
- Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising and not the real needs of the society in which they are sold. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 61
- Some people believe that developments in the field of artificial intelligence will have a positive impact on our lives in the near future Others by contrast are worried that we are not prepared for a world in which computers are more intelligent than h 90
- Some people think that famous people’s support towards international aids organisations draws attention to problems, while other think that celebrities make the problems less important.Discuss both sides and give your opinion. 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, so, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1798.0 1615.20841683 111% => OK
No of words: 311.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.78135048232 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.51085648433 2.80592935109 125% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.633440514469 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 585.9 506.74238477 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.5806446989 49.4020404114 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.307692308 106.682146367 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9230769231 20.7667163134 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38461538462 7.06120827912 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165545255558 0.244688304435 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0552015946379 0.084324248473 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0330717051869 0.0667982634062 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0869558465738 0.151304729494 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487122425777 0.056905535591 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 13.0946893788 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 50.2224549098 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.54 12.4159519038 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.31 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.