Accounting paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Accounting paper - Essay Example Return on equity (ROE), according to the analyst, is considered to be the most significant ratio in order to evaluate a company’s performance from an investor’s point of view. ROE measures a company’s ability to earn a return on all of the capital that is being employed by the company. The ratio is calculated as net income upon total shareholder’s equity. The Stephen’s company ROE amount to 25.45% which can be comprehended as for every $100 invested in the equity of the company, the company generates a return of $25. Any company has a negative financial leverage when the return on common stock holder’s equity is less than the return on assets. In the discussed case, Stephen’s company has a positive financial leverage and thus portrays a sound financial outlook. Earnings per share calculates the $ which is earned by the shareholder per share which is held by him. Stephen’s Company EPS is 7.90 which appears to be quite suitable and portrays sound and strengthened financial outlook. The ratio is calculated by dividing net income minus the dividend paid on preferred stock per the common stocks outstanding throughout the year. Dividend payout ratio on the other hand is calculated by dividing the total dividend paid during the year with the net income. It is basically the percentage of the total net income during the year the directors of the company decide to give out as divided. From an investor’s point of view, the companies with higher dividend payout ratio are the best ventures to invest in. Price per Earning or P/E ratio is calculated by comparing the market price per share with the EPS. Stephen’s company’s P/E ratio is 7.59 which is lower than the industry average of 10. This could be due to the lower share price of Stephen’s company as compared to similar companies in the industry. Lower P/E ratio can

Financial Constraints and Impact Analysis Term Paper

Financial Constraints and Impact Analysis - Term Paper Example After all, there are characteristics of a successful project that will determine whether the project is successful or not. The triple constraints are as listed below: Scope/quality of a project is a clear statement of what is intended to be achieved in a particular project. It defines the functions, features and information content that will be included in the project at hand. It also defines the desired final result of the project. Resource cost/ resources are also one of the triple content of a project constraint. Resources cost money and the two descriptions are interchangeable in a number of ways. The cost of a project involves what needs to be applied or assigned to the project such as money and effort in order to make things happen (Kendrick, 2009). This includes resources such as manpower, or material requirements for the job, resources for risk management and evaluation of any other resources that facilitate the success of the project. The other constraint is the time constra int. This involves analyzing the time required for completion of each component of the project. After carrying out this analysis, the components are broken down to find the time for completion of each task. This allows for determination of the duration of the project as well as the quantity of resources needed to be dedicated to particular projects. This article tries to explain some of the ways in which these constraints can be managed for successful completion of the project. Methods for managing various constraints During control of a project constraint, it should be understood that it is only possible to define two constraints and the third will be determined by the other two. It is also advisable to determine which of the three is the controlling constraint as well as the one that needs to be changed (Dobson, 2004). For instance, if scope is the least important, determine the methods for achieving the most for the client while using the least amount of resources, reduce priorit y on resources and suggest solutions for the problem being addressed. Look for alternatives for the projects. In case of resource constraint, look at cross-training staff or recruiting new people as well as outsourcing. In case of schedule constraint, it is recommended to use a schedule float. Also, analyze the schedule for tasks that overlap 1. Use of spread sheet to mange constraints The triple constraints can be utilized in projects by increasing the chances of prioritizing. Despite the projects being constrained, not all constraints are equal between projects. For instance, project A may have a specific time that is critical for the completion of the project (Kendrick, 2009). However, the budget for project A could have some flexibility. Project B on the other hand may require certain resources but the deadline is within the time frame for project completion. Using spreadsheet to manage project constraints, three basic classifications are used when prioritizing constraints i.e. ‘Inflexible’, ‘Adaptable’, and ‘May concede’. Inflexible means that this is the most crucial project and has to be constrained for the successful completion of the project. Adaptable means the project is negotiable but should be optimized to a certain extent. May concede means that it is an area where trade offs is possible to take place in order to manage the inflexible constraint or optimize the adaptable one. Constraints/classification Inflexible Adaptable May concede Time

Presentism Eternalism And Special Relativity Philosophy Essay

Presentism Eternalism And Special Relativity Philosophy Essay In this essay I hope to show that it is not necessarily true that Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity refutes presentism. It is not my aim to show that presentism is correct, nor is it my aim to show that eternalism is incorrect. I aim to show that it is naÃÆ' ¯ve for eternalists to assume that STR favours the eternalists view on time over the presentists view. I will start this essay by explaining and defining the views of the presentist and eternalist. For any valuable work to be done in defending presentism against the claims of STR, I believe a sound understanding of what both presentism and eternalism entails is needed. I will make it clear how presentism and eternalism differ and make it clear what is meant when they say something exists. I will then move onto discussing STR. I hope to explain STR in as clear a manner as possible, although I will not be explaining it in the depth found in physics papers. I will consider the postulates that make up STR and consider the imp ortant paradoxes these lead to. In particular, I will discuss the paradox of the speed of light and the paradox of simultaneity, as these are a concern to the presentists view. With STR adequately explained (in enough detail that I may hope to defend Presentism against its claims) I will move onto considering the arguments Philosophers have brought forward in an attempt that STR supports a 4D model of the universe, and as a result refutes Presentism. I will consider the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, and Penroses version of this argument, The Andromeda Paradox. By explaining these arguments I hope to show clearly the problem that STR poses for presentism. Finally, I will consider two defenses  [1]  of Presentism against the claims of STR. The first defense is brought forward by Hinchliff (2000), and the second defense is brought forward by Markosian (2004). I find the latter defense to be the more compelling, and I will explain why I think this. I will conclude by offering my reasoni ng for thinking that STR does not necessarily refute presentism. I start this essay by defining the terms presentism and eternalism, and by discussing what they mean when they say something exists. Section 1- Defining Presentism and Eternalism I start this section by considering presentism. To show what presentism actually entails, I think its important to first consider where the view comes from. Presentism can be traced back to McTaggarts famous 1908 paper The Unreality of Time. In this paper, McTaggart highlights two ways in which we experience time. These ways form what he calls the A-series and B-series. The A-series is a tensed series where events are arranged using tensed properties such as past, present or future. The B-series is a tenseless series where events are arranged relationally using terms such as before or after. McTaggart claims that the A-series is essential to time as events only change with