Whether or not a person achieves their aims in life is mostly related to luck. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some are of the belief that

luck

is the determining factor when accomplishing a given goal. In my opinion,

luck

is pivotal in individual situations but its importance decreases over larger sample sizes. The main argument for the primacy of

luck

is highly visible, singular examples.

This

translates to extremely successful individuals.

For instance

, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were exceptionally intelligent and hard-working but they would never have become leading figures in history if they had not grown up in California in the 1970s during the computer boom. It is likely they would still be successful regardless of their era and place of birth but the extent of influence would be more limited.

This

same principle applies to the average individual as there are moments in one’s life that are best credited to good

luck

or an advantageous situation.

However

, the significance of

luck

decreases over time. Take,

for example

, an average person. They may be born into a wealthy family and have a good start in life; they are lucky from the onset.

Nonetheless

, if they are not hard-working, there is a strong chance they will not be able to accomplish their goals in life. The reverse is true of someone born into a bad situation. There are exceptions, where the situation is dire or the period in history precludes success, but most people who apply themselves over a long period of time will ‘make their own

luck

’.

This

is because as sample sizes become larger, the influence of variance naturally decreases. It still requires some extraordinary

luck

to attain huge aims but more modest ones result from repeated action rather than fortune. In conclusion,

luck

is decisive

in particular

instances but not more generally. It is,

therefore

, more important to place greater value on working hard in the long-term than on the off-chance of being lucky.