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.
According to the statement above, the greatness can be ascribed to people only after their death. In what follows, I will reject this position. While in some cases it is true that people are considered great only after they are dead, there is no reason in principle that a person cannot be judged as a hero when he or she is still alive.
A first clear example supporting the statement aforementioned is Galileo Galilei. As is well-known, Galileo was one of the first scientists (in the modern connotation) who discovered the revolution of the Earth around the Sun and, by doing so, he refuted the traditional orthodoxy supported by the Christian society. We now judge him as a great figure, capable of rejecting what were considered platitudes. However, at that time, he was judged as a bizarre scholar, whose perspective was in strong contradiction with what was supposed to be trivially true.
Notwithstanding this example, the history of human kind is replete with people who become heroes and model roles in their life. For example, Mozart was celebrated as a genius after playing his works in Prague; Saul Kripke, who was acclaimed as one of the most important philosophers immediately after the publication of his theories on language. Incidentally, it is worth noticing that every year some researchers, writers, and politicians receive the Nobel Prize, who raises them among the most important people in the world.
Of course, some people may advance the reason according to which the privileged point for judging a person is temporally located after his death. In fact, there are more documents that can be useful to evaluate him. This is clearly consistent with the fact that historians have to wait a certain period of time before studying a recent event. However, it is also true tha the more documents we get, the more information there are; the more information, the less extraordinary our hero becomes. I can support this reasoning with a personal example. I had to write a thesis about Isaiah Berlin, a political philosopher. After reading his biography written by his friend Ignatieff and learning his mistakes and the difficulties, he appeared to me much less extraordinary than expected.
In conclusion, the author suggests an interesting idea that is true when it comes to certain historical personalities. However, it is generally false. First, a plethora of people are celebrated as great men when they are still alive. Second, it is difficult to estimate a person as a hero when we start learning a great number of things about him, as happens after his death.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 297, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... that historians have to wait a certain period of time before studying a recent event. However...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, incidentally, may, second, so, still, well, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, of course, in some cases, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 58.6224719101 89% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2164.0 2235.4752809 97% => OK
No of words: 431.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02088167053 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55637350225 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89846999839 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54060324826 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 688.5 704.065955056 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9186576394 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.047619048 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5238095238 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.14285714286 5.21951772744 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
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: 0.147352815553 0.243740707755 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0446810698744 0.0831039109588 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0483267769184 0.0758088955206 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0837447686361 0.150359130593 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0434879969462 0.0667264976115 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.1639044944 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => 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.