The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporary.
The value of a person may vary throughout time, in this sense, the speaker claims that the greatness of people cannot be evaluated by their coeval but only can be decided in their afterlife. In my view, since standards evaluating a person or an occupation are different, this assertion should be analyze separately.
To begin with, the value in the field of science, which are judging by their contribution to the scientific world can be decided by their contemporary. In scientific realm, the achievements of a person is objective and explicit, there are few blur areas that are controversial to reevaluate in different era. To be specific, achievement of a scientist are largely depends on their discovery of a fact or a valuable theory, which has experienced rigorous scrutiny from their peers to ensure the validity; and thus it can withstand through time and remain constant. For example, the Einstein’s general relativity won its prestige a hundred year ago, still, the predictions and ideas in this theory still amaze today’s people: the effect of time inflation is taken into consideration in modern GPS system and the prediction of existence of gravitational wave were discovered recently. In short, in the value in the area of science vary little through time, hence, the greatness of a person this area can be define by their coeval.
On the other hand, when it comes to the value of moral, greatness of people can hardly be decided only by their contemporary. The judgment related to moral is subjective, which is disparate from times, or even vary from person to person. Consider that how people judged a woman in ancient society of China. The woman are told to comply to the rule of their husband, stay quiet, humility, and pure, all these obedient property are deemed as a corner stone underlying a “honorable” woman. By contrast, women who are more admirable today if they are brave to communicate their opinion, having unique and distinct styles, which is a far cry from previous generation. In this view, when judging moral value of a person, it’s bias and dogmatic to impost an evaluation on he or she, thus, it is unsuitable to decide the value of people by their contemporary.
Furthermore, in the field of politics, due to the fact that a ramification of a policy is usually only can perceived through time, it is also more cogent to assess a person’s greatness after their lives. The benefits of some prospective measures or projects done by politician at the time need time to be substantiated, thus, the evaluation from contemporary people may be unfair. For example, the project of constructing high way in Taiwan fifty years ago were blame by many people because at that time, few people owned a car and the project was deemed as a waste. However, in modern Taiwan, people will say it is one of a worthiest thing that has done by the politician, the usage rate and the convenience of the highway is undoubtable.
In sum, whether or not the greatness of a person should be decided after their life? The answer depends on the aspects and fields. In the realm of science, a achievement of a scientist usually is incontrovertible no matter from the prospect of the contemporary or the descendants; while in the aspect related to moral value or politic, the value will be different in different time, thus its more compelling to make a assertion after one’s life.
- It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data 16
- Facts are stubborn things They cannot be altered by our wishes our inclinations or the dictates of our passion 54
- Some educational system emphasize the development of students capacity for reasoning and logical thinking but students would benefit more from an education that also taught them to explore their own emotions 83
- The purpose of education should be provide students with a value system a standard a set of ideas not to prepare them for specific job 62
- Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive because it is primarily in cities that a nation s culture traditions are preserved and generated 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 297, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'analyzed'?
Suggestion: analyzed
...are different, this assertion should be analyze separately. To begin with, the value...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 624, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use 'the' with the superlative.
Suggestion: the
...rn Taiwan, people will say it is one of a worthiest thing that has done by the po...
^
Line 9, column 9, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... the highway is undoubtable. In sum, whether or not the greatness of a person should be dec...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 157, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ts and fields. In the realm of science, a achievement of a scientist usually is i...
^
Line 9, column 186, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[4]
Message: The adverb 'usually' is usually put after the verb 'is'.
Suggestion: is usually
...f science, a achievement of a scientist usually is incontrovertible no matter from the pro...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 417, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... time, thus its more compelling to make a assertion after one’s life.
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, still, thus, while, for example, in short, in my view, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 97.0 58.6224719101 165% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2835.0 2235.4752809 127% => OK
No of words: 579.0 442.535393258 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89637305699 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90534594407 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89883909465 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 215.323595506 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476683937824 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 906.3 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 16.0 4.99550561798 320% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 15.0 4.38483146067 342% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.2304846148 60.3974514979 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.75 118.986275619 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.95 23.4991977007 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.21951772744 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265272346595 0.243740707755 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.091969510284 0.0831039109588 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0988917505546 0.0758088955206 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165897860085 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0319905974941 0.0667264976115 48% => 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: 16.1 14.1392134831 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.1639044944 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 100.480337079 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.