"THE LETTER TO EDITOR" - Jennie Viratham Poonsawat

In “Letter to Editor”, Robert R. Raywift claims that parking should be limited from 2 a.m. To 6 a.m. and overnight parking on every street in Moorburg should be prohibited. Robert R. Raywift provides a number of arguments to support his suggestions. Though the letter seems to be reasonable, there are still some flaws in some arguments. 

First of all, Robert mentions that traffic on some streets are caused by factory workers of 6 a.m. shift and if there was no car parking on the streets, the streets would not be busy. However, this argument is not efficient because argument does not provide enough reasons and effective evidence for prohibiting the overnight parking . Furthermore, he claims that overnight parking is not preferable and this is so bad that it should be eliminated. This statement is only a ‘false cause’ since by being undesirable is not a good reason to oppose the overnight parking and the cause is unreasonable. 

Second, Robert states that all clever citizens would consider the decrease in accidents to be desirable. This statement tends to have a fallacy which is ‘poisoning the well’ because by saying “all”, it makes people feel like if they do not regard the near disappearance of accidents desirable, those people are not intelligent. This kind of fallacy will discourage the people who oppose the idea and will make them feel concern about the problem.

Third, he argues that the Chief of Police, Burgess Jones, conducted an experiment on Marquand Avenue by placing the signs prohibited parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. As a result, during the period from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m., not an accident occurred. Burgess Jones ran the experiment in order to confirm that overnight parking should be limited. In fact, this street is only one of the busiest streets Robert mentions so this evidence is not enough to support the argument, due to ‘hasty generalization’. Robert is using the method ‘appeal to authority’ since the Chief of Police represents power and authority but he is not an expert in the traffic problems. Therefore, by including people or a person who is not a professional to support the argument, it is not credible and makes the experiment unreliable.

Finally, Robert also indicates that his opponents of the suggestions do not understand the real meaning of “safe” as they say the conditions are quite safe now. This argument has a defect because Robert accidentally includes ‘equivocation’ in the argument since he shifts the meaning of the word “safe”. And he attacks the opponents using the fact that they do not what "safe" really means and this is possible to be a 'personal attack'.

Criticizing Letters to Editor - by Saud

Criticizing Letters to Editor - by Saud 

This letter is about a citizen who observed a problem with some streets of his city and wrote letters to the editor suggesting solution for that problem. The problem the writer observed is that the overnight parking in some streets caused huge traffic in the rush hours. The solution he suggests is to prohibit the overnight parking and consider it as a violation of the traffic law.

The first problem that is obviously appeared in the first paragraph is when writer said “there are number of reasons why an intelligent citizen should agree”, in this sentence, the writer used the fallacy of poisoning the well, this style of writing will make the reader think about how to defend himself from being unintelligent “according the writer description” and at the same time give the writer chance to not defend his conclusion with relevant premises.

Another problem with the beginning of the second paragraph is when the writer said “for one thing”, the reader has no idea what is the “thing” that the writer is talking about. He should name it clearly specially this sentence came in the beginning of the paragraph which means there is new idea will be discussed. Also, there is an obvious fallacy in the paragraph which is “begging the question”; the writer had clearly repeated his idea without providing support to what he claimed. He claimed that parking overnight is illegal and it considered as having a garage in the city street which known by law as illegal action, the writer did not support his claims by identifying which law prohibit having carnage in the city street.

In paragraph six, the writer again repeated the fallacy of poisoning the well when he talked about the intelligent citizen should agree about the nearly elimination of accidents if the overnight parking is prohibited. He did not provide any support to his conclusion and at the same time he promoted the same idea which is “to be intelligent you should agree with this suggestion”.

In paragraph seven, the writer compared two irrelevant issues when he talked about the experiment made by the chief of Police. He compared the number of accidents on the period of the experiment with the number of accidents in the last year without specifying which period last year. This comparison is clearly a false cause fallacy.

On last problem with paragraph eight is that the writer used the style of “personal attack” when he described the opponents of his suggestion by “these people do not know what “safe” really means.  The writer attacked his opponents personally instead of discussing their argument.   

analyzing an argument . By Riham

RIHAM ABUZINADAH

MAY 21, 2014

ACADEMIC WRITING

Analyzing a Short Argument

                In a letter to the editor, Robert Raywift, the writer argues that overnight parking should be removed, especially from 2 a.m. to 6 p.m. for some causes that was mentioned in this letter. In the writer’s letter, there are some fallacies that I could figure, and I would like to represent some of them and explain why they are wrong.

                First, the author states that when someone park at night, it is similar to the case that he has a garage in the street, which is against the law. I think this argument is wrong and I can say that it is a false analogy, since the author compares to things that are irrelevant to each other. More clearly, parking overnight is something totally different from having a garage because when you have a garage, you own it and it is totally yours; however, when the person park at night, that would be just for a certain amount of time and he will not own the place.

                Second, the author argues that if people do not agree with his argument, they are not intelligent. Also, he says that if they are intelligent, then they should put into account that overnight parking has to be eliminated. I believe that this statement is not suitable, for the writer intimidated the audience and discourages an open discussion. In addition, it is inappropriate to describe those who are against the issue as not intelligent individuals.

                In the author’s third argument, he indicates about the experiment that has been done by the Chief of Police, Burgess Jones, who did the experiment about the overnight parking. He prohibited cars parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. So, he mentioned that during the four hours there was not one accident recorded. This argument is weak because the experiment was done in a short time, which I could consider it a false cause because the period of the experiment is not quite enough to be generalized.

                The forth argument indicates that there is no need to make such solution for overnight parking, since they believe that streets are safe enough at night. On the other hand, the author attacks these people by claiming that they do not have any idea about the safety procedures. Therefore, I think this is a straw man fallacy as he attacks people without giving them the chance to argue.

                Finally, the author provides an argument of two people, Kenneth Taylor and Police Chief, who assert that prohibiting parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. is the best way to inhibit overnight parking. I believe that this is a wrong argument and can be considered begging a question because he does not provide any solution, but he is circling around the same issue.

Fallacious Arguments in The Letter to The editor by Hussain

In a letter to the editor, Robert R. Raywift writes a suggestion to avoid accidents in Mooburg city and he recommend that parking at streets overnight should be prohibited in order to reduce accidents rate. However, when we look at his argument at the first glance,he relies on tenable assumptions to build his argument. After deeply reading, we found that Raywift’s assumptions have several fallacies.   

First of all, Raywift mentions that when people park their cars in the street overnight, that means people making the street as their garages and he concludes that is not legal and should be forbidden. Raywift beg the question because he did not provide any evidence bolstering his opinion. He is wrong because he assumes that anyone parks his car overnight in the street that is mean he would make the street his garage. Raywift’s argument is weak and he will not convince people to agree with him without reasonable premises.

Raywift draws another weak assumption when he relies on the experiment which was done by the Chief of Police. During the time 2 am to 6 am, the chief sat a sign to prevent parking at one of the busiest streets in the city. At that time, there was no accident at that street, so Raywift assumes this would be successful way to avoid accidents at early morning. Nevertheless, the author explanation for this experiment was feeble due the fact that no accidents happened at this time do not confirm that ban signs was the real cause for preventing accidents, so the cause was mistaken. In this case, the author links everything do not occur at this time to the signs of banning car parking.

Furthermore, at the same point, Raywifts made a hasty generalization. He generalized the idea and assumed that what is true for this street would be true for all streets in the city. Therefore, when parking cars overnight be banned, the accidents would be eliminated. This experiment is inadequate in light of the fact that it conducted only one day and on one street.

The final fallacy in Raywift’s argument is personal attack. He could not answer his opponents logically when they said our streets are safe and we do not need more safety procedures. He started to arguing with them about their knowledge about safety in order to strengthen his opinion rather than explain for them his reasons to have more safety procedures.

It is clearly that Raywift argument is neither sounds nor persuasive. Therefore, it could not be approved in the city unless he provides sufficient evidence and explanation for his opinion. 

        Naif Alshareef , Analysis of Robert Letter to the Editor  

                                                    Analysis of Robert Letter to the editor 

 In the letter to the editor, Robert R. Raywift provides reasons and arguments why overnight parking should be prevented on all Moorburg’s streets. According to Robert, Parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m., on Moorburg streets, should be banned because its disadvantages far outweigh of its advantages. Robert states that overnight parking on the streets became like a private parking lot for the car owners.   Moreover , he mentions that the important streets in  Mooorburg  suffer from overnight parking because that cause traffic during rush hour. Also prohibiting overnight parking will reduce accidents.

   

      On the hand  hand if we look at Robert’s letter critically, some of his arguments and reasons are irrational.For example, when he argues that agreements from clever citizens should be considered for preventing overnight Parking. This argument is poisoning the well. It indicates that if you are smart citizen you should support the prohibition of overnight parking, otherwise you are not one of the shrew residents in the Moorburg city. Maybe there are other residents who are smart but they disagree with the idea.

 Another argument provided by Robert which is the claim of parking overnight and   the righto park during that time. In that statement Robert is begging the question by saying that it is illegal to park overnight because it is illegal to have private parking on public place.

       

    Moreover, I find the example Robert mentions about the experiment established by the Chief of the police to prohibit parking during 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.  On one of the famous street in Moorburg is irrelevant to the overnight parking. This false cause argument because he compares the number of the accidents in the street with the prohibition of the overnight parking.  During the four hour prohibition of parking reduce the accident, but what about the other hour like rush hour. Usually accident at that time is rare because there is no traffic and even if there were many accidents in the past four year in that street but may be the accident happened in another time of the day, so the connection between the overnight parking and the accident are irrelevant.

  

   Finally,  Robert claims that the opponents against the idea of prohibiting overnight parking claim that is it is safe now and Robert goes against this idea. Robert here has another interpretation for the word safe. According to him, safe means in this context the complete absence of   and possibility of having accidents. This argument is consider Equivocation.  

Fallacy - Ashwag Gashgari

Ashwag Gashgari.           

May 21, 2014.

Argument Letter

                In a letter to the editor, Robert Raywift, argues that people shouldn’t be allowed to park overnight from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. because of number of reasons: the first reason he compares the parking in night as a garage, and since it is prohibited to build a garage in the street, so that’s should be with the parking. The second reason he represents that those parked cars make the traffic more slowly; therefore, it increases the consumption time of driving. Another significant reason that overnight parking hinders the factory workers who’s shift 6 a.m. Finally, he remarks too that overnight parking is a cause for some accidents.

                The first fallacy that I would like to discuss is the comparison between overnight parking and the garage,   the author states that overnight parking is like a garage, and because of the fact that building garages in the street is illegal; hence, overnight parking should be prohibited. This argument is false analogy because he comparing between things that have something in similar which is parking the car and garages, however, they totally different because parking is temporary while the garage it is self-property, and second those garages take larger spaces than cars.

                The second significant fallacy I would like to remark on it is when the author argues with accident escalating, the author states that the overnight parking raise the number of accidents between parked and moving cars in that period of time, and he support his argument by saying that intelligent locals would eliminate this issue. This argument “All intelligent citizens would regard the near elimination of accidents in any period as highly desirable.” Is poising the well fallacy, because he intimidates people that who didn’t support that consider to be non-intelligent.

                 The third considerable fallacy is when he mentions the experience which has been done by Burgers Jones, a chief police. The author explain that the chief put a sign in one of the street for one day prohibiting parking in the period of time in hand and then he mention that its was a successful day without any case better than the last year which face 400 accidents.  This argument is false clause argument because you can’t do an experiment for one day and considered it as a result , there other important thing to prove this experiments.

                Another remarkable fallacy when he mentions what the opponent’s claims that now is safer, and he refute them by saying that “these people don’t know what safe means. Conditions are not safe if there’s even the slightest possible chance for accidents. This argument is a straw man fallacy, due to the fact that attacks the opponent opinion and cut in their ability to recognize the safeness.

                Finally the last fallacy that I would mention is a begging question fallacy when the author finishes his letter by saying that “Both suggest that prohibiting parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. is the best way to prevent overnight parking”.  Because he just saying the same meaning with other words.  (513 words)

Fallacies in "Letter to Editor" - Yuna Tsushima

 In the “Letter to Editor”, the writer of this letter claims that there should not be any vehicles parked in the street from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.  He shows us some reasons why he wants no parking in the streets in this period.

Although he provides many reasons to prove his opinion, we can find some problems in his argument. I found 4 fallacies such as “poisoning the well”, “false cause”, “begging question” and “personal attack”.

First of all, the author uses the words “intelligent citizen” repeatedly in this letter. This is a fallacy called “poisoning the well” because he implies that those who oppose his idea are not intelligent by saying that wise and educated people must support his opinion. Also he believes that the main cause of heavy traffic is the cars parked in the streets and refers to the traffic jam in the afternoon as the bad effect of overnight parking. He says that if there’s no overnight parking, the traffic will be much better. Parking in the street may be a part of causes of heavy traffic, but it would not have so much effect if we make a law forbid to park in the street from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. Therefore I think this is a “false cause”. In addition, the author states that parking in the street should be banned because it is absolutely trouble and bad thing. This is “begging question” because he just says it is very bad, no one will support because it is really bad, there is no logical reason. Finally, he refers to the opponents’ opinion. The people who oppose his idea says that the present state of parking is not so dangerous but safe. He against this idea by saying the people who say that it is safe don’t understand the meaning of the word ”safe” precisely. . This is “personal attack” because he does not provide any reason to against the opponents’ idea but just says they don’t know how dangerous to park in the street.

These are the fallacies I found in the letter. His argument is not so persuasive because of these kind of fallacies and some other weak argument which do not have enough reason or fact.  

Fallacies Seen In A Letter Claiming Overnight Parking/ Misa

In a letter of Robert R. Raywift to Moorburg, he argues that overnight parking should be regulated as mainly it accelerates heavy traffic, causes a garage, and expedites accidents. Among these reasons, few fallacious sentences are seen.

 

First of all, Robert suggests agreeing with him to people by regarding them “an intelligent citizen” in a sentence mainly saying if you are an intelligent citizen, you should agree with him. This is typical way to poison the well, which enforce citizens who want to be regarded as intelligent to agree with him no matter his arguments are persuasive or fallacious.

Secondly, in addition, these is a false analogy; he mentions about that garage ownership in the city streets are illegal, so park overnight should be against the law as it is to have a garage there. Although He said it is clearly, there are no solid reasons to support his original argument seen between these arguments. While he talks about overnight parking on streets, he suggests the slim possibility that it consequently produces a garage. His arguments are lack in accurate evidences to support this analogy.

Thirdly, he argues that three important streets are packed in the afternoon rush hour, so overnight perking should be eliminated,  though he originally argues perking in the night. This is irrevelent information and dosen't support his arguments at all.

Fourthly, he put begging the question, between a traffic problem and the expected deterrent effects on accidents, . In the sentence, he says that it is no doubt that overnight parking on the streets is disagreeable and bad, so it should be opposed. This supports nothing and has no evidences; it is quite natural and a common idea that something undesirable is to be opposed.

 Fifthly, there is a hasty generalization in which he claims a deterrent effect on the number of accidents happening in a street proven by an experimental sign which prohibited parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.. Although his experiment took place for just one day, and the result turned to be that no accident happened, he compared it with the number of over four hundred accidents which happened on the street during the past year. This is a hasty generalization because the number of accidents for one day and the one for one year cannot be an accurate comparison.


Finally, in a sentence, he points out fault of his opponents by creating new mianing of "safe", which is simply a equivocation, saying they do not know the meaning of "safe". In the sentence, he insists that “safe” means " there is no possibility of accidents.

Fallacies in The Letter---Wendi Fan

In his letter to editor, Robert R. Raywift states many reasons why parking in the street should be cancelled. However, he runs several logical fallacies in his letter, and this might puzzle the editor to understand his meaning.

First of all, the author says every wise citizen should support the idea that to forbid parking along the street for several reasons. This fallacy is poisoning the well because he makes an assertion that precludes an open discussion of the issue. The same wrong words also appear in Paragraph Six, he says that all of the wise citizens would please for the phenomena of few accidents. Not all citizen would agree with his opinion, and who would have this notion were not intelligent, were stupid. This expression is too arbitrary to consider carefully.

The second one is that in the second paragraph he describes that parking in the street as though putting individual garage in the street. This fallacy is false analogy because the author puts the parking position to compare with garage, they are totally different things. Since parking space is just to draw many lines in the street, and it can be changed easily. On the contrary, garage is made of some materials in a fixed place, it could not be moved in a normal way.

Furthermore, the author exemplifies his experience in the third paragraph, and states that it is really hard to park in the three main streets such as Lincoln Avenue, Marquand Avenue and West Main Street because of narrow room in the afternoon of traffic time. This is another fallacy of red herring. The author's plan is to prohibit parking from 2 am to 6 am, and his rough experience happened in the afternoon, so this is an irrelevant evidence.

Another fallacy is in Paragraph 5, the author says that parking overnight in the street is really bad and should be prohibited. This is begging the question, because the author just repeat his opinion rather than give the editor good reasons to support it.

Finally, the author runs a hasty generalization in the seventh paragraph. He lies an experiment of Burgess Jones who is the Chief of Police to prove that there can be reduced accidents significantly in Marquand Avenue from 2 am to 6 am by using signs to stop parking there for one day. After all, more than four hundred accidents happened in Marquand Avenue last year. This experiment cannot prove anything useful to have a stop parking sign just for one day because we don't know the real reasons of the four hundred accidents happened in Marquand Avenue, and we cannot be sure that which day and what time is more dangerous to park in this street. 

In conclusion, the author gives the editor several unconvinced reasons to state his opinion that parking in the main street from 2 am to 6 am should be prohibited to reduce traffic accidents.

Overnight Parking in Moorburg Should be Prohibited in all Streets; by Hisham Alshehri

Hisham Alshehri

Overnight Parking in Moorburg Should be Prohibited in all Streets

      In a letter to the editor, Robert Raywift, explains many reasons that overnight parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. should be prohibited on all streets of Moorburg , and he include suggestions to convince his argument.

The first author statement indicates that there are many reasons why parking overnight from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. should be prohibited, and an intelligent citizen should be agree with that to achieve this goal.
The problem with this statement is poisoning the well, and that means if you disagree with this suggestion to  ban overnight parking then you are not intelligent, and if you agree with my suggestion you are intelligent.

The second suggestion of Mr. Raywift is overnight parking on streets in general is undesirable and bad, so it should be banned.
The problem with this statement is begging the question because Mr. Raywift  didn't explains why overnight parking is undesirable and why it should be banned. He only says because it is bad.

The third suggestion of Mr. Raywift is if we banned overnight parking then there will be no accidents between the moving cars, and all intelligent citizens would regard elimination of accident as highly desirable.
The problem with this suggestion is poisoning the well because he says that only the smart people will take that elimination of accidents as something important and desirable, so people who against the prohibited overnight parking are not intelligent and they don’t care about accidents.

The fourth suggestions of Mr. Raywift  indicates that a study done by the Chief of Police, Burgress Jones, he placed signs prohibited the parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. on the busiest street and there were no accidents for four hours.in the past four years there were over 400 accidents on Marquand. This experiment proves the idea of prohibited overnight parking.

The fallacy with this statement is generalization the accidents that happened on the past four years on Marquand because the overnight parking is not prohibited, but that’s could be because of other reasons cause the accidents. Also, the experiment was done on only four hours which is not enough to prove this suggestion.

Fallacious argument ---- Zhiyuan Zhang

                In a letter to editor, Robert R. Raywift argued that Parking should be prohibited from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. because he believed that the prohibit could avoid traffic jam and accident. However, the letter had some fallacious arguments so it was not as persuasive as it seemed to be.

                The first fallacy that the author made was in the argument in the second paragraph. He argued that parking overnight is to have a garage in the street. Because it is illegal for anyone to have garage in the city street, overnight parking should be banned. This is a false analogy because parking in the street and having garage in the street are totally different cases. If one have a garage, there should have a shield like building with door, roof and wall. More importantly, nobody else can park in a private garage. So we can say that parking in the public street area temporarily for hours is totally case, since anyone can find room and park.

               In the third and forth paragraphs, the author made a mistake of  false cause. The author argued that if there is no parking on the side of the street, it would be easier to drive in the afternoon rush hour and morning. However, parking in the midnight absolutely is not the reason for the traffic jam in the day time. By prohibiting parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. one cannot solve any traffic problem in the morning or afternoon.

                The author made a fallacy of poisoning the well in the first and sixth paragraphs. The author said all intelligent citizen should agree with him. However, the argument that if parking is prohibited from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m., the traffic accident in this period will be eliminated he made in the sixth paragraph is unreasonable because he did not offer any data which can prove there is a high rate of accident caused by parking overnight. So we do not have to agree with him even if we are intelligent citizen.

               Next, in the seventh paragraph, a fallacy of  appeal to authority was made. The author quoted a experiment by a policeman to prove the prohibition of parking overnight can reduce the accident rate to zero.

But the experiment itself, as we can tell, is not scientific. Most of the people know that when we made an experiment, we must compare the results made with different ingredients.  Although the author offered data that over four hundred accidents on the street happen during the past year, he did not told us how many of them happened during the midnight and were caused by the overnight parking.

               Finally, there was a fallacy of personal attack in the eighth paragraph. The author claimed that the opponents of his suggestion, who said the present condition is safe enough, "don't know what 'safe' really means". The author said that the condition is not safe of there's even the slightest possible chance for an accident. Of course this is neither mental nor scientific. We cannot make sure there is no "slightest possible chance for accident" at all in any way and that why it is called accident; even when you are parking in your own garage you can hit the wall and make damage, but anyway you cannot say your garage is unsafe.

After being raped-Yuna Tsushima

http://time.com/98492/rape-sexual-assault-victims-police/

  I read an article about the result of law amendment in 2005 which allowed the victims of rape to get free medical exams without or before reporting to the police. Before 2005, they used to be required to report the crime that they experienced to get proper medical support. But some victims do not want others to know about the affair and they cannot go to the police or it takes time to decide to talk about the crime to someone and they couldn’t go to see a doctor. So it was thought that this amendment help more victims get enough medical care after the sexual assault. However, the result of amendment did not seem to be so effective. It did not work so much, the number of the people who went to the hospital without going to the police office was really small. So the official is seeing the need to let the nationals know about this. In addition, there is another problem. Some people stay in the United State without proper procedure so they cannot have access to the hospital and the police. If they go to the hospital, they are revealed to be illegal immigrant.

   I was really surprised to read this article because it says that most of the victims know the attacker and some of them did not even notice that they were assaulted. I think we need to change the recognition of sexual assault. I think rape is a tragedy enough as itself, but being a victim of rape is also a tragedy. The victim will be scared of men, suffer from reputation or rumor about it, and sometimes it will be difficult for them to have sound relationship with their future boyfriend. I can understand their feeling that they want to keep it secret so that they can live without being looked as victims of rape. But I think they need help. It is a really delicate problem because people around the victim should care about it but it is not good to be too sensitive about it. They should get not only medical exam but also some kinds of therapy. I used to have different idea that victims should report the crime to police in order to prevent the offender from raping another person, and make neighbors be aware of what was happen in their area and be careful. I don't know how it feels to be a victim of rape, but now I understand that the most important thing is the victim’s health. They should be protected and supported so that they can live with less pain. I hope that it will be easier to get access to medical care after sexual assault and without being known to others.

Reasons for Working

By: Ayesha Aldoghan

Why Do People Work?

When you ask people why do they work, a lot of them will say because money. Sometimes money truly is the only reason a person works, but when you give them time to think, they will change their answer because most people have more substantial reasons for working like spending times doing something they’re good at, being productive, and helping other people. First reason is a lot of people need to work because they want to spend their time in what they can do. They spent a lot of time to learn something, and time to practice to be good and professional in it; therefore, they want to spend their time doing it to feel happy, to enjoy, and to apply what they learned. For example, a lot of people reject to work in jobs don’t need their skills or what they learned in their studies even if the jobs offer more money because they will not enjoy doing it or will not feel confident while they doing it. Second reason is people want to work to be productive. Sometimes a person needs to feel that he is useful, important, and has his important place in this life, so he wants to be productive, to do something useful, and to feel that he is not expire. For instance, a lot of people who retired from their jobs return to work in any field they want in paid or volunteering work just to feel productive. The last reason is people want to work to help other people. Other people need their skills, and they feel obliged to supply them. If we know that a lot of people need us to help them or to do what they don’t qualified to do it, we will not delay to help them. Doctors; for example, always are needed by patients. In finally, money not always the reason for working; every person has purpose for working; it might be spending times doing something he’s good at, being productive, or helping other people.

http://www.myfuture.edu.au/getting%20started/what%20is%20a%20career/why%20do%20people%20work.aspx

10 Ways to Avoid a Cop Giving You a Speeding Ticket

Hisham Alshehri
By: Eric Peters

10 Ways to Avoid a Cop Giving You a Speeding Ticket

     Is it annoying you that you get speed ticket just because you drive a little over the speed limit? Many people get speed ticket just because they speed a little faster than the speed limit.  Here some methods by Eric Peters to be under the cops radar. First of all try to drive within 5-10 mph of the other cars. If you drive with the flow of traffic the cops won’t notice you because the cops only looking for the car that drive much faster than the other. Second method is try to stay on the middle of the pack traffic. Logically, if you driving fast and you lead the cars then you are the first one who will pass the cops radar trap and getting speed ticket. If you are the last car may be you will be the one the cops will roll up behind you just like a hungry lion haunts after last gazelle of the herd. So the safest way is to stay in the middle of the pack cars. Next methods is find a “Rabbit”, if you can’t find a pack of cars driving fast, then try to find a car that driver faster and follow discretely within 100 yard. If there is a police radar, then the rabbit will trip the trap, not you.  If he suddenly brakes then that a sign that there is danger and it is the time to take defensive action. Next ways of avoiding speed ticket is do not change your lanes frequently and do not drive aggressively. If you drive rude and in danger, there is might be someone will call the cops and give them description about your car. Always try to be courteous and use you signals. Another tip is try to avoid the fast track and stay in the middle as possible. Drivers who drive at the fast lane are the most likely to became the target because if the cops opposite direction on highway and you pass them, then you are the most noticeable car. For that, try to be far from the left lane as possible. Next methods when you are driving on the highway, try to notice cutouts sings and try to slow down because usually after a couple of miles there is a cop who lurking behind the bushes and ready to give you a ticket. Another way is try to not speed if you are the only one on the road. Even if your only 5 mph over the speed limit you are easily to catch if there is a police radar. Other tip is get a radar detector. It is a little expensive, but it is only one time, it can saves you a lot, and it is even cheaper than a one speed ticket. Next tips is try to drive a nondescript vehicle because it is a human nature to look at noticeable things. The cars with bright color or with loud exhaust there are more likely to draw a cop attention. Last methods is be aware or your appearances. If you are the only one drive on the road in the mid night and you look like bank robber, then expect a speeding ticket with no mercy. On other hand if you look like a responsible member of the community then you are more likely to get a friendly response.

      My point of view about the above tips, it is more sense ways to avid to get a speeding ticket. I might disagree with some points such as, drive a nondescript vehicle and watch for signal cutouts, I think that doesn't helpful to avoid speed because cops more smarter and they have new ways to pull over the speed cars even if you drive a nondescript car.

http://autos.aol.com/article/how-to-avoid-a-speeding-ticket/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_183082

Naif Alshareef

                                             

Susan Matson offers context and suggestions for helping Saudi Arabian students adjust to the Western educational setting

     The article talks about the Saudi Student as ESL learners in USA ESL schools. According to the article a huge number of Saudi students come to study at ESL schools after King  Abdullah scholarship which started in 2005. The author address some problems for the students and teacher who teach Saudi students for the first time. 

        The author also address the differences between Saudi Arabia education system and Higher education in USA.she shows how the Saudi education is new and higher education there is new. Also the education there is for free for both gender and segregation in school is existed there.The education system there focus more on religion and all high schools student have a unified examination at the end of the school years.The curriculum of the school is unified and  national examination  is taken all over the country. The author also address the different learning methods between the two countries. Moreover, the teachers there are more strict and have authority and they have formal relation with students. 

       According to the author, Saudi student show adjustment to the new environment although they came from a culture based on religious perspective, they can also adapt the new environment and show tolerance. Also she states that the ESL schools show understand the special needs of the Saudi student and how they help them academically and  socially to purse their success in the American universities.for Example when i came here for the first time, I face some difficulties to adapt the new environment and the new  education style, but with time i become aware to the new situation and i have to understand and adapt the new culture. I think this a good opportunists for the Saudi  student take this advantage of education and life experience which make them more wise , open-minded and more flexible and tolerance  to accept people from different perspective.

       I was very interested reading this Article because it focus one of the issue that is related to ESL in USA schools. As an ESL student in one of the English Language institution and interested in English language, i agree with the author in some point. I understand how is the education is different from back home and i experience that the classroom here is different from Saudi Arabia.Here we have to adapt to new teaching and   learning methods like group work , problem solving , the casual relation between the student and the teacher, the new environment and being tolerance and understandable of new ideas , believes and value.In addition, Saudi students may face problems outside the class room and this affect their academic success.

Source: http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=6364