The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries
Throughout human history, great figures are celebrated for their enormous achievements in various field such as politic, art, science, etc. Some people argue that whether a specific individual is great or not can be determined by his/her contemporaries instead of those who live after them. From my perspective, people’s greatness should be determined by their decedents rather than the contemporaries. I will present my point of view from the fields of politic, art and science.
First and foremost, the political workers’ greatness should be determined be their decedents. As for political makers, it is obviously impossible to know whether the policies they regulated are truly effective or not. It is because of the fact that it usually takes a policy maybe some decades to show its merits and demerits. Besides, it is also difficult to know whether a political leader is a decent and flawless person. For example, the previous United States president Nixon, we cannot reach an agreement what kind of people he is until the Water Gate happened. Thus, if we ask a contemporary of Nixon to decide his greatness, it is uneasy to arrive at the correct answer. On the contrary, the people who live after Nixon can get a better answer of the decision of his greatness.
In addition, as for the artists, the condition is the same as for the political leaders. It is obvious that people’s sense of beauty and their ability to appreciating the aesthetic are changing with the path of the era. Thus, if an artist whose style is beyond his/her contemporaries’ abilities of appreciation, this artist’s masterpiece cannot be accepted by people at that era. Accordingly, this artist’s greatness can also not be recognized and he/she may die in a lonely period when this artist is old. For instance, Vincent van Gogh is definitely one of the greatest artists through the human history. However, his pieces of work were not accepted by the people of his era. Only one of his painting was sold when he was still alive. After his death, the value, of course his masterpieces are valueless, of his works was becoming emphasized.
Finally, scientist should be valued by their decedents. For example, DDT is a widely used pesticide in 1900s because of high efficiency of killing the harmful insects. Thus, the chemist who invented this compound won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. However, after several years of implementing this kind if pesticide, the farmers found that this pesticide is so detrimental that it could also do harm to the local river which people usually drank and washed clothes and could interfere the plants growth in the bad way. Because of that reason, DDT is no longer being used any more. As for the scientist who invented it, he must earn numerous honors and was appreciated by his peers. However, we, people who lived after his death, think the opposite the way.
In a nutshell, according to the reason I give above, people from the area of politic, art and science should be evaluated by the people live after them about their greatness. Also, people of other areas should also be valued by their decedents to ensure fairness.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 230, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_THE_FACT_THAT[1]
Message: This phrase is redundant. Use simply 'because'.
Suggestion: because
...lated are truly effective or not. It is because of the fact that it usually takes a policy maybe some de...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 101, Rule ID: IN_1990s[1]
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'in the 1900s'.
Suggestion: in the 1900s
...example, DDT is a widely used pesticide in 1900s because of high efficiency of killing t...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 304, Rule ID: ANALYSIS_IF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'of'?
Suggestion: of
...several years of implementing this kind if pesticide, the farmers found that this ...
^^
Line 13, column 490, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'plants'' or 'plant's'?
Suggestion: plants'; plant's
... washed clothes and could interfere the plants growth in the bad way. Because of that ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, besides, finally, first, however, if, may, so, still, thus, as for, for example, for instance, in addition, kind of, of course, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 58.0 28.8173652695 201% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2660.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 530.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01886792453 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79809637944 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84984432444 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 274.0 204.123752495 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516981132075 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 822.6 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.26040927 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.0 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9285714286 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.10714285714 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 8.20758483034 219% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288516111023 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0737535932452 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0969405396145 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171017359084 0.128457276422 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0802711048708 0.0628817314937 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.