arsha

please revise my essay It is more enjoyable to have a job and you work only three days a week and long hours rather than work five days a week with a shorter hours. Nowadays, the working hours are one of the controversial issues among employers and employees. No one can ever deny the significance of this discussion. In general these heated debates can be divided into two lines of thought in the contemporary world. While some people prefer to work three days a week in long hours, the other individuals hold the opposite view due to their personal traits or educational background. However, when it comes to me, I believe that it is more beneficial for people to work shorter in five days a week without a shadow of a doubt. There are a lot of cogent reasons to support this belief, but the two most common important of them are effectiveness and healthiness of employees. In the first place, the efficiency parameter is the most important factor for every employer. Individuals should work effectively to be away from the risk of being fired. In fact, people need to sleep as much as they work to be efficient. So, in modern societies people usually work and sleep eight hours a day equally. This hypothesis is also in accord with an earlier research. Scientific studies in 2012 published on a healthcare journal demonstrate that as working hours a day increase, the brain's efficiency decreases to a large extent. Thus, in order to work in an effective way people indisputably should work shorter hours. In addition to the reason mentioned above, healthiness is the important thing that every people have in their life. People should always take care of themselves to work properly. Long hour working may cause serious mental and physical problems. This fact could be illuminated by a prime example from my own experience. I was joint the Electric Vehicle group at university. We should work hard to complete the construction of this car. So, we worked hard in days and nights. After the third day, several students became exhausted and sick. At the end, we not only did not reach the competition, but also became physically ill. In fact, we found that in order to work better we should rest enough and relax our body as much as it needs. Therefore, if an individual works in long hours, he or she would definitely become unhealthy. To sum up briefly, we may come to the conclusion that, it is better undoubtedly to work five days a week in shorter time instead of three days a week in longer time. The importance of health coupled with effectiveness of work; convince me of this point of view.

Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss the strange weapon called a burning mirror. While the former chiefly states that it is just a historical story or a myth, the latter strongly criticizes the theories mentioned in the reading passage. In other words, the professor refutes each of the author's reason, and expresses the weak points of each idea. First according to the lecture, the professor makes the point that, it is not necessary to use a single sheet to create a parabolic shape. They could use many small pieces of mirror and attach them into a parabolic shape. In other hand, this hypothesis is in conflict with the one illustrated in the reading passage which says that ancient Greeks had not enough knowledge and technology to produce this huge and curved device. Therefore, the professor directly rebuts the author's claim. The second point of difference between the lecture and the article concerns the ignition of the fire. The reading expresses that it is a time consuming action to burn a single piece of wood with this device. It also says that during this time, the ship should be stand in a specific area without moving anywhere. However, the professor's view is involved in a dispute with this assumption. She explains that there were some other materials that would start firing in a couple of second. One of these materials was pitch, which is a sticky substance and burns very quickly. Then, the fire could reach the wood and burn the whole ship. Hence, the professor's view contradicts that of the author's. Finally the professor ends his statement with an assertion that during the war, enemies did not see anything like flams. They just saw that the ship started to burn suddenly. Nevertheless, this notion raises doubts about the discussion in the reading passage which suggests that at this period, the Greeks were using flaming arrows to attack the enemy, and so, it was not necessary to invent such a device like these mirrors for battles. Thus, this opinion, is likewise, rejected by the professor.Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss the strange weapon called a burning mirror. While the former chiefly states that it is just a historical story or a myth, the latter strongly criticizes the theories mentioned in the reading passage. In other words, the professor refutes each of the author's reason, and expresses the weak points of each idea. First according to the lecture, the professor makes the point that, it is not necessary to use a single sheet to create a parabolic shape. They could use many small pieces of mirror and attach them into a parabolic shape. In other hand, this hypothesis is in conflict with the one illustrated in the reading passage which says that ancient Greeks had not enough knowledge and technology to produce this huge and curved device. Therefore, the professor directly rebuts the author's claim. The second point of difference between the lecture and the article concerns the ignition of the fire. The reading expresses that it is a time consuming action to burn a single piece of wood with this device. It also says that during this time, the ship should be stand in a specific area without moving anywhere. However, the professor's view is involved in a dispute with this assumption. She explains that there were some other materials that would start firing in a couple of second. One of these materials was pitch, which is a sticky substance and burns very quickly. Then, the fire could reach the wood and burn the whole ship. Hence, the professor's view contradicts that of the author's. Finally the professor ends his statement with an assertion that during the war, enemies did not see anything like flams. They just saw that the ship started to burn suddenly. Nevertheless, this notion raises doubts about the discussion in the reading passage which suggests that at this period, the Greeks were using flaming arrows to attack the enemy, and so, it was not necessary to invent such a device like these mirrors for battles. Thus, this opinion, is likewise, rejected by the professor.

please revise my essay. thank you in advance. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? In order to become financially responsible adults, children should learn to manage their own money at young age. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Nowadays upbringing of children becomes one of the most controversial issues among psychologists or even households in the society. No one can ever deny the significance of his or her child's responsibility character in the contemporary world. In general, these heated debates may be divided into two lines of thought in the society. While some people think that children from young ages should become financially responsible, others hold the opposite view regarding their own characters or educational background. However, when it comes to me, I disagree with the statement and believe that when adults become mature, they can account for they financials. I think that there are a lot of cogent reasons for this choice, but, the two most common reasons are children like to have everything that they see and adults start to be thought how to manage their money at university. In the first place, children tend to spend a great deal of money to obtain whatever they want regardless of their price. Childs in teenage period or before then, do not think about how they can manage their amount of money or how much money they can save. They just want to play and become cheerful with whatever they bought. This hypothesis is in accord with earlier research. Psychological studies -published in 2010 in medical journal- demonstrate that these ages are the most sensitive period of an individual. If parents limit them with the amount of money, they will grow up by the lack of something in their mind. This obstacle would cause serious depression when they become as old as their parents. Thus, children in lower ages do not have the ability to coordinate their expenditure. In addition, adults learn more about economy and finance during collage years. Children cannot manage and responsible for their money until they are taught how to carry out that. Adults in the age of 18 have a turning point in their life, they become mature, their mind become fully developed and they are ready for complex studies. In this period, one of the mandatory lessons which everybody should pass it, is the finance lesson. In this introductory course, people learn how to handle their amount of money. This means that they become familiar with simple principles and concepts of finance such as; income, outgo, expenditure, interest rate, and so on. In my view, in the time, by the advantage of basic knowledge of economy, we can expect from adults to be financially responsible. Therefore, careful scrutiny on the responsibility of adults reveals the importance of having the knowledge about it. To sum up briefly, we may come to the conclusion that children cannot become accountable at young ages. The lake of information until collage years coupled with the tendency to buy and have anything to have pleasure, convince me to have this point of view. At the end, it is my hope that all the adults and children eventually may have charge of their financial issues in the not too distant future.