Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
The Surest Indicator Of A Great Nation - With A Free Essay Review
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.
prompt：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.
What is the criterion evaluating the greatness of a nation? Some people believe it is the achievements of famous rulers, artists and scientists that account for, while others speak high of the welfare of the whole people for the reason that it is the base for the development of the country. In my opinion, when we evaluate the grandeur of a nation, the major consideration is not how rich it is or the number of awards its elites achieve but whether its people are living happy lives. For that reason, I am more in favor of the latter one because the general welfare is a promise for high standard of both material and spiritual living of its people.
The greatness of a nation lies in whether the material needs of its people are met. A great country should be one where people need not worrying about the problem of starvation - even if people lost there job, they could get help to go through the difficulty. A great country should be one where the young need not worry about the fee of universities – they could have the opportunity to receive high education as long as they are willing to. A great country should be one where the old need not worry about the standard of life – even if their children not able to accompany them, they will be cared by relevant department. Satisfying the material needs of its citizen is the basic duty of a nation and the promise of achievement in any field.
The greatness of a nation also lies in whether the spiritual needs of its people are met. More than just satisfying the basic need of its people, a great nation also pay attention to the spirit needs – whether its people have time for entertainment instead of always doing monotonous jobs and whether every member of the country share the fruits of the nation. Equality and fulfillment – these terrific feeling can be got only if the nation regard the general welfare of its people in the first place.
In fact, there exist a beneficial recycle, only if people are satisfied with its nation will they be willing to work hard for the nation so as to create more fortune and to make more achievement. For that matter, the general welfare of the country, the premise for the accomplishment of its people in the area of policy, art and science, should be regarded as a surer indicator in weighing the greatness of a nation.
It is true that the surest indicator of the greatness of a nation is the general welfare of its people. However, still some other factors should be taken into account when weighing the significance of a country. One of these factors is the achievement of its rulers, artists and scientists. Without regulation, the state apparatus cannot run smoothly; without scientific development, the state cannot improve its technology as to create more fortune; without artistic piecework, the state cannot fully satisfy the spirit needs of its people. Never shall we neglect these factors when considering the greatness of a nation – they are just not as important as the welfare of the whole people.
To sum up, general welfare is the surest indicator of the greatness of a nation because it is the promise for the happiness of the people and the premise for the achievement of the nation. Nonetheless, never shall we overemphasize the importance of general welfare for the reason that too much attention may result in people taking it for granted and always hoping the country to do something to improve their living standard instead of working on their own. It is a dangerous signal which may affect the richness and development of the whole country and thus the welfare of its people. When it happens, the welfare of the people is no longer the sign of the grandeur of the nation.
Let's ignore the first two sentences since they really just amount to rewriting the prompt (you don't need to do that, and it wastes your time). In your third sentence you give your opinion: you think that in evaluating the greatness of a nation, "the major consideration ... is whether its people are living happy lives." You don't yet give a reason for that opinion, however. In your final sentence of the opening paragraph, you say "for that reason, I am more in favor of the latter." If you really meant to say "for that reason," then you would in effect be saying that you think the general welfare is the most important criterion because you think the general welfare is the most important criterion. So assuming that's not what you meant (even though it is what the sentence implies) we are left with the following reason: "because the general welfare is a promise etc." What your paragraph amounts to then (once we delete the first two sentences) is this (let's also delete "in my opinion," because it goes without saying that you are telling us what you think):
"When we evaluate the greatness of a nation, the major consideration is not how rich it is or the number of awards its elites achieve but whether its people are living happy lives because the general welfare is a promise etc."
I leave out the end of the sentence (putting "etc." in its place) because I don't really know what you mean when you say "the general welfare is a promise for high standard of both material and spiritual living of its people." Making sure that your writing is clear and intelligible is always important, but it's especially important when you are explaining your reasons for your view.
Now your second and third paragraphs are really an elaboration of your opinion rather than an argument about why the welfare of the people is more important than the achievements of rulers, artists and scientist. In these paragraphs, you assert what a great nation ought to have. You don't make an argument that one measure of a nation's greatness is better than another, however.
It is reasonable in an essay of this kind to make one or two assertions of that kind, but remember that your focus ought to be on the argument. You’re being asked to discuss the "extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement" but you don't really do that, except implicitly, where the implication is that you largely agree with the statement. You are being asked to consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true, but you don't really do that either. You do seem to realise that the proposition in the prompt is onesided insofar as it doesn't acknowledge the extent to which the achievements of rulers, artists, and scientists contribute to the general welfare of the people, but you don't make that point explicit, and you don't explain why, even so, the general welfare is best indicator of a great nation.
Consider the problem from a concrete perspective: Was ancient Rome a great nation? On the one hand, one could conceivably answer that question by pointing to the achievements of Pompey and Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar; or by pointing to the technological developments (urban design, architecture, weaponry); or by pointing to the cultural achievements of great Roman artists and poets and rhetoricians and historians, and so on.
On the other hand, one might might start thinking about the improvements in living conditions for Roman citizens, or even about the problems of poverty and slavery in the Roman empire, and come a different determination of the greatness of ancient Rome.
The prompt is asking you to think about these two different possible approaches to determining whether a nation is great. It’s asking you to explain why one approach is better than another. It proposes that the general welfare is the right measure of a nation's greatness, and then asks you just how true that proposition might be. Your essay doesn’t do that. It doesn’t raise or answer the kinds of questions that need to be addressed. For instance: Can a nation be a great nation without having great rulers, artists, and scientists? If a nation does nothing great in the field of politics, art, or science, say, can it still be considered great, even if the people live well? But what then of a nation that is full of great leaders and artists and so on but which permits a good number of its citizens to live in poverty or worse? Can such a nation be great?
Part of the difficulty of addressing such questions is that the concept of greatness is ill-defined, both in general and in the proposition itself. You can circumvent that difficulty in an essay like this by explicitly noting that the answer depends on what we mean by “great” and then explain what you understand by “great.”