model essay-issue 28

tesolchina_RAUID: 3675555

issue 28/113/120/121/127/145

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.

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.

To address the issue raised in the statement, it is important to clarify what it means to be a great nation. I would consider a nation great if it has made positive impact to the development of the contemporary world. Also, a nation that had contributed a great deal in the history of mankind should also be counted as a historically great nation.  Given this understanding of  greatness, I would first discuss why the general welfare of citizens is not a good indicator; I will then discuss some examples of great nations in history and in modern society to illustrate that the achievments of the elites are better indicators.  

While there is no doubt that a nation where people enjoy high quality of life is admirable, the general welfare of the people cannot serve as a reliable indicator of the greatness of a nation. When the people have access to abundant material goods and quality education, they will enjoy a high standard of living. But it does not follow that the nation would necessarily play an important role in the international community. Maybe the nation is endowed with rich natural resources. As a result, the government could afford generous welfare programs that guarantee the quality of life of its citizens.  Nevertheless, these wealthy nations do not deserve the label “great nations” unless they have made some substantial contribution to the world as a whole.  

In modern society, great nations are often the nations where exceptional leaders in the fields of politics, art and science had achieved great works that can benefit not just their compatriots but the people all over the world. The theoretical physicists in the US who were responsible for the early development of the Internet had made significant contribution to the progress of Information society through their experiments of new technologies.  As a result of their works and the other scientists in the US, the nation has become a great leader in information technologies and a great many people’s live have been transformed.  Meanwhile, the US is also considered a great nation as it has produced a significant number of leading scientitsts who had been awarded Nobel prizes.  These scientists’ achievement had great impact on contemporary society as well as future generations.

If we take a historical view, it is also clear that the achievements of the elites are the better indicator of whether a nation was great. In most ancient societies, the ruling elite often possess the majority of the land and the wealth. Consequently, with the huge income and wealth gap, the general welfare of the people was relatively poor.  But nations with outstanding rulers, artists and scientists were still considered great as the achievements of the elites were important for the historical development of the world. Without the invention of paper by an anonymous group of Chinese scientists, for example, Europe could not enjoy the adundant supply of cheap materials for writing and exchanging ideas.  Given its important contribution to the progress of the global civilization, it is indisputable that ancient China was one of the greatest nations in the world history.  As this example clearly illustrates, the achievement of the elites can be used to better indicate the historical greatness of a nation.

Overall speaking, people may disagree on what makes a great nation; as a result, opinions over this issue may vary greatly among people. If the greatness can be defined as a nation’s influence to the historical or contemporary development of the global society, then the achievements of the elites can be used as reliable indicators to determine the greatness of a nation. Meanwhile, the general welfare may not be a very yseful indicator because certain factors that are not related to the greatness of nations could be crucial in determining the general welfare of people.  



issue范文与提纲目录(tesolchina)
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... amp;fromuid=3675555

sweepyouUID: 3559530

issue28
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.

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.

首段：
To a limited extent, the speaker's statement that welfare is an indicator for a great country is partially correct. A strong social-welfare system is the material base for the individuals to pursue their artistic, scientific or political achievements. For a country where people remain at subsistance level, it is almost impossible for individuals to work on spiritual activities, let alone engaged in some creative field.

ts1
The greatness of a country is largely depended on the core value of the society but not necessarily the welfare system.
e.g.: In some authoritarian countries, personal characteristics of intelligence may often be sacrificed for a rapid economic growth.

ts2
Furthermore, outstanding individuals themselves is an indicator for the greatness of a country.
e.g.: Some countries don't serve as a large economy, but if its individual values are highly respected.

ts3
In other cases, a country's welfare is effected by external causes other than internal ones.
e.g.: Some European countries during World War II, the newly-founded US. A low living standard could not efface achievements in other fields, such as an art or cultural one.