Andy He

Original Version

Lord Chesterfield uses a persuasive, kind and attracting tone to express his parental advices throughout the passage, and the repetitive "I" displays as anaphora to emphasize Lord's urge to lead his son to become more perfect while emphasizing his reluctance to force others. Lord even uses several rhetorical questions to assist his son to evaluate himself in a completely new perspective.

Throughout the whole passage, the repetitive "I" emerges numerous times, which is an obvious signal to emphasize the urge for Lord to express his opinions and suggesstiones. To be more specific, at the beginning of the first paragraph, Lord admits his "faults" for frequently endeavoring to provide his sons with his own perspectives since he often suggests that children require elders to shed light on them in order to become more perfect. Apart from simply acknowledging his "faults", Lord identifies himelf as people who lie to themselves since although his child is so young, he is compelled to follow and learn certain rules and notions from his father due to father's self-indulgence. Furthermore, Lord endeavors to explain his behavior in the latter sentences, including refering himself as a friend rather than a strict parent in front of his child and wishing to serve as a helpful guide instead of a rigor censor, which effecitvely demostrates his reluctance to force his son to follow his advices every time, reflecting an attractive and persuasive tone for readers to understand his hard position and great efforts as a father. Last but not least, at the end of the paragraph 1, Lord points out that there is no necessity for his son to depend on him frequently, the repetitive "I" successfully reflects the persuasive but kind tone again, delivering messages to his sons that his judgements on events depend on his own thoughts instead of his father's views.

In addition to anaphora(repetitive "I") mentioned in former paragraph, rhetorical questions play significant roles when Lord tries to teach his son a completely new style of way to consider the difference between him and normal people in the second paragraph. For instance, Lord mentions the pleasure his son acquire through superior position or unlimited resources and knowledge should be carefully considered when it is compared to greater pleasure gained from more magnificant actions. In doing so, Lord is able to push his son to think in a different perspective and allow readers to evaluate his behaviors and notions more comprehensively. Moreover, the other question of Lord suggests that his son should always realize the superior position of him is actually an extremely unfair phenomenon when he is able to consider normal people's life. Specifically, the unlimited opportunities and knowledge his son can easily acquire are in fact unreachable to most of the people in their lifetime. Consequently, regret and temperance should always stay in the central parts of the heart, and this is the right action in Lord's perspective.

Revised Final Version

Lord Chesterfield uses a persuasive and considerate tone throughout the passage to deliver parental advice to his son, while also employing anaphora and rhetorical questions to emphasize his values of self-improvement and independent judgment. Instead of forcing his son to obey him, Chesterfield attempts to guide him through reason and emotional appeal.

Throughout the first paragraph, the repetitive phrase “I know” appears several times, functioning as anaphora to emphasize Chesterfield’s awareness of how unwelcome parental advice can often seem to children. At the beginning of the passage, he admits that advice is usually disliked, especially when it comes from parents who are often associated with the “moroseness” or “imperiousness” of old age. By openly acknowledging these negative stereotypes, Chesterfield presents himself as self-aware and reasonable rather than blindly authoritative. This rhetorical choice helps him build credibility because his son is more likely to trust a father who understands his perspective. Furthermore, Chesterfield explains that he does not “dictate as a parent” but instead wishes to “advise as a friend” and become “the guide, not the censor.” The contrast between “guide” and “censor” demonstrates his reluctance to control his son’s pleasures completely. Rather than restricting freedom, Chesterfield wants to use his own experiences to help his son avoid future mistakes. His metaphor describing the “thorns and briars” that “scratched and disfigured” him further reinforces the idea that his advice comes from personal suffering and genuine care instead of superiority. Consequently, Chesterfield develops a persuasive and compassionate tone that reflects his belief that young people should learn through guidance rather than force.

In addition to anaphora, rhetorical questions also play an important role in helping Chesterfield encourage his son to reflect on his own behavior and ambitions. For instance, Chesterfield asks, “can there be a greater pleasure than to be universally allowed to excel those of one’s own age?” Through this rhetorical question, he encourages his son to value excellence and achievement. Instead of directly commanding his son to study harder, Chesterfield allows him to reach the conclusion independently, which makes the advice appear more reasonable and less oppressive. Moreover, Chesterfield contrasts the “pleasure” of excelling others with the shame of being surpassed despite receiving an exceptional education. This comparison increases the emotional pressure on his son because it reminds him of the privileges and opportunities he possesses. Chesterfield further argues that knowing something only “imperfectly” can lead to “disgrace or ridicule,” revealing his strong belief in discipline and complete mastery rather than superficial understanding. Through these rhetorical questions and contrasts, Chesterfield conveys his value of intellectual excellence while persuading his son to become more responsible and self-disciplined.

Original Version

Nowadays, the majority of scientific jounals are published in English since a universal language is uniform and effective in certain cases. However, some argue that people who are more familiar with their native languages rather than English may find it difficult and inconvenient to adapt their scientific terms to a new language precisely and successfully. Based on certain research and statistic forms, those concerns should be undermined since a uniform language can avoid uncertainty through changing standards and meanings of different languages, allow scientists to exert more effforts on their projects and researchs since they have to spend more times transforming languages, and what's more, standard editting actually does not cost much but can still provide evaluators with relatively precise and comprehensive translations and corrections.

To begin with, a uniform language can avoid uncertain meanings through a variety of differnent native languages related to people from different regions. According to Source B, initially, people had tried to accept different languages for scientific researches since this action can provide people with a feeling of "owning a unique language". However, after few centuries eventually to scientific revolution, scientists find out there are more and more different local languages for them to distinguish, making the process to identify unfamiliar languges even more time consuming than.previous times. Therefore, the number of formal and certificagted langueges significantly decreased in the 19th century. Finally, only English remained as dominant since after centuries of evolution, people finally realized that the most efficient and precise way to exchange ideas across scientific fileds is forcing people to accept a uniform language. In this way, people do not have to worry about the uncertainty between several languages but clearly communicate with other scholars through identical expressions and professional terms.

In addition, the cost of certain institutions or even individuals is not that much when they assist students or scholars who are unfamiliar with English not only in economic aspect but also in moral aspect. Based on Source C, many researchers actuallly contribute a lot to their field and career but suffer from using accurate English to deliver their ideas and works, which is a huge shame. Due to the high tuition fee to nonlocal or international students, individuals who are familiar with English and certain institutions should take the responsibility to assist them, thereby a lot of shocking discoveries and conclusion can be unveiled, the whole society then can gain significant progress in certain areas. Furthermore, by analyzing the bar chart from Source D, it is easy to identify the low cost of standard editing. According to certain authorized evaluators, the accuracy of the languges should not play such a huge role in the whole work, instead, basic and clear expressions are qualified and accepted. Consequently, premium editing and standard translation are totally unnecessary, which means unlocal students can be effectively assisted through ecnomic aspect and moral aspect.

Although critics argue that it is not feasible for nonlocal people to learn a new language and those gaps generated in language aspect are huge that even some great accomplishments cannot be successfully published (Source E), according to the forms from Source F, most of the native Spanish speakers who attend a questionnaire find more advantages than disadvantages by using English as dominant language in certain fields. Apart from this, most of the participants suggest that it is necessary for people to adapt to a uniform international languages, meaning they do not belive learning a new language is not feasible but basically possible, thereby strongly undermining the statements introduced by Source E.

Revised Final Version

Nowadays, the majority of scientific journals are published in English since it is a universal language that is uniform and effective in certain cases. While linguistic diversity enriches cultural discourse, the universal adoption of English in scientific journals is an inevitable and beneficial evolution: it eliminates cross-cultural ambiguity, streamlines research efficiency by reducing linguistic barriers, and ensures accessible, cost-effective quality assurance through standardized editing—all of which drive global scientific progress.

However, some argue that people who are more familiar with their native languages rather than English may find it difficult and inconvenient to adapt their scientific terms to a new language precisely and successfully. Based on certain research and statistical forms, those concerns should be undermined since a uniform language can eliminate ambiguous meanings through changing standards and meanings distinct linguistic systems, spares scientists the time and effort of mastering multiple languages, letting them focus on core research priorities, and what's more, standard editing actually does not cost much resource input but still provides evaluators with relatively precise and comprehensive translations and corrections.

In addition, a uniform language can eliminate cross-linguistic ambiguity stemming from the diversity of native languages used by researchers across regions. According to Source B, initially, people had tried to accept different languages for scientific research, but this action exacerbates communicative ambiguity and inefficiency. In the course of human civilization's evolution, scientists have observed that the proliferation of regional languages creates ever-growing barriers to distinguishing unfamiliar terminology, making the process of identifying unfamiliar languages even more time-consuming than in previous eras. Therefore, the number of formal and certificated languages significantly declined in the 19th century. Finally, only English remained the dominant language after centuries of evolution, This evolution led scholars to recognize that adopting a universal linguistic standard-English-is the most efficient and precise means of exchanging ideas across global scientific communities. In this way, one no longer face cross-linguistic ambiguity but fosters clear consistent communication with other scholars through identical expressions and professional terms.

In addition, the cost of certain institutions or even individuals is not that much when they assist students or scholars who are unfamiliar with English not only in the economic aspect but also in the moral aspect. Based on Source C, many researchers have made pivotal contributions to their fields yet struggle to convey their ideas and work accurately in English, a barrier that stifles scientific progress. Due to the high tuition burden faced by nonlocal or international students, individuals who are familiar with English and certain institutions should take the responsibility to assist them, thereby making groundbreaking discoveries and critical conclusions that can be fully shared, driving transformative progress across global scientific communities.

Furthermore, by analyzing the bar chart from Source D, it is easy to identify that standard editing is not only low-cost but also delivers highly precise translations, balancing affordability and quality. Linguistic accuracy remains foundational to credible scientific communication; rather, standard editing validates evaluations by ensuring clarity and precision, thus cost-effective standard translation is sufficient to maintain rigor, and this balance of cost and accuracy ensures that all legitimate research—regardless of linguistic background—can undergo rigorous, unbiased evaluation.

Although critics argue that it is not feasible for nonlocal people to learn a new language and those genius generated in the language aspect are huge that even some great accomplishments cannot be successfully published (Source E), according to the form from Source F, most of the native Spanish speakers who attend a questionnaire find more advantages than disadvantages by using English as a dominant language in certain fields. Apart from this, most of the participants suggest that it is a necessary for people to adapt to a uniform international languages, meaning they do not believe learning a new language is not feasible but basically possible, thereby strongly undermining the statements introduced by Source E. By framing English proficiency as "achievable" rather than an insurmountable barrier, the survey participants redefine the debate: they reject the idea that language is a fixed, insurmountable barrier to scientific participation, instead positioning it as a learnable skill that unlocks collective progress. This reframing weakens Source E’s fatalistic argument by grounding it in the lived experience of practicing researchers. That said, targeted linguistic support (as noted in Source C) can mitigate barriers for the few researchers facing extreme challenges, ensuring no meaningful work is lost to linguistic gaps. This qualified concession acknowledges the validity of Source E’s concerns while preserving the core argument for a universal language: rather than abandoning English as a global standard, the solution lies in institutional and individual investment in linguistic support systems. This nuanced approach avoids the binary of "total inclusion vs. total exclusion" and instead offers a pragmatic middle ground—one that honors both the efficiency of a universal language and the equity of supporting marginalized scholars.

Original Version

With the rapid progresses and developments of moral beliefs, many people believe wrong behaviors, including serious crimes or normal misbehaviors which are not unified with common moral judgements, should all be considered as "bad and evil". However, those crimes or misbehaviors should not be used directly to judge a person since if people realize their fault and regret, they can create a completely reversed ending for themselves, unlike pride, which can corrode people to insist on the wrong path, leading them to produce more crimes or behaviors without realizing the incorrectness of their actions. Accordingly, John Marston in red dead redemption 2 game and Tony in the movie Green book reflect the former, while Frado Corleone in the movie Godfather served as a typical example of latter, having a tragedy at the end.

In red dead redemption 2 game, John Marston acted wrongly at first but later he accepted advices from his friends Arthur Morgan, choosing a right path and successfully avoiding the tragedy. At that time, the civil war just ended and many people from North and South traveled to the wild west in order to gain more opportunities for better lives. John, a kid who was abandoned by his parents, was adopted by a leader of Gang Van Der Lin. Therefore, he learnt a lot from the gang but he correspondingly took part in unlimited illegal events, such as murdering and robbing. However, when the time passed away, more and more people cannot endure unlimited gang activities in which more so big gangs ordered elite detectives to hunt them across the states, leading to huge casualty and property loss to the gang. Eventually, the leader Arthur, who insisted to help people in need even though he was a gang member, was forced to hide on a hill with John and detectives finally identified their location. Arthur told John, "forget the past, be a goodman man", and he sacrificed himself to save John. John remembered his words, consequently, John did not remind his past to anyone and governments also silently accepted him, providing him a small farm and easy life at end. This demonstrates that if people realize their misbehaviors and change his or her actions and thoughts, people will realize those changes and thereby change their impression on those former criminals, which can avoid unnecessary tragedy and conflicts.

