I've been doing this assignment for 3 days now..I am really stuck on few of the questions, need to hand it in asap.
1. Whad does term "window dressing" mean and examples. It referes to miniors( in society) are often used on TV as "window dressing"
2. Why there are so many more males used as sources for news stories than females? My thinking was that males cause more trouble than women.Or maybe because males are more dangerous than women. But I don't think that what they are really asking.
Please help, thank you!
Window dressing means a display that may not reflect the true item or person. In your example, using a cute child in a program or advertisement is window dressing to distract from the reality of the show or the product being advertised. I believe the term originated with store windows that are elaborately decorated but hid the real merchandise inside.
Let's face it, in our society, men are more apt to have prominent leadership roles in business and government. There may also be a feeling that a woman may be seen as a subordinate to the "important" person, while a man is usually looked upon as having something more important to say.
Thank you sooo much! You guys answer so quickly, that's awsome. Can I later post my persuasive essay on lowering drinking age?
Sure, we will be glad to look it over and make suggestions...
Persuasive Essay on Lowering the Drinking Age.
There has been an ongoing controversy in the Canada on whether the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen like most of the world or if it should stay at nineteen. Underage drinking has been a major controversial issue for years, yet why is it not under control? Teenagers are continuing to buy alcohol with fake identification cards, drink, get into bars, and drink illegally. As a teen I have proof that these things are going on not only in college but in high school as well. There are a lot of factors that come together to why the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen; the most obvious reason is too many people are drinking before they are eighteen. Liquor stores, bars, and clubs all want to make money and if they can get away with selling to underage teens then they will.
By allowing drinking at a younger age in Europe, teenagers learn at home the responsibilities that come with drinking. Although forced to secrecy, some families do allow teenagers to drink at home with them. Therefore, when an adolescent begins drinking at home, in a controlled environment, not in a forbidden atmosphere, society receives a much more accountable person. In addition, lowering the drinking age to agree with other adult responsibilities and privileges is the right of today’s young adults. At eighteen, a person becomes a legal adult, and can engage in legal practices but cannot buy alcohol. Granted, there are a few other countries that have minimum drinking age laws over eighteen, but an overwhelming majority have an LDA of eighteen: “and yet alcoholism is not a global epidemic” as stated in “Minimum Drinking Age.” In fact, if the current LDA works so well in the United States, then why are other countries not following the lead? For example, teenagers have always rebelled; that will not change, but drinking is now a preferred rebellion without regards to the responsibilities that come with it since they must drink in secrecy. While it is illegal to purchase alcohol before age nineteen, most places have hidden exceptions to the law allowing consumption at a younger age. Young adults, who can fight for their country, vote, marry, and sign legal documents, should have the right to purchase, posses, and consume alcohol.
The Prohibition Act was put into effect in the 1920’s. History has seen how well this has worked. If people want alcohol they will get alcohol. There is no way around this fact. If people want drugs, they will get drugs. Missouri is the number one leading drug state. This is not because all forms of drugs in Missouri are legal, no; it’s because if people want it bad enough they will have it. I am in no way shape or form saying that drugs should be legalized; I am simply proving a point. My point is that from biblical times forbidden fruit always tastes sweeter. When people say that we are only 18 and there fore we should not drink, what basis do they have for that. We are old enough to do everything else except that one thing, obviously we can think far enough to realize what could happen to us before we pick up the bottle. Not all 18 year olds are blind. We can see the newspaper, the television, the road. We see the effects of drinking and driving. Many of the right-wingers believe that since we are only 18 that we are not smart enough to get the picture. The real problem the government needs to focus on is how we can stop drinking and driving. They say they are stopping it because the drinking age is nineteen. That’s wrong. We should stop putting so much emphasis on how much drinking is going on and put more emphasis on the many people that do not drink. Positive re-enforcements any one; what happened to those? Yes, you will still go to jail if you drive under the influence. Lowering the drinking age to 18 will not change this fact. It is a know fact that there are bad and good people out there. There are many people in jail for murder and , but there are also many people that do not murder and other people. Many people do drink and drive but there are also many people who are content with sleeping it off at the party they were at.
Forbidden fruit always tastes sweeter. I believe that if we say that you cannot drink there will be more drinking. Lowering the drinking age will in my eyes reduce the amount of drinking and driving. It won’t be such a cool thing to do anymore if it’s not illegal. Yes, it’ll still be cool, but not nearly as cool. It’ll get old. There are good and bad people out there. There will be people out there that are stupid enough to drink and drive. There always will be. We are old enough to fight for our country. That is my main point. As I stated earlier; if we are old enough to die for our country we should be allowed to pick up a beer. We are smart enough to know better that drinking and driving is dangerous.
In conclusion, anticipating the milestone of turning nineteen so that one can finally drink legally is unfair. By lowering the drinking age in the Canada, today’s youth would receive an improved education about drinking responsibly for todays youth. In addition, a lower drinking age would reduce the dangerous activity of binge drinking in which underage drinkers primarily engage. A lower drinking age would also provide young adults their right to celebrate all major events during their adult life for which drinking is common for celebration. Adults deserve the right to celebrate highlights in their life legally, and having to ignore or celebrate illegally because of an unfair law from 1984 is unjust.
