The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general well-being of all its people.
Throughout the history, several examples of nations where their rulers and scientists achieved impressive feats, and yet their people suffered immensely, come to mind. Thus, I agree with the claim that the surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers or scientists, but the general well-being of all its people. And I will support my view by providing examples in which nations failed to provide for their people, in spite of their rulers’ and scientists’ strong achievements.
A great nation is marked by how many people are willing to live there, irrespective of the magnitude its ruler’s feats. Take for instance the Germany between 1930 and 1940. During that period, Hitler was able to an impressive and nefarious achievement: he conquered Europe. Nevertheless, the well-being of Germans was severely impacted, as millions perished during the Second World War. Another example is what we see in some Arabic countries these days. Commanding an immense wealth, Sheiks build dream-like cities in the middle of the desert. However, millions of women suffer all kinds of injustices due to their regime, in which men have far more rights than women. Those are clear examples where rulers did impressive achievements, yet their people suffered and continue to suffer.
Additionally, no matter how advanced the science of a nation is, if their people is living poorly, it means the nation is not actually that great. For instance, during the Cold War, Russia’s scientists achieved incredible advances. They were able to build and develop a high-tech space program, to run a successful nuclear program, and to train top-notch scientists in several areas such as computer science. Nevertheless, during this period, the people living under the socialist regime were not living well, some even suffering from poverty and hunger. If science doesn’t translate itself into gains to the general population of a country, why bother investing in it?
Some might say that the achievements of a country’s ruler and scientists is a good proxy for how great a nation is, because only people experiencing great living standards are able to vote for and support rulers who are high-achievers, and to become productive scientists. Although this thought might make sense in theory, history shows several counter-examples to this idea; we described just a few, but there are many more.
A myriad of indicators exists to assert how great a nation is. Among them, achievements from its ruler and scientists are seductive, especially because they are easy to see and measure. However, they fail to truly indicate great nations as there are several counter-examples. If people are not living well, these achievements mean little. In the end, the surest indicator of a great nation is the general being of all its people.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-12-28 | mei_unavailable | 83 | view |
| 2023-10-05 | MakeMeGreater | 80 | view |
| 2023-09-07 | Jeyodi123 | 66 | view |
| 2023-07-08 | Gnyana | 66 | view |
| 2023-01-27 | carlossouza | 79 | view |
- In any field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 50
- The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers artists or scientists but the general well being of all its people 79
- No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the 66
- "A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys 23
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 213, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...are able to vote for and support rulers who are high-achievers, and to become productiv...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, thus, well, for instance, such as, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.4196629213 24% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2391.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 457.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23194748359 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87258783009 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 215.323595506 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5295404814 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 720.9 704.065955056 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.8346618356 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.956521739 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8695652174 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.34782608696 5.21951772744 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => 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: 0.446889595928 0.243740707755 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129854011674 0.0831039109588 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.156686092776 0.0758088955206 207% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.281562446946 0.150359130593 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.168559381669 0.0667264976115 253% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 100.480337079 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.