khadim-s argumantutive essay

ARGUMANTITIVE ESSAY


Students should be allowed to use phones in school

Many schools do not allowe their students to use phones in school, but some think that is wrong, others think that might be a good idea by not letting them use their phones at school.
Now in New York City many schools do not allowed their students to use their phones in school, maybe they realize that by letting them use their phones in school can distract the teachers or they may listen to music while they are in class. However there is no evidence to support that claim, because many students use their phone for an emergency call by their parents.

Some people argue that to not let the students use their phones is wrong, because it is certainly true that many students need their phones for an emegency call. And those people also agree that students should turn off their phones while they are in class, and remain off until they leave the classroom or after the final period. The students can use them outside or after school. Cell phones have become more than just a phone, because of text messeging and cameras. Students are now able to cheat with the help of technology. And now with the new cell phone called iphone which they can have internet in it and text message and listen to music

Other people think that students should not be allowed to use phones at school, because the students can disturb other students that want to learn. The students can have cell phones if they turn them off at school. However, in the case if they do not follow these rules, the administration can have them confiscated. students have responded well to have their cell phones with them, but turn off or put it in vibration to provides a safety net for them in case of emergency, yet it is not disrupting to the school day. Teachers can have their cell phones turned on but are asked to limit calls when they are teaching.


CONCLUSION: by all these argument from people, then i think it is better to not let the students use phones at school so that can improvise their work, and it can be a better way to make them concentrate on what they are doing at school and to learn more, because Students are now able to cheat with the help of technology.

QUESTIONS:
1. What is the thesis (main argument/idea) of this essay?
Some people think that students should use their phones in school

2. What are the three supporting ideas? (You can look for these in the opening paragraph but also in the "body" paragraphs.)

1. Many schools do not allowed their students to use phones in school.
2. But some people think that is wrong
3. Others think that might be a good idea by not letting the students to use phones in school.

3. What pro-war argument is presented in Paragraph 2?
The pro-argument that is presented in paragraph two is that some people are saying students should be allowed to use phones at school.

What is the writer’s counter-argument?
the writers counter argument is that it is certainly true that by letting the students use phones in class can disturb other people in school or they might listen to music while they are in school.

4. What pro-war argument is presented in Paragraph 3?
the pro-war argument that is presented in paragraph 3 is that other people think that might a good idea by not letting the students use their phones in school

What three counter-arguments does the writer present?

1. students use their phones while they are in class and no one can't learn and and use their phones while they are in class
2. students can distract teachers while use their phones in call
3. students can listen to music while they are in class.

Karl Marx and the Industrial Revolution

Karl Marx is known as a philosopher. He was born into a middle class in Germany on may 5, 1818. Karl Marx was the most socialist thinker in the 19th century. Although he was largely ignored by scholars in his own lifetime. He was educated at the university of Berlain. And i think that he felt the industrial revolution was bad for mankind. So Karl Marx believed that something needed to change for the sake of mankind.
When Marl Marx went to London at that time was assembled the entire flower of the refugees from all the nations of the continent. There were something of every kind, and the gentlemen concerned no doubt now look back on that period as the most unsuccessful of their lives. But later he withdrew into the British Museum and worked through the immense and as yet for the most part of a library there for all that it contained on political economy. And at the same time he was a regular contributor to the New York tribune.
His criticism of the deliberations of the Rhine Province Assembly compelled Marx to study questions of material interest. In pursuing that he found himself confronted with points of view which neither jurisprudence nor philosophy had taken account of. Proceeding from the Hegelian philosophy of law, Marx came to the conclusion that it was not the state, which Hegel had described as the “top of the edifice,” but “civil society,” which Hegel had regarded with disdain, that was the sphere in which a key to the understanding of the process of the historical development of mankind should be looked for. However, the science of civil society is political economy, and this science could not be studied in Germany, it could only be studied thoroughly in England or France.