global vs local history?
Some people argue that schoolchildren should spend most of their time on studying local history rather than global history. However, I do not agree with this opinion because I think that these fields of historical study are equally important.
On the one hand, the study of local history can increase awareness and pride of children about where they live. When children learn local history, this means they learn the history of a town, an old building, a church, and everything around them. Therefore, they can have a clearer understanding of the area in which they still live. Besides, when children hear incredible stories about national heroes from their grandparents, they are inspired to become a good citizen later. In other words, learning local history increases children's confidence and sense of achievement, encouraging them to protect their local community and traditional values.
On the other hand, understanding world history is a cornerstone for children to become a global citizen in the future. The study of the global history can reveal the diversity of human experiences, which motivates schoolchildren to learn more about other cultures. When they develop curiosity, they will be ready to absorb new knowledge and work with others all over the world. It is impossible to become a global citizen without a certain level of curiosity. And the study of world history is a good way to stimulate that interest.
In conclusion, I disagree with the view that children should prioritize the study of local history, because I believe that learning national and world history plays an equal importance in children's development in the future.
local history, because
"local history, because" I think the comma should omitted.
The topic says nothing about school children directly, so I think it's better if you start with a more general statement first.
Some changes I prefer:
"these fields" =>
each of these fields"live. When " =>
live. Therefore, when ... and omit "this means" and "Therefore, they can" =>
As a result, they...Overall, you write very smooth and understandable.
Holt Educational Consultant - / 15384 Van, I am confused as to the method of presentation that you have in this essay. In the title, you say that you are discussing an opinion essay for this topic. Yet, your presentation is that of a compare and contrast essay. Discussing both opinions prior to presenting your own. There are 2 conflicting discussion types in your presentation. My inability to properly assess your essay for relevance in this instance is because you failed to provide the complete prompt requirements. That is why I am unsure about whether or not you presented your ideas in the proper manner. Perhaps next time you can provide the complete prompt along with the new essay. That way, I can tell if you are doing the right job or not. BTW, please remember the 3 sentence minimum requirement as it applies to both the opening and closing presentations of your essay. You will be marked down for writing less than the correct sentence number. In terms of your discussion, I can only assume that you made a mistake in delivering your response since you indicated an opinion essay alone, but you discussed a compare and contrast with personal opinion essay instead.
Hi Scully,
Your essay is great. Below are my comments:
1. which they still live => I think this is better to be "which they are currently living".
2. "they are inspired to become a good citizen later" => I think this is not 100% true. So, It's better to write "They may be inspired to try becoming a good citizen in the future".
Hope it help:)