U.S. President Mckinley Assassinated

U.S. President Mckinley Assassinated On September 6, 1901, anarchist Leon Czolgosz walked up to U.S. President William McKinley at the Pan-American Exposition in New York and shot McKinley at point-blank range. After the shooting, it first appeared that President McKinley was getting better; however, he soon took a turn for the worse and died on September 14 from gangrene. The daylight assassination attempt horrified millions of Americans. Greeting People at the Pan-American Exposition On September 6, 1901, U.S. President William McKinley spent the morning visiting Niagara Falls with his wife before returning to the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York in the afternoon to spend a few minutes greeting the public. By about 3:30 p.m., President McKinley stood inside the Temple of Music building at the Exposition, ready to begin shaking the hands of the public as they streamed into the building. Many had been waiting for hours outside in the heat for their chance to meet the President. Unbeknownst to the President and the many guards who stood nearby, among those waiting outside was 28-year-old anarchist Leon Czolgosz who was planning to kill President McKinley. At 4 p.m. the doors to the building were opened and the mass of people waiting outside were forced into a single line as they entered the Temple of Music building. The line of people thus came up to the President in an organized fashion, with just enough time to whisper a Nice to meet you, Mr. President, shake President McKinleys hand, and then be forced to continue along the line and out the door again. President McKinley, the 25th president of the United States, was a popular president who had just started his second term in office and the people seemed clearly glad to get a chance to meet him. However, at 4:07 p.m. Leon Czolgosz had made it into the building and it was his turn to greet the President. Two Shots Rang Out In Czolgoszs right hand, he held a .32 caliber Iver-Johnson revolver, which he had covered by wrapping a handkerchief around the gun and his hand. Although Czolgoszs swaddled hand was noticed before he reached the President, many thought it looked like it covered an injury and not that it was hiding a gun. Also, since the day had been hot, many of the visitors to see the President had been carrying handkerchiefs in their hands so that they could wipe the sweat off their faces. When Czolgosz reached the President, President McKinley reached out to shake his left hand (thinking Czolgoszs right hand was injured) while Czolgosz brought up his right hand to President McKinleys chest and then fired two shots. One of the bullets didnt enter the president - some say it bounced off of a button or off the presidents sternum and then got tucked into his clothing. The other bullet, however, entered the presidents abdomen, tearing through his stomach, pancreas, and kidney. Shocked at being shot, President McKinley began to sag as blood stained his white shirt. He then told those around him, Be careful how you tell my wife. Those in line behind Czolgosz and guards in the room all jumped on Czolgosz and started to punch him. Seeing that the mob on Czolgosz might easily and quickly kill him, President McKinley whispered either, Dont let them hurt him or Go easy on him, boys. President McKinley Undergoes Surgery President McKinley was then whisked away in an electric ambulance to the hospital at the Exposition. Unfortunately, the hospital was not properly equipped for such a surgery and the very experienced doctor usually on premises was away doing a surgery in another town. Although several doctors were found, the most experienced doctor that could be found was Dr. Matthew Mann, a gynecologist. The surgery began at 5:20 p.m. During the operation, the doctors searched for the remains of the bullet that had entered the Presidents abdomen, but were unable to locate it. Worried that continued searching would tax the Presidents body too much, the doctors decided to discontinue looking for it and to sew up what they could. The surgery was completed a little before 7 p.m. Gangrene and Death For several days, President McKinley seemed to be getting better. After the shock of the shooting, the nation was excited to hear some good news. However, what the doctors did not realize was that without drainage, an infection had built up inside the President. By September 13 it was obvious the President was dying. At 2:15 a.m. on September 14, 1901, President William McKinley died of gangrene. That afternoon, Vice President Theodore Roosevelt was sworn in as President of the United States. The Execution of Leon Czolgosz After being pummeled right after the shooting, Leon Czolgosz had been arrested and taken to police headquarters before nearly being lynched by the angry crowds that surrounded the Temple of Music. Czolgosz readily admitted that he was the one who had shot the President. In his written confession, Czolgosz stated, I killed President McKinley because I done my duty. I didnt believe one man should have so much service and another man should have none. Czolgosz was brought to trial on September 23, 1901. He was quickly found guilty and sentenced to death. On October 29, 1901, Leon Czolgosz was electrocuted.

