Hey, please let me know if this argument is logical and somewhat convincing. Thanks! The time limit for writing this is 30 minutes. Please keep that in mind as well.
The suffix "cracy" is derived from Greek, meaning "to rule" or to "govern". The very term democracy (governing by majority), necessitates having citizens to rule and govern over. Furthermore, living and abiding under such a government, requires that the citizens, in turn allow themselves to be governed. This very palpable trust and relationship is indicative of a form of codependency upon which much of democracy relies. Though this dependency is essential, there are very clear examples of its limits. Examples of its presence as well as limitations can be seen by looking at America.
In America, voting is a tenet of democracy. It is a form of majority rule, where most of the population gives power and allows for a small number of other citizens to represent their opinions, voices and beliefs (through a polling process). In order for this form of government to be successful, the people must depend on one another for a multitude of matters. For example, each citizen must depend upon another to vote (as so their opinion is made clear), each citizen must trust that their delegate/representative will keep their interest in mind, and most importantly each citizen must believe that he/she plays a part in helping to maintain and structure the government. This is especially true in the public and political sector.
However, this relationship of codependency and trust tends to not be as prevalent in the private sector. America is as much a democracy as it is a capitalistic nation, so the concept of protection and independence for the few (such as corporations and small business ) is very important. The private sector serves less as a mutualistic relationship between citizens(where majority rules) and more like a hierarchy of a few select citizens, that are independent and not necessarily limited by the wants of the majority of citizens. This type of "big business" was prevalent and rampant during the early 1900's under TR and was forcibly limited, due to negative results. However, our market is still necessarily independent today, and many still argue that it is too independent.
This brings us to the idea of when it is appropriate for the citizens of a democracy to be dependant upon each other and when it is not. It is most accurate to say that it is never the case that citizens can completely live independently from one another. Rather, it'd be more apropo to say that there are gradients and levels of dependency that can be seen in examining the various spheres of a country. For example, the political sphere of a democracy mandates much codependency from the citizens; however, the economic sphere of a capitalistic nation tends to require a more independent, free spirited market in order to grow and prosper
Very good essay. One astute example: "...there are gradients and levels of dependency that can be seen in examining the various spheres of a country. " You notice that dependency varies according to "spheres." I find very few grammatical errors. The introduction and the transition sentence are still logically confusing as I find it difficult to believe that a term begat a nation. (Read through the first couple of sentences again, and I think you will understand.) I also feel as though specific examples are lacking. You mention TR but nothing concrete.
Fixes:
The suffix "cracy" is derived from Greek, meaning "to rule" or to "govern."
The suffix "cracy" derives from the Greek, kratia, meaning "rule" or "govern."
"Though this dependency is essential..."
"Although this dependency is essential..."
On a score from 1-6, I would give this essay a 5.
On a score from 1-10, I would give this essay a 9.
Very well done. Slightly below excellent.
I will try and post a 6 essay (if I can) right now. Hopefully, I won't go over the 30 minutes.
Are you a native English speaker? If not, you deserve a hug!
