Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
People Should Undertake Risky Action Only After They Have Carefully Considered Its Consequences. - With A Free Essay Review
Instructions: “Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.”
I disagree with the statement that people should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences, because in some circumstances, people simply do not have time to carefully think, and it is the instinct of people that direct them to undertake risky actions; however, I agree that if people have time to carefully consider the consequence, they should do that.
First of all, I disagree that people should undertake risky action only after they carefully considered its consequences, because on the one hand, the specific situation does not leave people enough time to think about consequences carefully. For instance, a man sees a child falling in the river, and the boy, who cannot swim, is drowning. Under this circumstance, if the man can swim, should he jump into the river and save the child right away? If he has to spend time considering the possible consequence such as he may risk his life, and he also has his beloved family, and friends, then it is possible after the train of thinking that boy would be already dead. However, normally people who jump into the river the save the child probably do not think too much, instead, they are driven by their instincts. In this case, the situation does not allow people to think carefully instead the immediate action is required. On the other hand, when people indeed have time to think about consequences, there may be some other factors that can deter people’s from saving the child. For the same case, the man, who jumps in the river to save the child, is taking some risks. It is possible that he may also died, and of course, he is also responsible for his own family and he needs to take care of his wife and children. It is possible after he think through all these consequences, he may hesitate, and it would be too late to save the child after all. I am not arguing he should sacrificing himself for others, but it is possible that after people think through all consequences, they will hesitate, while under this circumstance, people are naturally driven by their impulsive decisions and we will read this kind of stories on newspapers.
However, I also agree that people do need to consider consequences when the situation leaves them enough time to do so. For instance, when a lady sees a robber threatening another lady, she can jump out and yield at the robber or fight against the robber. However, she also should consider the consequence of this action, and her own safety, and consider it is probably better to call the police first. I think as long as the situation leave people enough time to think, people should consider consequences before they undertake risky actions.
To sum up, I think whether people should undertake risky action after they have considered its consequences or not depends on if the situation is urgent. However, at emergency situations, it may be too late to do anything after people think carefully, and many people are unlikely to think consequences carefully, instead they are driven by their instinct and that is why are see them as heros on newspapers.
The news is not good here, I'm sorry to say. Your essay has one reasonable argument, and it tells me this argument three times, and illustrates it with a laborious example. I feel I could summarize your essay in three or four sentences and lose nothing essential, which means, I think, that you haven't identified enough of the issues relevant to establishing a position in relation to the original recommendation. You argue that people should consider consequences before they undertake risky actions if they have the time to do so. That seems reasonable enough, especially in the case of fairly unusual situations where the risk are significant. But of course there are many possible actions that are risky. To illustrate your argument, you imagine two possibilities, but they don't allow for much argumentative development, because they are fairly similar and fairly unlikely scenarios.
A risky action is any action in which you stand to lose something. You can risk money (putting a coin into a slot machine is a risky action, so is buying stocks, or investing in gold, or buying a house). You can risk health (using drugs, eating junk food, having sex). You can risk freedom (selling drugs, or getting married). You can risk your life (by taking a bath or crossing the road or going surfing or wandering about late at night in the wrong part of town).
Think about the issues that these different types of circumstances raise. You might even think about the fact that carefully considering the consequences of risky actions is itself sometimes a risky action.
P.S. You are right, in your comment below, that one minute is not a long time to devote to proofreading, but of course you have very little time in the examination; start at the beginning and do as much as you can. There are no special tricks that you can use here beyond having an idea of what errors you are looking for and proofreading specifically for those errors.