GRE issue essay: Nation greatness

[Roytor]

Some people claim that you can tell whether a nation is great by looking at the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. Others argue that the surest indicator of a great nation is, in fact, the general welfare of all its people.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

I would agree with the statement saying that the general welfare of all people is the best indicator of a great nation rather than looking at the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists for several reasons.

First of all, I think it is unfair to evaluate the greatness of nation with only the specific group of people as the nation consists of its entire people. Different countries might devote their budget or expense to develop different sectors. For example, the military nations might spend most of its budget on the military workforce while other developed countries might rank the research and development as their first priority. Hence, it is impossible to tell whether the nation is great from the achievement of specific group of career.

Moreover, humans formed nation in order to help ensure their quality of life. Therefore, to see the success of nation, the quality of life of its people should be taken in to account. Providing welfare to its people is one way the government can do to ensure people’s quality of life. The ability of providing welfare requires nation readiness in many areas, for instance, budget and political stability. Hence, the greatness of nation can be seen by the package and coverage of welfare given to its people.

In conclusion, I would not agree that the greatness of the nation can be evaluated from the success of specific group of people. On the other hand, I totally agree that the welfare of people is the best indicator to see whether it is a great country because of these reasons: different country might focus on different sector of its society and the quality of life of its people, which is the main purpose of forming the nation, can be seen via welfare given to people in the country.

[Luschen]

Hi Roytor, I thought your essay was not too bad, but I think to get a good score on the GRE you may need to improve your quality. Your grammar is not too bad, but you do have quite a few minor errors. Your main argument was not that convincing to me. I don’t think the prompt means just to focus on one specific group of people. It is like, “Look at how good Italy is, they have given us such great artists” or “Germany has become a great nation through the work of their scientists and engineers” Are these valid statements? Or is it better to say "Ok, I guess Iceland’s greatest cultural contribution is Bjork, but look how happy the people are. Which is the best way to evaluate a nation? Also, you didn’t really examine both sides of the issue, as the prompt requested. Finally, your vocabulary is a bit simple and repetitive and your introduction does not show much creativity.

@Roytor

Some people claim that you can tell whether a nation is great by looking at the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. Others argue that the surest indicator of a great nation is, in fact, the general welfare of all its people.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

I would agree with the statement saying that the general welfare of all people is the best indicator of a great nation rather than looking at the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists for several reasons. {this introduction is a little too basic and I would not copy the prompt word for word like you have}

First of all, I think it is unfair to evaluate the greatness of nation [s]with [/s][by considering] only [s]the[/s] [a] specific group of people[,] as the nation consists of its entire people. Different countries might devote their budget or expense {"expenditures" is better here} to develop {"developing" is better here} different sectors. For example, the military[-focused] nations might spend most of[s] its[/s] [their] budget on the military workforce while other developed countries might rank the research and development as their first priority. Hence, it is impossible to tell whether the nation is great from the achievement of [a ] specific group of career[s ].

Moreover, humans formed nation[s ] in order to help ensure their quality of life. Therefore, to see{"evaluate" or "determine" is better} the success of [a ]nation, the quality of life of its people should be taken in to{one word} account. Providing welfare to its people is one [s]way[/s][task] the government can do to ensure people’s quality of life. The ability of providing {"to provide" is better} welfare {in the US at least, "welfare" used like this means monetary assistance to poor people} requires nation[al] readiness in many areas, for instance, budget and political stability. Hence, the greatness of [a] nation can be seen by the package and coverage of welfare given to its people. {once again, "welfare" used like this sounds a little odd} 

In conclusion, I would not agree that the greatness of the nation can be evaluated from the success of [A] specific group of people. On the other hand, I totally agree that the welfare of [a] people [as a whole] is the best indicator to see whether it is a great country because of these reasons: different country might focus on different sector of its society and the quality of life of its people, which is the main purpose of forming the nation, can be seen via welfare given to people in the country.{this sentence structure with the colon sounds a little awkward to me}