Writing Feedback / The monarchs had to rule with greater wisdom than themselves had intended [2]

hello
It's me again with another term paper for the same course. I would like you to, if possible, stres s on the my clear language and style. Thank you.

The monarchs had to rule with greater wisdom than themselves had intended" - Montesquieu

Wars, violence, and constant steals from the cities in Europe mark the ages before the 15th century, until after a sudden reassessment of the monarchs' actions fostered the economy and trade in the urban areas. Monarchs, under certain conditions on a social and economic level had to change their method of collecting wealth, earning revenues to finance their wars, and imposing violence. The shift from imposing private violence among kin and groups to investing in urban development and involving in cities political life, had major impact on the further development of the social and economic relations within and among European countries.

The monarchs in the early 15th century in Europe were experts in exercising private violence among kin and groups in the countryside, thus gaining power and wealth from their own and other's lands. In the rural areas the society was divided into small groups and kin. Landowners, who possessed larger plots of land, imposed greater power among the small land owners, because they were wealthier. The countryside shipped goods to the cities in exchange of money. This relationship has some interesting aspects, such as, both sides benefitted and depended on each other at the same time. Rural elites or people with greater income and land possessions grew rapidly in the hierarchy and the demand of producing more goods and faster shipping to the cities along with it. Disputes and arguments arose between elites, and wars appeared as a result. Those who prevailed became monarchs. As we can see from the "Formation of the modern state" article by..., monarchs not only "hired" peasants who worked on their land in exchange of shelter and food, which was actually a "lifetime employment", but also imposed taxes for marriage permission. If the spouse candidate failed to meet the financial requirement, the monarch took his land, along with his peasants. This is how he created his "army" that fought for him and for further land expansions. The monarchs became owners of huge plots of land and had numerous armies, but looking after them required greater supplies for both the army and the agricultural development. With the commercialization of the rural parts of the country, wealth and revenues that monarchs gained from their lands became insufficient and mobilizing groups and kin became harder than it was initially.

The monarchs were forced to turn to the cities stealing their treasures; this tactic soon turned to be really costly, because cities possessed greater power and arms to protect their treasures. In London for example the first several invasions of monarchs managed to steal treasures and money from the royal families. However this urban aristocracy simply moved its treasures to places difficult to reach and find. Moreover in most European cities along the coast high towers, and unbreakable castles were built that prevented the poor army of the king from breaking into them. The rural army as I mentioned before consisted of peasants and family members, not armed well enough to break through the cities' modern equipment. Therefore leading a war against the cities proved to be unwise method of gaining wealth, in fact kings were loosing more power and subsidies than actually gaining assets.

Eventually, monarchs decided to invest, develop, and give more power to urban areas, rather than steal from them, thus earning more revenues in a peaceful way. Kings decided to actually invest in the cities, because they had the potential through their economy to accelerate this money that would eventually go back to the monarch. They protected urban businesses from local and abroad competition, by limiting the import, and lowering prices of local goods. This way cities were generating more revenues because they were able to merchandise the low priced local stock and sell it for higher prices or even export it. Kings limited local competition as shown in ... 's history article by changing the business owners' employment policy. New and not skilled enough workers had lower wages, but more experienced ones received higher salaries. In the 17th century king William II was proposed to become a member of the parliament in England, ensuring that taxes for the court maintenance, collected from the peasants and landowners, went straight into England's government. Helping the overall development, allowing local merchants in the cities to conduct their businesses however suits them best, brought more money and expanded the areas that generated profits within the country.

Ruling with "greater wisdom" in other words means that monarchs had to rethink and redirect their targets of "money providers". They did not literally stop imposing violence, however they removed it from kin and groups. Monarchs concealed it in a way that is beneficial for the urban society and more important - peaceful. The sudden change in kings' actions redirected the whole development scope of the political and social relations among the European countries and without it Europe would not be what it is now.

Writing Feedback / How to safe the Earth + Personal reflection of my presentation - Essays [4]

Hi!
I have recently posted a couple of my essays for a literacy course, and i liked the editing. Now I have to submit my final essays and that' why I turned to u guys! Please give grammar suggestions about articles, comas and most importantly about language clarity, accuracy and style. If you are uncertain about how edit a wierd expression just point it out and I'll try to avoid it :) Thank you!

Lily

How to safe the Earth

Hoping to safe what is already damaged is like building a castle in the sky, we need to be realistic to what extend are we able to reduce human's carbon footprint. A study by Ian Herbert shows that the carbon footprint on product's label can significantly reduce emissions that the manufacturing process can cause. Justin Rowlatt in his "Ethical Man's top ten tips for ethical living" conveys that a person should give up very basic human needs, to reduce their carbon footprint. In my view as the human being, obviously, can not go back to the caveman era just for the sake of saving energy, we need to consider larger projects that would be conformity to everyone's everyday life, not interfering with it.

