但我写作挺烂的，正在练，这是我这两天写的一个题目，
请各位神仙看后指点指点
ISSUE TASK:
An individual's greatness cannot be judged objectively by his or her contermporaties; the most objective evaluators of a person's greatness are people who belong to a later time.

MY RESPONSE:
The arguer asserts that the most objective evaluators of a person's greatness are people who belong to a later time rather than his or her contemporaries. This statement, while appealing to some people and in some respects, cannot stand further scrutiny. In fact, though admitting that people who live after a individual sometimes serve as evaluators of his or her greatness, I believe it is his or her contemporaries that should be viewed as the most objective ones.

For one thing, coexistent people possess the opportunity to experience in themselves updatedly what the individual have brought and realize the implications of his or her greatness, which facilitates the evaluation. When our great men opens new page of an era on a special field of research, makes desirable inventions and machines that benefit society, leads large-scale movements or crusades, or provokes public consciousness in combating a deep-seated social problem, it may not be the later generations that see most clear what these great individuals' deeds actually mean to the development and well-being of the whole society; rather, it is most likely that the individual's coevals who virtually feel and touch the earthshaking changes that the great men through their arduous efforts have achieved, and who benefit from the progress and improvement in a special field or they bring in that catch on the individual's step. We needn't go very far for examples illustrating this point. In 1954 in Mongemary, a black American woman, Rosa Parks, refused to go to the rear of a bus to make space for the white passengers, which stirred an outburst of black's discontentment and strong demands for equality and civil rights and which marked the beginning of a roaring and progressive 1950s and 1960s. Rosa Parks, regarded by people at that time especially the blacks as a courageous and upright heroine, probably cannot pose a bit of even vague impression of this great woman, let alone evoke some reverence in ordinary people's hearts today--half a century later. Why? Because what people living in our time take for granted and enjoy without hesitation or fear is just what people at that time couldn't imagine. If a black woman today sits anywhere in the bus except the rear, no one would question; yet, it would result in obloquy, despise and violent accusation at that time.

So only people at Rosa Park's time was able to comprehend what her deeds really meant to the blacks and the wholesomeness of society and required how much determination and courage, i.e. her greatness. Posterities simply seem not to have the necessary backgrouds and passion to fully identify with her.

For another,not only had the contemporaneous people experienced and witnessed the changes the individual brought, but also they could further involve in the great man's cause and gain a better and deeper understanding of what her she is endeavouring. From John Brown and his rightous crusade against slavery to Martin Luther King JR.and the civil disobedience led by him, from Harriet Beecher Stowe and her novel "uncle tom's cabin" to Rosa Parks and her heroic behaviors, there were always great individuals whose adherents just followed their lead out of their own passion and feverishness, somewhat ignorant of the significance of what they were trying to accomplish. Yet, they had the chance to involve in the ongoing movements and activities like marches and demonstrations and thus gain a deeper and more comprehensive view of the great man and his behavior. As a saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words". I believe a real actionist keeping pace with the individual are none less authoritative evaluator than a social critic in a later time.

Admittedly, there are cases when it takes time for the significance of an individual's deeds or works to be fully demonstrated. Van Gogh, the utterly ignored artist, is an example in point. During his lifetime, Van Gogh merely managed to sell out one copy of his paintings; yet after so many years, with increasing public awareness of the value of his paintings, his works have been among the most valuable ones of the world today and many times have them achieved record high when auctioned. In this case, future generations may be a more appropriate evaluators of a individual's greatness.

In conclusion, as to the evaluation of an individual's greatness, no approach satisfies every one. The fallacy of what the arguer says lies in the failure to notice the chances to be closer to the individual for his or her contemporaries in terms of time and space, which makes further evaluation possible. Sometimes, this case is like a carriage distancing away from us; only the one who is in synchronous rhythm with an individual can see clearly the face of the person who sits in.