Issue Essay Review

[sanmks]

Please review my first incomplete essay on the following topic

 

Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive.

Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

 

 

Will financially supporting the major cities help in the preservation of a nation's cultural tradition is a question one needs to ask these days. Is it only in the cities that a nation's culture prospers is another question which should be on everyone's mind. The nation not only contains cities but it is an amalgamation of cities, towns, villages & forests. Throught the inclusive growth of both the rural & urban areas can one nation really prosper.

 

As compared to cities which are exposed to the globalisation of all sorts in terms of fashion and culture,  the villages or the rural areas are where the true national cultures prosper. In the villages the national culture face no opposition from the external global cultures and enjoys a monopoly of sort.  The cosmopolitan nature of city folks takes them further away from their own national culture sometimes. The village folk on the other hand being parochial seem to hold on to their beliefs more strongly.

 

 

Though the village folks can sometimes be orthodox and hidebound they are are better protectors of the national culture than their contemporary urban folks.

 

[stpmax]

You did not finish...

 

Why not post when you have a final product?

[sanmks]

Sorry for the incomplete essay. The problem I'm facing these days is I'm getting either stuck on the intro or to be able to complete the body paras. I'm not even able to reach the conclusion.

[sanmks]

Could someone help me on how to write a good intro for an essay which has a flow rather than just few sentences put together. How I can bring the different sentences into one cohesive intro paragraph.

[stpmax]

Start by determining what your thesis or main argument might be.  Once that is a problem solved work on creating the meat around it.  Check out the lessons at Magoosh.  They're pretty rad.

[knp]

Basically, (one) introductory formula for one of these essays is "The position stated in the question is correct/incorrect because of X and Y. Now let me expand upon that slightly with my own argument, Z." So, "Governments should not provide financial support to cities for cultural reasons, both because governmental support is an inefficient way to preserve culture and because, in fact, rural areas preserve more of a nation's common culture. Cities and rural areas are both integral parts of the nation, but because cities are more exposed to change, rural areas preserve more common culture."

Then you give one body paragraph to supporting X, another to supporting Y, and in the conclusion wrap it up by, if possible, returning to a brief mention of Z.

 

This is but one formula, but I've always found that having my introduction be exactly two thoughts long, and usually two sentences long, worked for me. So: Claim is correct/incorrect because of Reason 1 and Reason 2. From this we can see that My Argument is the correct interpretation.

[sanmks]

Thanks.

[PeakPerformance]

Basically, (one) introductory formula for one of these essays is "The position stated in the question is correct/incorrect because of X and Y. Now let me expand upon that slightly with my own argument, Z." So, "Governments should not provide financial support to cities for cultural reasons, both because governmental support is an inefficient way to preserve culture and because, in fact, rural areas preserve more of a nation's common culture. Cities and rural areas are both integral parts of the nation, but because cities are more exposed to change, rural areas preserve more common culture."

Then you give one body paragraph to supporting X, another to supporting Y, and in the conclusion wrap it up by, if possible, returning to a brief mention of Z.

 

This is but one formula, but I've always found that having my introduction be exactly two thoughts long, and usually two sentences long, worked for me. So: Claim is correct/incorrect because of Reason 1 and Reason 2. From this we can see that My Argument is the correct interpretation.

 

I strongly recommend that you do not follow this simple formula and regard positions as either correct or incorrect. On many of the prompts you may agree with a part of the statement but disagree with another part.  For instance, consider the prompt: "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public." You might argue that while it is necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public on occasion, it is never desirable and should be limited as much as possible. In this case, my first body paragraph would explain why information must be held on occasion (e.g., national security or public safety), the second body paragraph would focus on why it is not desirable that political leaders withhold information often (democracy depends upon an informed public), and my third paragraph might discuss ways to ensure politicians don't abuse their power/ability to withhold information from the public. Such a thesis presents a more nuanced and insightful position than a simple correct/incorrect approach. In this case, instead of introducing two or three reasons to support the thesis with each body paragraph focusing on a reason, you would have each body paragraph focusing on supporting a different part of the thesis.

[knp]

Fair enough. I meant for the nuance to come in in Z, but I still think correct/incorrect is a helpful way to begin thinking about these questions. Then, when you (a really struggling writer) can write a simpler essay, you can expand to the more nuanced version that will unlock even higher scores. On the other hand, I ain't a professional!

[sanmks]

Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.

Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

 

In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years because the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. The previous statement is flawed as can be seen by analysing it from various viewpoints which only not only challenge its time period defined for success but also its path to achieve success.

 

 

Defining a time period of five years for changing the staus quo is bad as it will disincentivise the incumbent to perform well as he or she will think that even if they perform extraordinarily their term would not be extended. How the claim came up with the magical figure of 5 years to change the incumbents should also be questioned. Sometimes even the governments allot 15 years as time period to achieve certain goals like the United Nation's Millenium Development Goals and the soon to be signed Sustainable Development Goals.

 

 

Staus quo should be upheld when things are going well for an organisation. Only when there are problems with the current incumbent they should be relieved from their duty and new persons be put into their positions. Sometimes those in power rule for decades without any problem and sometimes they only last a few months even. It depends on the qualities of the person holding the seat, the time they will remain on their seats without degradation in quality of their governance.

 

It is okay to have elections for the posts of governance every five years to check the public perception, but to not allow the incumbent to run again for the office is unacceptable. Even in the US a person can run for President again after completing his or her term of 4 years, so why should one change the incumbent after 5 years. Revitalization through change can be brought by introducing new reforms by the incumbent rather than changing the person in power itself. 

 

Changing the incumbents every five years does not serve the purpose of achieving success through revitalization of leadership it only serves as a disincentive for the incumbent. It will not serve any purpose and this should not be exercised. Even without changing the incumbents new reforms can be introduced which can serve the organisation better.