From the complex article,I realized that literacy makes a serious influence to both people and society. People trying to find a demarcation to distinguish literate and illiterate.And the government trying to increase citizens’ literacy. Well I would like to say this is not a bad thing anyway.But the way we judge a person is a illiterate or not should be objective and rational. For example, I love physics and math. I learn them very well, but what really troubling me is my grade of geography and history, I got no idea what the professors are talking about and I feel like I am not even familiar with any of the new words in the book.Then am I an illiterate? Well I’m an illiterate in history but I’m an expert in physics. Another example most government officers have no idea who is Newton and even don’t know some simple scientific knowledge.. So they are illiterate? Negative.So what I think is people who have the basic ability to read and write and also understand ability, is not an illiterate.But for the whole community this is not enough.The three metaphors the article mentioned state the quite same point of view: More knowledge Much More wilder.The word “ wilder “ here means more comprehensive and high-quality. It means like a person is able to adopt different jobs nicely and proficiently. But what government should do firstly is to make sure that the number of the people who can basic read and write is increasing and then step 2 is about to start.