mMy eEssay

But consider giving it a proper title !

Billionaires’' charity isable efforts are often called fauxlanthropy, but what does “fauxlanthropy” mean and is it okay to do so acceptable to use this term?

''Billionaires’ charity'' is correct but it sounds better to specify ''Billionaires' charitable efforts''
''is it okay to do so ?'' I wasn't sure exactly what you meant by this, so I guessed you meant the use of the term ''fauxlanthropy''. It's also very familiar and more like spoken English than an essay.

Fauxlanthropy is a derivate word from philanthropy, which describes actions that are to help humansthose who are in need.

Ýes, humans, but it's better to specify.

TPhislanthropy is about the love of humansity.

There was ambiguity about what ''This'' referred to.
Also, ''humanity'' sounds better here as it has a higher register.

So, fFauxlanthropy describes a fake love, which meanere individuals doing good things in order to be liked by people while not yearnrather than genuinely wanting to help others.

I revised the sentence for better flow and clarity.
I rephrased ''while not yearning to help others'' to make it easier to understand : it's much clearer to write 'rather than' than here than 'while not'.

If billionaires’ philanthropy is called fauxlanthropy, this is due to them being sharply criticized for them beingas egoists and for caring little for unprivileged people.

These minor changes improve the flow of the sentence and avoid the repetition of the word 'them'.

For instance, Jeff Bezos, one of the richest men in the world and the chief executive officer of Amazon, yearnedexpressed a wish to help low-income families, which is weird since. However, he turned down few opportunities towhich would have helped him achieve that goal.

The meaning was a bit ambiguous, here. I think it's clearer if you say he 'expressed a wish' rather than 'yearned' because you are casting doubt on his true motivations. Also, saying someone 'turned down few opportunities' means they 'rarely turned down opportunities' which I think is the opposite of what you want to say.

In addition, this ¬|is quite controversial from him to claim/sounds weird from him to allege| to want to help the needy whileconsidering that some of them are his own employees, and they have facing terribly poor working conditions.

This has better flow.

Jeff Bezos is not the only one in this case, i. In fact, many billionaires may be as phi''fauxlanthrorpic'' as he is.

I think you meant to write ''fauxlanthorpic''? It seems to make more sense here, considering your argument.

But we may wonder if billionaires are there to help others ?

So, wWhy would one expect billionaires to have a field daget their hands dirty helping others, while billionaires were just minding their own businesses.en they became rich by focusing on their own affairs?

It's more like spoken than written English to begin many sentence with 'so'.
Also, I changed 'have a field day' to 'get their hands dirty' to avoid the repetition of the word field in the previous sentence.
''Minding their own business'' doesn't sound quite right here.
Avoided repetition of the ''billionaires''

Well, bBillionaires have, for many(at least most of them,) have worked really hard to reach that pointlevel of wealthiness and to earn this money.

Again, quite conversation to begin sentences with 'well' and 'so', which doesn't sound quite right in an essay.

But, common wisdom has it that the rich are to help the poor because they have the means to do so, but also, because it would be quite egoist fromselfish of the rich to let the poor down.

A few minor changes to improve the flow.
''Selfish'' sounds better than ''egotistical'' to me, but the latter is fine.

So, billionaires being hated for their behaviour is understandable and calling their philanthropy ''fauxlanthropy'' is correct thenjustified.

The ''So,''' is fine here because it follows your argument.
''Is correct then'' is very familiar.

They never were allhad the intent to help others, which might explains why they are doing suchperform their charitable actions begrudgingly.

It's minor, but it sounds better to me to say they had the intent rather than were intent. Also, the adverb 'all' doesn't sound right before intent.
Rephrases the second part of the sentence for better flow.

However, ithis does not account for the entirepply to every billionaires,; a few of them are willing to help the needy, like Bill Gates with his foundation.

''Account'' doesn't work here.

So, it wouldn’t be too harsh to call some billionaires’ philanthropy ''fauxlanthropy'', because they ir primarey mostly just doingtivation its to be more appreciated.

''Are mostly just doing it'' sounds quite familiar. The sense is clearer with ''primary motivation''.

IConsidering this, it is not rocket science to understand why the term "fauxlanthropy" is used.

I didn't really understand what you meant by this phrase in this context. Is this it?