I agree that being responsible for the pollution we cause should be kept in mind, however being fanatic about it does not lead to the desirable outcome. The first "tip for ethical living" according to J. Rowlatt is to terminate driving personal vehicle at all and substitute it for the public transport, taxies or rent a car. The last argument could be far more costly than driving your own car, not to mention that the pollution produced from renting a car is the same as keeping your own. (Justin Rowlatt, par. 1) If more people follow Rowlatt's example the public transportation would become overcrowded, and people more frustrated. May be the taxi companies would benefit from that, but does it have to be with the cost of frustrated and irritated customers, just for the sake of saving our planet? Another study, reflected in Herbert's article, shows that companies that label their products with a carbon footprint label helps the environment and the market as well. In this case he states that customers are inclined to look for the carbon label on the products, thus increasing purchase power.(Herbert, 2007) As one can see Herbert's suggestion avoids irritation among consumers, and the results are more significant. When major corporations are involved in reducing their carbon footprint, their actions unify more people for the same cause. I think being extreme on those issues can be mistaken with a mental disorder. Saving the planet requires organized efforts and is a product of consistent research that can provide major changes without forcing people to look ridiculous.

Imposing restrictions on basic human needs in order to make the air cleaner, is redundant in compartment to the actions undertaken by major corporations with the same purpose. Some of the Rowlatt suggestions, like to insulate your home and buy energy saving light bulbs, are relatively good in terms of money and energy saving (Rowlatt, par.2, 8). The author inflicted numerous restrictions on himself and his family for a whole year believing that the air they breathe would become cleaner. Ian Herbert's research on the manufacturing process of 'Walkers crisps' conveys how unnecessary treatment of the potatoes can be limited, hence saving up to "9 200 tons of a carbon emissions £ 1.2m a year". (Herbert, 2007). I strongly support his idea, because only unified actions that involve the society as a whole can have a result if not in reducing the carbon footprint, at least in preventing further damage. One energy saving light bulb would not reduce our carbon footprint. I do not intend to completely discard Justin Rowlatt's ideas, however I find other ways for reducing out carbon footprint more efficient and time saving.

There is nothing wrong with implying Rowlatt's tips for reducing pollution; however becoming fanatic about it and restricting ourselves and families from everyday needs is nonsense. These actions would have less effect and would not comprehend with the input effort. I think only major companies and corporations can unify to make a difference, by putting the carbon footprint label on the products, for example. They have the means to incorporate more people for their causes by using the market place and consumers and their supplies to reduce the carbon footprint. Eventually, it is up to us, the humans, to decide up to what level do we want to get involved.

And the other one:

Personal reflection of my presentation

The first serious presentation in my life bears the same enthusiasm, effort and devotion of a kid that gets on his bicycle for first time. Considering my previous experience I think I did it in correspondence to my level. The topic we picked "Downtown Eastside" is not related to our program of study, neither is a widely discussed issue among students, which served as a main reason for choosing this particular subject. However not communicating effectively enough with the audience, failing to be consistent and to support my statements, and most importantly forgetting the "hook", prevented our presentation of reaching the desired success.

The purpose of our presentation initially was to introduce and inform the audience about the Downtown Eastside issues, because they step beyond the general common knowledge. We did the whole research on the topic together by searching for information that was strictly related to the topic, as well as to each other's sections. Both of us spent more than 15 hours in total for preparing the PowerPoint slides; research; communicating about each other's sections to avoid any irrelevant statements. Our topic required thorough research as we did not have much knowledge on the issue "Downtown Eastside" when we started our work. We had a problem with the timing, because we tried to include all the information we found captivating, which fitted into 15 minutes speech, but the time was cut after that. Therefore I think the outcome of our effort on the research proved to be productive, consistent and enhancing the commonly accepted ideas on the issue.

Our strongest features of the presentation were the use of "you" form and our Power Point slides which represented our main points in an interesting way. On my slides I included essential facts about Downtown Eastside development and its issues. We spent significant time on discussing the best options for the message on the last slide so that we leave the audience with something to think about. The last message: "Drugs did not create the downtown eastside. We did" was terrific for that purpose, and I am really proud of it because it is a product of our group work. I tried to link them logically and explain the relations between the different pieces of information on them. I tried to put rhetorical questions to increase the interest and the impact that I wanted my story to have on them and for that purpose I kept the public involved by being reader-oriented when I used the "you" form in my speech. Despite the fact that Dupinder and I devoted most of our time on the visuals and establishing connection with the audience, I failed to achieve the desired impact.

