Hi , I am preparing for GRE and I have just started practicing for the analytical writing part. I realized I need a lot of improvement. So correct me with everything grammar , sentence structure, vocabulary, etc. Thank you in advance:)
Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Politics, as I make out of it, is one of the swampy system where in to clean the mess one needs to get themselves dirty. Also if ideology gets to infused with politics, it can lead to intimidating consequences.
A very old proverbial is apt in today's political circus 'A family that eats together stays together'. So with politics, which is a diverse family responsible for the whole world, should work together as a single unit operating on a common ground which would help to abrogate the differences.
The recent situation of the war going in Syria is the reflection of this. Mass killing is being carried out to satisfy the idealistic egos of the incumbents. Had the statesmen of the world negotiated on the matter, much less lives could have been lost and further massacre would have stopped.
Additionally Russia which deliberately used its VETO power and declined to support the UN against Syria eventually has led to internal war which is presently on the verge of escalation. Had the system of UN would have succeeded in finding the solution reasonable for all there would not have been the massive human casualty and migration crisis. This situation is clearly delineating the failure of reaching a common solution of the problem at its earliest rudimentary stage.
On the other hand, idealism works well for the individual growth but in case of politics sometimes it can lead to altercations and bruised egos. Idealism should be followed for a good cause but it brings more damage than good when the path is devious.
For instance, Gandhi Ji followed their ideology of ''No violence '' and protested against the Britishers during pre-independence period in India for which they were recognized and being consecrated as the true leader. He wanted the system to follow non violence as a measure for the salvation of the millions of slaves. Their ideology of a silent protest against Britishers along with the sacrifices of other freedom fighters gradually enfeebled the strength of the Britishers and India eventually was declared independent.
Conclusively, pursuit of an ideal can take the system to the zenith only if it intents to spread peace but pragmatically in today's diverse nation it is essential to find a common ground and reaching reasonable consensus which would be satisfactory to all rather than imposing the ideals on the opponents.
Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Politics, as I make out of it, is one of the swampy system where in to clean the mess one needs to get themselves dirty. Also if ideology gets to infused with politics, it can lead to intimidating consequences.
A very old proverbial is apt in today's political circus 'A family that eats together stays together'. So with politics, which is a diverse family responsible for the whole world, should work together as a single unit operating on a common ground which would help to abrogate the differences.
The recent situation of the war going in Syria is the reflection of this. Mass killing is being carried out to satisfy the idealistic egos of the incumbents. Had the statesmen of the world negotiated on the matter, much less lives could have been lost and further massacre would have stopped.
Additionally Russia which deliberately used its VETO power and declined to support the UN against Syria eventually has led to internal war which is presently on the verge of escalation. Had the system of UN would have succeeded in finding the solution reasonable for all there would not have been the massive human casualty and migration crisis. This situation is clearly delineating the failure of reaching a common solution of the problem at its earliest rudimentary stage.
On the other hand, idealism works well for the individual growth but in case of politics sometimes it can lead to altercations and bruised egos. Idealism should be followed for a good cause but it brings more damage than good when the path is devious.
For instance, Gandhi Ji followed their ideology of ''No violence '' and protested against the Britishers during pre-independence period in India for which they were recognized and being consecrated as the true leader. He wanted the system to follow non violence as a measure for the salvation of the millions of slaves. Their ideology of a silent protest against Britishers along with the sacrifices of other freedom fighters gradually enfeebled the strength of the Britishers and India eventually was declared independent.
Conclusively, pursuit of an ideal can take the system to the zenith only if it intents to spread peace but pragmatically in today's diverse nation it is essential to find a common ground and reaching reasonable consensus which would be satisfactory to all rather than imposing the ideals on the opponents.
