Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Is poverty necessary?
Marshall claims that poverty is necessary because, labour can result only from a state of poverty. At first, when I first read this question a “no” answer appeared in my mind. But later I kept reading and after reading the sentence which I mentioned in the first sentence of my entry, my thoughts about this issue changed, I thought that poverty causes ambition on people. If nobody has poverty, there will be no labour then and people will not try to be active. Additionally, ignoring poverty also means ignore of richness. If poverty does not exist, there will be no riches at the same time. People will not try to contribute to development and there will be no progress. Because of all these reasons poverty is necessary for the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In my opinion, my paragraph is not written according to the academic rules so much."If nobody has poverty, there will be no labour then and people will not try to be active".This sentence may be the topic sentence of my paragraph; because it gives the main idea.In my topic sentence "poverty" is topic and "labour" is controlling idea. If we look at the strengths, my sentence is not too specific and it has acontrolling idea and I think it is clear.
I think your paragraph is quite academic, but it is good that you are looking at it with a critical eye. It is fairly well-structured and I agree with you about the location of your topic sentence. There is an evident thought process and you have used the text to develop your own ideas.
One way to strengthen it would be to provide more concrete examples of how poverty encourages people to contribute to development.
I'm not quite clear about what you mean when you say "ignoring poverty also means (ignoring) (wealth)." This should be elaborated.
Post a Comment