Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The protagonists had their own “honours” to defend, yet the convergence took place too late,
ultimately leading to the tragic consequences that Julian had to carry. Julian looked down on
how his mother behaved ‘like a child’ on the integrated bus, and he wanted to ‘teach her a
lesson that would last her a while’. At this point, Julian apparently had a rather distant
relationship with his mother. According to Bryan N. Waytt, the short story suggests Mrs.
Chestney’s great grandfather’s mansion symbolizes the link between Julian and his mother’s
world and perspectives; the link was “decayed” in wreckage but Julian had “it remained in his
mind as his mother had known it”. I agree, but would add that Julian was still unwilling to
accept his mother’s values and manners until the very end.
Some might claim that the evidence of how Mrs. Chestney behaves suggested she had
isolated herself from the society they were living in, but I argue that, on the contrary, it
suggests how she had been raised and how she perceived herself as a Chestney. Julian’s
mother valued her family’s pride by speaking back to Julian of how ‘his great grandfather
had a plantation and two hundred slaves’; hence showing how ‘she knew who she was’ - a
descendent of her family line. Being the only lady to wear gloves and a hat to YMCA, she
showed loyalty and self-awareness to her identity. Unlike Julian, who only wanted to each
his mother a lesson, did not find his own position; resulted in having ‘mixed feelings’, like
‘half-whites’. The womanhood of Mrs. Chestney proved the beauty of persistence and the
determination of believing in how she was being raised.
The beliefs of Julian and his mother could not come to a convergence, leading to the
separation of their worlds: the living world and the world of dead. The irony was Julian
believing that the fact that the old world was gone would not jeopardize her, yet pushing his
mother by teaching her a lesson that has led to the end of his mother’s life. There was no
such need for him to change her, and in the end, he got what he wanted: ‘his entry into a
world of guilt and sorrow’.
Wong Kwan Ting Naomi 54780109
EN2720 Persuasive Writing
But who really cares? Who besides me and a handful recent researchers has a
stake in these claims? At the very least, the researchers who formerly believed that
humans should care. As we all know, boredom is never something like a nice
chocolate sundae; it is, indeed, boring as listening to the same lecture over and over
again. It is as mundane as putting on toothpaste caps in a factory eternally. Here,
boredom suggests that humans need to make a change, as boredom alarms us that
what we want do not exist in our activities. The activity taking place is not stimulating
or meeting our expectations. Ultimately, what is at stake here is our unfulfilled desire.
And genuinely, one would lose motivation in commiting to a certain activity.
Therefore, before being completely sucked into the blackhole of dissatisfactory, we
need to seek for more stimulating activities and re-enlighten the passion to persuit
goals. (311 words)
Wong Kwan Ting Naomi 54780109
EN2720 Persuasive Writing
Have you ever read any food labels on your food products from your
supermarket? Marion Renault raised readers’ awareness on the communication
between scientists and consumers; as well as the struggle of scientists to convey
their messages apart from using table and charts. In other words, a
misunderstanding over how people think about what the scientists are working on -
on a narrower scope, general public accusing the food scientists on having additives
added into their food products. Many find the abstract technical terms to be “reader-
unfriendly”, hence provoking the debates over how “poorly-presented” scientists are.
On the contrary, I believe that the food scientists are not marketing experts nor
advertising specialist; hence they should not be in-charge of presenting for
themselves. This is not to say that the scientists should be trained to be the best
presenters of the food products, but rather they should not be given the burden from
the society’s pressure and cliche issues.
Scientists have always been used to handling graphs and data, yet making
them demonstrate their point of view with simpler and more general words is asking
rather too much from the fellow scientists. As quoted from Kelly Elisar, “these
students are very technical and science-oriented.” This might relate to stereotypical
impressions since some science students could have proficient delivery skills; yet as
Elisar mentioned, many of them do not. When society has to force them into
speaking both the languages of emotions and numerical tables and graphs, it would
be a great challenge for the fellow budding scientists to diverse their focus and
attention to sub-learning. Although some readers may object that there would be no
purpose if no one understands what the scientists mean, I would answer that the
basic need to demonstrate their ideas is compulsory. The scientists do not need to
drill deep and illustrate complicated theories, but “making people as though they
already know what they want them to know”. However, the scientists should not be
shaped into marketing students as well since their mindsets might be restrained by
those business concepts afterwards thus gradually eliminating their creativity.
(367 words)
http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170208/are-your-food-facts-really-food-myths