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.
The indicator that is used to measure the overall success of a nation matters. It matters because it emphasize what are the important things for a society and, therefore, where the governments should be spending more time and funding. In this context, the argument provided offers to alternative views: whether the surest indicator is represented by the achievements of its rulers, artist and scientist or by the general welfare of its people. In this dichotomous view, I argue that the general welfare and well-being of each person is a far better indicator of a nation.
For a long time Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been the most popular indicator to represent the general success of a nation. However, GDP does not say anything about the quality of life, how the products are made, what are the environmental impacts, how is the wealth distributed, among other aspects. In recent years, several countries, such as Scotland, New Zealand and Iceland, have starting to work with different indicators, especially those who focus on well-being. In other words, a great nation is not one that has a huge GDP, but one that can focus on the well-being and happiness of their citizens. Focusing on the well-being, rather than in the achievements of its rulers, artist or scientist is extremely important for two reasons. The first reason is that it is important to fight inequalities and guarantee that the general minimum welfare is fair for everybody. The second, is that greatness in art, politics and science will follow as a result of a society in which well-being is put in first place.
In relation with the first reason, it is important to assert that it is totally possible to have a society with great artists and scientist, but where art and science cannot be afforded or appreciated by the majority of the population. In fact, the greatness of rulers, artist and scientist does not guarantee a great society as a whole. It could only be the prove of a very unequal society. In this context, as stated in the first paragraph, the chosen indicator matters because it is a thermometer of where governments should be spending the resources and where the attention should be addressed. If the achievements of rulers, artists and scientist were to be selected as the most important indicator, automatically more funding would be released for this areas. However, if science and arts are not dedicated to improve the societies, they will be just an elitist pleasure.
In regards with the second reason, an important argument that can be made is that in a society in which well-being and welfare are put as the surest indicator, science and arts will follow. In fact, historically is really rare to find societies with good welfare indicators without artistic movements or scientific experiments being ruled. It would be very simplistic to say that is an automatic process, but the mechanism is actually very simple: societies with greater welfare have better education, thus, having better universities in order to do research and better conditions for developing artistic movements.
To sum up, the indicator used to measure the greatness of a society is important because it emphasizes the agenda and the resource allocation. Choosing the rulers, artists and scientists as the focus means to increase the social gap between these individuals and the rest of the society. Conversely, investing in the general well-being first yields to improvements in science an arts as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 102, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'emphasizes'?
Suggestion: emphasizes
...a nation matters. It matters because it emphasize what are the important things for a soc...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1017, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...which well-being is put in first place. In relation with the first reason, it is...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 356, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...at society as a whole. It could only be the prove of a very unequal society. In this cont...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 755, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ally more funding would be released for this areas. However, if science and arts are...
^^^^
Line 17, column 377, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'an art' or simply 'arts'?
Suggestion: an art; arts
...first yields to improvements in science an arts as well.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, conversely, first, however, if, really, second, so, therefore, thus, well, in fact, such as, as a result, in other words, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 44.0 19.5258426966 225% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2926.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 576.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07986111111 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89897948557 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86634363002 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439236111111 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 908.1 704.065955056 129% => 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: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.921332631 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.217391304 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0434782609 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.34782608696 5.21951772744 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => 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: 0.226220655465 0.243740707755 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0757140261194 0.0831039109588 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0990393235068 0.0758088955206 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15238746986 0.150359130593 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116266164388 0.0667264976115 174% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 100.480337079 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.