How does Tennessee Williams use dramatic techniques to devel essays

How does Tennessee Williams use dramatic techniques to devel essays Cat on a hot tin roof is a play about the convention in society, which tries to dictate the lives of people. Consequently, Tennessee Williams imminently introduces the audience to the subject of mendacity and its malignancy. This is not only shown on a familial level, but on a personal one too (e.g. the affects of Bricks relationship with Skipper). Instantaneously, it seems the family are a rich landed gentility with strong Southern values: ... feed those precious little things with an oilcloth cover... Ohhh nooo! On Big Daddys birthday? Ostensibly, the Pollits are the embodiment of the American dream (health, wealth and happiness). However, in the overcharged circumstances of the plays familial crisis, many truths are revealed: the desperate fear of death, hidden guilt, isolation, the inability to face the truth and materialism. The latter is most notably symbolised by the many no-neck monsters Mae and Gooper have produced. Due to this, Williams inevitably exposes the hidden tru th (i.e. the Pollits are merely examples of a failed American Dream). Aristotles three classical unities (time, place, action notable in the text before Act II and III: There is no lapse of time and plastic theatre help to intensify the drama. Historically, the Pollits in Southern America, an area that once dominated America both financially and politically. However, after the defeat to the North many factors, including the financial wealth and slave trade of the district, had decreased rapidly. The financial power had swung to the North, who notably have many businessmen and lawyers who posses lateral thinking, this is symbolised by Goopers profession. The defeat was a complete embarrassment to the Southerners and they had been stigmatised to a certain extent. Thus, the strong &ap...

The reasons why the British, from Parliament to the Expeditionary Essay

The reasons why the British, from Parliament to the Expeditionary Forces, were defeated by a less trained and weaker American army in the American Revolutionary - Essay Example How could a group of colonies spread out over a vast region with no central government or treasury and an army that was inadequately trained and equipped possibly defeat the British who were the most powerful military force at that time? Britain had ruled over the thirteen colonies in America for more than 200 years prior to the Revolution. By the beginning of the Revolution, the wars against France fought on both sides of the Atlantic had burdened Britain with a massive national debt. To ease the national debt, Parliament imposed taxes on the colonists believing it only fair that they bear part of the expenses incurred by the British military in protecting them from Indian attacks and French invasions. The Stamp Act taxed paper goods sent to the colonies. It was the first of these laws while, with the tea tax, was one of the most infamous of these laws. The colonists thought taxation without representation in the British government to be unjust and openly protested these laws which led to hostilities between British troops and the Massachusetts Minutemen in 1775. This and other conflicts with the ‘Red Coats’ led to colonists forming the Continental Congress which immediately created the Continental Arm y and in 1776, signed the Declaration of Independence (The American Revolution, 2006). The Americans, outmatched by more than three-to-one, were predictably defeated in the majority of battles that occurred during the war’s first year. However, the Americans’ fortune began to change following the victories at Saratoga and Germantown in 1777. These important first triumphs gave increased credibility to what had previously been widely considered as an unorganized, minor uprising certain to be vanquished by the mighty British army. By 1778, France had become convinced that Britain stood the chance of being defeated. Wanting nothing more than this,

Science Questions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Science Questions - Essay Example Living systems in a region may contain wetlands, prairies, coral reefs, rainforests, tundra, or the canopy of an old growth forest. Ecosystem services would comprise the capability of nature to assimilate waste, turn sunlight into edible plants, and create oxygen. With in this natural source we can be able to come up of a natural income. There are lots of natural capitals that can be a source of natural income. An example of natural capital is the water get from springs which are then processed and purified and be sold as mineral or distilled water. This kind of natural capital and natural income can be able to sustain resource by preserving the natural resource itself. The company that sells this drinking water can put up their business site where they get their water. They can make strategies to put up the building in such a way that it will also look like a resort to customers. They will take care of the trees and the water flowing there so that it can replenish itself. Cleanliness should also be maintained and the owner should establish ecological ethics to refrain from any environmental issues that may lead to the downfall of the business. In this way, it will be attractive for customers to come along and buy the product. According to Wikipedia (2006), primary production is is the fixation of light energy into chemical compounds (the construction of sugars from CO2 and water; photosynthesis). Gross primary production then refers to the total amount of energy fixed by plants (the primary producers). This energy can then be used by plants to generate new biomass; growing. While net productivity according to Kimball’s Biology Page (2004) refers to the amount of energy trapped in organic matter during a particular interval at a given trophic level. The quantity of the trapped energy of the plants (net productivity) will then be processed (H2O, CO2, and sunlight) by plants into starch is called primary gross. Biodiversity has been

Audit Consultant Essay Example for Free