All in all, it is not too harsh to call billionaire’s philanthropy fauxlanthropy, owing many billionaires are not doing these actions willingly.

This seems to be a repetition of a previous sentence.

But,However, not all billionaires are not the same,; some may be willing to help the others, as for them, bseeing sharply criticized is nothing but the debit sides of being billionairessm as simply a drawback of being immensely rich.

I like the phrase ''debit sides'' but it's definitely not a typical way to express that idea!
Avoided repetition of the word ''billionaires''.

So, overall, it wouldn’t be too harsh to call billionaires’ philanthropy ''fauxlanthropy'', because there are more reasons for them to be fauxlanthropic.

Did I get your conclusion right?
Perhaps you could also say ''given the multiple reasons that contribute to this perception.'' but it's a slightly different meaning.

mMy essay

Billionaires’ charity is often called fauxlanthropy, but what does “fauxlanthropy” mean and is it okay to do so/to be fauxlantropic? ?

Using a word like ‘fauxlanthropic’ improves flow and clarifies meaning.

I derived fauxlantropic from the rules that govern words like philanthropic. However, a quick Google showed no results for this derivation. It is possible the word is too new. This is no reason why it can’t be used - English allows that.

Fauxlanthropy is a derivate word from philanthropy, which. Philanthropy describes actions that are to help humans.

Using a ‘which’ means it is not clear whether you are referring to ‘philanthropy’ or ‘fauxlanthropy’ in your description of the word.

So, fFauxlanthropy describes a fake love, which. This means doing good things in order to be liked by people whilest not yearning to help others.

If billionaires’ philanthropy is called fauxlanthropy, this is due to them being sharply criticized for them being egoists and caring little for underprivileged people.

Underprivileged - Deprived of the opportunities and advantages of other members of one's community.

Unprivileged - Not having special privileges or not requiring special privileges.

I assume from context you meant underprivileged.

For instance, Jeff Bezos, one of the richest men in the world and the chief executive officer of Amazon, yearned to help low-income families, which is weird since he turned down a few opportunities to achieve that goal.

Context suggests he turned down some opportunities therefore an article is required in front of ‘few’.

Actually, he didn’ not want Amazon to pay taxes to help low-income families and did not try to raise his employees’ incomes.

Nothing wrong with didn’t, but separate to ‘did not’ in more formal writing.

In addition, this ¬|t is quite controversial forom him to claim/sounds weird from him to allege| to want to help the needy while some of them areconsidering some of his own employees, and they havere in this group and working for him in/on terribly poor working conditions.

‘In’ if physical working conditions are being deferred to

‘On’ if Terms and Conditions are being referred to

Jeff Bezos is not the only billionaire like this/the only philanthropic billionaire/one in this case, i. In fact, many billionaires may be as philanthropic as he is.

But wWe may wonder if billionaires areshould help/ are supposed to help others ?

So, wWhy would one expect billionaires to have a field day helping others, while billionaires were just minding their own businesses.

Well, most billionaires have, for many of them, worked really hard to reach that point of wealthiness and to earn this money.

But, cCommon wisdom has it that the rich are to help the poor because they have the means to do so, but also, because it would be quite egoist from the rich to let the poor down.

Superfluous word

So, billionaires being hated for their behaviour is understandable and calling their philanthropy ‘fauxlanthropy’ is correct then.

They neverAll billionaires were allnever intent ton helping others, which might explains why they are doing/undertaking such actions begrudgingly.

However, it does not account for the entireall billionaires/the entire population of billionaires, fewsome of them are willing to help the needy like, for example, Bill Gates with his foundation.

SoTherefore, it wouldn’ not be too harsh to call some billionaires’ philanthropy ‘fauxlanthropy,’ because they are mostly just doing it to be more appreciated.

All in all, it is not too harsh to call billionaire’s philanthropy ‘fauxlanthropy, owing’ due to many billionaires are not donot willingly undertaking these actions willingly.

But, all billionaires are not the same, some may be willing to help the others, as for them, being sharply criticized is nothing but one of the debitown sides of being a billionaires.

So, oOverall, it wouldn’ not be too harsh to call billionaires’ philanthropy ‘fauxlanthropy,’. This is because there are more reasons for them to be fauxlanthropic.