Why Canada should unite with Britain, Australia and New Zealand to form a Super-Commonwealth.

I m a PHD student who studies Economy around the world. There is no point for me to deduct any point from u. I just want to teach you that Canada's economy history is not that simple, the Americans did so much to help Canada and Australia in the past. However, you didnt ' do much research, since there is no references at all in your essay that supports your own thought. Do you agree?? I'm not against you or anything here.. plz read throught this book -" Canada and the First World War", edited by David MacKenzie ... then u'll know what i am trying to tell you and u might THINK what u really wrote is right or wrong

The structure of the essay should be Intro, parapgraph, body, concluding paragraph. This paper does not have a intro or a conclusion. The intro should talk briefly about what the paper will have in it, with a thesis statement that sums up the question that your paper will address and your answer. The body should have all of your arguments. The conclusion you should re-state your thesis and briefly go over the arguments, no new information should be added.

This is only your own thought, u know nothing about the world...without America, Canada's economy will go dead...and same with Australia. however Australia is much better than Canada now.

Good idea...well thought out essay.

You're right- we should have a new British Empire. I'm sure the British would love to escape the EU and join a stronger alliance on their own terms with people they know and consider 'family'.

I found this essay well rounded well done.

Imagine all those countries combining. Well thought out.

In no way was there an indication that this essay was to be formally written. With that in mind, we must examine the nature of the essay, it's purpose and how effectively and efficiently the author has revealed his or her purpose. The target audience is NOT in academia - if the target audience were professors (or any grader for that matter), I am sure the author would have made appropriate attributions to text, references and regurgitated facts (as you will find most research papers are all about). However, there is no indication that there was such an "assignment". Therefore, the reader must assume that Kier has written this peice out of pleasure - or any other reason BUT to be graded and scrutinized under an academic's eye.


First of all, judging by the way Kier writes, I would have to say he or she is a competent writer. He or she demonstrates a varied vocabulary, a strong rhetorical strategy, a keen eye for detail and insight, a complex and mature syntactical regime and effective, lucid transitions. Bearing this in mind, I highly doubt Kier would have forgotten the basic elements of compisition - abandoning all of those cogent, fresh arguments that make a paper sound and a pleasure to read - to turn in an ill-formatted abortion you, dear Zethro, consider to be good writing. I agree that academic, formal papers should have an introduction with a thesis, body paragraphs with support to any claim made in the thesis, and a conclusion that specifically unifies all concepts discussed in the paper to an over-all universal concept - an idea that can and should inspire a great deal of thought. To criticize Kier for not adhering to the basic, formulaic forms of writing is to put writers like Kier, who have honed their skills over time to produce excellent-quality work without being judged by a discerning eye, in jeopardy in terms of what is acceptable writing. Kier's writing is superior, and thus, does not necessarily need to adhere to such banal, mechanical dribble most freshmen college essayists are TAUGHT to write. I am sure if Kier needed to write this essay for a professor, he or she would not start the essay with "In this essay, I intend ...". It would put his or her paper at jeopardy when being measured and compared against other competent writers. Zethro, if you truly paid attention to the author's ability to write, do you truly think the author would throw the basic elements of rhetorical composition out of the window? Please think about it

I agree this is 'pie in the sky' and sans references. The purpose isn't to present an analysis of a critical area of study, but a personal idea in a limited amount of words; to get the idea across more than to persuade either way. But you are right. When you start claiming however that Australia is of more worth than Canada depte the latter's greater size, economy, membership of the G8 and population, then I would respond by questioning your argument. As it is, I give you a merit for your comment.

It's bloody immature to punish those you don't agree with by resorting to ad hominems. Why did you deduct a point from ME, raddie?

He took a point from me too for agreeing with you, Keir! Has he got something against you and everyone who supports your work?