The main reasons for not achieving my goal for making a powerful presentation were that I missed the "hook", I used dry statistics and overgeneralizations, I did not communicate with the audience, I divagated often and I talked too quietly. Next time I will definitely think of a strong introduction that would grab the audience's attention. For this particular topic, questions like " How many of you have been in the East part of Hastings street?, How did you feel walking on that street? " would be a better start. I could also follow it with statements like: "Large numbers of people avoid that part of the city", or personal experience that I had in Kelowna, when being warned by friends to stay away from Main and Hastings. Establishing connection with the audience at the very beginning will help me to feel more relaxed through the rest of my speech. I think I have "stage fright", and I get nervous even in a small audience like that in the FAL class, which I believe resulted in lowering the volume of my speech. This fact surprised me because before I stepped in front of the class I was relaxed and full of knowledge. Once I began to talk my confidence vanished and the structure mistakes I made in my first sentences discouraged me even more. I caught myself over generalizing several times and I would try to support my statements with facts in future. I would also practice more in front of a mirror, and when timing myself I will always leave an extra minute at least. I noticed that I tend to do what is called "empty talk", which is neither advocating ideas, nor involving the audience in the discussion, and the reason for that is not enough practice. There is one more lesson I learned: when using percentage statistics, always picture it for the audience. For example 20% is one in every five, I figured out that dry statistic facts in a presentation should be depicted in a more acceptable way for the audience. Generally the whole presentation should be given in a more informal and captivating way. If I had stuck to the main point and facts, and communicated with the audience more loudly I would have done much better the rest of my presentation.

As a conclusion I would say that despite the fact I put so much effort in this project I did not reach my goal and I still have to improve my speech style and behavior in front of the audience. I think the subject we chose for our presentation could have been very interesting and thought-provoking if conveyed in the proper way. Still I think it was a great start, because of everything I learned it, and this experience moved me one step up on the stairs of the successful academic presentations.

Writing Feedback / need help for "presentation summary" essay [3]

hi everyone, I am taking this FAL course, which is basic writing skills, and my profesor said my english is a challenge and I might not pass the course. I am shoked because I've already taken business commun. and had no problems with that one. I talked to him but he refuses to point all my mistakes because he said it will be a whole load for me to undertake at once. Please read my essay,. and tell me what mistakes I have, and where it is hard to understand, Cuz seems like i cannot see my own mistakes. Thank you soo much. below is my essay!

Personal reflection of my presentation.
The presentation on the "Downtown eastside" was one of the first presentations I have ever had. Considering my previous experience I think I did it in correspondence to my level. I put lots of effort on keeping "eye-contact", putting "clinches", speak with normal speed, behaving naturally. I think I covered these points to a reasonable extent.

Dupinder and I did the whole research on the topic together. We searched for information strictly in accordance to the topic, as well as to each other's sections. Both of us spent more than 15 hours in total for preparing the PowerPoint slides; research; communicating about each other's sections to avoid any irrelevant statements. We had a problem with the timing, because when we prepared the project we timed it for 15 minutes speech, but the time was cut after that. We spent significant time on discussing the best options for the last slide. Our purpose was to leave the audience thinking. The last message: "Drugs did not create the downtown eastside. We did" was terrific for that purpose, and I am really proud of it because it is a product of our group work.

Making the PowerPoint slides took a big part of the total hours spent on preparation. On my slides I included essential facts about Downtown Eastside development and its issues. I tried to link them logically and explain the relations between the different pieces of information on them. I put clinches and though-provoking questions as much as I could to relate better to the audience.

My strengths in the speech were that I tried to keep the public involved by being reader-oriented when I used "you" form of my speech. I tried to put rhetorical questions to increase the interest and the impact that I wanted my story to have on them. However I must admit I did not do my best. One thing that I missed was the "hook". Next time I will definitely think of a strong introduction that would grab audience's attention. For this particular topic, questions like " How many of you have been in the East part of Hastings street?, How did you feel walking on that street? " would be a good start. I could also follow it with statements like: " Large number of people avoid that part of the city", or personal experience that I had in Kelowna, when being warned by friends never to step on Main and Hastings, whatsoever. If I had done this I would have given out better the rest of my presentation.

Linking with the audience at the very beginning will prevent me from feeling uneasy after. I think I have "stage fever", and I get nervous even in a small audience like that in the FAL class. I was stressed and nervous, therefore I omitted many of the interesting facts I intended to tell initially. This fact surprised me because before I stepped in front of the class I was relaxed and full of knowledge. Once I begun to talk my confidence vanished and the structure mistakes I made in my first sentences discouraged me even more. I caught myself over generalizing several times and I would try not to do that in future. I would also practice more in front of a mirror, and when timing myself I will always leave an extra minute at least. I noticed that I tend to talk more in front of the class then during practice with my partner. There is one more lesson I learned: when using percentage statistics, always picture it for the audience. For example 20% is one in every five, I figured out that dry statistic facts in a presentation should be depicted in a more acceptable way for the audience. Generally the whole presentation should be given out in more informal and captive way.

As a conclusion I would say that despite the fact I put so much effort in this project I did not reach my goal and I still have much to improve. For future I would focus on my spoken style, and I would take stress relief measurements before presenting.