respect to their tensed properties, and time must involve change (p26, McTaggart, 1927). No change occurs in the B-series. If event A is before event B, then event A will forever be before event B. Those who claim that we should talk about time using tenses, and claim that the A-series is essential to time are know n as A-theorists. Those who think tensed expressions are reducible to tenseless expressions, and claim that the B-series is essential to time are known as B-theorists. Some A-theorists advocate presentism, and some B-theorists advocate eternalism. Of course, it is not always the case that A-theorists are presentists, and not always the case that B-theorists are eternalists. Zimmerman notes two other views that the A-theorist could hold; the growing-block theory and the moving spotlight theory (Marcus, 2012). These will not be considered in this essay. Now that Ive explained where eternalism and presentism come from, I will move onto actually defining presentism. There are a number of ways in which presentism has been defined. In this essay, I will take presentism as the view that only things in the present exist or as Markosian (2004) defines it: Necessarily, it is always true that only present objects exist (p1, Markosian, 2004) The presentist distinguishes the present as being special over the past or the future, in that it is only objects in the present exist. The presentist believes in an absolute (universal) present, where all events happening now, exist. No events (or objects) that exist, exist in the past or future. We can see why the presentist will claim that the A-series is essential to time and why the B-series is not. Only in the A-series can objects or events be located (temporally) in a present moment. The B-series does not treat the present as being any more real than the past or future. Its hard to see what would count as the present in the B-series, as all events are arranged relationally as either before or after other events. Its important to note here that necessarily, it is always true that only present objects exist is not the same as saying only the present exists as some have interrupted it (e.g. Davidson, 2003).The presentist may say that the past and future exist (in some sense of the word exist), but no objects exist in the past or future. Nor does presentism equal the tautology that is only present objects exist at present (Vallicella, 2003). Nor is it the claim that all objects that have existed, and that will ever exist, exist in the present now. Its easy to see the difference between these statements when the flow of time is taking into account (the presentist view accounts for the flow of time, whereas the externalist view does not). The diagram below shows the presentists view. In diagram (a), the present moment (now) happens to be a moment in 1967. The presentist would say that only things (or objects) in this moment in 1967 exist. Nothing exists in the past or future. In diagram (b), the present moment (now) happens to be a moment in 2013. The presentist would say that only things (or objects) in this moment in 2013 exist. No objects exist in the past (which now includes 1967) or future. Now that I have defined presentism and made it clear how I will be referring to it in this essay, I will move onto defining eternalism and in the process, contrast it with presentism. Eternalism can be thought of as the main rival to presentism. As mentioned previously, the eternalist sees the B series as being essential to time and denies the existence of the A-series. Eternalism is the view that objects in the past and future are equally as real as objects in the present. objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects (Markosian, 2010) Others have said that Eternalism is the view that all times are real (p326, Ladyman, 2007), but I see this is open to further interpretation. I will be interpreting all times are real as meaning objects can equally exist in the past or future. Its not hard to see how this contrasts with the presentists view, nor is it hard to see why eternalists accept the B-series. All times in the B-series are treated equally. Theres no special property given to a present moment. Eternalism is sometimes referred to as the block universe view, as the past, present and future all exist in a closed 4-dimensional Space-time block (p2, Peterson Silberstein, 2009). Presentism, on the other hand, may be thought of as endorsing a 3D view of the universe. As Valente (2012) puts it in The Relativity of Simultaneity and Presentism: For an eternalist (four-dimensionalist) a 3D object is just a slice of a four-dimensional (4D) worldline of a timelessly existing 4D world (or block universe) in which all the slices (i.e. the 3D objects) are actually all given at once. For a presentist, the 3D world consists of all 3D objects and fields existing simultaneously at the moment now or present. (p4, Valente, 2012) Presentism and Eternalism can be visually imagined as in the diagram below. Presentism features a present moving with the flow of time. Time to the eternalist can be imagined as a block  [2]  which contains the past, present and future, along will all objects and events. (Savitt, 2008) The differences between presentism and eternalism can be further shown by using an example. I will consider the example used by Lombard (2009) in his paper Time for a Change: A polemic against the Presentism Eternalism Debate. Lets take the statement Dinosaurs exist. Dinosaurs are not included on the presentists list of things or objects that exist. Dinosaurs are however included on the eternalists list of things or objects that exist. Of course, as Lombard points out, the eternalist is not saying that there are dinosaurs, that is, right now (p58, Lombard, 2009). As the eternalist believes that objects exist in the past, in the same way as they exist in the present, they must insist that dinosaurs nevertheless exist (p58, Lombard, 2009). This is point that can lead to confusion. Its important to understand what we mean by the word exist in the statement Dinosaurs exist. Markosian (2004) gives a brilliant explanation of what we should mean by exist in his paper A Defense of Presentis m. In what follows, I will consider this explanation and make it clear what exist means. Markosian highlights two ways in which we may think about the word exist. The first sense in which we may think of the statement Dinosaurs exist is what Markosian calls the temporal location sense. Under this interpretation, Dinosaurs exist is synonymous with Dinosaurs are present. Under the temporal location sense of the word, the eternalist will agree that no non-present objects exist right now i.e. Dinosaurs do not exist right now. However, this is not what we will be taking the eternalist to mean when they say Dinosaurs exist. Markosian calls the other sense of exist, the ontological sense. Under this interpretation Dinosaurs exist is synonymous with dinosaurs are now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers, whether it happens to be presentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦or non-presentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (p2, Markosian, 2004). The eternalist will agree with this. The presentist will argue that dinosaurs are not now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers, as dinosaurs do not exi st in the present (now), and only things that exist in the present will be included in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers. Under this interpretation of exist the disagreement between the presentist and the eternalist becomes clear. According to presentism, dinosaurs do not exist i.e. dinosaurs are not included in the things that our most unrestricted quantifiers range over. According to eternalism, dinosaurs do exist i.e. dinosaurs are included in the things that our most unrestricted quantifiers range over. For the Presentist what objects our most unrestricted quantifiers range over is a changing matter of fact (p13, Kehler, 2011). This is because the objects of the present are forever changing as time passes (in line with change in the A-series, as discussed earlier in this essay). The opposite is true for the eternalist. What objects our most unrestricted quantifiers range over never changes (in line with the unchanging B-series as discussed earlier). With presentism and eternalism defined and discussed, and the difference between the two made clear by discussing the meaning of exist, I will move onto the next section of this essay. In the next section, I will be