should the wealthy countries help the poor nations ?
Should the wealthy countries help the poor nations?
Today, it is (seems to be a) debatable (issue about) who is responsible for (of) the poor countries in the world. Is it the responsibility of the third world nations or the wealthy government for (about) the big gap between rich and poor people? This essay will look at the arguments for and against helping poor nations. (Resmieh, have you corrected the mistakes I had highlighted?) [Fairly standard opening, clear thesis - does she deliver?]
There are many reasons for helping poor countries; first of all, there are humanitarian aspects (reasons), such as charity foundations, as religious obligations toward the poor countries. However, many rich countries donate money for political reasons, in order to get a good influence in poor governments' affairs (designs). In this way, they are able to control the supply of oil and other raw material resources. Moreover, the wealthy nations want to ensure markets for their own goods (produces) such as computers, TV, cars, clothes and so on. [Strong stuff, nothing wrong with having opinions, is there?]
Therefore, aid is not necessarily the best method to support a country, as I heard recently that the billions of dollars of aid do(does) not always reach the poor people who are really deserve it! On the other hand, charities in crisis situations do not (doesn’t) solve the existing poverty problem. In my view, (Hereby), there are many other ways to solve this problem such as, opening up a free market, allowing the third world countries to sell their products by themselves, removing restrictions from trade, letting developing countries (them) (to) buy the educational tools with low price . [Wait a minute, where are the arguments FOR rich countries helping the poorer ones? This is a 'for and against' / 'pros and cons' essay, isn't it? You have only argued, very convincingly, AGAINST the case for aid. Maybe the thesis should be changed?]
In conclusion , although there are many people supporting aid to (the help of the) poor nations , I strongly feel that the third world (they) can manage by themselves , just leave them alone without masking support. [This is all very well, but you have not given any evidence how the poor countries can support themselves and avoid being exploited by the richer countries. It seems to me that your 'rhetoric' gets the better of you and this is not a balanced essay. Nevertheless I applaud you for posting this work on the weblog and for blazing the trail for the slackers in the class!]
Lessons to be learned:
1. There is NO need to always have the automatic 'for and against' / 'pros and cons' argument essay.
2. Make sure the conclusion backs up and complements the introduction.
3. It is a worthwhile exercise to re-write your work on the weblog and get even more detailed feedback - especially as it is the weekend and you have some extra time to reflect and so do I!
Please I’ll be more than happy to read your comments and advice.
Any further comments, Dr Rashid?
Dear tony,
I missed the train today.
Although, there is no room for my input after your comments, I have a few things to say.
Rasmieh's maiden attempt is appreciable. More practice will polish her writing.
The concordance between intro and conclusion needs to be improved.
The positives of her essay are:
1- Her brave initiative to write and post on the blog. "A JOURNEY OF THOUSAND MILES STARTS WITH A SINGLE STEP.'
2- The format of the essay with 3:5:5:3 sentence intro, body and conclusion.
3- Content and clear opinion.
The areas to improve:
1- Grammar
2- Vocabulary
3- Cohesion and coherence.
Rashid Saleem
Thanks
Rasmieh
Bravo, Resmieh for taking this courageous step!
Over and out
Tony
Today, it is (seems to be a) debatable (issue about) who is responsible for (of) the poor countries in the world. Is it the responsibility of the third world nations or the wealthy government for (about) the big gap between rich and poor people? This essay will look at the arguments for and against helping poor nations. (Resmieh, have you corrected the mistakes I had highlighted?) [Fairly standard opening, clear thesis - does she deliver?]
There are many reasons for helping poor countries; first of all, there are humanitarian aspects (reasons), such as charity foundations, as religious obligations toward the poor countries. However, many rich countries donate money for political reasons, in order to get a good influence in poor governments' affairs (designs). In this way, they are able to control the supply of oil and other raw material resources. Moreover, the wealthy nations want to ensure markets for their own goods (produces) such as computers, TV, cars, clothes and so on. [Strong stuff, nothing wrong with having opinions, is there?]
Therefore, aid is not necessarily the best method to support a country, as I heard recently that the billions of dollars of aid do(does) not always reach the poor people who are really deserve it! On the other hand, charities in crisis situations do not (doesn’t) solve the existing poverty problem. In my view, (Hereby), there are many other ways to solve this problem such as, opening up a free market, allowing the third world countries to sell their products by themselves, removing restrictions from trade, letting developing countries (them) (to) buy the educational tools with low price . [Wait a minute, where are the arguments FOR rich countries helping the poorer ones? This is a 'for and against' / 'pros and cons' essay, isn't it? You have only argued, very convincingly, AGAINST the case for aid. Maybe the thesis should be changed?]
In conclusion , although there are many people supporting aid to (the help of the) poor nations , I strongly feel that the third world (they) can manage by themselves , just leave them alone without masking support. [This is all very well, but you have not given any evidence how the poor countries can support themselves and avoid being exploited by the richer countries. It seems to me that your 'rhetoric' gets the better of you and this is not a balanced essay. Nevertheless I applaud you for posting this work on the weblog and for blazing the trail for the slackers in the class!]
Lessons to be learned:
1. There is NO need to always have the automatic 'for and against' / 'pros and cons' argument essay.
2. Make sure the conclusion backs up and complements the introduction.
3. It is a worthwhile exercise to re-write your work on the weblog and get even more detailed feedback - especially as it is the weekend and you have some extra time to reflect and so do I!
Please I’ll be more than happy to read your comments and advice.
Any further comments, Dr Rashid?
Dear tony,
I missed the train today.
Although, there is no room for my input after your comments, I have a few things to say.
Rasmieh's maiden attempt is appreciable. More practice will polish her writing.
The concordance between intro and conclusion needs to be improved.
The positives of her essay are:
1- Her brave initiative to write and post on the blog. "A JOURNEY OF THOUSAND MILES STARTS WITH A SINGLE STEP.'
2- The format of the essay with 3:5:5:3 sentence intro, body and conclusion.
3- Content and clear opinion.
The areas to improve:
1- Grammar
2- Vocabulary
3- Cohesion and coherence.
Rashid Saleem
Thanks
Rasmieh
Bravo, Resmieh for taking this courageous step!
Over and out
Tony
posted by Anonymous at
11:36 PM
1 Comments:
Well done Rasmieh!
Thank you for taking the initiative!
You see, we need a strong, confident woman to show us the way!
I shall comment on your essay this afternoon / evening (?) unless Dr Rashid beats me to it.
I'm just having a quick break from marking the Task 1 reports/letters - there is still room for improvement there - right across the board (that means for everyone!)
Bye for now
By
Tony Beale, at 11:33 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home