The uneasiness about the critic is so complex that it forces the readers to rely on other critics’ profound knowledge of the material. Literary scholars Matthew Arnold and Alexander Pope both have differing views concerning the necessity of the critic, his role, and his power that he wields over the work/text. While Pope and Arnold are excellent critics, they each bring something different to the playing field. Arnold brings the idea of disinterestedness and Pope outlines the true characteristics of a “good” critic. Although, both crit... ... middle of paper ... ... by nature, but Arnold and Pope present their readers with knowledge that make the concept of the critic more understandable.
The problem with this debate, however, is that both Elbow and Bartholomae are conceiving of these two (supposedly) oppositional roles too narrowly. They are both at odds concerning the role of each in the writing classroom despite the fact that they see the commonalities. It is important for all teachers of writing to address this debate, and be able to see past it, which as evidenced in the debate in Cross Talk, Elbow and Bartholomae were not able to do. I feel as if my first personal essay addressed these matters as well, although I did not deal them specific... ... middle of paper ... ...ter good writing. Theories and concepts could be introduced regarding critical analysis, but nothing would be set forth as the proper way to view it.
Next I will show how Kelly uses his view to disprove the disgust advocates’ arguments. Finally, I will illustrate a promising line of argument that may give hope to the disgust advocates, in light of Kelly’s powerful skeptical stance. The question that causes division among many regards disgust’s role in morality. Those whom have opinions on the matter are making a prescriptive claim rather than a descriptive one. The question is not about what role disgust actually has in morality, rather, it is about what role disgust ought to have in morality.
Doubts of credibility or accuracy are given backseat status, as these sources tap into our empathetic human nature. We automatically put ourselves directly into the story, in the perspective of the protagonist as determined by the source, and consequently any future opinion of this event will be affected (whether tainted, or rose-tinted) by recollection of this identification of sorts. This becomes problematic when popular narrative texts threaten the reader’s accurate perception of historical events, taking the form of inaccuracy in the classroom, or even a type of denial (rather than mourning, of commemorations). There are several key terms that need stating, which have been used in the dialogue of constructing memory of prior events, the first and most important being collective memory. While it is a more contextually-understood term, its meaning can be broken down into “collective,” from a particular group of people, and “memory,” recall or recollection often by means of reinterpreting data.
Lack of a superordinate word, specific term; differences in terms of form, expressive meaning and semantic complexity of the languages can be added as other cases where we come across with difficulties. In fact, the skills of the translator is needed at this very point to deal with each situation separately by using various strategies. Using a general word, translating by cultural substitution, paraphrasing and omitting the problematic lexical element can be included as the most common strategies. To refer back to what has been explained previously, the complexity of the translation is determined by such factors. Indeed, interpreters seem to come across with more difficulties since they need to think on the
Suggestion One ============== A possible suggestion to address the issue comes from Milgram's study. It shows how the public should perhaps question authority figures when it ... ... middle of paper ... ...o its conflicts with another culture, thus leading to attacks. Teaching and learning to understand others is vital, but this cannot be taught to everyone - there may be a biological trait to not accepting and understanding difference, and therefore eugenics would be the answer in an attempt to solve this. Conclusion ---------- Despite the many issues in regarding such a matter, it is difficult to remove such problems as prejudice and cross-cultural communication, as explained above. The article has outlined the many problems that could be avoided - such as a lack of communication and understanding of other cultures, but other traits are difficult to remove from society.
Jaschik addresses this problem and offers the solution of instructors being more open minded to plagiarism in his article, “Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism”. Jaschik uses many rhetorical choices, such as illustrations, formal diction, and expert testimonies in order to argue that writing instructors should, “make decisions on more than just legalistic approaches”, while also trying to teach students more about plagiarism (265). Although there is no guaranteed solution of preventing plagiarism, Jaschik shows the pitfalls as well as what writing instructors should not do with the many examples of attempts to prevent plagiarism by other college educators. Jaschik successfully persuades his intended audience of first year writing instructors why merely punishing students for plagiarizing is not as effective as being more open-minded and teaching students more about plagiarism. .
In conlusion to the research, the authors say that the anxiety experienced by many office adminstration students should be observable and will substatntively influence their performance in classes and on the job (Booth-Butterfield & Thomas, 1995, pp. 39). Although this communication apprehension research seems reasonable, limitations include the type of data used and the relationships or generalizations that are drawn between certain variables. To begin with, the methodological framework utilized by the author is in the form of a questionairre. A questionairre is basically a test to see how one thinks of his or herself and is not necessarily accurate.
Introduction One of the greatest challenges in teaching an introductory philosophy course is convincing students that there are, indeed, reliable standards for the evaluation of arguments. Too often introductory students criticise an argument simply by contesting the truth of one of its claims. And far too often the only claim in an argument that meets serious objections is its conclusion. For many students, the idea that an argument displays a structure which can be evaluated on its own terms is not very difficult to grasp; unfortunately, the idea is grasped only in an abstract way, with insufficient appreciation of how structural problems manifest themselves in concrete arguments, ... ... middle of paper ... ... extended arguments can be explained in terms of sufficiency, a concept that the student can easily grasp by seeing how a proposition presented as belonging to one of the linked arguments may also be employed as a premise in another of the arguments. Assignments: Several chain syllogisms.
Writing proficiency is an obstacle which most students, especially those who should start writing in academic style, can face. However, more difficulties are likely to be faced by international students in the UK, who have to succeed in achieving two main aims; the first one concerns the ability to understand what might be the requirements that they should fulfil. Secondly, how they manage to express their ideas through the UK academic procedure. In fact, the cultural factor plays a pivotal role in a student’s progress as regards academic writing, while the UK readers often struggle to understand what non-native speakers try to say in their papers, which probably lead to unsatisfactory assessment. More recently, many studies have carried out to consider what possible justifications of this problem.