Audit Consultant Essay The Science of Scientific Writing If the reader is to grasp what the writer means, the writer must understand what the reader needs George D. Gopen and Judith A. Swan* *George D. Gopen is associate professor of English and Director of Writing Programs at Duke University. He holds a Ph. D. in English from Harvard University and a J. D. from Harvard Law School. Judith A. Swan teaches scientific writing at Princeton University. Her Ph. D. , which is in biochemistry, was earned at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Address for Gopen: 307 Allen Building, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706 Science is often hard to read. Most people assume that its difficulties are born out of necessity, out of the extreme complexity of scientific concepts, data and analysis. We argue here that complexity of thought need not lead to impenetrability of expression; we demonstrate a number of rhetorical principles that can produce clarity in communication without oversimplifying scientific issues. The results are substantive, not merely cosmetic: Improving the quality of writing actually improves the quality of thought. The fundamental purpose of scientific discourse is not the mere presentation of information and thought, but rather its actual communication. It does not matter how pleased an author might be to have converted all the right data into sentences and paragraphs; it matters only whether a large majority of the reading audience accurately perceives what the author had in mind. Therefore, in order to understand how best to improve writing, we would do well to understand better how readers go about reading. Such an understanding has recently become available through work done in the fields of rhetoric, linguistics and cognitive psychology. It has helped to produce a methodology based on the concept of reader expectations. Writing with the Reader in Mind: Expectation and Context Readers do not simply read; they interpret. Any piece of prose, no matter how short, may mean in 10 (or more) different ways to 10 different readers. This methodology of reader expectations is founded on the recognition that readers make many of their most important interpretive decisions about the substance of prose based on clues they receive from its structure. This interplay between substance and structure can be demonstrated by something as basic as a simple table. Let us say that in tracking the temperature of a liquid over a period of time, an investigator takes measurements every three minutes and records a list of temperatures. Those data could be presented by a number of written structures. Here are two possibilities: t(time)=15’, T(temperature)=32? , t=0’, T=25? ; t=6’, T=29? ; t=3’, T=27? ; t=12’, T=32? ; t=9’; T=31? time (min) 0 3 6 9 12 15 temperature(? C) 25 27 29 31 32 32 Precisely the same information appears in both formats, yet most readers find the second easier to interpret. It may be that the very familiarity of the tabular structure makes it easier to use. But, more significantly, the structure of the second table provides the reader with an easily perceived context (time) in which the significant piece of information (temperature) can be interpreted. The contextual material appears on the left in a pattern that produces an expectation of regularity; the interesting results appear on the right in a less obvious pattern, the discovery of which is the point of the table. If the two sides of this simple table are reversed, it becomes much harder to read. temperature(? C) 25 27 29 31 32 32 time(min) 0 3 6 9 12 15. Since we read from left to right, we prefer the context on the left, where it can more effectively familiarize the reader. We prefer the new, important information on the right, since its job is to intrigue the reader. Information is interpreted more easily and more uniformly if it is placed where most readers expect to find it. These needs and expectations of readers affect the interpretation not only of tables and illustrations but also of prose itself. Readers have relatively fixed expectations about where in the structure of prose they will encounter particular items of its substance. If writers can become consciously aware of these locations, they can better control the degrees of recognition and emphasis a reader will give to the various pieces of information being presented. Good writers are intuitively aware of these expectations; that is why their prose has what we call shape. This underlying concept of reader expectation is perhaps most immediately evident at the level of the largest units of discourse. (A unit of discourse is defined as anything with a beginning and an end: a clause, a sentence, a section, an article, etc. ) A research article, for example, is generally divided into recognizable sections, sometimes labeled Introduction, Experimental Methods, Results and Discussion. When the sections are confusedwhen too much experimental detail is found in the Results section, or when discussion and results interminglereaders are often equally confused. In smaller units of discourse the functional divisions are not so explicitly labeled, but readers have definite expectations all the same, and they search for certain information in particular places. If these structural expectations are continually violated, readers are forced to divert energy from understanding the content of a passage to unraveling its structure. As the complexity of the context increases moderately, the possibility of misinterpretation or noninterpretation increases dramatically. We present here some results of applying this methodology to research reports in the scientific literature. We have taken several passages from research articles (either published or accepted for publication) and have suggested ways of rewriting them by applying principles derived from the study of reader expectations. We have not sought to transform the passages into plain English for the use of the general public; we have neither decreased the jargon nor diluted the science. We have striven not for simplification but for clarification. Reader Expectations for the Structure of Prose Here is our first example of scientific prose, in its original form: The smallest of the URF’s (URFA6L), a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene. The functional significance of the other URF’s has been, on the contrary, elusive. Recently, however, immunoprecipitation experiments with antibodies to purified, rotenone-sensitive NADH-ubiquinone oxido-reductase [hereafter referred to as respiratory chain NADH dehydrogenase or complex I] from bovine heart, as well as enzyme fractionation studies, have indicated that six human URF’s (that is, URF1, URF2, URF3, URF4, URF4L, and URF5, hereafter referred to as ND1, ND2, ND3, ND4, ND4L, and ND5) encode subunits of complex I. This is a large complex that also contains many subunits synthesized in the cytoplasm. * [*The full paragraph includes one more sentence: Support for such functional identification of the URF products has come from the finding that the purified rotenone-sensitive NADH dehydrogenase from Neurospora crassa contains several subunits synthesized within the mitochondria, and from the observation that the stopper mutant of Neurospora crassa, whose mtDNA lacks two genes homologous to URF2 and URF3, has no functional complex I. We have omitted this sentence both because the passage is long enough as is and because it raises no additional structural issues. ] Ask any ten people why this paragraph is hard to read, and nine are sure to mention the technical vocabulary; several will also suggest that it requires specialized background knowledge. Those problems turn out to be only a small part of the difficulty. Here is the passage again, with the difficult words temporarily lifted: The smallest of the URF’s, and [A], has been identified as a [B] subunit 8 gene. The functional