Prompt: It is how we resolve conflict that matters the mostFirst: your essay doesn’t directly answer the prompt! You’ve just jumped on the words ‘how we resolve conflict’ and dived in like: yes I know all about resolving conflict! Let’s talk about that! But actually, read the question.
It is how resolve conflict
that matters THE MOST. That implies that there’s something ELSE, something other than the resolving step of conflict, that’s also important. So yes, you can discuss 'how we resolve conflict', but that should be in comparison to something else - like the causes of conflict, or what the consequences are, etc. It's saying that sure, the causes are important, and sure, the consequences are important, but what's MORE important is the methods we use to resolve it. Do you agree with that, or not?
But since you’ve assumed that the topic is ‘how should we resolve conflict’, I’ll look from now on at your essay like that
“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind”. The words of Mahatma Ghandi illustrate a world encompassed by constant conflict. Altercations are present throughout society, separating each other and destroying the unity that we desire. As Ghandi stated, violence can never resolve conflict, but only exacerbate the situation. Similarly, individuals who do not discuss with open minds risk further conflict. To truly resolve conflict, individuals must come to agreement with not only themselves, but also with their enemies through passive means.
So this is intended as a persuasive essay? If you wrote it as an expository, it’d be stronger to take a more balanced approach, one that acknowledges that situations can be different and passive means don’t ALWAYS work. Are there ever situations where passive methods actually don’t work, and being a bit more head-on would work better? Think about it for a bit!Those who seek to subdue their enemies by inflicting suffering and pain cannot truly resolve their conflict. Although violence ends with a victor and a loser
does it always?, no side is truly victorious, as the damage is inflicted both ways. The impact of using violence as a means of resolution can only induce further vexation between individuals and groups, prolonging the process of resolution or even no resolution.
Similarly This is evident in Asghar Farhadi’s film, A Separation,
when Nader and Hojjat’s initial strife is further ignited through Hojjat’s violent nature. In the scene at the hospital, Nader’s initially showed
shows – stick to present tense all the time when discussing your text remorse for the miscarriage but is changed by Hojjat’s aggressive attack. His act of violence only worsened the situation, causing the process of closure and resolution to be prolonged and eventually causing no resolution.
OK. In Context, you use texts as evidence to show/prove your wider ideas, which are ideas about society and the world in general. So, instead of saying ‘in this text violence doesn’t work’, say, ‘this text shows that violence often doesn’t work’. For instance, rewriting your sentence: ‘This reveals that violence only worsens situations, prolonging the process…’ See how that makes a broad bold statement about violence in the world in general, rather than just limited to your text? Here’s where VERBS are really helpful: reveals, highlights, demonstrates, displays, conveys, illustrates, establishes, portrays, depicts, etc. Because you can say: >example from text< REVEALS >big idea<. Or: >Example from text<, HIGHLIGHTING >idea<. Like, ‘While Nader initially showed remorse for this miscarriage, Hojjat’s aggressive attack destroys this remorse, HIGHLIGHTING that violence only worsens a situation…’ Violence often creates a barrier in communication, often blocking sensible and reasonable thoughts, causing unresolvable conflict.
Yeah, you could just think about this a bit more. WHY does violence not resolve very well? Don’t just state that it does, try and explain how and why. Sit and chew over this, and try and come up with deeper ideas. Like, if you disagree with someone but respect and like them, you’re more likely to be able to sort it out. But as soon as they hurt you, you think they’re mean and horrible and you want to ‘get back at them’ for that. You no longer just care about the ideas that you’re arguing about, you want to hurt THEM because you hate THEM, so you start to get emotionally involved and irrational because you’re just angry. Pretty much, before violence (physical or emotional), people are often happy to sort stuff out, but afterwards, they have a real grudge and won’t give up on the conflict.
So violence might solve short-term, because it generally crushes people short-term, but long-term there’s still going to be resentment and anger so people will build up and attack again.
You really need another example or two, though, to show that this is a universal truth, not just applicable to one person. Research external examples, like the impact of violence on a national/global scale. Also discuss multiple types of violence – physical AND emotional/psychological/verbal violence. Similarly, those who refuse to acknowledge the convoluted nature of conflict, risk further exacerbating the divergence.
This topic sentence doesn’t quite match the rest of the paragraph, which seems to be about stubbornness and refusal to accept. Stubbornness and pride often prevent people from accepting resolution, as it is often seen as a sign of weakness. Comparably in A Separation, the parallels of Hojjat and Nader’s life prevent creates social conflict between the two. Hojjat’s see Nader as upper class and believes that justice only helps the powerful and rich, hence for his reluctance to accept the blood money from Nader’s family, even though it wasn’t Nader’s fault. His stubborn will prevents him from seeing the complexity of the situation and leads to his own peril.