The Prohibition Act was put into effect in the 1920’s. History has seen how well this has worked. If people want alcohol they will get alcohol. There is no way around this fact. If people want drugs, they will get drugs. Missouri is the number one leading drug state. This is not because all forms of drugs in Missouri are legal, no; it’s because if people want it bad enough they will have it. I am in no way shape or form saying that drugs should be legalized; I am simply proving a point. My point is that from biblical times forbidden fruit always tastes sweeter. When people say that we are only 18 and there fore we should not drink, what basis do they have for that. We are old enough to do everything else except that one thing, obviously we can think far enough to realize what could happen to us before we pick up the bottle. Not all 18 year olds are blind. We can see the newspaper, the television, the road. We see the effects of drinking and driving. Many of the right-wingers believe that since we are only 18 that we are not smart enough to get the picture. The real problem the government needs to focus on is how we can stop drinking and driving. They say they are stopping it because the drinking age is nineteen. That’s wrong. We should stop putting so much emphasis on how much drinking is going on and put more emphasis on the many people that do not drink. Positive re-enforcements any one; what happened to those? Yes, you will still go to jail if you drive under the influence. Lowering the drinking age to 18 will not change this fact. It is a know fact that there are bad and good people out there. There are many people in jail for murder and , but there are also many people that do not murder and other people. Many people do drink and drive but there are also many people who are content with sleeping it off at the party they were at.
Forbidden fruit always tastes sweeter. I believe that if we say that you cannot drink there will be more drinking. Lowering the drinking age will in my eyes reduce the amount of drinking and driving. It won’t be such a cool thing to do anymore if it’s not illegal. Yes, it’ll still be cool, but not nearly as cool. It’ll get old. There are good and bad people out there. There will be people out there that are stupid enough to drink and drive. There always will be. We are old enough to fight for our country. That is my main point. As I stated earlier; if we are old enough to die for our country we should be allowed to pick up a beer. We are smart enough to know better that drinking and driving is dangerous.
In conclusion, anticipating the milestone of turning nineteen so that one can finally drink legally is unfair. By lowering the drinking age in the Canada, today’s youth would receive an improved education about drinking responsibly for todays youth. In addition, a lower drinking age would reduce the dangerous activity of binge drinking in which underage drinkers primarily engage. A lower drinking age would also provide young adults their right to celebrate all major events during their adult life for which drinking is common for celebration. Adults deserve the right to celebrate highlights in their life legally, and having to ignore or celebrate illegally because of an unfair law from 1984 is unjust.
"There are a lot of factors that come together to why the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen; the most obvious reason is too many people are drinking before they are eighteen. Liquor stores, bars, and clubs all want to make money and if they can get away with selling to underage teens then they will."
This doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that they are drinking already at ages under nineteen so the drinking age should be lowered so it'd be legal? What about those UNDER 18 who are already drinking? What would this do to solve that problem?
Same questions here: "I believe that if we say that you cannot drink there will be more drinking. Lowering the drinking age will in my eyes reduce the amount of drinking and driving."
Are you saying that FEWER TEENS will drink if the drinking age is lowered?? There's some "circular reasoning" going on here.
Also -- what does LDA stand for? It's not explained in the text.
OK. Here I am commenting on something that is far from my field of expertise; however, I am old enough to have a few opinions. (Before I start, I think LDA stands for "legal drinking age" but that needs to be documented the first time it is used in the essay.)
First point. Since you asked us to comment on your essay I will. Personally, I don't think it is very persuasive. I agree with you that IF it is legal for people at SOME age to drink then it should be legal for 18 year olds to drink if they are allowed to fight and die for our country and to marry. And you cite some good statistics in your essay. But I just don't buy into the reasoning that you lay out. For example, I don't buy that lowering the legal age to 18 will cause less consumption of alcohol. Lowering the age to 18, I think, will allow all those who have been drinking illegally to drink (now legally) and it will allow those 18 year-olds who were following the law to purchase and consume alcohol at 18. My thinking is that it will increase, not decrease drinking.
Second point. I believe one's intelligence has little to do with a person's choice to drink. There is much to be said for today's youth to want to be cool and you point out very well that youth want to disagree with the establishment. Those are positive points in your argument but I think your connection is faulty by suggesting that 18 year olds will not buy and consume alcohol if the establishment says it's ok.
Third point. A teenager may know very well that s/he should not drink and drive and they may even sign contracts with their parents that they will not drink and drive; however, after a few drinks, much of that reasoning goes out the window and one's responsibilities as an individual become diffused by the alcohol. As a result, teens (and adults) become less and less responsible and less and less inhibited as the alcohol dulls the mind, and drinkers become drunken drivers.
Fourth point. I think your point is quite true that society needs to focus on the effects of alcohol. Frankly, I don't think it makes a lot of difference whether one can purchase and consume legally at 18, 19, 20, or 60. The effects and the damage caused by drunks, both to themselves as well as to innocent by-standers, runs into the millions of dollars each year and a cellar full of bad dreams for the drunk and the victim (and their families).
By the way, I don't drink at all but I go to parties where alcohol is served. When I was much younger, people kept trying to "get me a drink." I finally figured out that I needed to carry around a glass with coke or sprite in it. As long as I had something in my hand, other guests assumed I had a drink and that was ok with them. Peer pressure is the point I am making here (not the pont that I'm a teetotaler), and peer pressure on teenagers is tremendous.
I hope this helps you as you shape your persuasive essay.