The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers artists or scientists but by the general welfare of its people

Competitions between the countries and nations have dramatically increased since the first industrial revolution. Nations have been in the race of becoming powerful in production and economic wealth, so they have been in a desire of being great so far. The indicators of the power can have discrepant interpretations because of unstable conditions of the world. However, wealth of the citizens of the country is surely one of the most important aspects that represents the greateness of the nation. I will explore the reasons in the following essay.
There is an opposing argument suggested by the researchers who work on history. According to this argument, power of the nation which helps nation to be magnificent should be evaluated by considering individuals.To explain with other words, individuals that are able to change the way of history determines destiny of the country. Cultural hegomony or economic sustainability of the nation is not a critical part of evaluation of greateness of the country, since they depend on the current socio-economical structure of the world. As a result, relying on such unstable measures wouldn’t be meaningful according to this argument. Instead, if the nation is able to have game changers such as successful rulers, it would be capable of sustaining its power. In other words, cultural structures constructed by historical events and geographical consequences helps that nation to have effective individuals that will make it powerful.
In contrast to the argument above, one should evaluate magnificency of the nation by considering objective factors such as welfare of its people because of two reasons. Firstly, the welfare of the population is completely measurable, which helps us to be sure about the reliability of the results. Secondly, societies tend to sustain their economic powers by putting efforts to protect it. As a result, if any consistent pattern such as stabilized wealth thorought the history is observed, one can conclude greatness of the nation without any concern about generalisation effect, which is considering individuals to make interpretations about the whole. For example, countries who are able to reach sea easily, always sustain their wealth with the help of trade accomplished by using ships. Italia can be given as an example for this type of country. If one considers political leaders of the italian history, he or she most probably would face with Mussolini which is a terrible leader in terms of human rights. Therefore, considering political figures of Italia would lead the researcher in a wrong way. However, if the researcher is able to evaluate the conditions of the Italia by considering the wealth of the nation with the help geographical and historical approach, that researcher would conclude that Italia is a powerful country. Furthermore, these results can be cited pervasively because of scientific features of the study.
In conclusion, the idea of the considering successful figures to evaluate the power of the nation is flawed. Achievements of the individuals definitely leads the researcher in a wrong way because of subjective approach. Instead, if the researcher considers the economic power which can be measured by the wealth of nation, he or she would be able to measure the greateness of the country completely.

Votes
Average: 5.8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 213, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: To
...be evaluated by considering individuals.To explain with other words, individuals t...
^^
Line 3, column 1091, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a wrong way" with adverb for "wrong"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...res of Italia would lead the researcher in a wrong way. However, if the researcher is able to ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1438, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...se of scientific features of the study. In conclusion, the idea of the consideri...
^^^
Line 4, column 174, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a wrong way" with adverb for "wrong"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...viduals definitely leads the researcher in a wrong way because of subjective approach. Instead...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, as a result, in contrast to, in other words

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 94.0 58.6224719101 160% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2801.0 2235.4752809 125% => OK
No of words: 526.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32509505703 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1138432673 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448669201521 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 892.8 704.065955056 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.4889253215 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.708333333 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9166666667 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.21951772744 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141188657081 0.243740707755 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0424793869589 0.0831039109588 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0441307997389 0.0758088955206 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0924575601545 0.150359130593 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0108271571038 0.0667264976115 16% => 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: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 100.480337079 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => 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: 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.