Cliam: 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 heros or its role models.
Reason: heros and role models reveal a society's highest ideals.
Various kinds of heros and role models now are pervasive in different aspects of our society like idols in entertainment, super heros in the films, and models in a society. The statement argues that examining the character of heros and role models chosen by a society is the best way to understand the character of the society because heros and role models show the highest ideals of a society. I mostly disagree with this statement because there are some flaws in both its reason and claim, while it may make some sense to some extent.
Heros and role models usually reflect what the society needs and recommends like some good qualities which may be a part of the society's ideals. In China, there are role models like Lei Feng who help others and contributes to the society selflessly, Yuan Longping who is dedicated to the high-yeild hybrid rice all the life and saves lots of people from starvation, and Bao Zheng who is a clean official and stands for justice and quality. As we all know, these people are admired and chosen as the heros and role models of the society because these good qualities are just what the society needs and recommends. While these excellent qualities play an extremely important role in helping the society reach its highest ideals and they may be a part of the highest ideals, they are obviously not the highest ideals of China, a socialist country whose highest ideal is known as the communism which advocates a society where there is no deprivation and everyone does what they are good at and take what they need freely. So heros and role models do not necessarily reveal the highest ideal of a society.
Even if the reason that heros and role models reveal the highest ideals of a society is assumed right, it is not necessarily the best way to understand the character of a society by examining the character of the heros and role models of the society. First, the highest ideals sometimes may be too remote to reflect the character of a society. For instance, the communism in China may need several centuries to realize, which is of course far different from the present society of China. So, it would be absurd to simply examine the character of the heros and role models which disclose the society's highest ideals to understand the present society's character. Besides, while heros and role model are what the society needs and recommends, they can not represent the majority of the society. The overwhelming majority of 1.4 billion Chinese people will not live like these heros and role models and have their own desires, happiness and sadness. This example illustrates that the claim also has its flaws.
From all discussed above, I mostly object to this reason because heros and role models usually reflects what the society needs instead of the highest ideals and disagree with the claim because the role models who reveal the future's highest ideals can not disclose the character of the present society and the few role models can not represent the majority of the society.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 592, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'societys the highest'.
Suggestion: societys the highest
...eros and role models which disclose the societys highest ideals to understand the present societ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 225, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'futures the highest'.
Suggestion: futures the highest
... because the role models who reveal the futures highest ideals can not disclose the character o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, if, may, so, while, for instance, of course
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 30.0 14.8657303371 202% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => 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: 2512.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 522.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8122605364 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41650701899 2.79657885939 86% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.365900383142 0.4932671777 74% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 809.1 704.065955056 115% => 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: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 32.0 23.0359550562 139% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 95.1741824236 60.3974514979 158% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.0 118.986275619 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.625 23.4991977007 139% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.375 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.5141090757 0.243740707755 211% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.225926945663 0.0831039109588 272% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.164950504714 0.0758088955206 218% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.39330991711 0.150359130593 262% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0862184191859 0.0667264976115 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.1392134831 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.0 48.8420337079 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.1743820225 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.21 12.1639044944 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.76 8.38706741573 93% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 100.480337079 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.2143820225 132% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.7820224719 153% => 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: 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.