gre writing issue sample writing 41

  1. The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.

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.


It is frequently assumed that the true value of an historical figure can be recognized only by those who live after him. In many ways, it is true that contemporaries tend to have limited sights to figure out the whole aspects of an individual’s contributions. Then, is it only the future generation who can evaluate an individual’s greatness objectively and completely? In some cases, time interval may make the contributions of an individual too unclear and distant to be observed directly.

Stating that the greatness of individuals can be judged only by those who live after them, the speaker asserts that the eyes of his contemporaries can never be a reliable gauge to evaluate achievements of an individual. In some sense, it is true that there should be a degree of time interval for us to assess the ideas or works of a creative mind. But, this view is failing to consider both possible biases of the future generation from its own ways of living
Can we say that the objective evaluation of the greatness of individuals is only the privilege of those who live after them? In some sense, it is true that contemporaries have diverse limitations to understand one’s great achievements fully. Only by exaggerating the problems of the contemporaries’ views, however, the speaker is underestimating their merits in judging the greatness of others who live in the same time, especially in the following respects.
Of course, few would disagree that contemporaries inevitably have little, or at least incomplete, information and criteria to evaluate the great achievement of a person. In the areas of arts or philosophical thinking in which new and subtle visions produced by the creative souls resist the detection of the uninformed general public, it is those belonging to the later times who can assess fairly and completely some paradigm-shifting contributions by great artists or philosophers. For example, the great painter, Vincent Van Gogh could be recognized and respected only after he died with obscurity and contempt from his contemporaries. A number of greater thinkers have been evaluated as insightful and prescient minds not by their contemporaries but by people who can directly experience their predictions. This says that it is usually those who live after them that take objective stances to evaluate the greatness of certain individuals.
Nevertheless, it does not necessarily mean that contemporaries are those who have little insight or objective discretion in assessing the greatness of some people. In the world of business in which greatness is usually equal to dramatic innovations and immediate outcomes, it is contemporaries that sufficiently have the power to evaluate their achievements. Bill Gates has been honored by those who live with him because, despite the possibility of being downplayed by the future generations who will live with more refined technologies, his contributions are clear and prominent by themselves. In short, most achievements in business can be sufficiently evaluated by contemporaries because of their direct influences on everyday living.
Moreover, I tend to disagree to the speaker’s opinion in that it may ignore the involvement of subjective experiences by those who live later times. Just as we do not respect the greatness of inventions of the earlier tools such as wheels, windmills, or knifes because we are too much familiarized with them and they seem too simplistic compared to our modern inventions such as computers, spacecrafts, or airplanes, so people who will come after us may not pay enough attentions to the greatness of those inventions that occur in our time. Because people’s judgment can be influenced directly by their present experiences or immediate environments, the past cannot be evaluated by the later times with fairness and objectivity. ——————————————
Is it impossible for contemporaries to be an objective evaluator of an individual’s greatness? The speaker says yes. And, in some sense, it is true that they have various limitations in judging the value of certain individuals compared to those who live after them. However, I think that the speaker’s view underestimates the existence of certain areas whose greatness can be easily quantifiable and the function of the multiple level of “public forum” in our modern society.Of course, few would disagree that contemporaries inevitably have difficulties in evaluating the achievements of their own time in more objective and fuller sense. Especially, in certain areas such as arts, politics, and philosophical thought whose ultimate consequences are realized after significant interval of time, it is those who belong to later time that can make any meaningful evaluation. Moreover, because they are innately subject to biased caprices and tastes of the mass public, it seems almost impossible to expect contemporaries to be the disinterested evaluators. Thus, even Van Gogh was deprecated by his contemporaries who just followed the general rules and assumptions of their own time (a good artwork should reflect the precise image of an object free from artists’ subjective impressions or feelings). Because the benefit of the Abolishment could not be clear in tens of years, Lincoln’s contemporaries failed to recognize his noble vision in more comprehensive and objective fashion.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70597.89
ETH 3559.60
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.77