gre writing issue sample writing 113
- Claim: The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. Reason: The surest indicator of a great nation is actually the welfare of all its people.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
The statement above asserts that the greatness of a nation should be measured not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists but by the general welfare of its people. In some sense, it is true that a few talented individuals are never representative of present states of common members of a society and that their achievements should be distinguished from the actual status of their home countries. Yet, however small portion they account for, I believe, the true potential of a nation can be estimated by those few excellent.
Of course, it is hard to deny that the general state of average citizens is sometimes more appropriate than the achievements of several distinguished individuals to know a society. Simply considering the fact that they are only one or two percent of anomalous individuals, a few famous political or business moguls cannot directly reveal the true state of the overall society. That is, despite the fact that it has the wealthiest guy across the world, Mexico cannot overtake Germany or USA in our respect for each nation’s overall greatness. A body of genius in some sectors of a society seems, from this perspective, to mean just a small group of anomalies.
Then, should we ignore those excellent few altogether in judging the capacity of a country? My answer is no. When it comes to political leaders or thinkers, we can easily observe a number of historical cases in which a fate of a country is hugely affected by their visions, bravery, and dogged efforts. Although some might downplay her as just a queen in the long history of Great Britain, in my opinion, it is Queen Elizabeth who reformed and restructured old England and designed the new England which has been one of great superpowers after her reign. In short, because of the capacity with which the whole structure of a society can be reformed, an excellent individual political leader may be more important than the whole group of common people in foretelling the fortune of a nation.
In addition to their visions to transform the structure of a society, a few talented individuals are important in knowing the potential of a country in that they are also role models who inspire other youngsters and give pride for the entire citizens. Despite its wretched state of economic and political orders today, we do not snub India because it has a class of excellent thinkers and scientists who are continuously stimulating and motivating its poor but ambitious young generation.
Can the greatness of a nation be measured more realistically by the well-being of all its individual citizens than by the achievements of its political figures, artists, or scientists? In some sense, it is true that the exceptional ideals and implementations of several distinguished individuals are far from being a reliable gauge to judge the workings of a country; that the ultimate indicator of a country’s power is the actual living states of the average public. However, except the present condition of a country, I believe, the potential of a country is subject to the abilities of a few excellent planners, designers, executives, and creators.
Of course, few would disagree that the actual power of a nation is inseparably associated with the actual state of life among many of its citizens. Just as the general health of one’s body is not determined solely by the health of his or her head, so the greatness of a country can never be measured by a few individuals who serve as “heads” for the society. In this regard, we usually respect the institution of education of South Korea even though the country has never produced any significant world-leading scholar or one single recipient of such prestigious awards as Nobel Prize or so; in this case, the greatness of the country’s educational system lies not in its several excellent figures but in its tradition of high level of social investment into learning.
Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that the only criterion to judge a potential of a country is the overall state of living enjoyed by all its citizens. When it comes to the ever-increasing importance of imagination and creativity in our time, the potential of a country seems dependent more immediately on whether the country has or does not have those of extraordinary creativity. Betraying the general expectation that it would be almost impossible for the two countries to restore their previous glories in the near future just after the Second World War, Germany and Japan restored and demonstrated their respective powers in economic, social, political, and cultural areas mainly because each had its, though a few, creative “heads” in science, thought, and every practical area. Just as many companies today owe much of their fates to several excellent individuals (for example, consider the Apple without Steve Jobs), a country also sometimes depends on several brilliant individuals more than on its mediocre many.
In addition, the critical importance of a few scientists, political figures, artists, or philosophers in estimating the greatness of a country seems clear in the sense that they can serve as an inspirational role-model for the laypeople of the country.