coconut64
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
Hi, I have recently written an essay but negative feedbacks are received. The feedback mentioned that awkward language and grammatical errors are included. I really tried my best to write this and couldn't find the aforementioned mistakes. Could someone please explain this? Thanks
Several articles (Goldstein and RAND study) provide convincing forecasts of China surpassing the United States as the global superpower in the near future; such predictions are supported by China’s leadership which acts as the crucial driving force for the Belt and Road Initiative. China has achieved this rapid economic growth in only a short period of time in which the United States had always been the dominant superpower. It can be said that neither a stronger nor a weaker United States will affect China’s sustainable economic growth, which is evident from China’s rapid rise to power despite of America’s long-lasting global dominance.However, Pillsbury’s framework indicates the co-existence of two hegemonies are incompatible; Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory provides a similar view. Thus, a declining United States can indicate that China may be less exposed to and restricted by America’s threat regarding Taiwan if China surpasses the United States. Bush’s 2016 open letter to Trump emphasised that America had been warning China on their use of forces against Taiwan. This opposition will be ineffective if China is the most powerful hegemony; hence a weaker United States is good for China in this context.Moreover, Mearsheimer (2010) suggests that China perceives America’s strong military forces pessimistically such that it acts as an imminent danger. According to Goldstein, it is also mentioned both America and China are capable technologically and intellectually that if both hegemonies continue to gain more power, nuclear level conflicts may arise. It is clear in this example that a weaker United States is good for China which faces fewer risks and uncertainty when its strongest rival is eliminated from the competition.Ikenberry (2008) proposed a different perspective that the power transition between hegemonies is not necessarily inevitable; instead, both dominant powers are compatible with each other to govern the international system. More emphasises are placed on cooperation and collaboration to achieve success. Belt and Road Initiative is a good example to support this because America’s support and power as one of the powerful superpowers are very important and crucial to complement China’s effort to achieve global integration and governance. This argument indicates a weaker United States is actually bad for China as America acts like a close ally with mutual goals which are to achieve international integration. To add on, the realist’s perspective on this will heavily focus on the significant power gain and control a hegemony possesses and how this abuse or misuse of power can enable the country to act in their self-interest. Consequently, a declining America will indicate the weakening military and international influences globally, which means there are less obstacles for China to be the dominant superpower. In conclusion, the definition of ‘good’ is very broad but based on the aforementioned points, it can be concluded that both sides of the argument do not provide a definite answer. There is an extent to which a weaker United States is good or bad for China; however, it cannot be said that it will always be the case because of the ever-changing political world. Different interpretations can be deduced depending on the political belief one holds.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
(Original post by coconut64)
Several articles (Goldstein and RAND study) provide convincing forecasts of China surpassing the United States as the global superpower in the near future; [new sentence] such predictions are supported by China’s leadership which acts as the crucial driving force for the Belt and Road Initiative. China has achieved this rapid economic growth in only a short period of time in [during which] which the United States had [has] always been the dominant superpower. It can be said that neither a stronger nor a weaker United States will affect China’s sustainable economic growth, which is evident from China’s rapid rise to power despite of [despite] America’s long-lasting global dominance.[new para] However, Pillsbury’s framework indicates the co-existence of two hegemonies are incompatible; Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory provides a similar view. Thus, a declining United States can indicate that China may be less exposed to and restricted by America’s threat regarding Taiwan if China surpasses the United States. Bush’s 2016 open letter to Trump emphasised that America had been warning China on their [its] use of forces [force] against Taiwan. This opposition will be ineffective if China is [has] the most powerful hegemony; hence a weaker United States is good for China in this context.Moreover, Mearsheimer (2010) suggests that China perceives America’s strong military forces pessimistically such that it acts as an imminent danger. According to Goldstein, it is also mentioned both America and China are capable technologically and intellectually that if both hegemonies continue to gain more power, nuclear level conflicts may arise. It is clear in this example that a weaker United States is good for China which faces fewer risks and uncertainty when its strongest rival is eliminated from the competition. [are you completely unfamiliar with paragraphs?] Ikenberry (2008) proposed a different perspective that the power transition between hegemonies is not necessarily inevitable; [sentence] instead, both dominant powers are compatible with each other to govern the international system [eh?]. More emphasises are [empahsis is] placed on cooperation and collaboration to achieve success. [The] Belt and Road Initiative is a good example to support [view] this because America’s support and power as one of the powerful superpowers are [is] very important and crucial to complement China’s effort to achieve global integration and governance. This argument indicates a weaker United States is actually bad for China as America acts like a close ally with mutual goals which are to achieve international integration. To add on, the realist’s perspective on this will heavily focus on the significant power gain and control a hegemony possesses and how this abuse or misuse of power can enable the country to act in their self-interest. Consequently, a declining America will indicate the weakening military and international influences globally, which means there are less obstacles for China to be the dominant superpower. In conclusion, the definition of ‘good’ is very broad but based on the aforementioned points, it can be concluded that both sides of the argument do not provide a definite answer. There is an extent to which a weaker United States is good or bad for China; however, it cannot be said that it will always be the case because of the ever-changing political world. Different interpretations can be deduced depending on the political belief one holds.
See bold. It is pretty poor. I gave up halfway through. Is English your second language?
0
reply
coconut64
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#3
(Original post by Good bloke)
See bold. It is pretty poor. I gave up halfway through. Is English your second language?
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, English is my second language. I think it is important to learn from my feedback so I am trying to understand what has gone wrong now.

