I am writing back in response to the D grade I received for language during one of my fruitless exploits of the thing called Summative.
First of all, like any good argument, it should have logic and facilitate a civil discussion. Violence, swearing, and trolling should be avoided. I, and I like to think we, would perhaps want this argument to be ideal in terms of reflecting the issue at hand and not as a mean to provoke or verbally abuse each other. I hope this turns out to be a fruitful discussion which I would, try to effectively represent my ideas as an argument to why we don't need good grammar or vocabulary.
So let us start. As this is the initial stage of developing my arguments as a frontal assault into the depths of your mind, I would have to put a really good quote down. It is apparently completely useless and uninteresting if my introduction does not start with a quote. An epic quote always sways the fragile mind of my reader to support my ideals and arguments. The quote doesn't even need to have a meaning, just two really long words that seem to be substantial of a high level of vocabulary. As I am currently incapable of thinking of an original quote, I shall create one on the spot, and say it is a quote by a famous person. Heck, I will even create the person on the spot, as long as he has a short Christian name as his first name and a longer name that sounds German or English as his last name.
"Supremacy deviates the unintentional." This quote, by Jeff Averendon, depicts how useless grammar and vocabulary can be in today's world. Note that I used the argument in the context of today's world. My argument has to be absolutely updated, and omnipresent in every place in the world. Without these magical two words, you obviously jump on me like a wolf, and rip my argument into shreds. No I am not going to let you do that. You did that 4 years ago. No way am I going to give you a second chance. I have gained a lot of experience now, having taken lessons which contain the exact same content for close to 4 years. What I do not understand is, why you constantly come up and question me about the topic of feminism throughout these 4 years. My friends and I have already made our intentions clear: we are extremely unwilling to engage in an argument regarding that topic. Why do you have to constantly remind us? It would perhaps, be a better alternative if you based your argumentative questions on more important issues at hand, like whether red paint or green paint would look nicer on the garden gate? We would be more obliged to write a descriptive and argumentative essay regarding that.
If it inherently puzzles you, I would really prefer green paint, as it kind of matches the green of the garden. This is obviously completely dependent on whether your garden has a bed of roses. Red would be a better alternative for this situation.
This is the exact time you tend to criticize me. You take every opportunistic chance, to tell me that I have obviously gone out of point. You find the most ridiculous way to ridicule my argument, by searching extensively for a small part which might be insignificant to the issue at hand, and ask: Where is the link? Are you sure this is in the context of the argument? You repeat this question, again and again, in perhaps one or two arguments per essay I write. You state I went out of point. How? The issue at hand is whether we need good grammar/vocabulary, but why does that mean I cannot talk about color choices for the garden gate? Is it humane to do so, to restrict my rights and urges to write about the wonderful garden gate? The link between garden gates and grammar is nonexistent, you say? Don't they both start with the alphabet G? Don't they both end with R?
Again you spot a mistake. The word 'gates' don't end with R. The obvious weakness in my speelling creates an increased level of frustration within your inner chi. To vent your frustration, you decide to lower my grade in the language component. But first of all, of course you double check my name to make sure I am not one of those pitiful China nationals that might be slightly (or extremely) disadvantaged in my language proficiency. Why is there this bias? Don't they also have 4 years of training? How are you certain I didn't spend my primary school living in Shanghai and thus have lower standards of English (which I apparently did, for your information). Is there a need for such outright bias?
Slippery slope. I do not suffer from this chronic condition, but some of my friends do. I do not fathom the idea why it is inherently wrong to base your argument on other inter-linked arguments which leads to the current argument. Slippery slope arguments have nothing wrong with them, if they make sense using logic. And because they have nothing wrong with them, it is correct to use them. And because it is correct to use them, there should not be a penalty when using them. And because no penalty should be incurred for using them, slippery slope arguments make sense using logic.
Conclusions are difficult to write. Understandably, you are kind, and sympathize with us as you understand there might be a problem with our weak skills in time management. I thank you for that. Then you write a commentary underneath our conclusion, which is as I put it, completely illegible. We spend so much time, honing our penmanship to please you, and then in return receive feedback that look equivalent to amateur abstract art? I thank you sincerely.
I didn't put relevant examples? Again?
Lol out.
No comments:
Post a Comment