They often plead that corporal punishment can show dominance, correct behavior, and that all children are different. Corporal punishment does display an aggressive form of dominance: but on the other hand, a child may revert to bullying other children to display dominance and also have high aggression levels and low patience. Similarly, physical discipline has never been scientifically proven to correct bad behavior long-term. Corporal punishment may fix an issue short-term, but eventually the child will do it again and spanking or hitting them will not fix the issue, rather they must address the issue in a calm manner and discuss with a child why what they have done is wrong. Given, all children are unique and react differently to a variety of different forms of discipline: corporally punishing a child has never been useful and a multitude of tests have been done on different children.
First, it could be that parents with criminal records or parents with poor behavior lack discipline, affection and supervision towards their children and that family conditions are related to delinquency as it is stated in the study of Glueck and McCord (as cited in Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Children of offenders are strangely exposed to crime. The theory assumes that criminality is not what parents work to produce but is something they should avoid. In this view, parents with criminal records prohibit their children to involve themselves with crime, but this does not mean that they were able to prevent it. Second, low self-control goes with the wrong system parents do.
Many people are willing to donate for the sake of happier and better lives for these animals. Also, scientists can use donated tissue for a better alternative. Computers are also a better way of testing. People can program the computer to act like anything, but more specifically organs or cells. Furthermore, machines, such as cat scans, can scan people safely and mimic their vitals.
This evidence supports that some laws allow you to get hurt or die even and others don’t allow you to do something that can cause less damage. Additionally , it proves that the age difference laws give are confusing young people and giving them a hard time to understand them
This is not the most effective introduction, but it was still informative. Another approach would be, he could have asked a rhetorical question. Maybe he could have said, “Do you know what it is like to have problems with communicate?” This would have engaged listeners more and increase attentiveness. Then, he could go on about how he works with kids who have autism. Narayanan did not include a preview statement.
However, although the theory has many strong points it also has its weaknesses such as the fact that the Social Learning Theory is also reductionist in the sense that is ignores biological factors. The environmental approach doesn't look at brain structures or possible learning difficulties and therefore the results collected could lack validity. Finally, one of the main issues with the Social Learning Theory's research studies; in particular Bandura is the fact that it seen as very unethical and also morally wrong to encourage the children to be aggressive. Although unlikely, it is possible there may have been some long-term consequences of encouraging aggressive behaviour in children. Bandura’s study has many widespread implications regarding the effects of the media.
Readers will understand the point he was making but he could have made it in a different way. Even if a writer language use causes them to have a greater read rating, a Times writer might be expected to use formal English, not casual slang. When using evidence make a claim that is not biased to people 's own opinion. In Stein’s article, he states that children are constantly under peer pressure and uses evidence from an “ English professor at Emory, who wrote The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans”(29). He is using the research correctly, but the fact that he is using something that states that the generation is dumb is not very acceptable for an expert writer.
Dress codes may help but are they overly excessive. Dress codes make attitudes better, and have a better learning environment. They also make students want to learn more than they do. On the other side they are taking away students rights, and do not allow students to express themselves. The dress codes go against the laws of the United States.
Stereotypes put labels on people and groups about how one should act or live a life based on minor facts. Stereotypes lead to misconceptions or incorrect views which are composed based on some untruths. Many groups are typically understood as one way, but once knowing the real story behind the individual, the same people begin to realize that the group is not how they are perceived to be. For example, children who grow up with no brothers and sisters are expected to be spoiled brats, which is not true in most cases. Judgments, stereotypes, and misconceptions are all significant problems in modern society, and instead of breaking the norms, people tend to continue this lifestyle.
This inclusive language makes the audience think that as a whole they can prevent animal cosmetic testing. Imagery helped illustrate animal testing by visually describing a makeup store , “The myriad of colours, the sparkle of textures and tones, the rainbows of different hues, the burning, bright lights and shining mirrors, the delicious scents of freshly sprayed samples of perfume”. I chose these arguments because they are the most powerful. Upon researching and reading many articles, the strongest and most confronting points were selected to produce the most effective speech on animal testing. By including a variety of types of evidence, such as statistics, facts, research, and quotes I can appeal to a wider range of audience members.
In these passages they 're speaking on whether psas ' is a good thing or can it be beneficial.Passage 1 is trying to prove that these commercials are good.Passage 2 is trying to prove that this can be good or bad but basically saying beneficial.Passage 1 is correct if you ask me.If they are trying to put in kids head that drugs and alcohol can hurt you then kids will not use them. But maybe passage 2 could be right because if someone is trying to hurt themselves they may try to use drugs or alcohol.But most of they time you 'll see kids trying to stay alive and become they 're dream so they wouldn 't try to kill themselves. But smart parents would keep drugs and alcohol away so kids couldn 't have it. so passage 2 could also be
I agree that it is not just the children 's media problem. I can name even more examples of such stereotyping from the media meant to be consumed by the adult. However, kid 's media worries me because it is often being dismissed as non-important sphere of media because a lot of creators probably think that kids are stupid and will watch anything that is animated and involves talking animals. Therefore, it is not being criticized as much as other media. Nevertheless, I think that kids are not stupid and very well understand the moral of the story they are reading or watching.