Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'evaluate essay'.
The professor give us some information that was completely averse to the reasons that mentioned in the lecture. The first reason was all about polar dinosaurs that live in the area that temperature fluctuate wildly according to season cycle. Some scientists don’t think in this way and believed that polar regions was no as rare as they are today and perhaps, dinosaurs migrate to warmer places in cold seasons or they might hibernate like other animals to get through cold seasons without much trouble. The passage mentioned that the special position of dinosaurs legs that enable them to move fast and run is a firm reason that they are endotherms. But professor believe that their legs was positioned underneath their body because dinosaurs are very heavy animals and these legs help them to move their huge body. Also, passage indicates that the presence of haversian canals is a good reason to categorize dinosaurs as endotherms, because all endotherm animals have this structure that allow the animal to grow quickly and continuously. But, recently scientists find another things in their bones called growth rings. This finding indicates that dinosaurs stop growing during colder periods of time and they just growing in special seasons.
Question : Some young adults want independence from their parents as soon as possible.Other young adults prefer to live with their families for a longer time. Which of these situations do you think better? From time of even the foragers, young adults have stayed in the guidance and sight of their parents. Living and staying under guidance of family nurtures a bond and intimacy amongst members and younger ones, in particular, as it helps in moulding and imparting a sense of oneness and love for family members amongst the young adults. In my opinion, it is wise for young adults to stay with their family for a longer time. It only helps both the younger ones and the family as well in long run. First of all, when the younger ones stay with the family, they can directly share their problems wit hthe more experienced and elder family members. There are instances where younger ones stayng away from family and being bullied upon by colleagues or schoolmates often gets depressed as they donot have anyone to share their feelings with. In such case presence of family members is always supportive to younger adults. Adolescent is also a ripe age for young adults to walk on a wrong path, the close watch of family does counters any possibilty of such likes. Second, it’s not only the younger adult that are benefitted but also the family as well when the younger section stays along. With technological improvement, there is a huge gap developing between the newer and older generation. The presence of younger ones in family does help the elder ones in tackling the day to day tasks like online shopping, reserving a flight and so. Also, The pesence of young ones adds colours to life and motivates the elder ones to stay happy and joyous. While the elder ones are not able to take care of themselves the presence of young ones does add a hand in the care, when in need. In conclusion, The sense of oneness and the support of family members can never be debated. Togetherness of a family is like a bunch of sticks that is hard to bend but when the sticks are dispersed individually, each can be easily broken. Younger adults should stay with family members for as long as possible, for the pressure of jobs and career advancement is going to take them away one day or the other. And then both side will be left all alone on their own self.
AWA argument : Airline industry representatives have recently argued that flying is safer than driving,citing two separate studies. First, U.S. statistics show that each year there areapproximately 40,000 deaths in automobile accidents versus only approximately 200in flight accidents. Second, studies indicate that pilots are four times less likely thanaverage to have accidents on the road.Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered inorder to determine whether the argument is reasonable. Be sure to explain whateffects the answers to these questions would have on the validity of the argument My essay: The above argument claims that flying is safer than driving after citing two different studies. But the author fails to mention under what conditions are those studies correct. Are the weather conditions for flying always favourable ? Is the flight always in a good condition to be flown ? Are all the pilots good are handling exceptions in climate and flight accidents ? Comparing flying and driving is a very broad idea and it is almost impossible to compare these two without checking the parameters for the comparison such as distance, location, weather conditions, vehicle condition. What if it is heavily raining or there is a high probabilty of having a thunderstorm, is flying still better then ? What if the distance to be travelled only a few kilometers , is flying option available for such distances ? Obviously not, and hence the comparison is baseless in this case. The author compares by just considering the number of accidents in both cases. A road is full of vehicles and commuters wheras a sky is clear and open space. Therefore, the chances of having an automobile accident is very high than that of having a flight accident. Do pilots face a traffic jam in air ? Of course not, then why is the number of accidents compared ? Is it possible for everyone to use a flight as a daily mode of travel ? Pilots are trained for the best and worst scenarios and so are drivers. The author simply mentions that pilots are four time less likely than average to have accidents on the road but doesn't mention the mode of travel on road used by the pilot i.e is he walking, driving a car, riding a bike or simply travelling through a cab or a taxi. It fails to mention, whether, pilots if driving are driving with high speed or with low speed or an average speed. The above argument is dependent on lot of assumptions and fails to address a lot of factors and hence it can be concluded that the argument is not at all valid. Sample essay: The purpose of the airline