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.
In every society there are a number of role models who become successful to enrapture most of its members through his/her deeds and charisma. These models are chosen by the people, and they are obviously regarded as an epitome of perfect people. As they are picked out by the people of a society, based on their preferences, it may be tempting to generalize the character of a society through the characters that these heroes display. However, there are several flaws in assuming the character of men and women of a particular society solely based on these ideals.
Firstly, the ideals of a society are ideals because they possess characters that are unique (and ideal) in the society, and these attributes are not found in general population. So, how can we characterize a society as a whole based on the characters that are so rare, and not possessed by all? Nelson Mandela, the freedom fighter, for instance, was regarded as a hero in African society for his struggle, leadership and his dedication towards his work. Based on his character alone, we cannot directly infer that African society has men and women who have great leadership skill, an ample of patriotism and a passion to fight for the betterment of nation. So, the basic flaw in characterizing the society based on the character of ideals lies in the fact that ideals are not representative of whole society, rather they are unique in the society.
Secondly, ideals are chosen in the society for one’s particular work in a particular field; every field-art, science, politics etc- has their own ideals. Therefore, it is truly pointless in generalizing the character of men and women of a society based on the ideals of a particular field. Leonaro de Caprio, an American actor, for example, is a great actor and he may be regarded as an ideal by people who are truly interested in movies, and he may represent taste and preference of most of these people. However, there are people in the society who are uninterested in movies and we cannot afford to characterize these people based on the character of the actor. So, instead of representing the character of man and woman of society, ideals may represent attributes of a particular group people of a particular field.
However, there might be some instances where heroes and ideals picked up by people may not even represent any of ideals of society. In every democratic society, for example, people are bequeathed with the freedom to choose their leader; the leaders are regarded as heroes chosen by people. It is generally assumed that people choose the leaders with whom they feel close; who they think represents them well. However, there are many instances when these leaders have betrayed these men and women of society, and have done many unlawful deeds. Recently, a parliament member of Nepal was accused of murdering four villagers cold-bloodedly by burning them in a brick kiln. So, based on this, can we assert that people in Nepalese society are violent? Obviously not. Therefore, to understand character of society we should study the society as a whole not a few chosen members.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-03 | Zahid6400 | 66 | view |
| 2024-01-26 | LauraTing | 58 | view |
| 2023-09-25 | Isolus | 83 | view |
| 2023-08-16 | wopona8219 | 66 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | rickxiangx | 83 | view |
- The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:"The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared 69
- The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals. 66
- Claim: Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted, since it may well be proven false in the future.Reason: Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate. 83
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as 70
- In order to become well-rounded individuals, all college students should be required to take courses in which they read poetry, novels, mythology, and other types of imaginative literature. 79
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, for example, for instance, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 58.6224719101 125% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2595.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 527.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92409867173 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72206148517 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.394686907021 0.4932671777 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 855.0 704.065955056 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.9582730465 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.571428571 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0952380952 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261547232462 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0921326889433 0.0831039109588 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0727002818277 0.0758088955206 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188812670336 0.150359130593 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0694179192888 0.0667264976115 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.87 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 100.480337079 100% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.