Nowadays an athlete can become wealthier through the fame him or her made than professionals in other fields. Although a proportion of people regard it as unjustified, I personally believe that this situation is totally reasonable.
There are two reasons why people see it as an unfair trend. Firstly, athletes do not have to acquire complicated subjects such as Math and Science. While these sports require intensive training, these skills can also be learned by other people. The threshold of entering these fields is low. Secondly, they do not have to deal with a challenging environment. For example, shareholders took large amount of risks to invest in companies and may face difficult situations sometimes which they are not able to avoid or control. Nonetheless, sportlers only need to keep their performance stable, and apart from being influenced by themselves, no other elements can intervene them.
Admittedly, form these perspectives, chances of athletes being rich are larger than other professionals and risks are lower as well. Nevertheless, the athletes who have become famous must have to be talented or even have been spending plenty of time and money on training. Besides, athletes have to manage their diet and make a lot of personal sacrifices. This includes, for example, not being able to spend time with their loved ones. While the fame included in sports appears to be superficially glorious, it is not necessarily risk-free. The sports field is also an all-or-nothing career. This means that a single injury can break their entire career, causing them to be unemployed for a longer period of time. These risks are easily ignored by others.
To sum up, although some people think what athletes do is not complicated and do not deserve high salaries, whereas I would argue that all the elements considered, it is only fair that they earn well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 125, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...other professionals and risks are lower as well. Nevertheless, the athletes who ha...
^^
Line 5, column 699, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...sing them to be unemployed for a longer period of time. These risks are easily ignored by othe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, firstly, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, well, whereas, while, apart from, for example, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 24.0651302605 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 41.998997996 71% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1573.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 306.0 315.596192385 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14052287582 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84125285009 2.80592935109 101% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.604575163399 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.6759610826 49.4020404114 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.3888888889 106.682146367 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 20.7667163134 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.55555555556 7.06120827912 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.116273256792 0.244688304435 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0342134899743 0.084324248473 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0240397875662 0.0667982634062 36% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0730784875996 0.151304729494 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0230918545762 0.056905535591 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: 11.3 13.0946893788 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.4159519038 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 78.4519038076 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 9.78957915832 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.