It might prove useful to organize the ideas that suggest themselves during the freewriting and clustering exercises into a preliminary outline form. It is possible to write a paper without an outline, but it might suggest that your paper lacks organization if it proves impossible to write an outline that describes the thinking process behind your paper. Outlining never hurt; how helpful it is depends on what kind of thinker you are.
At the least, a tentative outline can suggest areas in which your paper needs additional work or supporting details to bolster main ideas or, on the other hand, areas which have too much emphasis and need to be pruned down to avoid an imbalance. It might also help you to see how ideas are related and where connections or transitions are necessary between sections of your paper. Furthermore, the outline will help you visualize how ideas fit within the thesis statement that is taking shape in your mind.
Remember that your outline is only a tentative skeleton to hang ideas on; limbs can be lopped off or added as the writing proceeds. Your instructor might require you to submit a formal outline for approval before you write your paper or to go along with your final draft. If that is so, this tentative outlining process will serve you well later on. The Guide to Writing Research Papers has a special section on writing outlines, and we recommend you review that material. From that document, here is one image (below) that might prove especially helpful, a sample outline (from the MLA Handbook) of another proposed paper.
The Essay on Write Writing Class Weaknesses
Where shall I start with this tale of "Strengths and Weaknesses" Since weaknesses are probably my most stellar talent I shall start here. For years I have had the urge to write but never thought I had one single iota of talent in my bones. So I never tried unless forced by a teacher. I believed that there was only one writer in my family, my brother Chris. So I took my role in my family, My ...
The important thing to notice about it is how supporting details are arranged beneath more important ideas and the outline branches out (toward the right) as ideas become more supportive in nature. Logic demands that an “A” be followed by a “B. ” (If there is no “B,” maybe there shouldn’t be an “A,” or “A” should be incorporated into the paper in some other way. ————————————————- Top of Form Bottom of Form Freewriting Many writing instructors use a freewriting exercise at the beginning of each class.
It’s a way of getting the brain in gear, and it’s an exercise you can do on your own, safe to try in your own home. (We provide an interactive page for this exercise, see below. ) Write down a topic at the top of that empty page. It can be either a one-word topic — like “Dentists,” for example — or a brief statement of the topic you’ve chosen or been given to write about. Set the clock for five to ten minutes and put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard and go at it. Write as fast as you can; the faster the better. You are not allowed to stop writing!
If you can’t think of anything to say, write down that you can’t think of anything to say, something like: “I’m stuck but I’ll think of something soon. ” Don’t stop. Don’t worry about transitions or connecting the ideas or paragraphing or subject-verb agreement or even commas. And form absolutely no judgment about what you write. Your Censor is on vacation. Your writing may take you in some really weird directions, but don’t stop and never think to yourself, “Oh, this is dumb! ” If you get off the subject, that’s all right. Your divagation may end up somewhere wonderful.
Just keep writing. Do not criticize yourself and do not cut or scratch out or revise in any way. Many instructors suggest that at the end of the timed period, you should write one sentence IN ALL CAPS that takes you back to where you started — something to do with dentists. It’s probably a good idea to read your freewriting out loud when you’re done with it. Often the ear will pick up some pattern or neat idea that you hadn’t noticed even as you wrote it. Read your freewriting to a friend or have your friend read it out to you. Your friend might think you’re insane, but that’s all right.
The Essay on Let the Freewriting Flow
Peter Elbow, author of the article “Freewriting” argues that using the technique freewriting is very beneficial for writers. Freewriting is nonstop writing without correcting or checking what you’ve already written. Elbow says writers should use this exercise at least three times a week to improve their writing skills. I strongly agree with his assessment from personal use of this technique. While ...
Then it’s time to spend just a couple of minutes going through the freewriting with an aim toward casual rewriting. The word-processor is a big advantage here. Delete the “I can’t think of anything to say” lines and the pure nonsense. Are any ideas or patterns emerging? Don’t give up on freewriting after one exercise. Many students think that it’s boring or stupid at first and come to love it after a week or so of exercises. Freewriting is like any other kind of mental activity: you will get better at it. The first couple of times you try it, perhaps nothing will come of it.
After a few efforts, though, the exercise will become liberating. Just as you would never start to play tennis or jog without stretching a bit first, you will never try to write again without doing a bit of freewriting first. Sometimes, even in the middle of an essay, when stuck for the next idea, you can do a bit of freewriting to get you going again. Here’s a five-minute example of free-writing on the subject of dentists written by an older student, Thruston Parry, who has given us permission to use his work: DENTISTS I hate going to the dentist.