significance of the other URF’s has been, on the contrary, elusive. Recently, however, [C] experiments, as well as [D] studies, have indicated that six human URF’s [1-6] encode subunits of Complex I. This is a large complex that also contains many subunits synthesized in the cytoplasm. It may now be easier to survive the journey through the prose, but the passage is still difficult. Any number of questions present themselves: What has the first sentence of the passage to do with the last sentence? Does the third sentence contradict what we have been told in the second sentence? Is the functional significance of URF’s still elusive? Will this passage lead us to further discussion about URF’s, or about Complex I, or both? Information is interpreted more easily and more  uniformly if it is placed where most readers expect to find it. Knowing a little about the subject matter does not clear up all the confusion. The intended audience of this passage would probably possess at least two items of essential technical information: first, URF stands for Uninterrupted Reading Frame, which describes a segment of DNA organized in such a way that it could encode a protein, although no such protein product has yet been identified; second, both APTase and NADH oxido-reductase are enzyme complexes central to energy metabolism. Although this information may provide some sense of comfort, it does little to answer the interpretive questions that need answering. It seems the reader is hindered by more than just the scientific jargon. To get at the problem, we need to articulate something about how readers go about reading. We proceed to the first of several reader expectations. Subject-Verb Separation Look again at the first sentence of the passage cited above. It is relatively long, 42 words; but that turns out not to be the main cause of its burdensome complexity. Long sentences need not be difficult to read; they are only difficult to write. We have seen sentences of over 100 words that flow easily and persuasively toward their clearly demarcated destination. Those well-wrought serpents all had something in common: Their structure presented information to readers in the order the readers needed and expected it. Beginning with the exciting material and ending with a lack of luster often leaves us disappointed and destroys our sense of momentum. The first sentence of our example passage does just the opposite: it burdens and obstructs the reader, because of an all-too-common structural defect. Note that the grammatical subject (the smallest) is separated from its verb (has been identified) by 23 words, more than half the sentence. Readers expect a grammatical subject to be followed immediately by the verb. Anything of length that intervenes between subject and verb is read as an interruption, and therefore as something of lesser importance. The reader’s expectation stems from a pressing need for syntactic resolution, fulfilled only by the arrival of the verb. Without the verb, we do not know what the subject is doing, or what the sentence is all about. As a result, the reader focuses attention on the arrival of the verb and resists recognizing anything in the interrupting material as being of primary importance. The longer the interruption lasts, the more likely it becomes that the interruptive material actually contains important information; but its structural location will continue to brand it as merely interruptive. Unfortunately, the reader will not discover its true value until too late-until the sentence has ended without having produced anything of much value outside of that subject-verb interruption. In this first sentence of the paragraph, the relative importance of the intervening material is difficult to evaluate. The material might conceivably be quite significant, in which case the writer should have positioned it to reveal that importance. Here is one way to incorporate it into the sentence structure: The smallest of the URF’s is URFA6L, a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene; it has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene. On the other hand, the intervening material might be a mere aside that diverts attention from more important ideas; in that case the writer should have deleted it, allowing the prose to drive more directly toward its significant point: The smallest of the URF’s (URFA6L) has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene. Only the author could tell us which of these revisions more accurately reflects his intentions. These revisions lead us to a second set of reader expectations. Each unit of discourse, no matter what the size, is expected to serve a single function, to make a single point. In the case of a sentence, the point is expected to appear in a specific place reserved for emphasis. The Stress Position It is a linguistic commonplace that readers naturally emphasize the material that arrives at the end of a sentence. We refer to that location as a stress position. If a writer is consciously aware of this tendency, she can arrange for the emphatic information to appear at the moment the reader is naturally exerting the greatest reading emphasis. As a result, the chances greatly increase that reader and writer will perceive the same material as being worthy of primary emphasis. The very structure of the sentence thus helps persuade the reader of the relative values of the sentence’s contents. The inclination to direct more energy to that which arrives last in a sentence seems to correspond to the way we work at tasks through time. We tend to take something like a mental breath as we begin to read each new sentence, thereby summoning the tension with which we pay attention to the unfolding of the syntax. As we recognize that the sentence is drawing toward its conclusion, we begin to exhale that mental breath. The exhalation produces a sense of emphasis. Moreover, we delight in being rewarded at the end of a labor with something that makes the ongoing effort worthwhile. Beginning with the exciting material and ending with a lack of luster often leaves us disappointed and destroys our sense of momentum. We do not start with the strawberry shortcake and work our way up to the broccoli. When the writer puts the emphatic material of a sentence in any place other than the stress position, one of two things can happen; both are bad. First, the reader might find the stress position occupied by material that clearly is not worthy of emphasis. In this case, the reader must discern, without any additional structural clue, what else in the sentence may be the most likely candidate for emphasis. There are no secondary structural indications to fall back upon. In sentences that are long, dense or sophisticated, chances soar that the reader will not interpret the prose precisely as the writer intended. The second possibility is even worse: The reader may find the stress position occupied by something that does appear capable of receiving emphasis, even though the writer did not intend