considering Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity (STR). I will be considering the postulates that make up Einsteins theory and discussing some of the paradoxical consequences of these. I will then discuss the arguments Philosophers have come up with in an attempt to show that STR implies a 4D view (eternalism). These arguments will be the Rieldik-Putnam argument, and I will construct my own version of Penroses Andromeda Paradox. Once STR is made clear, I will conclude the section by considering what these arguments mean for both presentism and eternalism. Section 2 The Special Theory of Relativity: the Thorn in Presentisms Side As this is a Philosophy essay, and not a Physics paper, I will not be going into any great detail in explaining Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity (STR), and Im unlikely to do it justice. I will, however, explain the theory in enough detail so to allow me to adequately discuss the arguments in support of the 4D model and against presentism. This will also help me in defending presentism in the final section of this essay. Without adequate knowledge of STR and its paradoxical nature, its unlikely I, or any other philosophers, would be able to even start defending presentism against its claims. I start by considering the postulates behind STR. In 1905, Albert Einstein presented STR in his paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. The theory itself is derived from a number of postulates, of which two can be said to form the heart of Special Relativity (Hamilton, 1998). The first postulate is the Principle of Relativity: There is no absolute rest frame of reference (p1, Lee, 2012) The second postulate is the Principle of Constancy of the Speed of Light: The speed of light c is a universal constant, the same in any inertial frame (Hamilton, 1998) Together, these postulates open up paradoxes which lead Philosophers to the thought that STR implies 4D view of time (eternalism). Inertial frame (or inertial reference frame) here will be defined as frames of reference in which Newtons first law of motion is observed. Newtons first law of motion is that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force (Benson, 2010). Before Special Relativity, the speed of light was thought to depend on the speed of the person observing and the speed of the source from which the light came (Lawerence, 2002). An experiment was conducted in the late 1800s by Michelson and Marley in the hope that this was correct (Carlip, 1996). As the earth orbits around the sun at .01% the speed of light (Lawerence ,2002), Michelson and Marely hoped they would be able to show that a light beam moving along with the orbit of the earth would be .01% slower than a light beam going perpendicular to the orbit of the earth. To their surprise, this was not the case. Every attempt to find a difference in the speed of light failed. The light always took exactly the same amount of time to travel down either leg (Lawerence, 2002) Since light always travelled at the same speed in the experiments  [3]  , Einstein took the constancy of the speed of light to be a fact of nature, and from it, formed the second postulate of STR. Now that the history behind STR has been discussed, and the postulates of STR have been explained, I will move onto discuss how these postulates lead to some interesting paradoxes. The second postulate leads to an interesting paradox. In order to understand the problems that STR poses for presentism, its important to understand what this paradox entails. I will construct this paradox by way of example, based on the example used by Hamilton (1998). Lets pretend Im standing on the surface of the Earth  [4]  . Im wearing a helmet on my head. The helmet has the ability to emit a powerful flash of light. My friend Bob has a super car which just so happens to be capable of moving at a constant half the speed of light (1/2c). Bob is moving in a straight line from my right to my left. At the very point that Bob passes me, my helmet lets out a flash of light. This light expands at the same speed (c) in all directions. According to the second postulate of STR, the speed of light is constant for both of us. This means that from my frame of reference, the light expands at the same speed in all directions, and that from Bobs frame of reference the light expands at the s ame speed in all directions (even though he is moving at half the speed of light away from the light source). The paradox here is that, from our own frame of reference, we both believe we are at the centre of the flash of light. Its not possible that we are both at the centre of the flash of light. Before considering the solution to this paradox, I will discuss the example of this paradox as shown by Penroses (1989) Andromeda Paradox. Using his Andromeda Paradox argument, Penrose attempts to show that the Universe is a pre-determined 4D Space-time block, which causes problems for presentism. Penrose (1999) asks us to consider two people (Jack and Jill) walking past each other on the street. Jack is walking towards the Andromeda Galaxy  [5]  and Jill is walking away from the Andromeda. From STR it can be said that Jack and Jill have different ideas about what events are presently happening in the Andromeda Galaxy. It would take light from the Andromeda Galaxy 2.5 million years to reach either person, and as such, they dont know what events are happening, but whether or not they know of the events happening is of no importance here. An event on Andromeda that Jack thinks is present (from his frame of reference), is an event that Jill still thinks is yet to happen (from her frame of reference). To Jill, the event is in the future. Penrose calculates the event is 5  ¾ days behind in time for Jill. One can calculate that their planes (or spaces) of simultaneity at the instant at which they pass each other on Earth intersects the history of the world line of Andromeda about 5  ¾ days apart (Savitt, 2008) Our planes of simultaneity  [6]  are different. The diagram below shows this: (modified from BobC_03, 2012) With the paradoxes explained, I can consider what they mean for both Presentism and Eternalism, and show how the minowski Universe appears to favour Eternalism. Its possible that an event in Andromeda is in the present (and according to Presentism does exist) for Jack, but the same event is in the future (and according to Presentism does not exist) for Jill. Here lies the problem that STR its paradoxical nature poses for Presentism. As can be seen, the problem has at the heart of it the second postulate of STR. No matter what speed they walk past each other in opposite directions, if Jack and Jill were to measure the speed of light (in their own frames of reference), they would get the same result. no matter at what speed or in which direction they or the source of the light are moving, must come to the same result when they measure the speed of light (Savitt, 2008) If its not known whether an event is present or past, then how can presentists hold the view that only things in the present exist? What things are in the present are both different for Jack and Jill. In an attempt to solve this, the presentist might try to say that the event is taken to be present or future depending on whether it is present or future in the absolute rest frame (p5, Eichman, 2007). However, according to STR there is no absolute rest frame, or absolute simultaneity, and therefore, there can be no absolute present. If we assume that STR is true, the following argument against Presentism can be constructed: (1) STR is true. (2) STR entails that there is no such relation as absolute simultaneity. (3) If there is no such relation as absolute simultaneity, then there is no such property as absolute presentness. (4) Presentism entails that there is such a property as absolute presentness. (5) Presentism is false. (p29, Markosian, 2004) Now that STR has been discussed adequately and that the trouble it poses for Presentism has been highlighted, I can move onto the final section of this essay. In the final section, I will consider two ways in which philosophers have tried to defend presentism against the seeming threat posed by STR. The first defense is brought forward by Mark Hinchliff (2000) in his paper A Defense of Presentism in a Relativistic Setting. The second defense, and the defense which I find more compelling, is brought forward by Ned Markosian (2004) in his paper A Defense of Presentism. I will explain why I find this defense more compelling, and why I think Hinchliffs