Please review my Issue task.

[sanmks]

Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.

 

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.

 

Every year national governments around the world introduce bills in their parliaments after deliberating over the various agendas it has in its mind for the growth and prosperity of the nations. When these bills are passed they become laws and help the nations in governance. These laws should not only be concerned about the nation’s inhabitants who are humans but also of animals. Nations should therefore pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.

Human beings have the moral and social responsibility to preserve the habitat of its fellow animals in its natural pristine form. The animals have the fundamental right to occupy the wilderness to which they belong. Non-interference in the matter of animals will help them live a peaceful life in isolation. The natural biological cycle or the food chain is also preserved when we leave the wild creatures to themselves. Human interference can lead to changes in the food chain which will be detrimental to the well-being of animals.

Already we have lost innumerable species due to our own neglect. These species of flora and fauna cannot be replicated or brought back to life again. This is a huge loss to our society. We must preserve the remaining wilderness with utmost care and make legislations to protect such habitats. The legislations should be effective in preserving the right of wild animals and plants. Even if we have to give up economic benefits that could have been achieved if the wilderness was put for another purpose we should preserve as much as we can.

Sometimes in the wilderness there are not only animals and plants but also humans in the form of tribals who get affected by the interference of the modern man. So the concept of wilderness is not only pertaining to flora and fauna but also primitive humans as such whose rights must be protected.

When a policy of preservation of the remaining wilderness in their natural state will be passed as law it would be a big win for all those environmentalists who have put all their lives for the cause of wildlife. Such laws will help in the sustainable development of humans along with animals. But these laws should never serve to hamper economic development of the nations by killing every other economic that can be realized without having a negative effect on the wilderness itself.

We have seen the positive impacts of the opening up of wildlife sanctuaries which preserve the habitats in their natural state and help prevent hunting of animals or smuggling of various important wildlife products like sandalwood. This sanctuaries are the consequences of the laws serving the cause of wildlife preservation. Everyone must have reverence for such laws. 

Edited July 19, 2015 by sanmks

[firewitch]

Organization

    Your introductory sentence and sentence #2 are fluff that is irrelevant to your argument. The first paragraph should re-state the issue (not verbatim) and your succinct argument regarding that issue, the gist of which might be something like: "The debate over using public lands for environmental preservation versus economic development is ongoing in many nations around the globe. Environmental preservation should take priority over economic considerations because....(then two or three reasons, that you will expound on in the subsequent paragraphs).

     The arguments I gather from your essay are 1) animals, plants, and indigenous people have a right to live in their natural habitat, 2) the extinction of species cannot be undone, 3) sustainable economic development is possible.

     I think it is worthwhile to take one minute before you begin writing your essay to write a rough outline of topic sentences, which has an introduction of the issue, three main points you want to make, and your conclusions about the issue. Then make each paragraph of your essay elaborate on those topic sentences. With this technique, you might have included paragraph #4 as part of paragraph #1, and your paragraphs #3 and #5 might have been less rambling. The concluding paragraph you wrote looks like an extension of the argument in paragraph #5, instead of wrapping up all three points into a solid statement of your position.

 

Grammar

      "various agendas it has" should be "they have"

      "habitat of its fellow animals" should be "of their fellow animals"

      "make legislations" is awkward. Write "pass legislation" or "make laws" instead

      "was put for another purpose" should be either "put to" or "used for"

      comma needed between "another purpose" and "we should"

      not sure what "as such" means in that sentence

      Paragraph 5 has many syntax issues, to the point of confusion. 

           "wilderness in their natural state will be passed as law it would be a big win for all those environmentalists who have put all their lives for the cause" might better be written as "wilderness in its natural state is made into law, it is a victory for environmentalists who have dedicated their lives for the cause"

           "by killing every other economic that can be realized without" ....economic what? Are you saying that environmental protection laws should not hamper economic development policies that would not negatively effect the wilderness? That seems to be an unnecessary point.

          "This sanctuaries" should be "These sanctuaries"

       The main weakness in your grammar is inconsistent agreement of singular and plural persons.

 

Reasoning

      In my opinion, you have failed to adequately consider the consequences (for humans) of implementing a policy that prioritizes wilderness protection over economic needs. Your essay seems naïve, with too much reliance on what seems morally right to you, and not enough consideration for the social and political forces that might argue against your position. What if the "tribals" do not want to continue living in isolation? What if people adjacent to the sanctuaries are starving and start poaching for their survival? I think the essay would have been stronger if, in making your third point, you had been able to address how sustainable economic development serves the needs of the nation outside of environmentally protected areas.

 

 

I hope this critique is useful,

[sanmks]

Thanks for the elaborate review. This is very detailed and clearly pin points my mistakes. I knew the points were hastily put forward and the sense of flow was missing. I would surely ponder over these remarks and try to improve my essay skills. 

