preventive vigilance essay
Answers
Answered by
5
Hello!
I don't want to write the whole thing ready to use, I'd rather you wrote it yourself using my tips. Contents:
1. Specifying a hypothesis for the essay
2. Defining a goal of the essay
3. Preparing argument to support the hypothesis
4. Building up to reach the goal
5. Finishing up with a short summary
----------------
Hypothesis
Everytime we want to prepare an essay, thesis, discussion, etc., we need a hypothesis. It's the basis, it's what keeps our arugments together, the reason, they are not completely over the top. In case of essays, we normally either agree or disagree with either the statement from the topic or what it indicates.
Here, our starting point is preventive vigilance. We need to think if it's good for the people, not good for the people or maybe, we would like to show both sides of the coin and say that:
We cannot disagree with a fact that preventive vigilance seems to be the answer to better prevention of corruption inside governmental offices. We cannot forget though, that there are more then plenty reasons to be careful with any kind of a system such as this.
... this way, we know that yes, indeed - we agree that it's necessary, but we also point out that it might be a bit dangerous and should be overseen well. Why? Because any kind of prevention is, usually, associated with some kind of invigilation.
At the end of the line, it is always your decision to decide whether you will choose to opt for/against a statement or stand somewhere in the middle.
Goal
You should always have some kind of a goal in mind, as in what do I want to achieve by writing this essay? I don't mean something like I wanna pass my course and get a mark though ;)
Having a goal, means having a purpose for writing. It's based on what you, personally, believe in. Here for example, I can say that I don't believe in system which might include invasion in privacy and therefore I want to convince people that it's wrong to opt for such a system - this would be our goal.
Think about yours, it's up to you.
Arguments
Remember this FOREVER: your arguments help you reach your goal! It's their main purpose, that's why you put the there, that's how you're trying to convey your message. At the same time, you should remember what works best on regular people. More importantly - on people who haven't decided yet, which side of a barricade they want to stand on. Why those people? This is why:
People for: They are already with you, why would you want to convince them? They are already convinced :)
People against: They will disagree strongly with you, convincing them might prove harder than it needs to actually be and therefore, not profitable when you consider time spent and potential results.
People who don't know: They are your target - they can add to the pool of people thinking just like you. It's your job to convince them to go your way, otherwise, they will join your opposers.
Knowing that, we should think what arguments are good. The answer is quite easy: every argument is good as long as it's relevant to your target group and lines up with both, the hypothesis and the goal. Being relevant is the most important thing - start with that.
Examples of arguments
I am, as I mentioned before, somewhere in the middle but leaning towards this kind of system is not the answer kind of thinking. That's how I will specify my examples of arguments, you can think of something completely opposite though, it's your right.
1.It's obvious that we need better protection against corruption but is monitoring people really the answer? Let's think what kind of consequences it can bring on us - invigilation of more and more people, using it for personal interest, abusing the power to eliminate specific people from public life...
2. Shouldn't we suppose that a person is not guilty until proven so? Isn't it the basis for a good, democratic judiciary system? Going further, how could we know which indicators for a crime would be strong enough to prosecute a person?
3. Don't you think that there are other ways of ensuring people will not take bribes anymore? Studies show that people who are paid enough to fulfill their needs (all, not only those primal ones, like eating), don't see a need of a bride.Maybe that's a better way to go? Ensuring that oficials and office workers have good working conditions and don't see the point of taking a bribe as it's always accompanied by the fear of losing a job.
Summary
You need to sum up - basically, you need to show how your arguments were relevant to your hipothesis as well as to make sure that you use this last chance to add like one sentence which will add to your goal. You tried conveying your vision for the whole time, it's time to make it even stronger!
I don't want to write the whole thing ready to use, I'd rather you wrote it yourself using my tips. Contents:
1. Specifying a hypothesis for the essay
2. Defining a goal of the essay
3. Preparing argument to support the hypothesis
4. Building up to reach the goal
5. Finishing up with a short summary
----------------
Hypothesis
Everytime we want to prepare an essay, thesis, discussion, etc., we need a hypothesis. It's the basis, it's what keeps our arugments together, the reason, they are not completely over the top. In case of essays, we normally either agree or disagree with either the statement from the topic or what it indicates.
Here, our starting point is preventive vigilance. We need to think if it's good for the people, not good for the people or maybe, we would like to show both sides of the coin and say that:
We cannot disagree with a fact that preventive vigilance seems to be the answer to better prevention of corruption inside governmental offices. We cannot forget though, that there are more then plenty reasons to be careful with any kind of a system such as this.
... this way, we know that yes, indeed - we agree that it's necessary, but we also point out that it might be a bit dangerous and should be overseen well. Why? Because any kind of prevention is, usually, associated with some kind of invigilation.
At the end of the line, it is always your decision to decide whether you will choose to opt for/against a statement or stand somewhere in the middle.
Goal
You should always have some kind of a goal in mind, as in what do I want to achieve by writing this essay? I don't mean something like I wanna pass my course and get a mark though ;)
Having a goal, means having a purpose for writing. It's based on what you, personally, believe in. Here for example, I can say that I don't believe in system which might include invasion in privacy and therefore I want to convince people that it's wrong to opt for such a system - this would be our goal.
Think about yours, it's up to you.
Arguments
Remember this FOREVER: your arguments help you reach your goal! It's their main purpose, that's why you put the there, that's how you're trying to convey your message. At the same time, you should remember what works best on regular people. More importantly - on people who haven't decided yet, which side of a barricade they want to stand on. Why those people? This is why:
People for: They are already with you, why would you want to convince them? They are already convinced :)
People against: They will disagree strongly with you, convincing them might prove harder than it needs to actually be and therefore, not profitable when you consider time spent and potential results.
People who don't know: They are your target - they can add to the pool of people thinking just like you. It's your job to convince them to go your way, otherwise, they will join your opposers.
Knowing that, we should think what arguments are good. The answer is quite easy: every argument is good as long as it's relevant to your target group and lines up with both, the hypothesis and the goal. Being relevant is the most important thing - start with that.
Examples of arguments
I am, as I mentioned before, somewhere in the middle but leaning towards this kind of system is not the answer kind of thinking. That's how I will specify my examples of arguments, you can think of something completely opposite though, it's your right.
1.It's obvious that we need better protection against corruption but is monitoring people really the answer? Let's think what kind of consequences it can bring on us - invigilation of more and more people, using it for personal interest, abusing the power to eliminate specific people from public life...
2. Shouldn't we suppose that a person is not guilty until proven so? Isn't it the basis for a good, democratic judiciary system? Going further, how could we know which indicators for a crime would be strong enough to prosecute a person?
3. Don't you think that there are other ways of ensuring people will not take bribes anymore? Studies show that people who are paid enough to fulfill their needs (all, not only those primal ones, like eating), don't see a need of a bride.Maybe that's a better way to go? Ensuring that oficials and office workers have good working conditions and don't see the point of taking a bribe as it's always accompanied by the fear of losing a job.
Summary
You need to sum up - basically, you need to show how your arguments were relevant to your hipothesis as well as to make sure that you use this last chance to add like one sentence which will add to your goal. You tried conveying your vision for the whole time, it's time to make it even stronger!
Similar questions