User Details For: ckoski02

Essay List
Comments List
  • Well Written.

    Very well written. Points were expressed neatly. Good work.
    • 21/12/2003
    • 19:32:42
    • Score: 0 out of 0 people found this comment useful.
  • Poignant

    Beware when making rash statements. "Worshipers of God regard abortion as murdering a soul, claiming that God gives each being a soul at the time of conception." You should note that not all Christians have the same viewpoints (e.g. protsetant semi-ambivalence and catholic disgust of the practice). Again, "A fetus is nothing more than a glob of tissue, a meaningless, lifeless conglomeration of cells." will appear condescending and possibly offensive (I refer you to dixie1's comment) to your readers, which is something to avoid when writing persuasively. Likewise, your comment of the welfare system's "drain[ing] from our tax dollars" presents a different point that is seperate from what you are trying to cover. Don't even mention this; it could serve to alienate even more readers."Adoption is generally not any better for an abandoned child. In most cases the mother of an unwanted child is very young and inexperienced or too poor to take care of even herself. The child would end up malnourished, given little options for a successful life and won't receive the proper attention and love a planned birth child would." Are you really telling the readers that a child we *definitely* be malnourished and neglected if "put up" for adoption? If not, revisit your use of the language.When using science as reasoning, make sure you have reputable sources cited. This was noticeably absent from your point about HIV/AIDS possibly being passed on from mother to child."Morals should not interfere with the topic of abortion but rather, should be based upon reason and personal belief." Funny; I would have thought that's exactly what morals are. Then again, I am American.You write, clearly, with a passion. You should, however, seek to use this constructively through use of proper language. Your propensity for using brash terms coupled with minor mechanical errors takes away fomr your overall message, though.
    • 25/11/2003
    • 17:45:26
    • Score: 3 out of 8 people found this comment useful.
  • Not-well written, but not bad either.

    Make sure you're using the proper punctuation when warranted. I didn't quite understand your second paragraph; it seems like you first blame the government for censoring us and then blaming society for its own views. I didn't understand why you chose to paraphrase Stone in that paragraph, either, since that point (while valid) doesn't seem to fit with what you were trying to say.Your fourth paragraph, was, in my opinion, the best part of your essay--eloquent and straight-forward.Your conclusion, though, was a little incoherent. I didn't quite understand what you were getting at.Overall, a good paper, and good writing. Keep it up.
    • 22/11/2003
    • 19:16:48
    • Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
  • What exactly is this work?

    The way this work is put together leads me to believe that these are just notes from a lecture. You have no introductory paragraph or clear state thesis statement. Your short, blocky sentences do not form clear thoughts. For example, instead of saying, "The ritual of book burning is an ancient ritual. It goes back to 213 BC. Books have been burned for many reasons. But mainly books were burned for fear of power and religion. The first recorded book burnings where from the first emperor of China." you could say instead, "Book burning is an ancient ritual, extending back to 213 B.C. to the time of the first Chinese Emperor, (name). Books have been burned for many reasons over the course of time, but primarily for fear of the power held by religion."This work was poorly written, and I advise you to brush up on your essay organization skills.
    • 10/11/2003
    • 20:46:05
    • Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
  • Adequate

    This was all right, but not great. Most of your sentences were coherent, but were structured in a way that your thoughts appeared to be blocky. Also, try not to use the word "Belgium" in nearly every one of your sentences; this makes your paper appear very repetitive. Redundancy seems to happen quite often in your paper, in which redundancy seems to be the main problem. "In Belgium, you will most likely find small animals, primarily foxes, badgers, pheasants, squirres, weasels, martens, and hedgehogs, are found in Belgium." Overall, not a bad paper, yet you seem to skip over the Flemish and the Walloons--who, if I'm not mistaken, are the two largest ethnic groups in Belgium.
    • 08/11/2003
    • 15:59:18
    • Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
  • "Cordoba!"

    Perhaps you should avoid starting nearly every paragraph with the words "Cordoba is..." How you got a 95% on this I will never know. Cite your sources.
    • 17/08/2003
    • 16:09:36
    • Score: 5 out of 7 people found this comment useful.
  • Uh huh...

    "America is responsible and compassionate enough to know not to use nuclear weapons of mass destruction ... America will not launch a nuclear attack unless one is launched against us" Interesting you would say that, as America has been the only nation to date to use nuclear weapons in war. Not that that wasn't justified, and the historians can argue that one out. But nonetheless, interesting.Overall, sentences were poorly organized, and sometimes incoherent.
    • 17/08/2003
    • 16:04:22
    • Score: 18 out of 19 people found this comment useful.
  • Great work!

    You may be interested to know that the word terrorism was first used in 1795 to describe practices of the French state against its own people. Hmm.Great points--poignantly written.
    • 01/06/2003
    • 20:33:49
    • Score: 2 out of 3 people found this comment useful.
  • Great!

    This is wonderfully written, you exmplain with great detail. I like the lyrics--it adds to the general theme of your piece as informative, but not condescending. Keep up the good work!
    • 01/06/2003
    • 20:17:16
    • Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
  • Good work!

    Wonderfully written, very informative--keep up the good work!
    • 01/06/2003
    • 20:09:22
    • Score: 3 out of 3 people found this comment useful.
  • Hmm

    This essay really didn't flow that nicely. You use short, choppy sentences--try to avoid this for future use. You bring up a good point of naming countires that ban corporal punishment--but it is important to realize that these laws can be extremely hard to enforce. Perhaps corporal punishment should not be encouraged, rather than outlawed, with the exception of the most severe cases.
    • 31/05/2003
    • 17:56:11
    • Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
  • Poorly written.

    This essay is in no way fluid--while your paragraphs flow nicely, I often get the feeling that I am being jerked from one thought to another. You make rash statements without backing them up. "It has been proven that marijuana can greatly reduce some of the effects of cancer." Well, I think that bunnies reduce cancer, so can I claim that? Also, do not answer a question with another question, such as my question about this essay: "Why should marijuana be legalized?" Instead of telling me why, and then backing them up with reputable sources, you give me the equivalent of saying "Well, why shouldn't it?" Finally, your concluding sentence, "When will the relief of pain for the ill, reducing crime, making money and restoring forests be enough to convince the people and government that marijuana needs to become legal?", does not end the paper adequately. Don't ask me. Tell me.
    • 29/05/2003
    • 21:08:20
    • Score: 1 out of 2 people found this comment useful.