Claim: The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models.Reason: Heroes and role models reveal a society's highest ideals.

From the founding father George Washington to the fighter of racial equality Martin Luther King, heroes and role models are respected by the society. The statement tries to link role models and heroes with the general character of the society, the assumption is that the character of a society is associated with the character of those heroes. I will start evaluating the author's claim by first agreeing to the reason.

Admittedly, it is true that heroes and role models represent the society's ideals. Looking back to the introduction, it is indisputable that we respect George Washington because people worship the concept of Independence and Freedom; we respect Martin Luther King because we desire equality for all mankind. The heroes and role models are glorified because they achieve something that the society desire. To prove this point, we can also see bad people such as Hitler considered as role models by the sick Nazi Germany because the society desired territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing which Hitler did a good job. Sometimes heroes and role models are not revered for their ethical standards but because of the close alignment of their actions to the society's ideals.

However, it doesn't necessarily indicate that the ideals represent the multi-faceted character of a society. The prior examples reveal that heroes represent the society's desires, but those desires could still be a long way from the realities. The American society was not known for its freedom after George Washington became the founding father, and it was until the civil war that the bonds of slavery were struck. Racial discrimination still exists to this very day even though Martin Luther King is respected by the American society. The fact that it takes time to make dreams come true creates a lag on the transformation of a society, and thus the character of a society may not be understood by referring to current heroes and role models.

In contrary to the claim, we may even find that the character of heroes could be a direct opposite from that of the society. The reason is that sometimes the people's sweet dreams contradict with the harsh realities. Robin Hood was a heroic outlaw according to English folklore, and he is famous for robbing the rich and charity to the poor. However, it does not mean that the feudal society of England desired to relocate the wealth from the rich to the poor, and quite the opposite, the feudal system strived to increase landlords' profits at the expense of the common people. A similar example can also be found in modern China. The role models of China are typically respected because of their willingness to help people drowning in water, people suffering sudden heart attack in the middle of the road, yet the Chinese may be notorious for their reluctance to become Samaritans, contrary to the role models. These heroes and role models are respected because they did what other common people couldn't dare to do, and in that case, the characters of heroes and the characters of society as a whole are mutually exclusive.

In sum, the author's reasons are warranted, yet he/she fails to perceive the difference between ideals and realities and thus the claim is unconvincing