to give it any stress. In that case, the reader is highly likely to emphasize this imposter material, and the writer will have lost an important opportunity to influence the reader’s interpretive process. The stress position can change in size from sentence to sentence. Sometimes it consists of a single word; sometimes it extends to several lines. The definitive factor is this: The stress position coincides with the moment of syntactic closure. A reader has reached the beginning of the stress position when she knows there is nothing left in the clause or sentence but the material presently being read. Thus a whole list, numbered and indented, can occupy the stress position of a sentence if it has been clearly announced as being all that remains of that sentence. Each member of that list, in turn, may have its own internal stress position, since each member may produce its own syntactic closure. Within a sentence, secondary stress positions can be formed by the appearance of a properly used colon or semicolon; by grammatical convention, the material preceding these punctuation marks must be able to stand by itself as a complete sentence. Thus, sentences can be extended effortlessly to dozens of words, as long as there is a medial syntactic closure for every piece of new, stress-worthy information along the way. One of our revisions of the initial sentence can serve as an example: The smallest of the URF’s is URFA6L, a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene; it has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene. By using a semicolon, we created a second stress position to accommodate a second piece of information that seemed to require emphasis. We now have three rhetorical principles based on reader expectations: First, grammatical subjects should be followed as soon as possible by their verbs; second, every unit of discourse, no matter the size, should serve a single function or make a single point; and, third, information intended to be emphasized should appear at points of syntactic closure. Using these principles, we can begin to unravel the problems of our example prose. Note the subject-verb separation in the 62-word third sentence of the original passage: Recently, however, immunoprecipitation experiments with antibodies to purified, rotenone-sensitive NADH-ubiquinone oxido-reductase [hereafter referred to as respiratory chain NADH dehydrogenase or complex I] from bovine heart, as well as enzyme fractionation studies, have indicated that six human URF’s (that is, URF1, URF2, URF3, URF4, URF4L, and URF5,  hereafter referred to as ND1, ND2, ND3, ND4, ND4L and ND5) encode subunits of complex I. After encountering the subject (experiments), the reader must wade through 27 words (including three hyphenated compound words, a parenthetical interruption and an as well as phrase) before alighting on the highly uninformative and disappointingly anticlimactic verb (have indicated). Without a moment to recover, the reader is handed a that clause in which the new subject (six human URF’s) is separated from its verb (encode) by yet another 20 words. If we applied the three principles we have developed to the rest of the sentences of the example, we could generate a great many revised versions of each. These revisions might differ significantly from one another in the way their structures indicate to the reader the various weights and balances to be given to the information. Had the author placed all stress-worthy material in stress positions, we as a reading community would have been far more likely to interpret these sentences uniformly. We couch this discussion in terms of likelihood  because we believe that meaning is not inherent in discourse by itself; meaning requires the combined participation of text and reader. All sentences are infinitely interpretable, given an infinite number of interpreters. As communities of readers, however, we tend to work out tacit agreements as to what kinds of meaning are most likely to be extracted from certain articulations. We cannot succeed in making even a single sentence mean one and only one thing; we can only increase the odds that a large majority of readers will tend to interpret our discourse according to our intentions. Such success will follow from authors becoming more consciously aware of the various reader expectations presented here. W e cannot succeed in making even a single sentence mean one and only one thing; we can only increase the odds that a large majority of readers will tend to interpret our discourse according to our intentions. Here is one set of revisionary decisions we made for the example: The smallest of the URF’s, URFA6L, has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene; but the functional significance of other URF’s has been more elusive. Recently, however, several human URF’s have been shown to encode subunits of rotenone-sensitive NADH-ubiquinone oxido-reductase. This is a large complex that also contains many subunits synthesized in the cytoplasm; it will be referred to hereafter as respiratory chain NADH dehydrogenase or complex I. Six subunits of Complex I were shown by enzyme fractionation studies and immunoprecipitation experiments to be encoded by six human URF’s (URF1, URF2, URF3, URF4, URF4L, and URF5); these URF’s will be referred to subsequently as ND1, ND2, ND3, ND4, ND4L and ND5. Sheer length was neither the problem nor the solution. The revised version is not noticeably shorter than the original; nevertheless, it is significantly easier to interpret. We have indeed deleted certain words, but not on the basis of wordiness or excess length. (See especially the last sentence of our revision. ) When is a sentence too long? The creators of readability formulas would have us believe there exists some fixed number of words (the favorite is 29) past which a sentence is too hard to read. We disagree. We have seen 10-word sentences that are virtually impenetrable  and, as we mentioned above, 100-word sentences that flow effortlessly to their points of resolution. In place of the word-limit concept, we offer the following definition: A sentence is too long when it has more viable candidates for stress positions than there are stress positions available. Without the stress position’s locational clue that its material is intended to be emphasized, readers are left too much to their own devices in deciding just what else in a sentence might be considered important. In revising the example passage, we made certain decisions about what to omit and what to emphasize. We put subjects and verbs together to lessen the reader’s syntactic burdens; we put the material we believed worthy of emphasis in stress positions; and we discarded material for which we could not discern significant connections. In doing so, we have produced a clearer passagebut not one that necessarily reflects the author’s intentions; it reflects only our interpretation of the author’s intentions. The more problematic the structure, the less likely it becomes that a grand