defense doesnt work. Section 3 Defending Presentism The first defense against STR that I will consider is what Hinchliff calls The Point Model. In the point model, Hinchliff claims that in STR the present is to be identified with the here-now (pS579, Hinchliff, 2000). In other words, a presentist can argue that in STR, only a single space-time point exists; the here-now. Hinchliff does not hold this view himself and says that he knows of no one who actually holds this view (S579, Hinchliff, 2000). Nevertheless he feels its worthy enough to discuss. A standard objection against this model is to say that its lonely, in that nothing but the here-now exists. This objection is easily refuted however. Saying its lonely is akin to rejecting solipisism because theres no other people. Something stronger is needed in order to reject either the Point Model or solipsism. Putnam (1967) offers a better objection against the view however. Putnam says that anything that is past must have previously been present (p246, Putnam, 1967). Under Point prese ntism however, there are events in the past which have never been present. Therefore, Point Presentism violates the conceptual truth that what is past was present (S579, Hinchliff) This can be shown by way of example. Lets pretend an event occurs which is space-like separated from my here-now. It is therefore not in the present from my frame of reference. When time moves on, the event is however included in my past here-now, without ever being in the present, and therefore violated a conceptual truth. A presentist may try to argue that point presentism does not violate a conceptual truth, but this would lead them to trouble when trying to explain how certain objects of the present (objects that exists) cease to exist (fade into the past). I do not think this is a suitable defense of presentism against STR. I think if a presentist is to hold their view, then they must look for a way of fitting the outcomes of STR into that view. Point presentism attempts to change presentism in such a way that makes it compatible with STR, and fails to do so. Presentists should rather attempt to change STR in such a way that makes it compatible with presentism. I believe this is what Markosian (2004) attempts to do in his defense of presentism. I will now consider this defense and explain why I find it more compelling than Point Presentism. In his defense of presentism, Markosian (2004) considers whether STR contains enough philosophical baggage built into it to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ entail the proposition that there is no such relation as absolute simultaneity (p31, Markosian, 2004). If this is not the case, then there is no reason to assume that STR poses problems for presentism. Marksoian asks us to consider two different types of STR (p31, Markosian, 2004): STR+ : This version of STR does have enough philosophical baggage built into it to entail that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. STR-: This version of STR does not have enough philosophical baggage built into it to entail that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. Markosian rejects STR+ and accepts STR-. I believe the reasons for why he thinks this is key to any presentist wishing to defend their view against STR. All empirical evidence which suggests that STR+ is true, equally supports STR- (p31, Markosian 2004). Just because it is not physically possible to determine whether two objects or events are absolutely simultaneous (p31, Markosian) does not entail that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity, and no absolute present. Consider the Andromeda Paradox as explained earlier. From their own frame of reference (or plain of simultaneity) their idea of what event is present is different  [7]  . The presentist is able to agree with this view. Agreeing with this, does not mean they must reject their view on absolute simultaneity or their view that an absolute present exists. It may be the case that an absolute rest frame is not accessible to us. The presentist can reject the first postulate of STR. With this said, it seems the etern alist is unable to refute presentism by appealing to STR, and it looks likely that any such argument will end in a stalemate. The eternalist and presentist view with regards to STR can be summed up as follows: Eternalist STR is true and entails there is no absolute simultaneity or absolute present. Therefore, presentism is incorrect. Presentist STR being true does not entail there is no absolute simultaneity or absolute present. It entails that these are not accessible to us, but nonetheless may still exist. According to me, they do exist. Its impossible to say whether either view is true or false (How would one prove that there is or isnt an absolute rest frame?), resulting in a stalemate. Its certainly seems that its not necessarily true that STR refutes presentism. Conclusion In this essay, I have achieved what I had set out to do. I have defined and explained what both presentism and eternalism entail. Ive made it clear what the differences between the two are and Ive shown that its important to understand what the word exists mean when discussing both views. I have also explained and discussed the Special Theory of Relativity. In doing so, I have shown how the paradoxes it leads to, causes problems for presentism, and have shown why the eternalist might try to attack presentism using STR. Finally, I considered ways in which the presentist may try to defend their position against STR and the eternalist. I have shown that any attempt by the eternalist to use STR against presentism will result in a stalement. The empirical evidence which supports STR+ equally supports STR-, and the presentist only needs to reject STR+ and accept STR-. The problem with using STR to attack presentism is that STR+ must be assumed to be true. It is not necessarily the case tha t STR+ is true, and the presentist may use this point in defending their position. STR+ (or a theory with the same consequences) may be shown to be true someday, but until that day comes, the eternalist should make use of some other weapon in trying to attack presentism. Word Count 4629 Student ID 1818201

Free Soliloquies Essay - Othello’s Soliloquy :: GCSE Coursework Shakespeare Othello

Analysis of Othello’s Soliloquy During Othello’s soliloquy in Scene 3, ll. 299-318, Shakespeare uses the literary devices of imagery, symbolism, and antithesis to develop the state of mind of Othello during this strenuous time in his life. Othello, who seems to intrinsically believe that as a public figure he is fated to be unsuccessful at marriage, is torn between his love for Desdemona and the possibility that she is having an affair with Michael Cassio. This particular passage comes at a juncture after he denies that this could be true, and before he is finally convinced of his wife's infidelity. The fact that Othello is wavering between believing Iago and trusting his wife is reflected in the imagery Shakespeare uses in the soliloquy. The first image that is used is that of a falcon. Lines 301-304 read: â€Å"If I do prove her haggard, / Though that her jesses were my dear heartstrings, / I’d whistle her off and let her down the wind to prey at fortune.† This shows that Othello is still unsure about Desdemona, and claims that though he is in love with Desdemona, he would drop her if he found out she was cheating. This is quite a strong willed statement, but it is diminished by lines 319-320, which follow the entrance of Desdemona and Emilia into the chamber. Othello says, â€Å"If she be false, heaven mocks itself! / I’ll not believe ‘t.† This is an example of how turbulent Othello’s state of mind is. The steadfast determination expressed using the falcon image sort of â€Å"melts† when he sees Desdemona, and he immediately pro fesses denial that she could be untrue to him. Yet, just ten lines earlier (l. 308), Othello says, â€Å"She’s gone! I am abused!† and proceeds to lament the very institution of marriage: â€Å"O cure of marriage, ? That we can call these delicate creatures ours / And not their appetites!† Shakespeare’s placing of these three different conclusions Othello has drawn in such close proximity is an example of antithesis, and a testament to the changing and chaotic state of mind of Othello. Additional symbols are used in the soliloquy which exemplify this as well. In lines 311-314, he says: â€Å"I had rather be a toad / And live upon the vapor of a dungeon / Than to keep in the corner the thing I love / For others’ uses.

