successful sports stars and glamorous film stars are a role model for youngsters. do you support it or no?
Recently, the phenomenon of successful sports stars and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that glamorous film stars highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that imitating sports stars can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From fame standpoint, money can provide the society with noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that adapting their lifestyle to the sports stars, as well as celebrities, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which deciphered 80% of youngsters follow famous sports star. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both being diligent person and hard working can be seen.
Within the realm of lack of role model, innate talent might increase the consequences of internal motivation. Moreover, fundamental aspects of self-motivated relate to this reality that the demerits of the pop stars pertain to achieving their place in future. As a tangible example, a scientific research undertook by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of utopia in young people is correlated negatively with copied their lifestyle. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of being affected by mass media.
To conclude, while three are several compelling arguments of both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of famous actors lifestyle far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of improving your self-confidence prove the significance of getting more social training, but also pinpoints of being affected by propaganda player implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 250, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
... stars pertain to achieving their place in future. As a tangible example, a scientific re...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 123, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'actors'' or 'actor's'?
Suggestion: actors'; actor's
...dly believe that the benefits of famous actors lifestyle far outweigh its drawbacks. N...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.5418719212 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 20.9802955665 105% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 31.9359605911 116% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.75862068966 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1505.0 1207.87684729 125% => OK
No of words: 270.0 242.827586207 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57407407407 5.00649968141 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15487081773 2.71678728327 116% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 139.433497537 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.67037037037 0.580463131201 115% => OK
syllable_count: 467.1 379.143842365 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.1748781371 50.4703680194 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.416666667 104.977214359 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 20.9669160288 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.41666666667 7.25397266985 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 6.9802955665 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 2.75862068966 109% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.193973970711 0.242375264174 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0610426771778 0.0925447433944 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.05911108633 0.071462118173 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102842471809 0.151781067708 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0844324364912 0.0609392437508 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 12.6369458128 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.1260098522 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.9458128079 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 11.5310837438 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.75 8.32886699507 129% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 55.0591133005 187% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.94827586207 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 Out of 90
---------------------
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.