majority of readers will perceive the discourse in exactly the way the author intended. T he information that begins a sentence establishes  for the reader a perspective for viewing the sentence as a unit. It is probable that many of our readersand perhaps even the authorswill disagree with some of our choices. If so, that disagreement underscores our point: The original failed to communicate its ideas and their connections clearly. If we happened to have interpreted the passage as you did, then we can make a different point: No one should have to work as hard as we did to unearth the content of a single passage of this length. The Topic Position To summarize the principles connected with the stress position, we have the proverbial wisdom, Save the best for last. To summarize the principles connected with the other end of the sentence, which we will call the topic position, we have its proverbial contradiction, First things first. In the stress position the reader needs and expects closure and fulfillment; in the topic position the reader needs and expects perspective and context. With so much of reading comprehension affected by what shows up in the topic position, it behooves a writer to control what appears at the beginning of sentences with great care. The information that begins a sentence  establishes for the reader a perspective for viewing the sentence as a unit: Readers expect a unit of discourse to be a story about whoever shows up first. Bees disperse pollen and Pollen is dispersed by bees are two different but equally respectable sentences about the same facts. The first tells us something about bees; the second tells us something about pollen. The passivity of the second sentence does not by itself impair its quality; in fact, Pollen is dispersed by bees is the superior sentence if it appears in a paragraph that intends to tell us a continuing story about pollen. Pollen’s story at that moment is a passive one. Readers also expect the material occupying the topic position to provide them with linkage (looking backward) and context (looking forward). The information in the topic position prepares the reader for upcoming material by connecting it backward to the previous discussion. Although linkage and context can derive from several sources, they stem primarily from material that the reader has already encountered within this particular piece of discourse. We refer to this familiar, previously introduced material as old information. Conversely, material making its first appearance in a discourse is new information. When new information is important enough to receive emphasis, it functions best in the stress position. When old information consistently arrives in the topic position, it helps readers to construct the logical flow of the argument: It focuses attention on one particular strand of the discussion, both harkening backward and leaning forward. In contrast, if the topic position is constantly occupied by material that fails to establish linkage and context, readers will have difficulty perceiving both the connection to the previous sentence and the projected role of the new sentence in the development of the paragraph as a whole. Here is a second example of scientific prose that we shall attempt to improve in subsequent discussion: Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are approximately uniform. Therefore, in first approximation, one may expect that large ruptures of the same fault segment will occur at approximately constant time intervals. If subsequent main shocks have different amounts of slip across the fault, then the recurrence time may vary, and the basic idea of periodic mainshocks must be modified. For great plate boundary ruptures the length and slip often vary by a factor of 2. Along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the recurrence interval is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock. This is the kind of passage that in subtle ways can make readers feel badly about themselves. The individual sentences give the impression of being intelligently fashioned: They are not especially long or convoluted; their vocabulary is appropriately professional but not beyond the ken of educated general readers; and they are free of grammatical and dictional errors. On first reading, however, many of us arrive at the paragraph’s end without a clear sense of where we have been or where we are going. When that happens, we tend to berate ourselves for not having paid close enough attention. In reality, the fault lies not with us, but with the author. We can distill the problem by looking closely at the information in each sentence’s topic position: Large earthquakes The rates Therefore one subsequent mainshocks great plate boundary ruptures the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the smaller the standard deviation Much of this information is making its first appearance in this paragraphin precisely the spot where the reader looks for old, familiar information. As a result, the focus of the story constantly shifts. Given just the material in the topic positions, no two readers would be likely to construct exactly the same story for the paragraph as a whole. If we try to piece together the relationship of each sentence to its neighbors, we notice that certain bits of old information keep reappearing. We hear a good deal about the recurrence time between earthquakes: The first sentence introduces the concept of nonrandom intervals between earthquakes; the second sentence tells us that recurrence rates due to the movement of tectonic plates are more or less uniform; the third sentence adds that the recurrence rates of major earthquakes should also be somewhat predictable; the fourth sentence adds that recurrence rates vary with some conditions; the fifth sentence adds information about one particular variation; the sixth sentence adds a recurrence-rate example from California; and the last sentence tells us  something about how recurrence rates can be described statistically. This refrain of recurrence intervals constitutes the major string of old information in the paragraph. Unfortunately, it rarely appears at the beginning of sentences, where it would help us maintain our focus on its continuing story. In reading, as in most experiences, we appreciate the opportunity to become familiar with a new environment before having to function in it. Writing that continually begins sentences with new information and ends with old information forbids both the sense of comfort and orientation at the start and the sense of fulfilling arrival at the end. It misleads the reader as to whose story is being told; it burdens the reader with new information that must be carried further into the sentence before it can be connected to the discussion; and it creates ambiguity as to which material the writer intended the reader to emphasize. All of these distractions require that readers expend a disproportionate amount of energy to unravel the structure of the prose, leaving less energy available for perceiving content. We can begin to revise the example by ensuring the following for each sentence: 1. The backward-linking old information appears in the topic position. 