This 'short essay' is basically asking you create a piece of writing, convincing your audience of your point. For example; I firmly believe that every single country should not have nuclear bombs. In general, I'd include:
*Nuclear Bomb Simulator to give an image I how much damage it does. What this does is, people tend to hate destructive behaviours. By showing them how much damage it does, you're appealing to their sense of emotion by conjuring a sense of panic.
*Death counts from previous wars to further reinforce the emotion of panic, sadness, and awareness. Death count for those individuals who demand solid scientific evidence.
In a nutshell, basically, include statistics (supports your argument with logical data that's already proven), history from past events if possible (to appeal to one's emotions), and if possible, choose evidence that's more modernized to further prove your point. Why so? Simply because it proves that the problem still persists, no matter how advanced in technology we are. in this case, nuclear bombs are going to be dangerous, regardless of how "modernized" we all are.
Both the in works cited paper at the end of the paper and in the in-text citations within the paper.
They have but this tends to be riskier if you are doing the same thing, this is why the average person follows the rules/systemwhich is a safer option. The people who bent the rules are also exceptions while the norm isn't. (I personally like to bend rules)
Answer:
I believe it would be find your main point