I’m always afraid that they’re going to hurt me, and I’m not very good at pain, at tolerating pain, I mean. I remember the first time,w hen I was a kid, going to the dentists, it seemed I never went to the dentist when I was a kid until I had a toothache, that’s my parents fault, isn’t it, I guess. They should have taken better care of my teeth when I was little, and then I wouldn’t have so much grief now with my teeth. But back then I would go to the dentists and he would have this godawful drill that would make this awful noise and it seemed like it always hurt.
I remember there was this sign in his office that said PAINLESS DENTIST, UPSTAIRS, but there was no upstairs in his building. Some joke, huh? I can’t think of anything to say, and I can’t think of anything more to say. Oh, I wonder how come anyone in his right might mind would ever want to become a dentist, putting his fingers into other people’s mouths all day, all that spit and blood and not there’s the fear of getting AIDS from your clients that they have to wear those rubber gloves and I hate the feel of those things in my mouth, too, and the sound of that thing that draws the spit out of your mouth.
The Homework on Boy-girl Relationships Between Students
Boy-girl relationships are all about young love, having fun with the opposite sex and learning how to deal with relationships. It is usually harmless and it is natural. These relationships are usually based on looks, interests and social reputation. But stereo-typing becomes part of it, outsiders tend to condemn them based on external appearances. An example of this would be the argument that &# ...
I wonder why my folks didn’t take me to the dentist BEFORE i had trouble. Probably because when they were growing up it was bad times and they didn’t have any money for things like the dentist and it was just taken for granted that you were going to get cavieties and lose a lot of teeth before you were even an adult. I can’t think of anything more to say. I can’t think of anything more to say. ll I know is that when I have kids, they’re going to the dentist every six months whether they want to or not and maybe by then they’ll have invented some way to absolutely prevent cavities and maybe there won’t even be any dentists or if there are it’ll just be to clean your teeth and make sure they’re straight and pearly white and we won’t worry about cavities and stuff like that that causes pain anymore. DENTISTS, MY ATTITUDE HAS CHANGED AS I GOT OLDER. Six Different Kinds of Composition James J. Odell Reprinted from Journal Of Object-Oriented Programming Vol 5, No 8.
January 1994 Copyright © 1994 SIG Publications, Inc, New York, NY Also available in Advanced Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Using UML by James J. Odell, Cambridge University Press, 1998 Composition (also referred to as aggregation) is a mechanism for forming an object whole using other objects as its parts. It reduces complexity by treating many objects as one object. This column examines the ways in which we form these whole-part associations by answering the following questions: * What are the primary kinds of composition relationships? What kinds of relationships are often confused with composition relationships? * How do these various kinds of relationships help us to make correct inferences about whole-part associations? * How will these various kinds of composition help us during system development? KINDS OF COMPOSITION Linguistics, logic, and cognitive psychology have focused on understanding the nature of relationships. One important type of relationship is the association between the parts of things and the wholes they make up.
The Review on Unfaithfulness In Student Relationship
This aged old question has been discussed from time to time and there are many differing views as to why people cheat. The general understanding of the word relationship is a significant connection or similarity between two or more things. It can also be used to describe an emotionally close friendship which usually involves sexual activity between male and female (Encarta dictionary). Do students ...
In a joint paper, Morton Winston, Roger Chaffin, and Douglas Herrmann [Winston, 1987] discuss various expressions of the whole-part association: “The X is part of the Y,” “X is partly Y,” “Xs are part of Ys,” “X is a part of Y,” “The parts of a Y include the Xs, the Zs. . . ,” and similar expressions, such as the sentences: “The head is part of the body”; “Bicycles are partly aluminum”; “Pistons are parts of engines”; “Dating is part of adolescence”; “The parts of a flower include the stamen, the petals, etc. . . .” We will refer to [such] relationships . . . as “meronymic” relations after the Greek meros for part.
The article by Winston et al. describes several kinds of composition (or meronymic) relationships. The kind of relationship is determined by the combination of three basic properties: * Configuration – whether or not the parts bear a particular functional or structural relationship to one another or to the object they constitute * Homeomerous – whether or not the parts are the same kind of thing as the whole * Invariance – whether or not the parts can be separated from the whole This column presents six kinds of composition based on particular combinations of these three basic properties. A matrix illustrating this is presented at the end of this section. ) The six combinations provide a reasonable guide to employing whole-part relationships. Component-integral object composition The most common form of composition is the component-integral object relationship. A component-integral object composition relationship defines a configuration of parts within a whole. To be a configuration, the parts are required to bear a particular functional or structural relationship to one another–as well as to the object they constitute. Some examples of this are: * Bristles are part of a toothbrush. Wheels are part of a grocery cart. * Scenes are parts of films. * Projective geometry is part of mathematics. In this form of composition, an integral object is divided into component parts–which are objects in their own right. Here, the components cannot be haphazardly arranged. Instead, they must bear a particular relationship to one another and to the whole they constitute. The integral object, therefore, is a whole that exhibits a patterned structure or organization. For example, musical pieces or theatrical productions have a patterned organization. We refer to “the flute part” in a woodwind quintet or a “part” in a play.
The Essay on Interpersonal Relationship and True Friend
Tens of thousands, or one million? How many people will we meet in a whole lifetime, and how many of them do we have relationships with? Every person is born into a family without their choice, so they try to keep a good relationship with all family members to live happily, but sometimes it can be a misfortune for some people to get along with family members. However, we can choose to have good a ...
Such parts are components of an integral object. Objects in this relationship, then, can be tangible (toothbrushes or carts), abstract (mathematics or jokes), organizational (the EEC or US Supreme Court), or temporal (a film showing or musical performance).
However, when a component ceases to support the overall pattern of an object, a different kind of association results. For example, if a handle were ripped from the door of a car, the handle would no longer be considered part of the car. It could, however, be considered a piece of the car. Unlike components, pieces do not participate in the overall pattern of the object.
They provide no functional support for the whole and typically have arbitrary boundaries. Material-object composition In component-integral object relationships, parts can be removed. In material-object composition they can not. A material-object composition relationship defines an invariant configuration of parts within a whole. Material-object relationships are usually expressed in terms of the word partly. A few examples are: * A cappuccino is partly milk. * A car is partly iron. * Bread is partly flour. Component-integral object relationships define the parts of objects.
Material-object relationships define what objects are made of. For example, the component-integral object relationship would specify that a car has clearly identifiable parts such as an engine and wheels. The material-object relationship would specify that a car is made of such materials as iron or that bread is made up of such ingredients as flour. Components, then, can be physically separated from an object because their relationship to the whole is extrinsic. For instance, a kitchen without a microwave oven is still a kitchen. However, a loaf of bread without flour is not bread.
With material-object relationships, the relationship between the parts is no longer known once they become part of the whole. The word partly is not a requirement of the material-object relationship. For instance, a windshield could be made entirely of glass–not just partly. Other material-object relationships require a subjective judgment. For example, can the ceramics (of the spark plugs) be removed from a car? If so, ceramics is a component-integral object relationship, instead. Portion-object composition The relationships presented above define a configuration of parts that are different from each other and the whole they compose.
The Term Paper on Exchange Relationship
1. Introduction Sociologists have long accepted that exchange relationship is a preliminary part of human interaction (Homans 1958; Emerson 1972; Blau 1986). In general, it is accepted by people that who have treated them well should be rewarded and those who have treated them unfriendly or bad should be punished (Gouldner, 1960; Perugini, Gallucci, Presaghi, & Ercolani, 2003; Eisenberger, ...
In the portion-object relationship, the parts are homeomeric, that is, the parts are the same kind of thing as the whole. A portion-object composition relationship defines a homeomeric configuration of parts within a whole. A few examples of portion-object relationships are: * A slice of bread is a portion of a loaf of bread. * This chunk is part of my Jell-O. * A meter is part of a kilometer. Each portion or slice of bread is considered to be bread. Each slice, then, is similar to other slices in the loaf–as well as to the loaf itself.
The parts in a component-object relationship are not required to be similar in this way. For instance, an engine is not similar to the car of which it is part. Furthermore, the engine is not similar to any other part of a car. A sip of coffee, on the other hand, is coffee. Portions of objects can be divided by means of standard measures, such as inches, millimeters, liters, hours, parsecs, and so on. Therefore, a meter is part of a kilometer or an hour is part of a day. In this way, the portion-object relationship is important for the arithmetic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
The similarity, then, between a portion and its whole permits us to use a form of selective inheritance of properties during implementation. For example, the kinds of ingredients in a loaf of bread are the same as its portions. However, the quantity of ingredients for the loaf is not identical for each portion. The component-integral object relationship also permits certain properties of the whole to apply to the parts. For instance, the velocity of a car can also be implied as the velocity of its parts. However, since portions are similar to the whole, many more implications can be made.
Other terms that are often used in place of portion are slice, helping, segment, lump, or drop. The word piece is also used. However, care must be taken to ensure that all of the pieces are similar in nature. While the pieces of a splattered tomato are tomato, the pieces of an exploded car are not car. Place-area composition In the portion-object relationship, each homeomeric piece is removable. In the place-area composition, the pieces cannot be removed. A place-area composition relationship defines a homeomeric and invariant configuration of parts within a whole. A few examples are: * San Francisco is part of California. A peak is part of a mountain. * The 50-yard line is part of a football field. This kind of composition in a relationship is usually identified between places and particular locations within them. Like the portion-object relationship, all of the pieces are similar in nature. For instance, places in California–including San Francisco–are still California. However, in place-area relationships, the places cannot be separated from the area of which they are a part. Member-bunch composition In the composition relationships above, the parts bear a particular functional or structural relationship to one another or to the object they comprise.
Member-bunch composition has no such requirement. The only requirement is that the parts are a member of a collection. A member-bunch composition relationship defines a collection of parts as a whole. A few examples of member-bunch relationships are: * A tree is part of a forest. * An employee is part of a union. * That ship is part of a fleet. This form of composition should not be confused with the classification relationship. For example, the following are classification relationships: Jason is a monster and Christine is a car. With classification, the set of objects for a particular object type possesses the same properties.
The member-bunch relationship is different–based, instead, on spatial proximity or social connection. For a shrub to be part of a garden implies a location close to the other plants. For an employee to be part of a union implies a social connection. For these two examples to be classification relationships would mean that every employee is a union and every shrub is a garden. Member-partnership composition Members in a partnership define an invariant form of member-bunch composition. A member-partnership composition relationship defines an invariant collection of parts as a whole. A few examples of ember-partnership relationships are: * Ginger and Fred are a waltz couple. * Steven Fink is a managing partner in Fink and Josephson, attorneys at law. * Stan Laurel is part of Laurel and Hardy. Members in partnerships cannot be removed without destroying the partnership. For instance, if Ginger leaves Fred, the waltz couple no longer exists. If Stan Laurel is replaced with another person, a different partnership results. Composition relationships and their properties The following table illustrates the properties that apply to each of the six kinds of composition discussed above. | Configurational| Momeomeric| Invariant |
Component-integral object| yes| no| no | Material-object| yes| no| yes | Portion-object| yes| yes| no | Place-area| yes| yes| yes | Member-bunch| no| no| no | Member-partnership| no| no| yes | NONCOMPOSITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS In the section above, six kinds of relationships were presented that express composition. Composition, however, is easily confused with many other kinds of relationships, such as spatial inclusion, classification inclusion, attribution, attachment, and possession. These noncompositional forms are discussed in this section. Topological inclusion Composition is often confused with containment or topological inclusion.
Topological inclusion is the relationship between a container, area, or temporal duration and that which is contained. A few examples are: * The customer is in the store. * Monument Valley is in Arizona and Utah. * The meeting is in the afternoon. Here, the subject is surrounded, though the subject is not part of the thing that surrounds it. Composition, too, has the notion of containment. For example, the lungs are surrounded by the body. Additionally, composition involves a connection between the part and the whole that goes beyond just spatial or temporal inclusion.
Topological inclusion is most commonly confused with place-area composition. An example of a place-area composition is San Francisco is part of California. San Francisco is surrounded by California, just as Monument Valley is surrounded by Arizona and Utah. However, San Francisco is also part of California, because of an additional connection between the two–every part of San Francisco is also California. In contrast, no part of Monument Valley is Arizona or Utah, because it is part of the Navaho Indian Reservation. Classification inclusion
The extension of a concept is defined as the set of objects to which a concept applies. Therefore, we can say that Gone with the Wind is part of the set of objects to which the Book concept applies. However, we would not say that Gone with the Wind is part of a Book. Instead, we would say that Gone with the Wind is an instance of a Book. Therefore, Gone with the Wind has a classification relationship with Book, not a member-bunch relationship. Classification relationships can be easily confused with member-bunch relationships. Both involve the membership of objects in a set of objects.
However, the member-bunch relationship is determined by spatial, temporal, or social connection. In contrast, the classification relationship is based on the idea that a common concept applies to each. Attribution The properties ascribed to an object can be confused with composition. For instance, a Lighthouse has such properties as height and weight. Therefore, height and weight can be considered as part of the properties of each Lighthouse. However, properties are not components of the object itself. Instead, they are mappings from the object to other objects.
