This may not be the best but here’s how I would do it.
Counterclaim #1:
Some would argue that women should not be allowed to serve combat positions in the United States military because they don't possess the strength requirements
for difficult tasks.
Evidence #1: (This section looks good I think)
According to the text, "The Army's
own research indicates that the vast
majority of women do not possess
the lean mass necessary to meet the
strength requirements for very heavy
and heavy physical tasks"
(Fredenberg 5).
Despite the fact that women do lack the strength requirements for very heavy physical tasks, they should still be allowed to serve combat positions in the United States military. When in groups with men, they raise the team's collective intelligence which improves combat performance in the United States military.
Note: These are just my suggestions. This isn’t final. You may make adjustments accordingly. Hope you find this somewhat helpful. Good luck.
Answer:
A thesis statement is: clearly identifies the topic being discussed, includes the points discussed in the paper, and is written for a specific audience.
Explanation:
Your thesis statement belongs at the end of your first paragraph, also known as your introduction. Use it to generate interest in your topic and encourage your audience to continue reading.
I hope this helps!
Answer:
The dragon uses the examples of animals and vegetables to explain about man's inevitable move towards complexity. Vegetables can be regrown by using a bit of its part, while an animal has a head that controls every other part. Likewise, man has the ability to adapt to any change in his environment, which leads to the choices he make. And it is this superior ability of man which signifies the gap between man and other beings, just like importance and expression are different.
Explanation:
When Grendel went to the cave of the dragon in Chapter 5 of the text <em>Grendel </em>by John Gardner, the dragon began teaching about everything. He proclaimed that he knows and hears everything, exclaiming that it's what<em> "makes [him] so sick and old and tired".</em>
And in his attempt to teach Grendel about the difference between importance and expression, he uses the example of a jug. He states <em>"the jug is an absolute democracy of atoms"</em>, but devoid of expression. To him, <em>"Importance passes from the world as one to the world as many, whereas expression is the gift from the world as many to the world as one."</em> This shows that what is deemed important may not necessarily be expressive.
In other words, his attempt to explain the difference led to the animal/vegetables analogy. He explains nature's consequent move to complexity which he relates to the case of man's ability to adapt to his environment despite Grendel's belief of their foolishness. He uses vegetables and animals as examples between man and a rock. A rock is a simple object, which may be whole in its being but unlike a man, it is not capable of doing anything to change its existence. On the contrary, man can adapt to his surroundings and change his ideas, even at the last minute. Animals have a head which leads the other body parts, like a man does. But vegetables and rocks have no such ability, which renders their limited abilities. To summarize is points, the below quote from the text rightly presents the difference-
<em>"If the dominant activity be severed from the rest of the body--if, for example, we cut off the head--the whole coordination collapses, and the animal dies. Whereas in the case of the vegetable, the democracy can be subdivided into minor democracies which easily survive without much apparent loss of functional expression."</em>
First of all, we should know that domain specific words are those are low frequency and content-specific. So, in this sentence we know that the topic being discussed is a restaurant, so domain-specific words will be those that are used frequently in relation to restaurants.
These are: hostess, waiter, menu
Answer:
Twelve years ago, Barack Obama introduced himself to the American public by way of a speech given at the Democratic National Convention, in Boston, in which he declared, “There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America, an Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” Few of us believed this to be true, but most, if not all of us, longed for it to be. We vested this brash optimist with our hope, a resource that was in scarce supply three years after the September 11th terrorist attacks in a country mired in disastrous military conflicts in two nations. The vision he offered—of national reconciliation beyond partisan bounds, of government rooted in respect for the governed and the Constitution itself, of idealism that could actually be realized—became the basis for his Presidential campaign. Twice the United States elected to the Presidency a biracial black man whose ancestry and upbringing stretched to three continents.
At various points that idealism has been severely tested. During his Presidency, we witnessed a partisan divide widen into an impassable trench, and gun violence go unchecked while special interests blocked any regulation. The President was forced to show his birth certificate, which we recognized as the racial profiling of the most powerful man in the world. Obama did not, at least publicly, waver in his contention that Americans were bound together by something greater than what divided them. In July, when he spoke in Dallas after a gunman murdered five police officers, he seemed pained by the weight of this faith, as if stress fractures had appeared in a load-bearing wall.
It is difficult not to see the result of this year’s Presidential election as a refutation of Obama’s creed of common Americanism. And on Wednesday, for the first time in the twelve years that we’ve been watching him, Obama did not seem to believe the words he was speaking to the American public. In the White House Rose Garden, Obama offered his version of a concession speech—an acknowledgement of Donald Trump’s victory. The President attempted gamely to cast Trump’s victory as part of the normal ebb and flow of political fortunes, and as an example of the great American tradition of the peaceful transfer of power. (This was not, it should be recalled, the peaceful transfer of power that most observers were worried about.) He intended, he said, to offer the same courtesy toward Trump that President George W. Bush had offered him, in 2008. Yet that reference only served to highlight the paradox of Obama's Presidency: he now exists in history bracketed by the overmatched forty-third President and the misogynistic racial demagogue who will succeed him as the forty-fifth. During his 2008 campaign, Obama frequently found himself—and without much objection on his part—compared to Abraham Lincoln. He may now share an ambivalent common bond with Lincoln, whose Presidency was bookended by James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, two lesser lights of American history.
Explanation:
