Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    backhoe13's Avatar
    backhoe13 Posts: 6, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #1

    May 7, 2015, 06:04 AM
    Is this an example of a stilted and cluttered writing?
    The Constitutional prohibition against political dynasties cannot be made clearer, but no implementing law exists to concretize its substantive rhetoric. Although such provision is ideally self-executing, its vagueness creates loopholes in favor of the well-entrenched political families.

    Conscientious legislation can objectify the mandate against political dynasty, but the presence of dynastic clans in congress trumps this possibility. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the electorates to initiate political reforms by being more critical in evaluating the platforms of the candidates. Looking past the popularity of any candidate allows for an objective assessment of their credibility and fitness to serve. Unfortunately, the lack of access to decent education, aggravated by poverty, makes the masses gullible and unwilling to prioritize their long-term collective needs over their immediate necessities.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,130, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #2

    May 7, 2015, 07:17 AM
    Yes, it is. Too many two-dollar words where a ten cent word can serve better. "Concretize its substantive rhetoric" is stilted. "Its vagueness creates loopholes" - what are you saying is vague? Do you mean a provision in the constitution?

    "Conscientious legislation can objectify the mandate" - how about "Laws can be passed that prohibit dynasties" instead? (By the way, I would disagree with that statement, but at least its clearer.) And this: "Unfortunately, the lack of access to decent education, aggravated by poverty, makes the masses gullible and unwilling to prioritize their long-term collective needs over their immediate necessities" is a very broad statement that requires support and has nothing to do with your general thesis. Are you suggesting that a vote for Hillary Clinton or a vote for Jeb Bush would only be cast by someone who is very gullible?
    joypulv's Avatar
    joypulv Posts: 21,593, Reputation: 2941
    current pert
     
    #3

    May 7, 2015, 07:26 AM
    Yes. Stilted. And you spend more energy on big words than you do on substance. You start with a premise yet don't quote any of it, no matter how obvious it may be to you and the reader, and then you reference 'it' in the next sentence.

    You don't define political dynasty.
    And what's an implementing law as opposed to just a law?

    Saying the Constitution (if we are talking US) as having 'substantive rhetoric' makes it sound abstruse and unreadable.

    MAINLY
    You really think that legislation could prevent these dynasties, even if it could pass? Is it Constitutional to pass such laws (circling back to your premise)?
    You really think that good education will cause critical thinking in voters, 'looking past the popularity of any candidate?' (Pipe dream IMO)
    I can poll several dozen well educated and well off friends and find that they voted differently, surprise surprise!
    (And besides, 'popular' isn't bad per se. Who says a popular candidate is fluff and good looks? Why not popular because best for the job? )
    Underneath all this I see someone who doesn't allow for debate or anyone else to be right, goodness.

    Your last sentence is a killer. I'm all for tons of good education and getting out of poverty, but dredging up those dear words 'masses,' 'gullible,' and the rest of that sentence sound like something out of the best/worst offerings from the failures of communism.

    Start over, and start writing one of the regular folks, not your professor.
    backhoe13's Avatar
    backhoe13 Posts: 6, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #4

    May 7, 2015, 08:42 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by joypulv View Post
    Yes. Stilted. And you spend more energy on big words than you do on substance. You start with a premise yet don't quote any of it, no matter how obvious it may be to you and the reader, and then you reference 'it' in the next sentence.

    You don't define political dynasty.
    And what's an implementing law as opposed to just a law?

    Saying the Constitution (if we are talking US) as having 'substantive rhetoric' makes it sound abstruse and unreadable.

    MAINLY
    You really think that legislation could prevent these dynasties, even if it could pass? Is it Constitutional to pass such laws (circling back to your premise)?
    You really think that good education will cause critical thinking in voters, 'looking past the popularity of any candidate?' (Pipe dream IMO)
    I can poll several dozen well educated and well off friends and find that they voted differently, surprise surprise!
    (And besides, 'popular' isn't bad per se. Who says a popular candidate is fluff and good looks? Why not popular because best for the job? )
    Underneath all this I see someone who doesn't allow for debate or anyone else to be right, goodness.

    Your last sentence is a killer. I'm all for tons of good education and getting out of poverty, but dredging up those dear words 'masses,' 'gullible,' and the rest of that sentence sound like something out of the best/worst offerings from the failures of communism.

    Start over, and start writing one of the regular folks, not your professor.

    Thank you very much for your response. I forgot to mention that I was talking about the Philippine Constitution, but your criticisms are duly noted. I've edited the paragraph, and I wonder if this one reads better:


    "Political dynasty in the Philippines breeds a nepotistic system. Hence, an individual can be appointed in office because of his influential connections, not his credentials. This system shows the weak development of democracy, which will remain so until the government rids itself of corruption.

    The Philippine Constitution explicitly prohibits political dynasties, but its provisions remain silent as to what a political dynasty really is. The congress may opt to define it, but the presence dynastic clans in both the upper and lower house makes this impossible. Even the electorates cannot be counted on to reform the legislature, because poverty forces them to sell their votes."
    joypulv's Avatar
    joypulv Posts: 21,593, Reputation: 2941
    current pert
     
    #5

    May 8, 2015, 05:44 PM
    Better, clearer. One spelling error, presence s/b present. I feel bad that maybe we got you to shorten it too much.

    But you still don't quote or even reference a section of the Constitution, which I would do.
    And I wouldn't say 'hence' when you made a broad conclusive statement (your premise) just before it. Your second sentence is broadening your premise. Save hence for the end, if that.
    You may know your premise is right, and you may know why, but you have to expect that your reader doesn't. I would write at least one or two more sentences to bolster it.

    If you have an idea at the end for preventing dynasties, all the better.
    Grassroots campaign? New party?

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Does stilted english means that the writer is dumb in using the langauge [ 2 Answers ]

-Or can it be said to be their style. For example: 1. Is there anyone to expect, that in social tasks he seeks to complete, he requires spirituality? 2. Procure for yourselves an implement for writing.

I just want to know p are in writing minutes and what really writing [ 3 Answers ]

I just want to know the procedures in writing minutes and what really entails in writing minutes.

Writing a Novel [ 3 Answers ]

Hi, Im new to this... please help me. I would like to start writing a novel. Where do I start? Im in the USA, CA, and would like help and assistance Deliah


View more questions Search