Spirit Bound Chapter Twelve

WHICH WAS CONFIRMED WHEN WE finally stumbled back to the Royal Court. I wasn't the only one in trouble, of course. Lissa was summoned to the queen for chastising, though I knew she'd suffer no actual punishment. Not like Eddie and me. We might be out of school, but we were technically under the jurisdiction of the official guardians now, which meant we faced as much trouble as any disobedient employee. Only Adrian escaped any consequences. He was free to do whatever he wanted. And really, my punishment wasn't as bad as it could have been. Honestly, what did I have to lose at this point? My chances of guarding Lissa had already been sketchy, and no one had wanted me as a guardian except Tasha anyway. A crazy Vegas weekend–which was our cover story–was hardly enough to dissuade her from taking me on. It was enough, however, to make some of Eddie's prospects withdraw their requests for him to be their guardian. Enough still wanted him that he was in no danger of losing a good position, but I felt horribly guilty. He didn't breathe a word to anyone about what we'd done, but each time he looked at me, I could see the condemnation in his eyes. And I saw a lot of him in the next couple days. It turned out guardians had a system in place to deal with those who were disobedient. â€Å"What you did was so irresponsible that you might as well be back in school. Hell, elementary school, even.† We were in one of the offices in the guardians' headquarters, being yelled at by Hans Croft, the guy in charge of all the guardians at Court and someone who was instrumental in guardian assignments. He was a dhampir in his early fifties, with a bushy gray-and-white mustache. He was also an asshole. The scent of cigar smoke always encircled him. Eddie and I were sitting meekly before him while he paced with his hands behind his back. â€Å"You could have gotten the last Dragomir killed–not to mention the Ivashkov boy. How do you think the queen would have reacted to the death of her great-nephew? And talk about timing! You go off party-hopping right when the guy who tried to kidnap the princess is running loose. Not that you would know that, seeing as you were probably too busy playing slot machines and using your fake IDs.† I winced at the reference to Victor, though I suppose I should have been relieved that we were above suspicion for his escape. Hans read my grimace as an admission of guilt. â€Å"You might have graduated,† he declared, â€Å"but that does not mean you are invincible.† This whole encounter reminded me of when Lissa and I had returned to St. Vladimir's, when we'd been chastised for the same thing: recklessly running off and endangering her. Only this time, there was no Dimitri to defend me. That memory made a lump form in my throat as I remembered his face, serious and gorgeous, those brown eyes intense and passionate as he spoke up for me and convinced the others of my value. But no. No Dimitri here. It was just Eddie and me alone, facing the consequences of the real world. â€Å"You.† Hans pointed a stubby finger at Eddie. â€Å"You might be lucky enough to slide out of this without too many repercussions. Sure, you'll have a black mark on your record forever. And you've totally screwed up your chances of ever having an elite royal position with other guardians to support you. You'll get some assignment though. Working alone with some minor nobility, probably.† High-ranking royals had more than one guardian, which always made protection easier. Hans's point was that Eddie's assignment would be lowly–creating more work and danger for him. Casting him a sidelong glance, I saw that hard, determined look on his face again. It seemed to say he didn't care if he had to guard a family by himself. Or even ten families. In fact, he gave off the vibe that they could drop him alone into a nest of Strigoi and he'd take them all on. â€Å"And you.† Hans's sharp voice jerked my gaze back to him. â€Å"You will be lucky to ever have a job.† Like always, I spoke without thinking. I should have taken this silently like Eddie. â€Å"Of course I'll have one. Tasha Ozera wants me. And you're too short on guardians to keep me sitting around.† Hans's eyes gleamed with bitter amusement. â€Å"Yes, we are short on guardians, but there's all sorts of work we need done–not just personal protection. Someone has to staff our offices. Someone has to sit and guard the front gates.† I froze. A desk job. Hans was threatening me with a desk job. All of my horrible imaginings had involved me guarding some random Moroi, someone I didn't know and would possibly hate. But in any of those scenarios, I would be out in the world. I would be in motion. I would be fighting and defending. But this? Hans was right. Guardians were needed for the Court's administrative jobs. True, they only kept a handful–we were too valuable–but someone had to do it. One of those someones being me was too awful to comprehend. Sitting around all day for hours and hours†¦ like the guards in Tarasov. Guardian life had all sorts of unglamorous–but necessary–tasks. It truly, truly hit me then that I was in the real world. Fear slammed into me. I'd taken on the title of guardian when I graduated, but had I really understood what it meant? Had I been playing make-believe–enjoying the perks and ignoring the consequences? I was out of school. There would be no detention for this. This was real. This was life and death. My face must have given away my feelings. Hans gave a small, cruel smile. â€Å"That's right. We've got all sorts of ways to tame troublemakers. Lucky for you, your ultimate fate's still being decided. And in the meantime, there's a lot of work that needs to be done around here that you two are going to be helping with.† That â€Å"work† over the next few days turned out to be menial manual labor. Honestly, it wasn't too different from detention, and I was pretty sure it had just been created to give wrongdoers like us something awful to do. We worked twelve hours a day, much of it outdoors hauling rocks and dirt to build some new, pretty courtyard for a set of royal town houses. Sometimes we were put on cleaning duty, scrubbing floors. I knew they had Moroi workers for these kinds of things, and probably they were being given a vacation right now. Still, it was better than the other work Hans would give us: sorting and filing mountains and mountains of paper. That gave me a new appreciation for information going digital†¦ and again made me worry about the future. Over and over, I kept thinking about that initial conversation with Hans. The threat that this could be my life. That I would never be a guardian–in the true sense–to Lissa or any other Moroi. Throughout my training, we'd always had a mantra: They come first. If I had really and truly screwed up my future, I'd have a new mantra: A comes first. Then B, C, D†¦ Those work days kept me away from Lissa, and the front-desk staff within our respective buildings went out of their way to keep us apart too. It was frustrating. I could keep track of her through the link, but I wanted to talk to her. I wanted to talk to anyone. Adrian stayed away too and didn't bother with dreams, making me wonder how he felt. We'd never had our â€Å"talk† after Las Vegas. Eddie and I often worked side by side, but he wasn't speaking to me, which left me with hours of being trapped with my own thoughts and guilt. And believe me, I had plenty of things to intensify my guilt. Around