So this essay is an evaluation essay and my professor's definition:
X is (or is not) the best (or worst) Y because it meets (or does not meet) criteria A,B, and C.
"X is what you are to evaluate, Y is the specific, relevant category to which X belongs, and A,B,C, are the specific, clearly defined criteria by which you measure and weigh X.
I mean it sounds like a compare and contrast(minus the contrast) essay too me. But Im drawing a huge blank as what to do and was hoping you guys had any good ideas.
The example she gave was "the 1975 corvette is better than the 1965 mustang because it has a better engine, is more aerodynamic, and has a much better appearance.
Whats bugging me is we need 3 sources and the only thing I can come up with:
"The Hunger Games book trilogy is better than the Twilight books because the hunger games tells a better story, has great character development, and has moral messages(needs work)."
The problem with this idea! is that there are no credible sources and writing this paper is freakin dumb.
So I was hoping you guys had ideas that most likely have more credible sources (.org/.edu/.gov)!
thanks for any help!
A start would be to not use a subjective topic such as one book being better than the other and use more factual evaluations instead. Or does this essay have to be about the book?
The essay can be about anything, I know the book thing is stupid. but it was the only thing I can think of cause her examples suck. (Star trek tells a better story than star wars because...)
But i've been contemplating and I think a really valid topic would be the use of wind energy is better than fossil fuels because it(insert 3 criteria here).
Write about why Facepunch is better than Something Awful
thank me later
[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;39696991]The essay can be about anything, I know the book thing is stupid. but it was the only thing I can think of cause her examples suck. (Star trek tells a better story than star wars because...)
But i've been contemplating and I think a really valid topic would be the use of wind energy is better than fossil fuels because it(insert 3 criteria here).[/QUOTE]
Her example does suck. Can't really comapre a happy-go-lucky republic-gone-imperial in a galaxy far far away a long time ago to all the proper and prim future of a federation far far away in the future.
But fan-ranting aside, I was about to suggest the use of nuclear energy over fossil fuels in most cases. This should narrow down your sources to more respectable sites. Presuming you're still in high school, Wikipedia is out of the question unless you use the sources in the wiki page.
For future reference if you use that subject, both nuclear and fossil fuels use heat to generate steam to turn a steam turbine, which rotates an electromagent in a generator which gets step-up transformed to send it long distances blah blah blah that doesn't relate to the subject. Burning fossil fuels, in the case of coal, is pulverized into fine dusts, which are burned in an area where water is piped through to heat it to boiling levels. Nuclear works the same, but uranium-235 (don't quote me on this, can be wrong) boils the water using radiation heat transfer.
Fossil fuels, for the most part, are caught in filters to prevent flyash from coming out of smokestacks. Nuclear energy normally wouldn't have much negative aspects, as radiation is kept contained. Don't take all this as fact, you're on your own for the sources, but this should me good enough to give you an idea on what to write.
[QUOTE=Stonecycle;39697128]Her example does suck. Can't really comapre a happy-go-lucky republic-gone-imperial in a galaxy far far away a long time ago to all the proper and prim future of a federation far far away in the future.
But fan-ranting aside, I was about to suggest the use of nuclear energy over fossil fuels in most cases. This should narrow down your sources to more respectable sites. Presuming you're still in high school, Wikipedia is out of the question unless you use the sources in the wiki page.
For future reference if you use that subject, both nuclear and fossil fuels use heat to generate steam to turn a steam turbine, which rotates an electromagent in a generator which gets step-up transformed to send it long distances blah blah blah that doesn't relate to the subject. Burning fossil fuels, in the case of coal, is pulverized into fine dusts, which are burned in an area where water is piped through to heat it to boiling levels. Nuclear works the same, but uranium-235 (don't quote me on this, can be wrong) boils the water using radiation heat transfer.
Fossil fuels, for the most part, are caught in filters to prevent flyash from coming out of smokestacks. Nuclear energy normally wouldn't have much negative aspects, as radiation is kept contained. Don't take all this as fact, you're on your own for the sources, but this should me good enough to give you an idea on what to write.[/QUOTE]
Its a college paper, but yea I already got 200~ words for wind vs fossil fuels! Wikipedia is out of the question for this professor but another english professor lets their students use wikipedia. But im finding really good sources to use. Thanks for the help!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.