[sanmks]

How do I fare on this one? Another review by firewitch would be greatly appreciated. 

 

Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.

 

Government should help meritorious students lacking economic capital by funding their college education. There should be no economic hindrances which the students should face and the access to college education should be independent of matters related to money. Such unprecedented policy of free college education for economically weaker section will have a huge positive impact on the nation.

 

Universities accept students on a merit basis. Therefore all those students who have been granted admission are sure to have educational competence to join the said university. They have passed the threshold required for admission and should not be prevented from joining the educational elite based on their economic status alone. Governments should help them by funding their college education such that they face no economic barrier in joining the colleges of their choice.

 

Government by passing the free college education for economically weak but meritorious students would help reduce the income inequality gap. The gini coefficient (income inequality index; directly proportional to income inequality) would surely reduce when the economically weak students after completing college would get well-paying jobs. Their exposure to well-paying jobs would not be hindered by their economic status. This would surely reduce the income inequality gap and therefore the gini coefficient. Even the economically weak students would prosper on the same level as their affluent counterparts.

 

Though the capitalists would point out that such policy is purely socialist and there is no space for such policies in a capitalist society, in which every person should fend for themselves. But education is an important part of the society which should not be accessible only to the lucky few with the means. Governments have the responsibility to provide equal opportunity to all students in joining colleges independent of their economic status.

 

But the important point to note is that though education plays an important role in the society, government has other goals as well. It has only a limited capital with which to achieve all its goals. So there has to be a limit to the government funding of college education. The fund value is to have an upper cap beyond which funds cannot be allocated for college education. Also the college funding should be done in an unbiased manner not favoring any ethnic group or race.

 

Based on above claims one is able to see the importance of government funding of college education for economically weak meritorious students. The benefits of such policy have been discussed and its limitation as well. So a somewhat clear understanding on the impacts of the passing such policy is achieved which points out the necessity of such policy in any governmental framework around the world.

Edited July 21, 2015 by sanmks

[firewitch]

Organization:

Very much improved!

Your concluding paragraph is a bit weak, but these are always hard to do. I think you should avoid phrasing it in such a way that it claims you have made your points. You can probably get away with just summarizing your arguments - refer back to your introductory paragraph by restating the importance of equality and how such a policy benefits everyone.

 

Grammar:

"There should be no economic hindrances which the students should face" - rephrase so that you don't repeat the word "should".

"Such unprecedented policy...weaker section" - this is awkward and a little confusing. It's either a policy (an unprecedented policy) or policies (such unprecedented policies). "Section" should be plural, unless you meant "sector", or unless you want to write "the economically weaker section.

First sentence of paragraph #3 needs commas bracing "by passing ....students"

The gini coefficient would surely be reduced...

Commas again should brace this section of sentence #2:  "after completing college"

First sentence of paragraph #4 is not grammatically correct. You could fix that by leaving off "Though", insert comma after "socialist", and insert another "that":  "and that there is no space"

Do not begin sentences, let alone paragraphs, with "but". Just leave it out and start with the next word.

Governments either have a limited amount of capital, or they have limited capital. Not "a limited capital"

 

Reasoning:

Good!

 

If you have access to Microsoft Word, you can use its grammar checker to help you with problems like commas, syntax, and agreement of number.

 

Good luck!

[sanmks]

Thanks for the detailed review. It feels great to hear that my writing has improved but still a lot needs to be done on subjects like conclusion and grammar.

[sanmks]

Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study.

 

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

 

Nowadays students have variety of disciplines from which to choose their major when applying to a university. In the engineering sciences alone there are a lot of new streams like Nanotechnology & Biotechnology, which were absent from the scene a few decades ago. But to force or make it mandatory for a student to choose a variety of courses outside his or her field of study is not a welcomed move. Such thought would do more harm than good and would be detrimental for society.

 

Forcing a student to take a variety of courses outside his or her field of study is bad. Universities can’t dictate their own terms on matters related to students choice of subjects.  Every student has the right or the freedom to choose what subjects they would like to study. They are no more children; they are adults now and can make choices on their own best that best serve their interests.

 

 

When universities will force students to take a variety of courses outside their field of study not everyone will accept this with open arms. There will never be whole hearted support for such thought. Students will only takes these courses for the sake of taking a course. They would just try to achieve the passing marks in these subjects as they would have no interest in them.

 

 

Though variety kills the humdrum of life and bring the diverse experiences to oneself simply forcing students to take a variety of courses outside their field of study would be bad. Students should instead be encouraged to look into the benefits of taking few courses outside their field of study. Taking few courses outside their field of study can lead to more holistic growth of these students. Sometimes knowing a few other things than your major can help one in life.

 

Variety in itself is good, but forcing it is bad. Students have the right to choose their own subjects by their own free will. Subjecting them to force would produce a half-hearted result that would not serve the purpose of introducing the variety.