Court, people didn't really notice workers. So whether I was inside or outside, people were always talking like I wasn't there. The biggest topic was Victor. Dangerous Victor Dashkov on the loose. How could it have happened? Did he have powers no one knew about? People were afraid, some even convinced he'd show up at Court and try to kill everyone in their sleep. The â€Å"inside job† theory was running rampant, which continued to keep us above suspicion. Unfortunately, it meant a lot of people now worried about traitors within our midst. Who knew who might be working for Victor Dashkov? Spies and rebels could be lurking at Court, planning all sorts of atrocities. I knew all the stories were exaggerated, but it didn't matter. They all came from one kernel of truth: Victor Dashkov was walking the world a free man. And only I–and my accomplices–knew it was all because of me. Being seen in Las Vegas had continued to provide an alibi for the prison break and had made what we'd done seem even more rash. People were aghast that we'd let the Dragomir princess run off while there was a dangerous man on the loose–the man who'd assaulted her! Thank God, everyone said, that the queen had pulled us out of there before Victor found us. The Las Vegas trip had also opened up a whole new line of speculation–one that involved me personally. â€Å"Well, that doesn't surprise me about Vasilisa,† I overheard a woman say while I was working outdoors one day. She and some friends were strolling along toward the feeders' building and didn't even see me. â€Å"She's run away before, right? Those Dragomirs can be wild ones. She'll probably go straight back to the first party she can find, once they catch Victor Dashkov.† â€Å"You're wrong,† her friend said. â€Å"That's not why she went. She's actually pretty levelheaded. It's that dhampir that's always with her–the Hathaway girl. I heard she and Adrian Ivashkov went to Las Vegas to elope. The queen's people just barely got there in time to stop them. Tatiana's furious, especially since Hathaway declared nothing will keep her and Adrian apart.† Whoa. That was kind of a shock. I mean, I guessed it was better for people to think Adrian and I were running off than for them to accuse me of aiding and abetting a fugitive, but still†¦ I was kind of amazed at how that conclusion had come about. I hoped Tatiana hadn't heard about our so-called elopement. I was pretty sure that would ruin whatever progress she and I had made. My first real social contact came in the form of an unlikely source. I was shoveling dirt into a raised flower bed and sweating like crazy. It was nearing bedtime for Moroi, meaning the sun was out in full summer glory. We at least had a pretty site while working: the Court's giant church. I'd spent a lot of time at the Academy's chapel but had rarely visited this church since it was set far from the main buildings of the Court. It was Russian Orthodox–the predominant Moroi religion–and reminded me a lot of some of the cathedrals I'd seen while actually in Russia, though not nearly as big. It was made of beautiful red stonework, its towers topped with green-tiled domes, which were in turn topped with golden crosses. Two gardens marked the far boundaries of the church's extensive grounds, one of which we were working on. Near us was one of the Court's most remarkable sites: a giant statue of some ancient Moroi queen that was almost ten times my height. A matching statue of a king stood on the opposite side of the grounds. I could never remember their names but was pretty sure we'd gone over them in one of my history classes. They'd been visionaries, changing the Moroi world of their time. A figure appeared in my periphery, and I assumed it was Hans coming to give us another awful chore. Looking up, I was astonished to see it was Christian. â€Å"Figures,† I said. â€Å"You know you'll get in trouble if someone sees you talking to me.† Christian shrugged and sat on the edge of a partially completed stone wall. â€Å"Doubt it. You're the one who'll get into trouble, and I really don't think things can get any worse for you.† â€Å"True,† I grunted. He sat there in silence for several moments, watching me shovel pile after pile of dirt. Finally, he asked, â€Å"Okay. So how and why did you do it?† â€Å"Do what?† â€Å"You know exactly what. Your little adventure.† â€Å"We got on a plane and flew to Las Vegas. Why? Hmm. Let's think.† I paused to wipe sweat off my forehead. â€Å"Because where else are we going to find pirate-themed hotels and bartenders who don't card very much?† Christian scoffed. â€Å"Rose, don't bullshit me. You did not go to Las Vegas.† â€Å"We've got plane tickets and hotel receipts to prove it, not to mention people who saw the Dragomir princess hit it big on slot machines.† My attention was on my work, but I suspected Christian was shaking his head in exasperation. â€Å"As soon as I heard three people had broken Victor Dashkov out of prison, I knew it had to be you. Three of you gone? No question.† Not far away, I saw Eddie stiffen and glance around uneasily. I did the same. I might have been desperate for social contact, but not at the risk of dangerous parties overhearing us. Our crimes getting out would make garden labor seem like a vacation. We were alone, but I still pitched my voice low and attempted an honest face. â€Å"I heard they were humans hired by Victor.† That was yet another theory running wild, as was this one: â€Å"Actually, I think he turned Strigoi.† â€Å"Right,† Christian said snidely. He knew me too well to believe me. â€Å"And I also heard one of the guardians has no memory of what made him attack his friends. He swears he was under the control of someone. Anyone who had that kind of compulsion could probably make others see humans, mimes, kangaroos†¦.† I refused to look at him and slammed the shovel hard into the ground. I bit my lip on any angry retort. â€Å"She did it because she thinks Strigoi can be restored to their original form.† My head shot up, and I stared at Eddie in disbelief, astonished he'd spoken. â€Å"What are you doing?† â€Å"Telling the truth,† replied Eddie, never stopping his work. â€Å"He's our friend. You think he's going to report us?† No, rebel Christian Ozera was not going to report us. But that didn't mean I wanted this out. It's a fact of life: The more people who know a secret, the more likely it is to leak. Unsurprisingly, Christian's reaction was not all that different from everyone else's. â€Å"What? That's impossible. Everyone knows that.† â€Å"Not according to Victor Dashkov's brother,† said Eddie. â€Å"Will you stop it?† I exclaimed. â€Å"You can tell him or I will.† I sighed. Christian's pale blue eyes were staring at us, wide and shocked. Like most of my friends, he rolled with crazy ideas, but this was pushing the crazy line. â€Å"I thought Victor Dashkov was an only child,† Christian said. I shook my head. â€Å"Nope. His dad had an affair, so Victor's got an illegitimate half-brother. Robert. And he's a spirit user.† â€Å"Only you,† said Christian. â€Å"Only you would find something like this.† I ignored what appeared to be a return to his normal cynicism. â€Å"Robert claims to have healed a Strigoi–killed the undead part of her and brought her back to life.† â€Å"Spirit has limits, Rose. You might have been brought back, but Strigoi are gone.† â€Å"We don't know about spirit's full range,† I pointed out. â€Å"Half of it is still a mystery.