paulcypaul

follow this link. Answers to Real Essay Questionsthis have some really well coordinated essays. it is not necessary to follow the same style. hopefully you will get an idea... you need to sign up

your ideas are ok. but an important thing is the organisation of your ideas. your essay should have a definite introduction , 2 or three body paragraphs and a conclusion. You need to present your ideas in an orderly and in a systamatic manner . read some good essays so that you can easily understand the format. then give another try.. you can do better.

thanks for your constructive criticism .. i will keep trying... :grad:

We learn through direct experience; to accept a theory without experiencing it is to learn nothing at all." Is it possible to experience each and everything we inculcate in our life through direct experience? It’s for sure that our life will be too short to have that done. The author here asserts that everything should be learned through direct experience. According to him accepting a theory without experiencing it, is of no value. It is undeniable that experience is the best teacher and anything learned through our own experience has an indelible effect in our mind and through out life. The claim here places too much importance on the knowledge through experience overlooking the fact that there are a lot of ideas and facts we need to assimilate without direct experience. I fundamentally disagree with the author’s stand for the reason that it is unthinkable to validate all knowledge in this universe through direct experience as well as essential to imbibe some values for granted. The primary reason for my disapproval is that mostly it is unavoidable to learn the basic lessons in life by direct experience. Mostly we learn it from our parents and teachers although we may have a direct encounter with certain aspects later in our life . To illustrate when our parents teach us that “ honesty is the best policy” and “cleanliness is next to godliness” , we put the authenticity of these values on the profound experience of our parents. It will be stubborn to neglect those lessons for the fact that it’s not derived from our direct experience. Moreover we cant deny the fact that we involuntarily learn many important things which shape our life from various sources like history and good books without having an actual experience. Same is the case of our religious beliefs ,to say none of us have direct experience to make sure that god exists. Yet we believe that there is some invisible force which controls this universe. That kind of conviction is beneficial in a number of ways in our life . It will give some kind of comfort especially in certain dreadful circumstances and it is too good to avoid. When world is progressing the knowledge is abounding. There are Innumeraable theories put forward by imminent scientists which govern this universe and forms central force of our life. We learn Handful of them by experiencing it such as the theory of gravitation.the theory of inertia etc. Nevertheless a lot of them are incapable of direct experience. Typical example is theory of evolution. Darwin put forward this theory that all organism including human beings are continuously undergoing the process of evolution. It’s a well substantiated theory but we cant experience it directly . Is that means our adherence to that theory is fatuous? Or we have to wait till we have the opportunity to experience it by our selves? The author’s contention have some vacuousness in this respect . Admittedly knowledge derived by experience is superior to any other way of acquiring it . It will have a profound influence on each indiviual . However it is absurd to say that everything should be perceived by experience. At the same time it is entirely impossible to ratify everything empirically. To sum up anything studied and assimilated by experience has its own value. But there are a lot of situations in life when we need to learn new ideas and facts without direct experience. So too much emphasis of learning through experience is not feasible . :hmm:

thanks a lot ...for your thorough scrutinations...I will try my best to improve my style ... thanks really for boosting my confidence

written under time constraints...this is my first post.dont dishearten me without rating pleasse :hmm:High profile awards like the Nobel & Oscars do more damage than good as they indicate that only a few people receiving them are deserving and thus give rise to discrimination. Is it injudicious to applaud those who have made praiseworthy contributions.? High profile awards like Nobel and Oscars are meant for showing the worlds admiration for the unmatched and astute work done by efficient people in various fields of science and arts. The claim is understating the benefits of these awards . It is not wise to judge in such a manner that only the few people receiving them are worth and this will further create discrimination, because these skillful people are not considering these Oscars or Nobel as their final objective and these meritorious awards are always tokens for great achievements since we respect their unprecedental work . First of all, In every field there are acclaims for those who stood in front by their hardwork and genius. We respect them with the awards of excellence and participate in their satisfaction and happiness. That doesn’t underestimate the significance of other fellow beings and their role to play in the society. These awards can be considered as an inspiration for others to work hard and accomplish their goals. To exemplify consider an astute student getting gold medal for his academic excellence. Can it be considerd as unfair towards other students? On the contrary that should encourage and motivate others to do meritorious presentation of their skills in the field. More over it will further boost the self esteem of those who received merits for their talents.. These awards are not the final word in measuring the true success in life. Secondly these awards are not the end of their magnificent carrier. They are not putting an abrupt stop in reaching their goal after getting these awards. They will be still continuing their endeavour to get things done for the betterment of the community. To illustrate, madam curie after getting the nobel prize for the discovery of radium continued their works. Like wise Mother Theresa for her unparalleled work for the destitute in the slums of Calcutta got the nobel prize for peace. Its obvious that they haven’t worked to get these awards to glorify them. Their primary goal was something more superior. Procuring these medals doesn’t deviate them much from stream lining towards their final goal. Furthermore to illustrate the unfairness of the claim consider a hypothetical example where several participants involved in a game, and obviously the final prize will be awarded to one . So its not rational to say since the awards are procured by a few, others are worthless. And this is not creating any bias among the players. Admittedly in a game everyone is yearning for a medal . Proponents may argue that there is disparity in those awards and these are providing any benefits. Neverthless these awards always have a positive force in boosting those who receive to effort strenuosly to come up successful in the end . In summation. Awards are always various ways for respecting the talented intelligence and insurmountable hardwork done by a few . however it’s not overshadowing the relevance of others or creating disparities in terms of abilities. Reverence to those who deserves respect is always admirable. please rate my esssay .. waiting for good points and contributions...