This is due at 00:00 on 4/27/2017
Most of countries in the world are constitutional republic. People who have power financially and politically make decisions. The elites have performed a crucial sensitizing role in the process of articulating the sense of nationhood (Barr and Skrbis, 2008). In my paper I would argue why and how the society under the control of the elites is not successful. More specifically, why the elitism can be unsuccessful.
Wirte an argumentitive essay about why elitism is bad/ could be unsucessful for the soeciety.
Use the ideas from
Hobbes, Leviathan,Locke, Second Treatise of Government,Rousseau, The Social Contract, Kant, Part Two of “Theory and Practice”,Marx, selections from Grundrisse,Rawls, A Theory of Justice,Mills, The Racial Contract,Pateman, The Sexual Contract, Ferguson, “Social Contract Theory as Bourgeois Ideology”, Pateman, The Sexual Contract. (at least 4 of them should be mentioned.)
The essay should be 13-15 pages long.
April 29 2017 update:
The paper was not organized.
I uploaded an guide for it.
April 30 2017 update:
This is some comment from professor.
In looking over your paper, I have a few questions/clarifications/issues that should probably be addressed in your final paper.
- Where is your thesis? Generally, your thesis goes at the end of your introductory paragraph(s), but I couldn't seem to find it. The part where you actually start arguing something appears to be around the section titled 'why elites are not successful,' but I need something indicating your argument much sooner than that. Furthermore, I wasn't really sure what you were arguing until your conclusion–your introduction should definitely be more focused on the point you're trying to make.
- Keep in mind that constitutions are not unique to democratic societies, and also that monarchy is not a governmental system that necessarily excludes democracy. For example, Great Britain is what we call a constitutional monarchy–they have a constitution, a monarch, and democratically elected representatives.
- Headings should ONLY be used if they designate sections that will be tied together to form an argument. Your current headings function more like topic sentences than headings, and therefore seem redundant. Either shorten them to the key point of each section (MAYBE three words total) or integrate them into the paragraphs as topic sentences.
The paper was 49/100. Which will result in a refund.
The introduction and claims presented are not argumentative. Your first two claims are merely discussions of the difference in viewpoint between Hobbes and Locke with little argument regarding the assertion of 'better.'
Not all sentences are complete, many are fragments.
There is no supporting evidence–the arguments feature no quotes from either author.
Your conclusion summarizes your points, but does not suggest reasons for your reader to care about what you've said.
Overall, your organization is fairly haphazard. Each component of your supporting evidence sections tries to do too much, and therefore your overall claim is not cohesive.
If you're not already visiting the Writing Center for additional guidance in completing your assignments, you may wish to do that!
Things to focus on for your next outline:
SHORT, CLEAR SENTENCES
Nothing wrong with choosing short, simple words rather than very complicated vocabulary.
Explain why the things you cite as evidence really do count as evidence for your thesis.
Flesh out any sentence fragments so that they are short, clear sentences.
Consider objections at every turn. (For example, what about someone who says North Korea is not a monarchy in Hobbes's sense (or perhaps, at all)?)