2. The person, thing or concept whose story it is appears in the topic position. 3. The new, emphasis-worthy information appears in the stress position. Once again, if our decisions concerning the relative values of specific information differ from yours, we can all blame the author, who failed to make his intentions apparent. Here first is a list of what we perceived to be the new, emphatic material in each sentence: time to accumulate strain energy along a fault approximately uniform large ruptures of the same fault different amounts of slip vary by a factor of 2 variations of several decades predictions of future mainshock Now, based on these assumptions about what deserves stress, here is our proposed revision: Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are roughly uniform. Therefore, nearly constant time intervals (at first approximation) would be expected between large ruptures of the same fault segment. [However? ], the recurrence time may vary; the basic idea of periodic mainshocks may need to be modified if subsequent mainshocks have different amounts of slip across the fault. [Indeed? ], the length and slip of great plate boundary ruptures often vary by a factor of 2. [For example? ], the recurrence intervals along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock. Many problems that had existed in the original have now surfaced for the first time. Is the reason earthquakes do not occur at random intervals stated in the first sentence or in the second? Are the suggested choices of however, indeed, and for example the right ones to express the connections at those points? (All these connections were left unarticulated in the original paragraph. ) If for example is an inaccurate transitional phrase, then exactly how does the San Andreas fault example connect to ruptures that vary by a factor of 2? Is the author arguing that recurrence rates must vary because fault movements often vary? Or is the author preparing us for a discussion of how in spite of such variance we might still be able to predict earthquakes? This last question remains unanswered because the final sentence.

To Kill A Mockingbird Essays: Doing the Right Thing :: Kill Mockingbird essays

To Kill a Mockingbird "I simply want to tell you that there are some men in this world who were born to do our unpleasant jobs for us. Your father's one of them." – Miss Maudie The quote above states that Atticus Finch was a man who did unpleasant things, but this quote is false. Miss Maudie had every good intention when she told Jem and Scout this and her point was taken in the way she intended it to be taken by the children. Her point could have been better worded if the portion that reads "our unpleasant jobs" were replaced with "what is right." Atticus did unpleasant things only because he knew that they were the right thing to do. Miss Maudie told the children about their father in this way only to avoid saying that the rest of the town was wrong. Atticus remained a pillar of righteousness in a town whose moral foundation was weak to say the least. When Atticus took Tom Robinson's case, he didn't treat the case differently from any other he might take on. He knew that there was no way that Tom would be saved from death no matter how well he defended him. From opening to closing statements, Atticus remained vigilant in his defense of Tom. Another consequence of defending Tom Robinson in court, aside from being known as a "nigger lover" and opening himself to several other forms of racial hatred from the good people of Maycomb, Atticus was also arguing against a man who was known to be a violent drunk. Bob Ewell was a frightening man and it was noble of Atticus to put himself in a position of opposing such an unstable individual. Atticus remained a gentleman when Ewell confronted him at the post office. Most men in his position would have violently lashed out at Robert E. after being spat upon. Atticus did the right thing and remained a gentleman throughout the confrontation. Miss Maudie's statement is true in that the right things he did were sometimes unpleasant, I think Aunty Alexandra's stay with the Finch Family was one of those things. Even if Aunty's stay wasn't entirely his idea, Atticus tolerated her stay and her a treatment of the children because he knew that in some ways she was good for the children. Scout needed to have a female influence in her life and unfortunately that meant having a sometimes cold and stern woman living with them. To Kill A Mockingbird Essays: Doing the Right Thing :: Kill Mockingbird essays To Kill a Mockingbird "I simply want to tell you that there are some men in this world who were born to do our unpleasant jobs for us. Your father's one of them." – Miss Maudie The quote above states that Atticus Finch was a man who did unpleasant things, but this quote is false. Miss Maudie had every good intention when she told Jem and Scout this and her point was taken in the way she intended it to be taken by the children. Her point could have been better worded if the portion that reads "our unpleasant jobs" were replaced with "what is right." Atticus did unpleasant things only because he knew that they were the right thing to do. Miss Maudie told the children about their father in this way only to avoid saying that the rest of the town was wrong. Atticus remained a pillar of righteousness in a town whose moral foundation was weak to say the least. When Atticus took Tom Robinson's case, he didn't treat the case differently from any other he might take on. He knew that there was no way that Tom would be saved from death no matter how well he defended him. From opening to closing statements, Atticus remained vigilant in his defense of Tom. Another consequence of defending Tom Robinson in court, aside from being known as a "nigger lover" and opening himself to several other forms of racial hatred from the good people of Maycomb, Atticus was also arguing against a man who was known to be a violent drunk. Bob Ewell was a frightening man and it was noble of Atticus to put himself in a position of opposing such an unstable individual. Atticus remained a gentleman when Ewell confronted him at the post office. Most men in his position would have violently lashed out at Robert E. after being spat upon. Atticus did the right thing and remained a gentleman throughout the confrontation. Miss Maudie's statement is true in that the right things he did were sometimes unpleasant, I think Aunty Alexandra's stay with the Finch Family was one of those things. Even if Aunty's stay wasn't entirely his idea, Atticus tolerated her stay and her a treatment of the children because he knew that in some ways she was good for the children. Scout needed to have a female influence in her life and unfortunately that meant having a sometimes cold and stern woman living with them.

