The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.
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 developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
The author of this issue seems to have no hesitation to establish relationship between greatness of individuals and successor's evaluation. Admittedly, accurate appraisal for greatness of the individuals could be achieved by predecessors in certain fields. Before generalizing such conclusion to all of fields, we need to consider different circumstances, in which evaluation for greatness is more likely to vary.
To start off, in the field of the art, I have to reserve my approval for the issue, because values for artworks doesn't relies on later appraisal. To measure greatness of individual, we only have to evaluate his/her artwork in regard to contemporary affirmation or discredit. Once certain characteristics are confirmed, this accomplishment already occupied certain position on historical stage. Whatever ensuing commentaries emerge, the unparalleled value of such artwork in its own era can't be repudiated. For instance, Mark Twain's brilliant reputation gained from the novel, The adventure of Tom Sawyer, received wide approbation in 19th century. Despite the fact that today's critics might belittle with his cynic, none could decline his significant position in the literature of 19th century.
However, when turning to science, the situation is appallingly different. When it comes to science, frankly speaking, I disagree with the viewpoint of issue. To be specific, deciding whether a scientist could be titled as greatness is not through positive evaluation from his coevals, but through more thorough appraisal from ensuing successors. Because in most cases greatness of scientists relies on the validation of his research outgrowths, but such validation need to withstand various challenges before established. And normally it is this process which is unlikely to be completed during the lifetime of the author. A case in a point is Einstein's bias against Quantum mechanics, which finally is toppled over by current verification. During his lifetime, Einstein stick to his latent variable model, which believes that the probabilistic essence of Quantum theory comes out of inadequacy from oversimplified theorical model. However, after years of experiments and concomitantly meticulous analysis of results, physicists discovered that lots of facts endorsed probabilistic model of Quantum theory rather than Einstein’s. As brilliant as Einstein, it still requires so long time of verification, let alone other cases.
Last but not least, if switching our focus to the business world, the aforementioned conclusion become more subtle: in some cases great accomplishment could be recognizable immediately, while others might not. The root reason is that business meld both practice and theory. While practice could somehow be verified to yield positive or negative conclusion, theories are incapable of being confirmed in a short duration. For supporting example, we can resort to two business giants: Henry Ford and Bill Gates. Henry Ford invented assembly-line approach in automobile industry, but even he himself couldn't validate the effectiveness, since some hypothesis in his theory couldn't be fulfilled in practice and have to be postponed to the future. However, Bill Gate's great contribution to software industry has been concreted by Windows operation system and versatile software systems. None could decry his greatness, since it is through his incessant effort that Microsoft could relentlessly renew its operation system and equip it in millions of personal computers. Those truths have already been carved into stone.
In summary, how to effectively evaluate individuals in different fields hinges on their specific domain and immanent attributes/properties of their work. As mentioned above, circumstances in the art, science or business world, change drastically. Therefore, it is better for us to adapt a case by case strategy, rather than merely depending on assessment from the successors.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 113, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... the issue, because values for artworks doesnt relies on later appraisal. To measure g...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 487, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ed value of such artwork in its own era cant be repudiated. For instance, Mark Twain...
^^^^
Line 7, column 482, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e, we can resort to two business giants: Henry Ford and Bill Gates. Henry Ford in...
^^
Line 7, column 598, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...utomobile industry, but even he himself couldnt validate the effectiveness, since some ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 670, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ss, since some hypothesis in his theory couldnt be fulfilled in practice and have to be...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, frankly, however, if, so, still, therefore, while, for instance, in summary, in most cases, in regard to, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 97.0 58.6224719101 165% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3354.0 2235.4752809 150% => OK
No of words: 589.0 442.535393258 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69439728353 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.92639038232 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18353140464 2.79657885939 114% => OK
Unique words: 339.0 215.323595506 157% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575551782683 0.4932671777 117% => OK
syllable_count: 1039.5 704.065955056 148% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 13.0 3.10617977528 419% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2753249511 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.655172414 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3103448276 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.58620689655 5.21951772744 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.155693290528 0.243740707755 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0383121901289 0.0831039109588 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0270350669507 0.0758088955206 36% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0845591169024 0.150359130593 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0244843930565 0.0667264976115 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 48.8420337079 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 12.1743820225 111% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.1 8.38706741573 120% => OK
difficult_words: 204.0 100.480337079 203% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.