Pillsbury’s framework indicates the co-existence of two hegemonies are incompatible. Why is 'are' used here? Since co-existence is the subject, why isn't 'is' used? In this sentence, which subject should be considered to determine the tense?

Thanks
Last edited by coconut64; 4 months ago
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
(Original post by coconut64)
Pillsbury’s framework indicates the co-existence of two hegemonies are incompatible. Why is 'are' used here? Since co-existence is the subject, why isn't 'is' used. In this sentence, which subject should be considered to determine the tense?
The coexistence is singular. The author was confused.
0
reply
coconut64
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#5
(Original post by Good bloke)
The coexistence is singular. The author was confused.
Oh I see, I made a very stupid error there. Thanks for the help. I did separate the essay into different paragraphs, so I had so technical problems of presenting like that on the website. Please can you also review the rest of the essay as that will be very helpful for me. Many thanks!

Ikenberry (2008) proposed a different perspective that the power transition between hegemonies is not necessarily inevitable; instead, both dominant powers are compatible with each other to govern the international system. More emphasises are placed (why is plurality here incorrect?) on cooperation and collaboration to achieve success. The Belt and Road Initiative is a good example to interpret this because America’s support and power as one of the powerful superpowers, are very important and crucial to complement China’s effort to achieve global integration and governance. This argument indicates a weaker United States is actually bad for China as America acts like a close ally with mutual goals which are to achieve international integration. To add on, the realist’s perspective on this will heavily focus on the significant power gain and control a hegemony possesses and how this abuse or misuse of power can enable the country to act in their self-interest. Consequently, a declining America will indicate the weakening military and international influences globally, which means there are less obstacles for China to be the dominant superpower.

In conclusion, the definition of ‘good’ is very broad but based on the aforementioned points, it can be concluded that both sides of the argument do not provide a definite answer. There is an extent to which a weaker United States is good or bad for China; however, it cannot be said that it will always be the case because of the ever-changing political world. Different interpretations can be deduced depending on the political belief one holds.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 months ago
#6
(Original post by coconut64)
Oh I see, I made a very stupid error there. Thanks for the help. I did separate the essay into different paragraphs, so I had so technical problems of presenting like that on the website. Please can you also review the rest of the essay as that will be very helpful for me. Many thanks!

Ikenberry (2008) proposed a different perspective that the power transition between hegemonies is not necessarily inevitable; instead, both dominant powers are compatible with each other to govern the international system. More emphasises are placed (why is plurality here incorrect?) on cooperation and collaboration to achieve success. The Belt and Road Initiative is a good example to interpret this because America’s support and power as one of the powerful superpowers, are very important and crucial to complement China’s effort to achieve global integration and governance. This argument indicates a weaker United States is actually bad for China as America acts like a close ally with mutual goals which are to achieve international integration. To add on, the realist’s perspective on this will heavily focus on the significant power gain and control a hegemony possesses and how this abuse or misuse of power can enable the country to act in their self-interest. Consequently, a declining America will indicate the weakening military and international influences globally, which means there are less obstacles for China to be the dominant superpower.

