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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
For the complexity of modern society, many scholars and researchers are looking for something representative of a society to better understand the characteristic of it. Many favor the heroes and role models since they reveal a society's highest ideals. I strongly disagree with this point. The reasons are as follows.
First of all, these heroes may be chosen by the government or political leaders as a tool to promote their ideas and consolidate their status. From this point, these heroes can be said to reveal these political leaders' ideals at best, not the ideas of a society. Take Leifeng as an example, this so called hero was chosen by Chairperson Mao Zedong deliberately to educate people to sacrifice and serve the people. The Chinese government even concoct some facts to sanctify this hero, only to achieving their special political goals. Even in today this hero also has an important meaning for Chinese. But the ideals revealed by this hero, such as sacrifice or helping others at all expenses, are unrealistic and naive for us now. So some heroes like Leifeng are just political tools used by the governors and they cannot represent the true ideas of most people in the society.
In addition, heroes are people who do best in their fields and reveal the traits of a society in this field at best, not in all fields. For example, athletes who win the gold medals in Olympic games may be regarded as heroes without much doubt in almost any countries. Yet the worship towards these athletes only reveal people's wish to have a strong and fit body and live healthy. Other ideas, such as attitudes to education or knowledge are not revealed. The same is for scientists who make significant contributions in their own fields. They may represent the pursue for the knowledge and technology but not for the other respects. In this respect, examining heroes to understand a society may be biased or not comprehensible.
Furthermore, whatever contributions they make or success they obtain, heroes are individuals, and may be statistically unreliable at all. In order to better understand a society, more feasible and better way is to study the average people who occupy the most of the population. In China, many Chinese admire stars and actors who have a handsome or attractive appearance and treat them as heroes. However, these so called heroes are often very wealthy. Many of these heroes are even millionaires. Yet China is still a developing country and the revenues of most Chinese are much less than average people in American or Europe. If you examine these so called heroes, you may reach the conclusion that almost every Chinese are wealthy and live a luxrious lives, which is definitely ridiculous. Instead you will give the real understanding of China if you examine the workers, farmers and intellectuals who make a large percent of the population.
In conclusion, although heroes may indeed reveal a society's characteristic and ideals to in some specific ways, I oppose the claim that the best way to understand a society is to examine these heroes. For these heroes are likely to be the tools of government and they only represent some pursuits in their own fields. Instead the best way is to examine the most average people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 170, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun favor seems to be countable; consider using: 'Many favors'.
Suggestion: Many favors
...er understand the characteristic of it. Many favor the heroes and role models since they r...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 228, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'societys the highest'.
Suggestion: societys the highest
...oes and role models since they reveal a societys highest ideals. I strongly disagree with this p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 558, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...in their own fields. They may represent the pursue for the knowledge and technology but no...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 791, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
... lives, which is definitely ridiculous. Instead you will give the real understanding of...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 943, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...make a large percent of the population. In conclusion, although heroes may indee...
^^^
Line 5, column 319, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...sent some pursuits in their own fields. Instead the best way is to examine the most ave...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, so, still, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 30.0 14.8657303371 202% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2703.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 548.0 442.535393258 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93248175182 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74171104619 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 215.323595506 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448905109489 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 877.5 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.0788004332 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.2068965517 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8965517241 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.41379310345 5.21951772744 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 25.0 10.2758426966 243% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230098789426 0.243740707755 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0692949343191 0.0831039109588 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0844072468516 0.0758088955206 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166115830945 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.086353737005 0.0667264976115 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.1392134831 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.