industry’s argument, elucidated in the passage above, isto convince the reader that flying is safer than driving. The industry representativescite two pieces of evidence to support their conclusion—first, that fewer people dieper year in flight; second, that airline pilots get into fewer driving accidents. To showthat these arguments are reasonable, several questions need to be answered. The firstquestion has to do with the proportion of deaths represented by the figures of annualdeaths; the second has to do with the degree to which being a safe driver translatesinto being a safe pilot.Suppose the CEO of a car company tried to convince shareholders that thecompany was succeeding in a marketing campaign to sell a certain kind of car bysaying that over 10,000 cars had sold since the campaign began. The obviousquestion on the shareholders’ minds should be the fraction of the total number of carssold that this figure represents. If 10,000 cars represents less than 1% of the entiremarket on cars for this period, presumably they would not be very pleased with thecampaign. Similarly, knowing that only 200 people, versus 40,000 people, died inflight versus on the road is not informative until we know the proportion of the totalnumber of fliers and drivers that these numbers represent. If far fewer people fly thandrive, 200 could represent a large fraction of all fliers. And if the proportion of flightdeaths is higher than the proportion of car-deaths, then regardless of the total number,it would be fair to say that flying is not safer than driving. The question that needs tobe answered, in other words, is how many people fly and drive each year. This wouldthen allow us to calculate the portion of the total that these figures represent.Turning to the second piece of evidence used to support the argument that flying issafer than driving, we learn that airline pilots are safer-than-average drivers, havingfour times fewer accidents than the norm. In order for this fact to be convincing,several questions would need to be answered. First of all, we would need to knowwhether being a safe driver translates into being a safe pilot. But more than this, wewould need to know what being a safe pilot means. Keep in mind that we are solelyevaluating the argument that flying is safe relative to driving. So knowing that pilotsare “safe fliers” is nonsensical unless we can evaluate that claim in the context ofdriving. Therefore, a question that needs to be answered to make this argument validis what having a “safe pilot” means for airline passengers. An example of an answerto this question that would make the argument more valid would be that for any given hourof flight, pilots are vastly less likely to crash than for a given hour of driving. This is quiteclearly a long distance away from the statement as initially phrased—evidence that theargument as-is is in need of serious revision.In sum, we see in this passage the beginnings of a coherent argument, but moreinformation is needed in order to fully evaluate the strength of the claims. Namely,we would need to know what fractions 200 and 40,000 represent of the entirepopulation of fliers and drivers, respectively, and also what implications being a safedriver has for being a safe airline pilot.
Hello everybody! I wrote an essay for my friend, but still need somebody's help. Many thanks for help. "The Overman in Nietsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra" Friedrich Nietzsche introduces the Overman in Thus Spoke Zarathustra as the next progression in Human evolution. Humanity in its current state presents the bridge from ape to Overman, from proclaimed beast to a higher form of mankind. This is evident in Zarathustra's selection of only a few followers as opposed to addressing masses to establish his new goal of humanity, the showcasing of the Overman as an overcoming of mankind, as well as the depiction of others going "under" for the sake of the Overman's forthcoming. All can be tied to the ecological process of evolution in Zarathustra's vision of the gradual emergence of such evolved beings. The Overman embodies the progression to self-mastery as an evolution of mind rather than body, "but the awakened and knowing say: body am I entirely, and nothing else; and soul [and mind] is only a word for something about the body" (p. 144). Mind and body are in fact two parts of one complete entity, so evolution of the mind must also result in an evolution of the body, which aligns with the fundamental principles of Darwinism. Just as mutation can slowly lead a population to new compositions through spreading from a singular organism, Zarathustra realizes he must find a select subset of followers in order to exert lasting influence. Unsuccessful when addressing the masses, his teachings prevail only in the few individuals who are capable of comprehending them. He himself comes to his realizations in isolation only, when disconnected from civilization, much like a form of genetic drift. Ideas hence formulated proceed through the metamorphoses necessary to achieve a higher form of thinking. "Zarathustra had a goal; he threw his ball: now you, my friends, are the heirs of my goal; to you I throw my golden ball. More than anything, I like to see you, my friends, throwing the golden ball. And so I still linger a little on the earth: forgive me for that"(p. 186). The "golden ball" representing his teachings depicts a passing of his beliefs unto to his followers, so that they may spread them and pass them on as well, like genes passed from parent to offspring. Zarathustra presents the Overman's way of thinking as the ultimate goal of humanity: all should strive towards thought processes as the Overman would. Previously stating that humanity as of present lacks a common singular goal, though "a thousand goals have there been so far, for there have been a thousand peoples. Only the yoke for the thousand necks is still lacking: the one goal is lacking. Humanity still has no goal" (p. 172) and as such, is itself lacking. The intent of any species, ecologically speaking, is to persist and survive, but even greater so to evolve to dominate and to thrive. Scientifically, this is explained through natural selection, which