In conclusion, the definition of ‘good’ is very broad but based on the aforementioned points, it can be concluded that both sides of the argument do not provide a definite answer. There is an extent to which a weaker United States is good or bad for China; however, it cannot be said that it will always be the case because of the ever-changing political world. Different interpretations can be deduced depending on the political belief one holds.
Sorry, I don't have time to do more. You only place one emphasis in this context, hence it is singular - More emphasis is placed on cooperation and collaboration ...
0
reply
Welshvisitor
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 months ago
#7
Can’t read all that on the bus but didn’t see a whole lot of full stops so it kind of didn’t stop with the points.
0
reply
NotNotBatman
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 months ago
#8
(Original post by coconut64)
Hi, I have recently written an essay but negative feedbacks are received. The feedback mentioned that awkward language and grammatical errors are included. I really tried my best to write this and couldn't find the aforementioned mistakes. Could someone please explain this? Thanks
Several articles (Goldstein and RAND study) provide convincing forecasts of China surpassing the United States as the global superpower in the near future; [semi colons are used before a conjunction when joining two independent clauses] such predictions are supported by China’s leadership which acts as the crucial driving force for the Belt and Road Initiative. China has achieved this rapid economic growth in only a short period of time in which[during which - "during" is used for time, "in" is used for space] the United States had always been the dominant superpower. It can be said that neither a stronger nor a weaker United States will affect China’s sustainable economic growth, which is evident from China’s rapid rise to power despite of America’s long-lasting global dominance.However, Pillsbury’s framework indicates the co-existence of two hegemonies are incompatible; Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory provides a similar view. Thus, a declining United States can indicate that China may be less exposed to and restricted by America’s threat regarding Taiwan if China surpasses the United States. Bush’s 2016 open letter to Trump emphasised that America had been warning China on their use of forces against Taiwan. This opposition will be ineffective if China is the most powerful hegemony; hence a weaker United States is good for China in this context.Moreover, Mearsheimer (2010) suggests that China perceives America’s strong military forces pessimistically such that [because should be used here, such that is used to describe the consequence of something, you should distinguish the difference between a cause and effect, "such that" and "so that" explains the effect, whilst "because" explains the cause ] it acts as an imminent danger. According to Goldstein, it is also mentioned[Bad phrasing - should delete "it is also mentioned if you mean the statement that follows was said or implied by Goldstein] both America and China are capable technologically and intellectually[technologically and intellectually capable - adverbs before adjectives] that[which means] if both hegemonies continue to gain more power, nuclear level conflicts may arise. It is clear in this example that a weaker United States is good for China which faces fewer risks and uncertainty when its strongest rival is eliminated from the competition.Ikenberry (2008) proposed a different perspective that the power transition between hegemonies is not necessarily inevitable; instead, both dominant powers are compatible with each other to govern the international system. More emphasises are placed on cooperation and collaboration to achieve success.[The] Belt and Road Initiative is a good example to support this because America’s support and power as one of the powerful superpowers are[is - power is singular] very important and crucial to complement China’s effort to achieve global integration and governance. This argument indicates a weaker United States is actually bad for China as America acts like a close ally with mutual goals [comma needed here]which are[ is- international integration is one item] to achieve international integration. To add on[To add on to this], the realist’s perspective on this will heavily focus on the significant power gain and control a hegemony possesses and how this abuse or misuse of power can enable the country to act in their self-interest. Consequently, a declining America will indicate the weakening military and international influences globally, which means there are less obstacles for China to be the dominant superpower. In conclusion, the definition of ‘good’ is very broad [comma needed here] but based on the aforementioned points, it can be concluded[already stated that this was the conclusion] that both sides of the argument do not provide a definite answer. There is an extent to which a weaker United States is good or bad for China; however, it cannot be said that it will always be the case because of the ever-changing political world. Different interpretations can be deduced depending on the political belief one holds.
See above. I had a quick read through, so I might have missed some stuff.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Bournemouth University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 19 Feb '20
  • Buckinghamshire New University
    Postgraduate and professional courses Postgraduate
    Wed, 19 Feb '20
  • University of Warwick
    Warwick Business School Postgraduate
    Thu, 20 Feb '20

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (166)
66.4%
No (84)
33.6%

Watched Threads

View All