GRE® Essay: What is the indicator of a great nation?

[Konstantin]

Hello!

Question:
The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people.

Answer:
In assertion that the greatness of a nation could be accessed by some reasons the speaker fails to acknowledge the vagueness of this formulation. Nobody is able to determine objectively whether the particular country is grand or not because there are so many criteria. Nevertheless, my supposition, of course subjective, is that the grandeur of the nation is distinguished by the most prominent representatives of it.

One could say that the main purpose of a country is to maintain the well-being of its citizenry and I would completely agree with him. Obviously, at the beginning of civilization people gathered together to share their food and defend effectively against predators. Now the values have been changed, but the basic principle is the similar: we want to be a part of a successful society that could provide us with the best living conditions. Unfortunately, it could not be a universal criterion because any nation has its own acmes and nadirs. As a college student I studied a theory of one famous historian who has thought that the development of any country is the continuous process, starting from slight spring, proceeding to rich summer and dying at dull autumn. For instance, before the beginning of the Common Era, Greece was one the greatest civilizations in the world and everyone could have said that it was an exalted nation. However, people could say the same now, taking into account not the present of this country (it’s not so distinctive among hundreds of others), but the legacy of the past Greek generations: artist, rulers and savants. So, the welfare of a country’s inhabitants is a temporary feature, when the bequest of the greatest people is permanent.

Moreover, it’s possible to compare the lives of nations with the lives of people. Whose life is better, Alexander the Great’s or a simple bourgeois’s? It’s ambiguous. But who is greater? The answer is followed from the title in the question; the latter was a simply well-being man, but the former had changed the history. Let’s consider my country as a peculiar example. Certainly, the wages and life expectance aren’t as big in Russia as in Western societies; nevertheless, no one could say that it is not a great country, because the first spaceship was developed by our scientists, the fiercest battles were won by our generals and our artists are known everywhere.

Foregoing is my own opinion, but it’s not the similar with the positions of many others. Some of my acquaintances believe that the US is the great country because “guys there are really reach” and some Middle Eastern countries aren’t; others have been expressing the opposite opinions. Unfortunately, such allegations based on the lack of knowledge about American culture, except pop, or about the history of Eastern civilization, gave birth to prosperous Arab cities and Avicenna. Without the profound attainments, every attempt to assess the country is a waste of time.

In sum, opinions about the nation’s greatness are quite personal, depending on time and place. However, I tend to believe that the remarkable persons, whose bequest and personalities form the face of the country, are the main argument in the dispute.

[Englishuser]

Hi Konstantin,

Your vocabulary is very comprehensive, but unfortunately I feel your text doesn't quite meet the requirements of the task. Some of your ideas are not very well linked together nor very well supported. This would affect any marks given for 'Task Response' and 'Coherence and Cohesion'.

I think some of the vocabulary and idioms in your text are unnecessary complex. This, in addition to some errors in word choice and grammar, would lower your 'Lexical Resource' and 'Grammatical Range and Accuracy' marks.

All in all, you demonstrate a very high level of English. I am concerned about the fact that you may not have fully appreciated what's expected of you in ESL/EFL tests. Normally, your writing should be formal, and you should use a wide range of vocabulary appropriate for the task. It is also important to address the test question properly: your position should be clear throughout. You are not expected to draw the reader's attention to the fact that your opinions/conclusions are subjective because that's an obvious fact.

All the best

EU

[Konstantin]

Hello Englishuser!
Thank you very much for your feedback. I absoltely agree with your assessment of my essay, because it's really vague even for me . I have tried to rewrite it in the more appropriate way.

Question:
The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people.

Answer:
Whether a nation is great depends, of course, on many different factors. Nevertheless, I disagree with the speaker that the general welfare is the surest indicator of the grandeur. In my opinion, the achievements of the nation’s best artists, savants and rulers are the more important criterion.

Do you think that Greece has been considered as a great nation because of the well-being of its citizenry? I don’t think so; in contrast, we admire masterpieces of Greek artists, study the inventions of Greek philosophers, including the Pythagorean Theorem and get inspired by the deeds of Greek heroes. I couldn’t say that Greece is an extraordinary country now; moreover the welfare of its people in the past is ambiguous too. But everyone knows about the great men of this Mediterranean country, whose achievements have been alive for good. In general, I consider the advances of inhabitants as the universal criterion of a nation’s significance, allowing us to assess any country.

In addition the welfare of the population is volatile, while the attainments of great people are eternal. A country is able to be prosperous now and poor then and even in the prolific society there are people, who don’t enjoy their financial status. For instance, Macedonia is not too affluent country today; nevertheless, I think that a nation, having engendered so famous person as Alexander the Great, should not be regarded as a minor one. If we assume that the general welfare is the sum of all people’s property, the authoritarian countries have no chance to be named great and that is evidently improper. Of course, geniuses could realize their potential in affluent countries much easier than in poor ones. However, the welfare of the state isn’t a determinative fact, since many of significant inventions and tremendous masterpieces were created by destitute individuals.

It’s possible to determine whether the nation is great or not, assessing its contribution to the advance of the global civilization. Simply well-being people couldn’t propose a lot; whereas the brilliant scientists or rulers could turn it around. One may argue that the main purpose of a country is to provide adequate living conditions for its inhabitants and I agree with him. It’s a sufficient condition to say that the country copes with its responsibilities, but not appropriate to designate it as a great state, because being great means more than being affluent. As an illustration of this thesis we could consider an example from a person’s biography, rather than the example from the history of a country. One of the supreme painters in the world’s history -Vincent van Gogh lived in poverty during all his life; however, the artist, obviously, was greater than most of his rich contemporaries.

Summing up, the achievements of remarkable people are the main factor, determining the greatness of the nation, since other measures, like general welfare, are ephemeral. Or do you believe that the bulging purse could substitute the talent?

[Englishuser]

Hi Konstantin,

In this essay you present a clear position throughout, which is great. You extend main ideas, but I believe you have a slight tendency to over-generalise. You do arrange ideas logically and there is clear overall progression, however, you repeat some of your main ideas which makes your text look less coherent.

Like in your first essay, it seems you are trying to impress the reader with your extensive vocabulary and there are some errors in word choice. Addressing the reader directly by using the second person is not customary in academic essays. You make some inappropriacies in grammar and punctuation which do not cause much difficulty for the reader. Fairly basic grammar mistakes such as inappropriately used articles would unfortunately lower any mark awarded for grammatical accuracy.

All the best

EU