GRE®®® issue essay:"The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achieve

[Atlas]

"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."

What is the surest indicator of a great nation? Before discussing this topic, it is better to clarify the definition of “indicator” in the first place. A widely accepted definition as a factor demonstrating the comprehensive development of the country in all aspects may serve here appropriately. So which factor may meet the standard?

To begin with, according to the Cannikin Law, the greatness of a nation would not be recognized if there are definite weaknesses in certain aspects. As far as I am concerned, a great country is supposed to profoundly manifested in the strength of politics, economy, education, scientific research, and otherwise. For example, if scientists in the country have made great contribution, it may be implied that the country is wealthy enough to fund the research and has a good academic atmosphere, thus to be a symbol of the whole prosperity. Another appropriate example may be found in the 2008 Olympic Games, the front ranks in the medal count are almost swept by strong powers such as America, China and Russia, which provides evidence for that the integrated nation power is likely to be represented by achievements in diversified facets.

The general welfare, as the speaker states, is a specific and significant materialization of the overall national strength, and it never contradicts the accomplishment of elites. The social welfare can be promoted only when the country is developed economically, and what is probably easily neglected, culturally advanced as well as highly democratic, for I believe the welfare ought to be seen as the rights of all people, including not only financial supports to the poor, but also sufficient freedom in changing and expressing views for citizens. Take some once autocratic countries, such as NSSR, for example. Under the rule of CPSU, the government laid much stress on the expenditure in general welfares. Yet because of the strict restraints on the public thoughts, the NSSR failed to be considered as a great nation by the majority nowadays. In conclusion, general welfare can surely be taken as a credible criterion for judging whether a nation is great or not.

However, the speaker’s advocacy still fails to convince me for welfare alone cannot be the surest indicator. We may safely claim that the public weal is indispensible for a great nation, but it does not necessarily indicate that nations with good welfare are surely great. An appropriate example may be the Song Dynasty in ancient China. The Song government formulated a welfare system that most residents could benefit, and the society was in unparalleled prosperity both economically and culturally. But the rulers ignored the importance of building up the military strength, leading to repetitious defeats when resisting invasion by outside forces. Finally the government was incapable of protecting its people and met inevitable extinction. Here we find it unreasonable to view the Song Dynasty as a great nation, even the welfare worked well.

To summarize, since the topic is quite complicated, there may never exist a surest indicator including the general welfare. In order to reach a solid judgment, an overall consideration of various factors is required.