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 contribution of a person in certain field can be basically determined by what he has done for the progress of the area or by how well he has paved path so that his succesors can have easy control and further advancement on the sector. The prompt discusses that the success of an individual can be better determined by the people who are benifitted by his task rather than his co-workers. I strongly disagree with the prompt and provide two explanations for why contemporary people are connesiour for a person greatness.
First of all, people who are involved at that particular time and in the same work can have a good judgement of the success achieved in that field. They also do have an aboveboard experience of hurdles and hinderence and are competent to determine weather the outcome achieved can be called success or simply a possible result. For example, the achievement of a football player can best be judged by other footballers at that time not by the seniors nor by his juniors. There is always a debate about who the best player of history is and it is an absurd questions because time changes as well as situations. Also, the best player at that time can be determined by other players rather than common individual because they know what it takes to achieve that level and statistics.
Secondly, human have a subconsious mind that they ignorantly assume certain works good or bad on the basis of the information they have listened for a long period of time. If someone is called bad by family, relatives, community people then people automatically without having an interaction with the person consider him bad and the same goes for vice-versa sitation. These information may not be accurate and it might depend on the aspect from which the surrounding are looking for the work since each and every work have a positive and negative aspect. For example, Germans consider Hitler as one of their greatest leader because he made Germany developed and one of the most powerful country in a short period of time but the rest of the people, from other countries, at present time, have a negative impact of him as a martinent person. Thus people who live after decide on the basis of their current situation and have a greater chance of inaccurate decison of greatness of a person.
However, some people argue that a work can never be called great unless it benifits future genrations and long term achievement even after the person demise can be called successful. But the facts of the acquisitions can be distorted and credit often may go to wrong person. For example, Kublai Khan is considered as a great and intrepid emperor but these are all what the history says and the historians might have given their view that the people assumed as fact. His win might have been more dependent on his head of army and the credit is inadverdently given to the king who have sat in the throne. Such lionization by upcoming generations be more dependent on inveritable informations which never occurs in case of contemporary judgement.
Thus, in conclusion, people at the commensurate period and field are better judge of an outcome and the person who is responsible for producing the result.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 89, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n be basically determined by what he has done for the progress of the area or by ...
^^
Line 1, column 335, 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
... can be better determined by the people who are benifitted by his task rather than his ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 556, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'question'?
Suggestion: question
...layer of history is and it is an absurd questions because time changes as well as situati...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 157, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...formation they have listened for a long period of time. If someone is called bad by family, re...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 369, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'These informations'?
Suggestion: This information; These informations
... the same goes for vice-versa sitation. These information may not be accurate and it might depend...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 707, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...of the most powerful country in a short period of time but the rest of the people, from other ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 157, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s responsible for producing the result.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, for example, in conclusion, as well 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: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2650.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 552.0 442.535393258 125% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80072463768 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84713113593 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71399788118 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 215.323595506 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467391304348 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 855.9 704.065955056 122% => 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: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 41.4341248683 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.473684211 118.986275619 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0526315789 23.4991977007 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05263157895 5.21951772744 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.164821816656 0.243740707755 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0599223609615 0.0831039109588 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0329213324168 0.0758088955206 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0984766464199 0.150359130593 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0284289799559 0.0667264976115 43% => 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: 15.7 14.1392134831 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.8420337079 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.1639044944 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 100.480337079 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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.