While each Lighthouse has height as a property, height is not part of a Lighthouse. Attachment Attachment of one object to another does not guarantee composition. For example, Toes are attached to Feet and they are also part of feet. However, while Earrings are attached to ears, they are not part of Ears. For attachment to specify a component-object relationship, the component must provide functional support for the whole. While Toes provide functional support for the Foot, Earrings do not provide functional support for the Ear. Ownership Finally, ownership is often confused with composition.
For example, it is true that a Bicycle has Wheels and that the Wheels are part of the Bicycle. However, while it may be true to say that the Girl Betty has a Bicycle, saying that the Bicycle is part of Betty is not true. THE TRANSITIVITY PROBLEM IN COMPOSITION A relationship is considered transitive if: whenever A relates to B and B relates to C, then A relates to C in the same manner. When relationships are transitive, valid syllogistic inferences can be made. An example of a syllogism is premise 1a- Socrates is a man premise 1b- All men are mortal onclusion 1- Socrates is mortal Because this relationship is transitive, the conclusion can be correctly inferred from the premises. Composition relationships appear to be transitive such that: if A is part of B, and B is part of C, then A is part of C. In the following example, both premises are propositions based on the same component-integral object composition relationship: premise 2a- The engine is part of the car (component-integral object) premise 2b- The pistons are part of the engine (component-integral object) conclusion 2- The pistons are part of the car
However, keeping the same kind of composition relationship is an important factor in producing a valid composition-related conclusion. Even though the following syllogisms use only composition relationships in their premises, their conclusions are incorrect, because the kinds of composition relationship are different: premise 3a- Bob’s arm is a component of Bob (component-integral object) premise 3b- Bob is a member of the Math Department (member-bunch) conclusion 3? – Bob’s arm is component/member of the Math Department remise 4a- The refrigerator is part of the kitchen (component- integral object) premise 4b- The kitchen is part of the house (place-area) conclusion 4? – The refrigerator is part of the house Just because the kind of relationship is different does not automatically imply that the conclusion will be incorrect. For instance, in the following example, even though premises 5a and 5b are different kinds of relationships, conclusion 5 is still correct. premise 5a- The loaf is partly flour (material-object) remise 5b- A slice of bread is part of a loaf of bread (portion-object) conclusion 5- A slice of bread is partly flour However, when the same kind of relationship is used, the conclusion is always correct. Composition is a transitive relationship. However, it is transitive only when the same kind of composition is used by the premises. Knowing this fact is very useful when propagating operations on composition relationships. For instance, in a CAD/CAM application the user can request that a particular image of a car be rotated.
Since the car is made up of many components, the rotation operation can be propagated to all parts of a car, as well. Since each component in the car can also have component-object relationships with other parts, these parts, too, can be rotated–and so on. Another way of explaining this is by referring to premises 2a and 2b, above. Since both premises employ the same kind of composition relationship, the conclusion is correct. Therefore, since the pistons are truly part of the car, any operation applied to the car can be propagated to the pistons.
However, with premises 3a and 3b this is not necessarily true. For example, giving a ten-percent pay raise to the Math Department could result in Bob getting a ten-percent raise. [*] However, since premise 3a is a different kind of composition relationship, Bob’s arm is probably not a reasonable candidate for receiving a pay raise. Therefore, the number of composition levels that can be reliably propagated is based on whether the kind of composition relationship is the same. As long as this is true, the propagation can be inferred.
If the kind of relationship is different, the application of propagation at each level must be examined for validity. SUMMARY Composition (also referred to as aggregation) is a mechanism for forming an object whole using other objects as its parts. It reduces complexity by treating many objects as one object. This column examines six ways in which we form these whole-part associations. The six kinds of relationships are determined by combinations of three basic properties: configuration, homeomerism, and invariance.
These six kinds provide a reasonable guide to how we employ whole-part relationships. However, they also help us to identify where composition is truly transitive and where it is not. As long as the kind of composition relationship remains the same, transitivity exists and propagation of operations can be inferred. If the kind of relationship is different, the application of propagation at each level is not guaranteed and must be examined for validity. Composition is a story mode of writing. 1. Personal Narrative 2. Short work of Fiction 3. Essay 4. Dramatic work 5. Poem
Descriptive: Descriptive compositions present a detailed picture of events, informative: Informative compositions require collecting of information and arranging] details in the order of priority. Narrative: Narrative compositions tell a story which builds up to a climax. Expository: Expository compositions are those in which the writer tries to explain things] Persuasive: Persuasive compositions are those in which the writer has to take a stand on any one issue and support his/her stand with examples & thus write a| conclusion that extends the main idea. Report:
