Hi there

I have just signed in the forum.would you do me a favour can you rate my essay.....

In the contemporary world where everything is happening so fast.Everybody rushes badly to get there things done faster.As its said 'Haste is Waste'this is very true in some cases but in today's world all the things are moving so fast.So one has to be fast to get into the competetion,though it does'nt mean that, you should become impatient and do the things hastily and just mess it up.On the other hand there are people who still are moving slowly and staedily in life but then its not true that they are lagging behind.I would rather say it all depends on the situation where one has to be fast or slow,So I would rather say I am of opinion where todays man has to balance both ways.Some work expects him to be fast and some situations wants him to move slow and with lot of patience.

Some people follow the saying'SLOW AND STEADY WINS THE RACE'which is true and well proven but sometimes the same people have to do there work faster.Nobody can follow the same pace for all the times and in all the situations.Sometimes your profession demands you to be fast,For instance when you are in service industries as in Restaurants,Banking,Cafetaria at these places if you work at a snails pace,then either you will be stamped down with the crowd or you will be fired on the very first day of your work.So its not possible for any man to follow the same speed for all the time and places.On the contrary the people who are fast and quick and they expect the results faster cannot be the same in all situations.As I have mentioned the rpofession of a person demands him to work accordingly.The best example for this is a doctor,If a Surgeon as a person is fast he cannot be so all the time.During surgery if he follows the same speed then it might ruin his medicine career.So its very important to balance both the parameters in order to go along with the demanding situations.

If we look the people who are fast and always rush to get there work done sometimes ruin there work in that process.This group of people may get the results faster but the quality might be the worst.On the other hand the people who are slow and lateback are always quality freak in a way they are perfectionists,so they always go slow and do there work calmly but even if the quality is good the outcome will take longer duration of time.So every individual has to pace himself according to the work and time alloted to him.There are even some other aspects to the fast population,scientifically its bad to be very fast because that also increases the Mental and physical stress as people who are impatient always tend to become nervous in order to get there work done on time.And the good point about the slower population is that they are lateback but they are always self content with whatever they do because they know the amount of time they have put is always going to fetch good results.

But slow work might loose lot of things also.

So finally I would suggest that being balanced with both the speed is important to lead in any race in the given situation.Its always safe to move according to the work you do in your life and the situations where are put into.
Welcome to the forum,

Other members might prefer to handle revisions or corrections differently. I apologize if this is more revision than you require. You should wait to see other replies.

In the contemporary world where everything is happening so fast, everybody rushes madly to get their things done. As the saying goes, 'Haste makes waste'. This is very true in some cases, but in today's world all things are moving very fast. So one has to be fast to compete. It doesn't mean that you should become impatient, or do everything hastily, and maybe mess it all up. On the other hand, there are people who still like to proceed slowly and steadily in life. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are lagging behind. I would rather say it all depends on the situation. I think people today need to maintain a balance. Some tasks require speed and efficiency, others patience and precision.

Some people follow the saying 'Slow and steady wins the race' which may be true and well-proven, but sometimes the same people need to do their work faster. Nobody should move at the same pace for all times and in all situations. Sometimes your profession demands that you be fast, for instance, when you are in certain service industries such as restaurants, banking, and cafeterias. If you work at a snail's pace in these industries, either you will be trampled by the crowd or you will be fired on the very first day of your job. So it's not advisable for anyone to move at the same speed all the time and in all places. A working pace should be adjusted to the requirements of the situation at hand. Professions differ in their demands. A surgeon needs to work slowly and methodically. Mistakes from working too fast might be catastrophic. An assembly-line worker who can't keep up with the progress of the machines will mess up the entire production. So it's very important to observe both parameters in order to be in tune with the realities of the situation.

People who are always rushing to get their work done sometimes ruin the results. On the other hand, people who always work slowly may not meet critical deadlines. So every individual has to pace himself according to the nature of the work and the time alloted.

There are negative side effects for people who have to work faster than usual. Science has shown that the pressure of time can increase mental and physical stress as people who are impatient always tend to become nervous when they are pressed for time. And though people who are comfortable working slowly, feel contentment over the quality of their product, they too will suffer from situations where time is a premium.

Finally, I would suggest that taking the lead in any race involves the ability to balance fast and slow speeds, and to recognize which pace is the most appropriate for the situation at hand.

It was nice to go through your essay. I rate it very good

You have tried to balance both the sides and shows the important of speed as wall as quality.


Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
this is good and sufisient
hi, my friend, I don't think it's a good idea to have your essays checked on line in any forum, if your tutor is familiar with antiplagiarism software you're through.... my recommendation is that you should have one or two friends, you can meet them on line if you like, and send them your essays by email, so no antiplagiriasm software will ever catch any attempt to have rapport on line. good luck though
Hi there, can someone review my essay?

The comparison between the United States President and the British Prime Minister appears from the onset, to offer some interesting and comparative differences, since the President holds the position of Head of State as well as Head of Government. This case study will examine the key roles and differences between both the UK systems of government and positions of power, and the USA. Which system of government holds the most power, and influence?
The Prime Minister, it would seem, has more influence in the domestic, able to dominate and assert his part, legislature and to an extent, the executive branches of government. The US President on the other hand, appears hold the position of primacy or supremacy in domestic politics, known also as the chief legislator who dominates his executive, though part control is limited to the state of office. He does not hold the same position of power in domestic affairs as the Prime Minister does, but his position of strength appears to be in the realm of foreign and international matters, in which he faces little challenge from delegates in Congress. Much of this distinction is derived from his status as the ‘Nation’s Leader’ and the unifying force in a dispersed and varied political system. It would appear that both offices hold special powers, all of which will be taken into account when deciding which is more powerful [1].
The power, which the holder of each office exercises over their respective party in the legislature is of great importance in determining which office, confers the most power. The British Prime Minister, as can be shown by past examples, usually holds extensive power over the party machine from which their power originates, and position primarily depends on. The lack of a clear separation of powers in the British political system gives the British Prime Minister the position of, head of the majority party in parliament. Due to such a strong link between the Prime Minister and his party he can often anticipate loyalty as a matter of principle when forwarding legislation. The President cannot though, expect such sympathetic treatment from his party, as no direct link exists between he and his party colleagues in Congress, a state created by the ‘separation of powers’, a primary purpose of the Founding Fathers when writing the Constitution to avert executive dominance. The British Prime Minister also has, at his disposal, a powerful Whip system to preserve party loyalty [2].
British Members of Parliament are faced with the always present threat of losing career prospects within government, temporary suspension, the antagonism of their colleagues, failure to be selected by their constituency party (a consequence of voting) and the ultimate sanction of removal from the party. Such weapons make the Whips an important tool to the Prime Minister in maintaining and preserve party loyalty. It may be true that both Senators and Representatives of the same party as the President face comparable threats when voting on Presidential legislation, but they also face frequent other pressures which they take into account when voting, most importantly, their own personal convictions, financial backers and lobbyists views, and continuing pressure from constituents upon whom they rely for reelection. This is particularly true of Representatives who stand for election every two years and are thus ‘fighting a permanent election battle’. For these reasons, members of Congress, especially Representatives, are usually, or generally more independent when it comes to voting.
Despite the success of past presidents such as FDR in preserving strong party loyalty in Congress, the example of Presidents such as Carter show that party loyalty is not often definite or even anticipated in the US system of government. This explains the dependence on ‘logrolling’ by the US President when attempting to gain more support for legislation, rather than the reliance on party loyalty, which dominates British politics. The example of Reagan, a Republican, in having more power over the federal budget through the utilisation of good relations with Tip O’Neill, who was a Democrat House Speaker, demonstrated clearly how the support of the opposing party is often required to pass legislation within the US system [3]. It has been seen though that control over the party, for both the President and British Prime Minister, depends alot on the changeable political climate at that time. In Britain, an example of the Conservative rebellions over Europe throughout the life of the Major government which served to reduce the government majority and eventually make it to be non-existent, showed how party support could be lost and enormously weaken a Prime Minister’s power. By contrast, many political observers have analysed the growth of a more cohesive party system, especially after the so called ‘Contract With America’ fashioned by the Republican Party in 1994 after an extensive victory in the elections for both Houses of Congress. Unquestionably, the prime minister appears to hold a considerable advantage in controlling his party and politics, much more so than the president, who is faced with a disunited party system and the lack of a working influence with his party colleagues.
The power and control, which each office holds over the course of legislation creation, is of great significance in determining which office holds the most power as a whole. The British Parliament, according to McNaughton, may be sovereign but when measured thoroughly, this is only a theory. “In effect, the sovereignty of Parliament becomes the sovereignty of the Government” (McNaughton) [4]. This view tends to show that the British Prime Minister, who usually maintains the support of a parliamentary majority, holds a position of dominance over the passage of legislation. The American system though, due to the ‘Separation of Powers’ between the Executive and legislative branches of government, in theory, provides a limit to Presidential power over the creation of legislation. The ‘checks and balances’ which exist within this system, according to McNaughton, both limit and augment the independence of Congress in managing legislation, with the constitution acting as the guarantee of such a position. The majority, which the Prime Minister can usually rely on, both because of the election system and the use of the Whips is in effect an assurance of legislative success, especially true with the past Blair government which held a massive majority in parliament, so much so that even legislation, which faced much opposition from within the party, could pass with ease. The President though, due to the relative lack of party loyalty and the election system, which often results in ‘split-ticket voting’, cannot expect to have such control. The President is conscious that members of Congress often have their own interests in regards to legislation, and therefore compromise is often the key to Presidential success. The individual wishes of Congressmen, it would therefore appear, are influential in the passing of legislation. In Britain, the failure of Private Member’s Bills is common, with success limited to about five Bills per year. This due to the lack of support given by the government, those with support them are the only ones with a real chance of success.
The parliamentary timetable is subjugated by Government Bills, which find their roots with the Prime Minister, and have a relatively small chance of failure. The British Prime Minister, it would appear has more legislative power than the President since he has much more control over the workings of the standing committees which amend and consider legislation. The governing party’s majority, the existence of whipped voting and the application of the guillotine allows the Prime Minister to effectively control the work of such committees. Only amendments, which he favors more, will be moved to a vote so that the government Bill usually emerges unchanged. The standing committees of Congress, in deep contrast, are not under the control of the President and have a much wider range of powers when taking into account legislation, and are themselves key policy initiative areas, acting as a substitute to Executive dominance of the legislative program. In addition, Presidential Bills have to go through further hurdles in their passage through Congress, from the Rules and Majority Policy Committees, which hold immense influence on the likelihood of success for the Bills proposed by the President, as they decide when they will be debated. It would appear therefore that the only effective formal power, which the President possesses, is that of the veto. This, though subject to overturn by the 2/3 majority of both Houses, is a very effective authority in legislating. Bill Clinton, for example, used 17 vetoes between 1993 and 97 with great success, having none overturned. George Bush too, had great success in using the veto, beaten only once from 1988 to 1993.
The power of the pocket veto has also become a winning weapon of the president in controlling legislation, since it cannot be inverted and needs not be explained, and moreover, can be used as a bargaining counter with Congress to ensure success for Presidential legislation. It would appear that the constitution has restricted the power of the President and strengthened Congressional power, but when looked at more narrowly, the President has become known as the ‘Chief Legislator’, according to Johnson, for his widespread use of the State of the Union address to forward his proposals for legislation and make it known to Congress, his intentions for the year, and the fact that he passes much more legislation than Congress.
We may also take into account the use of Executive Powers by the President as an additional way in which he can get around Congress, and apply his law-making powers. The far-reaching use of such powers in Foreign Affairs have been a significant element of the Presidency in recent years, as Executive Agreements have been used instead of Treaties so that Senate’s approval is not required. They have also been used to send troops abroad, an example being the Grenada and Panama situations of the 1980’s, when the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the Constitution were successfully sidestepped. The British Prime Minister cannot expect to hold so much foreign influence, as the question of foreign policy appears to spark the interest of Parliament, shown by the quality of debates on foreign issues. The Prime Minister does not have the ability to use Executive powers in this area either, and he does not hold the position of Head of State. It would appear therefore that both the President and Prime Minister have extensive powers in legislating, both having the most control within their respective systems. The Prime Minister though, appears to have the most influence over legislation, when compared to the President, as his dominance over the legislature is much more secure and faces less opposition. The president though, through his use of executive powers, appears to have almost unlimited powers in foreign affairs, whereas Congress are more concerned with domestic issues.
Both offices are faced with the inspection of committees within the legislatures of the respective systems. The British Prime Minister, in theory, is held to account and scrutinized extensively by the Select Committees of the commons and the in House debates and Question Time. Select Committees have the right to ‘persons, papers and records’ and may commission damning reports which are of great use in scrutinizing the Prime Minister, a view backed by Adonis, ‘they have enhanced the profile of the House’. In practice though, Prime Ministers, as shown by Thatcher in particular, can greatly limit their effectiveness in scrutinizing, by withholding vital evidence and witnesses, as was the case in the 1996 investigation into the ‘Arms to Iran’ affair. Such committees, have numerous other setbacks which limit their scrutinizing powers, such as time restrictions and the lack of an independent inquiry into their reports (this is left to the government to act upon). The President faces much more concentrated scrutiny from both Standing and Select Committees since they have a wider remit to verification due to their extensive finance and freedom of information laws, added to this is the apparent lack of government secrecy on a scale such as that displayed in Britain. The investigations carried out by such bodies often gain public attention and mass media coverage, prominent examples being the Watergate Committee of 1974 which had mass following and demonstrated the power of such committees, by subpoenaing vital evidence which led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. Due to the direct link between the Prime Minister and the legislature, it may appear that he would face much more intense scrutiny than the President, as he has to face the Commons in debates and at Question Time. This may be true in theory, but in practice debates have little influence on government policy, usually made to a thinly attended chamber and only having real influence when the government is in a small majority, as shown during the time of John Major when the debate over coal mines in 1992 led to Major’s back down over shutting them down.
Question Time too has come under assault for its ritualistic nature and often, ‘rowdy’ nature in which it becomes a mere point scoring match, a condition which appears to have continued despite Blair’s reforms in 1997. Such politics has led to, according to many analysts, the apathy towards politics felt by many in Britain today. It would appear that the President is more extensively scrutinized than the Prime Minister, and thus his power is greatly limited in order to provide accountable government for the United States. The lesser degree of government secrecy and the ‘separation of powers’ provide, it would appear, a more adequate form of scrutiny. The power of each office can also be measured by the degree of control they exercise over their cabinet and executive. In theory, the British Prime Minister is merely regarded as the ‘first among equals’ within the cabinet, and is usually expected to meet with cabinet, which is a formal unit. The President though, is not obliged to meet with his cabinet or consult them on policy, as cabinet is not a formal unit contained within the constitution. There is no doctrine of collective decision making, and the President holds the power of supreme decision maker when consulting cabinet and may ignore the views of his cabinet, a policy favored by Presidents such as Kennedy and Bush, who formalized meetings and paid little attention to the views of their cabinets.
In Britain, there exists the doctrine of collective decision making, which is supposed to help in stable government and collective decision making, but has been manipulated by many prime Ministers to silence dissent as those who refuse to do so are forced into resignation. The American President may, if he so wishes, use alternative sources of information apart from his cabinet, namely EXOP or the Independent Executive Agencies, which are controlled within the Bureaucracy. This, it would appear, gives the President a vital alternative source which can only help increase his power as it provides vital information and analysis. The British Prime Minister, has also taken on such a policy, pre-cooking policy and using alternative sources of information when deciding policy. Thatcher, in particular, greatly increased her power within the executive by increasing the power of the Prime Minister’s Office and successfully using the Cabinet Secretariat as a further means of centralizing power. Blair too, as he streamlined the two, has followed up on such a policy to adapt both executive branches to his advantage, to keep his cabinet in check, and to use it successfully in media relations. It would seem therefore, that the president has more control over his executive than the prime minister, as McNaughton points out, since he can easily centralize power around himself whereas the prime Minister must refer to his cabinet. The comparison of the US President and the British Prime Minister appears from the onset, to provide some interesting differences since the President holds the position of Head of State as well as Head of Government. The Prime Minister, by comparison, is merely Head of Government, but as we have seen from the above, is able to exert considerable authority to merit a comparison with the President. The Prime Minister, it would appear, has more influence in domestic politics and is able to successfully dominate the legislature due to a lack of ‘separation’ between the executive and legislature, avoid the strong scrutiny of Parliament, and keep a firm grip over his party which the president cannot. The US President, on the other hand, appears to have the position of supremacy in domestic politics, although not to the degree of the Prime Minister, but his position of strength appears to be in the realm of foreign and international matters, in which he faces little challenge from Congress. Much of this prominence is derived from his status as the ‘Nation’s Leader’ and the unifying force in a dispersed political system. It is therefore difficult to assess which office is more powerful, but it would appear that the President is more powerful in foreign affairs and the Prime Minister, more dominant in domestic politics. However, the Prime Minister must also maintain the support of the legislature, whereas the president can govern without support here.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Way too long for me to comment on in detail, I fear.
It would help if you left a blank line between each paragraph.

However, I will say this. An essay that has a 4-line introduction and a 40-line conclusion seriously lacks balance.

Nor can I see any clear structure. For example, each body paragraph should begin with a topic sentence that explains the point it will then discuss.

Did you make an outline before you started to write? I don't see evidence of that.

The three most important things about a good essay are structure, structure, structure. Emotion: smile