† â€Å"We know about St. Vladimir. If he could restore Strigoi, don't you think a guy like him would have been doing it? I mean, if that's not miraculous, what is? Something like that would have survived in the legends,† argued Christian. â€Å"Maybe. Maybe not.† I retied my ponytail, replaying our encounter with Robert in my mind for the hundredth time. â€Å"Maybe Vlad didn't know how. It's not all that easy.† â€Å"Yeah,† agreed Eddie. â€Å"This is the good part.† â€Å"Hey,† I shot back at him. â€Å"I know you're mad at me, but with Christian here, we really don't need anyone else making snide comments.† â€Å"I don't know,† said Christian. â€Å"For something like this, you actually might need two people. Now explain how this miracle is supposedly done.† I sighed. â€Å"By adding spirit to a stake, along with the other four elements.† Spirit charms were still a new concept to Christian too. â€Å"Never thought of that. I guess spirit would shake things up†¦ but I can't imagine you staking a Strigoi with a spirit-charmed stake would be enough to bring them back.† â€Å"Well†¦ that's the thing. According to Robert, I can't do it. It has to be done by a spirit user.† More silence. I'd rendered Christian speechless yet again. At last he said, â€Å"We don't know that many spirit users. Let alone any who could fight or stake a Strigoi.† â€Å"We know two spirit users.† I frowned, recalling Oksana in Siberia and Avery locked away†¦ where? A hospital? A place like Tarasov? â€Å"No, four. Five, counting Robert. But yeah, none of them can really do it.† â€Å"It doesn't matter because it can't be done,† Eddie said. â€Å"We don't know that!† The desperation in my own voice startled me. â€Å"Robert believes it. Victor even believes.† I hesitated. â€Å"And Lissa does too.† â€Å"And she wants to do it,† Christian said, catching on quickly. â€Å"Because she would do anything for you.† â€Å"She can't.† â€Å"Because she doesn't have the ability or because you won't let her?† â€Å"Both,† I cried. â€Å"I'm not letting her anywhere near a Strigoi. She's already†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I groaned, hating to reveal what I'd discovered in our time apart through the bond. â€Å"She got a hold of a stake and is trying to charm it. So far, she hasn't had much luck, thank God.† â€Å"If this were possible,† began Christian slowly. â€Å"It could change our world. If she could learn†¦ â€Å" â€Å"What? No!† I'd been so eager to get Christian to believe me, and now I wished he hadn't. The one saving grace in all this was that with none of my friends thinking it was possible, none of them had given any thought to Lissa actually trying to fight a Strigoi. â€Å"Lissa's no warrior. No spirit user we know is, so unless we find one, I'd rather†¦ † I winced. â€Å"I'd rather Dimitri died.† That finally made Eddie stop working. He threw down his shovel. â€Å"Really? I never would have guessed that.† Sarcasm to rival my own. I spun around and strode toward him, my fists clenched. â€Å"Look, I can't take this anymore! I'm sorry. I don't know what else to say. I know I screwed up. I let Dimitri get away. I let Victor get away.† â€Å"You let Victor get away?† asked Christian, startled. I ignored him and continued shouting at Eddie. â€Å"It was a mistake. With Dimitri†¦ it was a weak moment. I failed in my training. I know I did. We both know it. But you know I didn't intend the damage I caused. If you're really my friend, you have to know it. If I could take it back†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I swallowed, surprised to feel my eyes burning. â€Å"I would. I swear I would, Eddie.† His face was perfectly still. â€Å"I believe you. I am your friend, and I know†¦ I know you didn't mean for things to turn out like they did.† I sagged in relief, surprised at how truly worried I'd been about losing his respect and friendship. Looking down, I was startled to see my fists balled up. I relaxed them, unable to believe I'd been that upset. â€Å"Thank you. Thank you so much.† â€Å"What's all this shouting?† We both turned and saw Hans heading toward us. And he looked pissed off. I also noticed then that Christian had practically vanished into thin air. Just as well. â€Å"This isn't social time!† growled Hans. â€Å"You two still have another hour left today. If you're going to get distracted, then maybe you should be separated.† He beckoned to Eddie. â€Å"Come on. There's some filing with your name on it.† I shot Eddie a sympathetic look as Hans led him away. Yet I was relieved it wasn't me off to do paperwork. I continued my labors, my mind spinning with the same questions I'd had all week. I had meant what I said to Eddie. I wanted so badly for this dream of Dimitri being saved to be true. I wanted it more than anything–except Lissa risking her life. I shouldn't have hesitated. I should have just killed Dimitri. Victor wouldn't have escaped. Lissa wouldn't have given Robert's words a second thought. Thinking of Lissa pushed me into her mind. She was in her room, doing some last-minute packing before going to bed. Tomorrow was her Lehigh visit. Unsurprisingly, my invitation to go with her had been revoked in light of recent events. Her birthday–something that had been horribly overlooked in this mess–was this weekend as well, and it didn't seem right for me to be apart from her during it. We should have been celebrating together. Her thoughts were troubled, and she was so consumed by them that a sudden knock at the door made her jump. Wondering who could be visiting her at this hour, she opened the door and gasped to see Christian standing there. It was surreal to me too. Part of me still kept thinking we were in our school dorms, where rules–theoretically–kept guys and girls out of each other's rooms. But we were no longer there. We were technically adults now. He must have gone straight to her room after seeing me, I realized. It was astonishing how quickly the tension ratcheted up between them. A bundle of emotions burst into Lissa's chest, the usual mix of anger, grief, and confusion. â€Å"What are you doing here?† she demanded. The same emotions were in his face. â€Å"I wanted to talk to you.† â€Å"It's late,† she said stiffly. â€Å"Besides, I seem to remember you don't like talking.† â€Å"I want to talk about what happened with Victor and Robert.† That was enough to startle her out of her anger. She cast an anxious look into the hallway and then beckoned him inside. â€Å"How do you know about that?† she hissed, hastily shutting the door. â€Å"I just saw Rose.† â€Å"How did you get to see her? I can't see her.† Lissa was as frustrated as me over how our superiors had been keeping us apart. Christian shrugged, careful to maintain a safe distance between them in the suite's small living room. Both of them had their arms crossed defensively, though I don't think they realized how they were mirroring each other. â€Å"I snuck into her prison camp. They've got her shoveling dirt for hours.† Lissa grimaced. With the way they'd kept us separated, she hadn't known much about my activities. â€Å"Poor Rose.† â€Å"She's managing. Like always.† Christian's eyes turned toward the couch and her open suitcase, where a silver stake lay on top of a silk blouse. I doubted that shirt would survive the trip without a million wrinkles. â€Å"Interesting thing to bring on a college visit.† Lissa hastily shut the suitcase. â€Å"That's none of your business.† â€Å"Do you really believe it?