is at its core, random and undirected, resulting only from a matter of chance and circumstance. The phenomenon of survival of the fittest is ever changing and essentially entirely attributable to serendipity. However, Nietzsche strays slightly from Darwinism in the sense of an evolution in a given direction, that of the highest thinking individuals. Rather than conforming to the aforementioned mold of natural selection, he desires a different kind of superior beings, those faithful to the earth and able to determine their own rules and conventions: the Overmen. Zarathustra assigns Humanity the goal of an evolution through advancement of the mind. Achievement of this can be accomplished by remaining "faithful to the earth, my brothers, with the power of your virtue. Let your gift-giving love and your knowledge serve the meaning of the earth... Lead back to the earth the virtue that flew away, -back to the body, back to life, that it may give the earth a meaning, a human meaning" (p. 188). Alongside Human development through thought, the earth will progress as well, for it is perceived through the eyes of humanity, and servitude of the earth becomes the human purpose. "The earth shall yet become a site of recovery. And even now a new fragrance surrounds it, bringing salvation-and a new hope," (p. 189) and with the coming of the Overman the earth will also benefit. There is no more rudimentary an example of evolution than progression from ape to man, precisely referenced in Zarathustra's speeches. Rather than a direct descent, evolutionary theory provides a common ancestor as the source for a species progression. Ancient forms branch out to allow for new incarnations. The Overman presents as such a branching off from humankind in its present state, which serves to bridge us from ape to overman. A byproduct of this progress is that present man must be overcome in order to achieve this. "All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape" (p. 124). The human transition to Overman is a necessary progression for the mutual advancement of both mankind and the earth. "Verily, a polluted stream is man. One must be a sea to be able to receive a polluted stream without becoming unclean. Behold, I teach you the overman: he is this sea; in him your great contempt can go under" (p. 125) and humankind as a whole will evolve as a result. "What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under" (p. 127). Consequently for evolution to occur there must also be an end; for creation there must be destruction, for progress of mankind the present man must be left behind. In the original German, Nietzsche presents this as the verb untergehen, which translates as "going under", and more significantly as "to perish". For the sake of the Overman, present man must go under. This concept is fundamental to the evolution, and thusly Zarathustra speaks of going under in a relatively positive light, with a love for those who cannot themselves move forward toward Overman. A "love [for] those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, but who sacrifice themselves for the earth, that the earth may some day become the Overman's. [For] him who lives to know, and who wants to know so that the overman may live some day. And thus he wants to go under. [Love for] him who works and invents to build a house for the overman and to prepare earth, animal, and plant for him: for thus he wants to go under" (p. 127). For the sake of the Overman, man must willingly come to an end either through bridging the gap and moving toward Overman, or sacrificing himself for the greater purpose. Zarathustra's love extends to him â€œwho justifies future and redeems past generations: for he wants to perish of the present" (p. 128). This is why war is depicted positively as well, as an instrument of change, which produces forward steps in mankind's evolution. "War and courage have accomplished more great things than love of the neighbor", (p. 159) for they act as a powerful force which drives humanity in a certain direction. Zarathustra believes the ecological balance of the earth requires such a radical push, as to achieve the desirable outcomes. â€œAll too many live, like worm eaten rot in a tree. Die at the right time. All-too-many live, and all-too-long they hang on their branches. Would that a storm came to shake all this worm-eaten rot from the tree!" (p. 184). In returning to the earth, man likewise serves his purpose. Zarathustra's vision for the Overman is a human being who transcends beyond what mankind is currently capable of, in thought and in practice. Necessary to the coming of the Overman, is the overcoming of the present man, but it is a progression toward a superior being of intellect and thought which Nietzsche presents. The Overman is a being who gives meaning to earth, and is faithful to the earth, which additionally alludes to the underlying ecological message. Zarathustra sets forth a trajectory for mankind to strive for it, which is why he addresses only his few followers, and asks them to pass on his teachings, but also to question them. Â Like the Overman, they are meant to create their own values and conventions. The name "Overman" itself implies ascension and superiority; that one must cross over a bridge to achieve it and achieve higher than the current state. Inversely there can also be descent under the loom of the Overman for those who cannot attain it, not seen as destructive, but rather a necessary result of the process of moving forward. The evolution of the human mind may not entirely follow the principles of natural selection, but it does embody Darwin's theory of development from earlier forms of life, which is deeply rooted in natural systems of the earth, just as is mirrored in the Overman's connection to the earth. As the human mind evolves, so does the human being, which in Zarathustra's eyes preferably takes us toward the Overman. Sources used: Nietzsche & Evolution, H. James Birx looks at Darwin’s profound influence on Nietzsche’s dynamic philosophy. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche Tools used: Chegg - many thanks for tutor Madina J. Ultius pro - thanks Mary Weiler for advices Grammarly, gramatical mistakes checker