Add a linking word (e.g. hence) or a verb (e.g. This highlights that…). You want your ideas to flow – you want to draw the lesson out of the evidence, you want to use the evidence to prove your point. Here it feels a bit like ‘well I’ve discussed the text so JERK now let’s make a broad statement about conflict in general’. Think of essays like driving a car. You want to make it as smooth as possible – you don’t slam your foot down on the accelerator when the lights go green or slam down the brakes really hard to stop, instead you make it smooth, flowing and gentle. Same here, you want it to flow smoothly, drawing lessons/ideas out of your evidence rather than going ‘evidence – screech to a hard stop – now my ideas!’ because it makes a bit of a bumpy ride for the reader! Basically, aim to say ‘the evidence shows this’ rather than ‘evidence – this’. When people are unable to listen to others with open minds, they risk inducing further conflict between each other. It is often the refusal of acceptance that causes no resolution for conflict, rather than the conflict itself.
To truly bring conflict to an end, individuals must come to resolution through passive means. Individuals must transcend
above their own desires and reach common ground for resolution to be achieved. Through passive means, individuals are allowed to express their thoughts and ideas with one another, allowing them to see the alternative side to the initial altercation. Indra Ghandi once said “you cannot shake hands with a clenched fist”, conveying that negotiations must be made with open minds. In 2011, Queen Elizabeth’s handshake with Martin McGuinness was hailed as a historic act of reconciliation between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The milestone was seen to resolve the 30 years of conflict between the two nations, and was only achieved through passive means.
Sure, the handshake was passive and symbolic; but you’d need to discuss the resolution that LED to this handshake. The handshake itself didn’t solve the problem, it would have been all the negotiations before that that solved the problem. So you’d need to discuss these, and then say that it was capped off by the handshake. When individuals listen with open minds, resolution can be achieved, as often the opposing side will be able to understand and comprehend the alternative view.
Again, I’d like you to link between the example and the ideas – ‘thus’ or ‘this demonstrates that’.This paragraph in particular could be explained more. What exactly do you mean by ‘passive means’? Can you give me a couple of examples that show exactly what it involves? I’m still a bit in the dark, because all you’ve said is that you should be open-minded. That’s true, but it doesn’t really explain how it works.
A good thing to acknowledge, too, is that to resolve conflict you have to get to the root of the problem; there was probably a reason why people started fighting! Like, if tribes and villagers revolt against the government, it’s probably because they’re not being treated well enough, and they’re desperately poor. So the government can try and crush them, but they won’t solve the conflict until they solve the underlying problem and start looking after the villagers’ needs.The convoluted nature of conflict often prevents peaceful resolution between different groups. It is often thought that power and authority resolve conflict, but often ignites further dispute. To truly resolve conflict, individuals must accept their wrong doing and come to an agreement through passive means.
Can someone give me some ideas to boost my word count? Right now it's kind of low for this essay. I'm highly inconsistent with my essay lengths, some go to 1000 and some (like this) only 600ish. I feel like that if I try to force myself to write more, it just becomes waffle and is pretty obvious I'm trying to boost word count. Thanks for any help in advance What it takes is more thinking and planning. if you try to boost the word count for the sake of it, it's useless. BUT, if you try to develop more/deeper ideas, and get more examples, and explain more, then that'll inevitably boost the word count because you just have more to say!
Like, imagine you write a paragraph on violence. If all you have to say is 'violence never works because it keeps the conflict going' and 'here is my one example of one individual who has faced violence to prove that', then your word count is going to be low. Or, you could think deeper. WHY doesn't violence work? How does it make people respond? How do human beings work or think or feel in conflict? Can violence ever work? Why do people continue to use violence all through history if it doesn't work? Is there emotional violence as well as physical violence? Does violence seem successful on the surface because it effects a short-term victory, but in reality it ensures the conflict will go on? etc. Plus, if you use multiple examples - e.g. a couple of external examples that show its effect on a global scale, and discuss how they show how humans respond to violence - it both strengthens your argument (because if you just say 'in this one case with this one person, violence didn't work', that honestly doesn't prove that it NEVER works, or even normally doesn't work), and it increases your word count.
So your aim is to think and brainstorm deeper to come up with different ideas, and also different examples.
Notes> you write really nicely!
> your ideas are definitely solid and well-expressed - sometimes I read essays and think 'what is there even to praise about them', but everything you've said has been said well and there are some great ideas. Well done, a good solid foundation for you to build on!
> you could acknowledge that conflict is complex so in some situations, passive means might not work
> you NEED NEED NEED more examples. Never just have one per paragraph, because that only shows that it's true in one situation! Plus you want to be looking on an individual and national scale, and in different types of conflict, to show that it's universal. (see
here for inspiration!)
> you need to explain a bit more what the examples show, and link closely between the examples and the points you draw out of them
> just need to explain a bit more of your points - how they work, why the work, what they show about how human beings interact, etc.
Home
Help
Search
Login