† he asked, ignoring her comment. He took a step forward, his eagerness apparently making him forget about wanting to keep away. Even as distracted as she was by the situation, Lissa immediately became aware of their new proximity, the way he smelled, the way the light shone on his black hair†¦. â€Å"Do you think you could bring back a Strigoi?† She turned her attention back to the conversation and shook her head. â€Å"I don't know. I really don't. But I feel like†¦ I feel like I have to try. If nothing else, I want to know what spirit in a stake will do. That's harmless enough.† â€Å"Not according to Rose.† Lissa gave him a rueful smile, realized what she was doing, and promptly dropped it. â€Å"No. Rose doesn't want me going anywhere near this idea–even though she wants it to be real.† â€Å"Tell me the truth.† His gaze burned to her. â€Å"Do you think you have any chance of staking a Strigoi?† â€Å"No,† she admitted. â€Å"I could barely throw a punch. But†¦ like I said, I feel like I should try. I should try to learn. To stake one, I mean.† Christian pondered this for a few moments and then gestured toward the suitcase again. â€Å"You're going to Lehigh in the morning?† Lissa nodded. â€Å"And Rose got cut from the trip?† â€Å"Of course.† â€Å"Did the queen offer to let you bring another friend?† â€Å"She did,† admitted Lissa. â€Å"In particular, she suggested Adrian. But he's sulking†¦ and I'm not really sure if I'm in the mood for him.† Christian seemed pleased by this. â€Å"Then bring me.† My poor friends. I wasn't sure how much more shock any of them could handle today. â€Å"Why the hell would I bring you?† she exclaimed. All her anger returned at his presumption. It was a sign of her agitation that she'd sworn. â€Å"Because,† he said, face calm, â€Å"I can teach you how to stake a Strigoi.†

Biblical Servant Leadership

Jesus set a great model to us. Yet He is the master, the greatest?he has the power and the ability to stand on top of the crowd but He Is also the least and the lowest to be able to wash the feet to human beings. I think the most challenged but precious part is the second one especially if you are a leader. That's why called â€Å"Servant† leader. Yet serving others can be tough; expending energies and time in the interest of others can be exhausting. I believe as a Christian we all experience that spent lots of time accompany with non-believers but then captioned later on or felt being used.Yet we felt hurt and trust me, I DO. However, every time when I look through what Jesus had suffered, the betrayal, I know there Is nothing to compare and I also be comforted from Him knowing He Is taking in charge; thereby, I become more mature slowly by slowly. I do believe the more you emulate from Him, the more you know how to be a real leader who stand firmly in this spiritual and sec ular world. Does one leadership model appeal to you more than the others? If yes, why? Yes.In y point of view, Richard Arden gives the most understandable and the easiest concept when we talk about how to be a servant leader. The whole point of being a servant leader is that you know God is the Lord. In other words, He is the first of the first. If there Is not God involves in then there will be just talking about the secular leadership. Therefore, God holds all the authority not a person (leader) who has this right from his own. Secondly, as a servant leader you must know you are the chosen partner from God to lead a group of people or a task to fulfill God's own wills.Therefore, leadership Is a partnership between the leader and God the almighty. Thirdly, Jesus has given the best example of being the first is being the last. He is the first, the almighty and the only one without the sin but bore the mocks from sinners and crucified for the rest. Another example, He, the first, had washed the feet for the followers as a servant (the least) with a humble heart. The real leader is not the one who can only be on top but often the one who humble himself to do the lowliest thing In the group.Fourthly, leadership Is a fullness of concept and action. A servant leader must do and think It completely from Inside out. You cannot hide the arrogance in your heart and do all the good things to others and say you are the loyal servant of God. There is no hidden thought that can't be seen from our Lord. Fifthly, leadership is the spiritual gift from God because not anyone can be given this empowerment. Therefore, the great power comes the great responsibility. At last, a true servant leader should be clear that all the followers who be authorized to lead

How to Write a Good Thesis Statement

How to Write a Good Thesis Statement In composition and academic writing, a  thesis statement (or controlling idea) is a  sentence  in an essay, report, research paper, or speech that identifies the main idea and/or central purpose of the text. In  rhetoric, a  claim  is similar to a thesis. For students  especially, crafting a thesis statement can be a challenge, but its important to know how to write one because a thesis statement is the heart of any essay you write. Here are some tips and examples to follow. Purpose of the Thesis Statement The thesis statement serves as the organizing principle of the text and appears in the  introductory paragraph. It is not a mere statement of fact. Rather, it is an idea, a claim, or an interpretation, one that others may dispute. Your job as a writer is to persuade the reader- through the careful use of examples and thoughtful analysis- that your argument is a valid one. Developing Your Argument Your thesis is the most important part of your writing. Before you begin writing, youll want to follow these tips for developing a good thesis statement: Read and compare your sources: What are the main points they make? Do your sources conflict with one another? Dont just summarize your sources claims; look for the motivation behind their motives.Draft your thesis: Good ideas are rarely born fully formed. They need to be refined. By committing your thesis to paper, youll be able to refine it as you research and draft your essay.Consider the other side: Just like a court case, every argument has two sides. Youll be able to refine your thesis by considering the counterclaims and refuting them in your essay. Be Clear and Concise An effective thesis should answer the reader question, So what? It should not be more than a sentence or two. Dont be vague, or your reader wont care. Incorrect: British indifference caused the American Revolution. Correct: By treating their U.S. colonies as little more than a source of revenue and limiting colonists political rights, British indifference contributed to the start of the American Revolution. Make a Statement Although you do want to grab your readers attention, asking a question is not the same as making a thesis statement. Your job is to persuade by presenting a clear, concise concept that explains both how and why. Incorrect: Have you ever wondered why Thomas Edison gets all the credit for the light bulb? Correct: His savvy self-promotion and ruthless business tactics cemented Thomas Edisons legacy, not the invention of the lightbulb itself. Don't Be Confrontational Although you are trying to prove a point, you are not trying to force your will on the reader. Incorrect: The stock market crash of 1929  wiped out many small investors who were financially inept and deserved to lose their money. Correct: While a number of economic factors caused the stock market crash of 1929, the losses were made worse by uninformed first-time investors who made poor financial decisions.