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.
Over the years, many individuals in the field of science, arts, and politics, have been extoled for their greatness by their contemprories. Thus, I disagree with the claim that people living after the legends decide their talent and power. There are three reasons for me to take this stand, which will be elucidated further. However, I do concede that in few instances, involving niche fields, and controversial personalities, peers decide the greatness of individuals.
First and foremost, competition decides the better among the lot. On similar lines, contemprories who compete with each other, eventually succumb to the undefeatable winner. For a supporting example, take into the consideration of any political party that has come to power recently. In such instances, the leader of the winning party is always praised and declared impregnable by the public. But, what ingrained such thoughts in the minds of the voters and the public? It is not just the talent and strategies adopted by the leader, but, the competing party’s loss that engender the greatness of the leader. Since an individual is able to strive and come to power defeating his/her peers, the shrewdness of the individual becomes evident. Going as per the claim, if the same leader is inherited or replaced by an another person, no matter if that leader is adept or not, the previous leader’s capabilities are already established and does not need the succeeding person’s help to evaluate the efficiency of the preceding leader. Hence, the above example in the political arena, proves that the greateness of any individual is decided by his/her peers.
Secondly, even if people who live after an individual, decides the greatness of the predecessor, such analysis will be unwarranted and faulty. For example, Arjun Tendulkar, son of Sachin Tendulkar (a famous Indian cricketer) , did not reach to the heights of his father, who bagged many accolades for the country as well his talent. In such cases, the deftness of Sachin cannot be decided by his son’s capablilites, because both are different on many grounds. Arjun (Sachin’s son), is not as good batsman as his father, as per the prompt, then Sachin should also be not as talented as he is now. Thereby declaring Sachin as a bad cricketer, but, in reality this is not true. This contrasting example proves that people who live after cannot decide an individual strength and greatness.
In conclusion, I strong disagree with the prompt and without doubt concede that peers of a person decide the greatness of an individual, for the above reasons. However, I do accept that in cases of controversial figures, who are prone to hatred of their contemprories, or individuals belonging to niche fields, where competitors are low, people who live after them decide their greatness.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 812, Rule ID: AN_ANOTHER[1]
Message: One of these determiners is redundant in this context. Choose only one: 'a person' or 'another person'.
Suggestion: a person; another person
...same leader is inherited or replaced by an another person, no matter if that leader is adept or n...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 223, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...chin Tendulkar a famous Indian cricketer , did not reach to the heights of his fat...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 12.9106741573 23% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2359.0 2235.4752809 106% => OK
No of words: 458.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15065502183 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86385078941 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519650655022 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 724.5 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4176355216 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.333333333 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8095238095 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95238095238 5.21951772744 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205874152156 0.243740707755 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0627350263469 0.0831039109588 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535064573825 0.0758088955206 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147218694758 0.150359130593 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0639652483075 0.0667264976115 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.