The Allure of Drugs

The allure of drugs is one that many people cannot resist. We all know someone who has been affected by drug addiction. It may be a teenager at school who is using marijuana for the first time or a friend you know who has become addicted to meth. Whatever the circumstance, there are many things you can do to help someone sober up from drug addiction. Teens are under a lot of pressure to try drugs whether it comes from their curiosity their friends and peers or television and movies. They are also generally easy to obtain in schools and areas around schools.This makes the barrier to entry for these drugs very small for many teenagers. Teenagers often do not fully think through their decisions and the consequences. There are 8 common reasons why teenagers use drugs. The first one is their surroundings. The people they hang out with. They want to seem cool with their peers. Some do it because they see how their family uses it for fun. So they think there is nothing wrong with it. Some t eenagers see drugs and alcohol in TV. They see how the people they want to be use it all the time.There is a show called â€Å"True Life: I am an addict† In this episode they show different people and their drug addictions. Many of these people say they tried drugs at a very young age and that their reason was because of their peers. A young girl at the age of 18 says she uses alcohol to feel pretty, to get attention from other people, and because she enjoys the feeling. Teenagers are very emotional. They use drugs to escape from any pain they are feeling. They drink or do drugs to not feel any pain at all. Some teenagers consume such things to escape the real world. Some teenagers consume because they are bored.Being bored is something every teenager feels everyone in a while. They don’t know what to do so they get anxious and curious to try new things. So they try to have fun by trying and experimenting new things. Some teenagers don’t get much attention at ho me. They want to rebel and make their parents pay attention to what they are doing. They feel like the more they rebel the more they get to feel that their parents are going to be there showing they care. Unfortunately smoking and drinking are widely promoted as habits enjoyed by sophisticated, fun-loving, attractive and sexy people.What most teens want to become. If drug use wasn’t pleasurable, it would be relatively easy to keep kids and harmful substances separated. But the reality is that many teens enjoy the way they feel on drugs, at least for a while. Wayward children may engage in smoking, alcohol and drug use as a show of independence from family norms and valves. For many people life is just plain tough and normal waking can brings a constant stream of unpleasant sights, smells, sounds and sensations. The prospect of a chemical â€Å"timeout† may look very attractive.Even when a person has plenty of creature comforts, the prevailing emotional whether can stil l be turbulent: Kids and teens often feel anxious, angry, depressed oppressed, stressed, bored or unfulfilled. Many teenagers and young adults are prone to aware their own invulnerability or immortality make shortsighted decisions, or shrug off the most fervent warnings about life’s pitfalls and perish with a smirk or the defiant pronouncements â€Å"I don’t care† shedding this perspective, learning to weight consequences and adopting a long range view of life are normal parts of maturing into adulthood.Unfortunately some who become deeply involved in drug use remain stuck in an immature, self-destructive mind set. Teen’s drug abuse can have a number of negative consequences, including. Driving under the influence including Driving under the influence of any drug can impair driver’s motor skills, reaction time and judgment putting the driver, his or her passengers and others on the road at risk. Teens who abuse drugs are more likely to have poor ju dgment, which can result in unplanned and unsafe sex. Teens who abuse drugs are at risk of serious drug us later in life.Drug use may lead to love interests in or become indifferent about what happens at school or in other areas of his or her life. Use of drugs, such as marijuana, may affect the parts of the brain that control memory, motivation attention and learning, making it more difficult to learn and perform complex tasks. It can be difficult to talk to teens about drug abuse. Start by choosing a comfortable time and setting. Share feelings with the teen. When discussing teen drug abuse. Listen to your teens opinions which may differ from your own. Ask questions about drug use.Encourage them to talk by asking open ended questions. Avoid scare tactics. Emphasize how drug use can affect things important to your teens such as sports, driving, health and appearance. Explain that even a teen can develop a drug problem. Talk about what your teen has seen or heard. Don’t be af raid that talking about teen drug abuse will plant ideas in any teens head. Conversations about drugs won’t tempt them to try drugs. Instead talking about drug abuse lets teens know your views and understand what you expect of him or her. American Academy of child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), March 2011. Web.