in Class free write

Sarah has suggested us getting hot chicks.

At first Sarah said that there a lot of smells attracts women, like baby smells, body smells and mouth smells. However, she also told us that hot chick's smell can cover all these smells. Which means that hot chick has a great attraction to women. In that way, it is reasonable for us to get enough chickens. In this video, Sarah used a psychological formula which seems like If A can get B and B can get C, then If you get A, you can have C.

in CLlass free writing

Well, Prof. Irvin just gave us a good example. Having class at 8:00 am is not a big question in summer but never in winter. Just imagine that you were lying in your lovely bed and stay totally warm but your alarm clock of your troublesome cell phone had just troubled you again. How would that mood be??
Ah, breakfast is another problem. I can totally understand why there are no enough supply in the morning. The staff is enough but nt the food!!
Another big thing is that my dorm hall, Brachman is too far away from the main part of the school. Before the class began, TCU gave us a chance to choose our own dorm hall but it did not give us the detailed information of the dorms.(like Brachman is very far from the Market Square but is very close too other sports court. Clark is close to the Alberston)
I'd like the frog shuttle and I took it for alomst very workday, but I do really think that the AC should be on at anytime.
Next week I will have a ENSC exam so I just signed a later time.

In general, I got on well with my roomy. However, he is always listening to music in a loud sound which I would never tolerate. I just told him and he changed his behavior when I said but next time and next next time, he just kept on doing the same thing. I was wondering whether he had a problem with his ears.(I am not saying this with anger)Because I can even hear a big sound even if he was wearing a earphone.

Should the parents kick out the children at the moment their children become 18?

Well, I haved heared that some parents in the U.S always do this thing. I have to agree that children are always burden of each family. Parents should worry about their tuition, their study state, sometimes they even need to worry about their boy/girl friend. So when the children come to 18 they just let them leave home to live alone, learning how to survive in the world.
But I do really not agree with this behavior. Things are totally different in Asian countries.

I believe that maybe each person who comes from western countries will disagree with me and they might think that when one is 18, they should be free from the hand of their parents.

Rhetorical Response 4

Well, we can see the common reading contains plenty of resources cited from other place. I think this is one of the features of an argument essay.

In my opinion, argument essays always let out two main ideas about one thing. In the common reading, the two ideas were “we should allow people to own a gun so their right can be protected” and “we should not allow everyone to have a gun so that the society will be better”.

We can find that there is an individual right to own a gun, but on special conditions. I mean, the right to owe a gun has reasonable restrictions.

However, people always worries about whether their rights can be ensured or be protected, so there is a long time debate on whether it is suitable for an individual to own a firearm.

It is a contradiction between the public right and individual right, for example, if you have a pistol or a rifle with you, and you injured or someone, can we say that the person guaranteed his right to have a gun? Then what about the injured one’s right to live on the world?

All of the above is another feature. That is argument.

Anyone who want to convince others with his own idea should give examples and most important, the process of the provident.

What’s more, we should factor all the evidence we find and the topic itself. For example, we can factor the topic of the right to bear arms from these angles below:

The safety of the society, the right of individual, the effect of other country, the political and economics impact on the whole world and so on.

In the argument article, we should give both sides of one question but never do it in a subjective way. We need to remember that what we are going to do is to convince people in a objective way and they should be convinced by all the facts but not only the facts which supports the idea of our own.

Just like the common reading elaborated:

Different experts have declared their different ideas. One parts says that too many firearm injures have proved that it is so dangerous for the society if every citizen has the right to have a gun. Statistics are clear; we can see that private citizens own more than 200 million firearms, increasing by 4 million annually. (From From The Right to Bear Arms: Constitutional Law, Politics, and Public Health Lawrence Gostin, J.D)If a household own a gun in the home, the possibility of killing a family member will increase much.

Owing a gun can also lead many social moral problems such as the using of suicides. What’s more, there will be a great burden in the economy of the country and the whole world. The tax payers must spend a lot of money in protecting the right to own a gun, and also the issue to control the gun in order to avoid firearms misusing. That will be a big contradiction and it is difficult to solve.

However, there is surely another point of view. Not owing a gun may be just an ideal thinking. Just imagine, you do not want to hurt or injure anyone, so you do not have a gun with you. But how can you guarantee that other people will not hurt you or even want to kill you? Here comes out another method, which says owing a gun is only to defense oneself. We can use guns for the great common good.

Apart from cited evidences, we can still work on ourselves to solve those problems, for example. If I were required to do a argument essay of the topic of the same as common reading.

I will do it in this way at the end of my article:

Since both of the two ideas are reasonable, how can the country court choose? I suggest we should go to the history.

Maybe at first we should seriously define what arms mean. In 1787, there is little information about the arms. However at that time, New York ratified the constitution, it added a list of proposed Amendments which says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.(From Alo Konsen) in the late 1700s, people can easily get a weapon from every where, unlike today, they can use the dangerous firearms whenever they want. This kind of condition had led chaos in the society. Guns are out of control and deaths are everywhere. As the development of the weapons goes fast, I am wondering whether it is possible to go back to the dark times.

To sum up, to do an argument successfully needs plenty of resources and a clear process of proving the idea. The argument should be reasonable and objective.