Apart from wild west example, one of the protagonist in Green book also reflected the positive aspects of realizing thoughts and making changes. In the movie, a conventional Italian family in 1960s in America discriminated black people at first, including member Tony. Tony found a job for a colored musician and served as his driver, and he was relatively reluctant to follow order from his hirer at first. But later, when he saw the musician Dr Shirley's glamorous performance and beautiful languages in letters, his discrimination changed into admiration. At the end of the movie, when the family members of Tony called Dr Shirley n words in conversations, Tony directly prevented their actions, meaning he successfully changed his wrong typical impressions of colored people and wished to spread this correct thought to people around them. Therefore, this story indicated that when people successfully realize their faults and make changes, they can benefit not only themselves but also many familiar or unfamiliar people, which is a very positive and effective approach to make the whole society better.

Some extreme statements indicate that people who produce misbehaviors and crime should completely considered as "evil". However, from my perspective, only people who realize their misbehaviors but insist to engage in wrong paths should be considered as "evil". For instance, in the movie the Godfather, Michale Corelone served as a boss of a big gang family in 1960s New York, he had a brother named Frado, who was weak like a coward but had a kind heart. Due to his weakness, he was always insulted by others when his family was not with him to provide support. In addition, many antagonists induced him to help them and he accepted them since he was too weak. Michale warned him several times, like "Frado, you are my brother, I love you, but do never say anything against your family, never", but he did not listen to these advices but continued to serve for different competitors. Finally, Michale had to end his due to his serious betrayal, he successfully changed the person who can protect him best to the person that kill him. Hence, this event proves that if people do not accept their misbehaviors and keep acting wrongly, not only themselves will be considered as "evil" but also acquire more fatal judgements from others.

Revised Final Version

In a society where moral standards are constantly evolving, people often rush to label individuals who commit wrongdoing as inherently “evil.” However, such a judgment overlooks a crucial distinction: while some individuals recognize their misbehavior and strive to change, others persist in wrongdoing despite awareness of its consequences. Therefore, moral judgment should not be based solely on past actions, but rather on an individual’s willingness to acknowledge and correct those actions.

The story of John Marston in Red Dead Redemption 2 illustrates how individuals can transcend past misdeeds through self-awareness and change. Initially, John participates in violent and unlawful activities as a member of a gang, actions that would typically justify labeling him as immoral. However, as he matures, he begins to recognize the consequences of his actions and actively seeks redemption. His decision to abandon his former lifestyle and sacrifice himself for his family demonstrates not only regret but transformation. This shift is significant because it shows that moral identity is not fixed; rather, it is shaped by one’s capacity for reflection and change. Thus, judging John solely based on his past crimes ignores the ethical weight of his later choices.

Similarly, the film Green Book presents Tony as an individual whose prejudiced views evolve through personal experience. At the beginning, Tony holds stereotypical and discriminatory beliefs. Yet, through his interactions with Dr. Shirley, he begins to question and ultimately reject those assumptions. His transformation is not immediate but gradual, making it more convincing and reflective of real human behavior. By the end, Tony not only changes his own beliefs but also challenges those of others around him. This progression demonstrates that ignorance and bias do not necessarily define a person permanently; rather, the ability to confront and revise one’s views is a key marker of moral growth. Therefore, labeling individuals as “evil” without considering their capacity for change oversimplifies human nature.

In contrast, The Godfather presents a case in which a character fails to learn from his misbehavior, reinforcing a more traditional notion of moral judgment. Fredo Corleone repeatedly betrays his family despite being warned and given opportunities to change. Unlike John or Tony, Fredo does not demonstrate meaningful self-awareness or growth. His continued disloyalty ultimately leads to severe consequences, suggesting that moral condemnation becomes more justified when individuals persist in wrongdoing despite understanding its impact. This contrast highlights that it is not wrongdoing itself, but the refusal to change, that more accurately defines moral failure.

Ultimately, these examples reveal that morality cannot be reduced to a simple label based on isolated actions. While wrongdoing may warrant criticism, it is an individual’s response to that wrongdoing that determines their moral character. A society that judges solely on past behavior risks ignoring the possibility of growth and redemption, while one that considers personal transformation allows for a more nuanced and just evaluation of human behavior.