1. In my opinion,
nowadays the quality of writing declined due to wider and more accessible platforms
and lack of literary authorities which enables basically anyone to write and
publish a book. Authors of modern prose or poetry don’t pay attention to the
text, they attach together words or phrases which are cliché: “…prose consists
less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more
of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.” Apart
from using clichés, modern time writers strip word from their real meaning and
degrade language and art, unlike in Russian Realism, for example, where Tolstoy
and Dostoyevsky kept low level writer out of literary scene: “…there is a huge
dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely
used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves.”
2. Speaking for myself,
Orwell’s criticism in essay “Politics and the English Language” is valid. This
is not only the problem in English language and literature, but in all of the
world’s languages and literatures. If not nourished, language becomes full of
bad habits which are spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is
willing to take the necessary trouble. Therefore, Orwell has the right when
criticizing modern society for letting language degrade.
3. In this essay, Orwell
systematically and accurately points out the problems in English language and
modern literature and gives adequate examples to prove them. For each of his
reproaches, Orwell quotes or writes examples to prove their point and explains
how and why authors make those mistakes.
<span>4. Most of the Orwell’s
biggest fears about society’s development came true and one of those is this
degradation of language and are, which is not incurable. The literary scene
became swamped with various works due to wide platforms and public. But, most
of them write clichés that sell well, but the problem is that they have no true literary worth. </span>
<h3>My defense and argument claim why tigers would beat most animals.</h3>
Tigers are very strong and intelligent animals. They can jump from place to place, leaping about 20 feet each time, which may help them in fights. Tigers also have good eyesight which allows them to see some things we do not. Then, someone argues to the claim, saying, "Tigers cannot beat every animal alone".
And this person is correct, tigers actually cannot beat every animal by themselves. Although they have mostly superior strength, there is one exception; A tiger goes against a group of strong foes. This is the case in which a tiger may fail to defeat its opponent. Hence, the tiger would only beat most animals in a fight, not all.
C. staying organized without the help of a teacher or other adult
The correct answer for this question is this one: "The speaker sees a child covered in soot, lying alone in the snow. Good start. The child tells him that his parents, who have forced him into chimney sweeping, are praying at a nearby church. " Hope this helps answer your question.
