homeworkvan official blog 미국 대학 졸업 서비스 및 영어 과제 전문 컨설팅 - Since 2014: Argumentative Essay: The Challenge of Euroscepticism Organization Key and Justification Sample

안녕하세요 :)

이번 포스팅에서는 앞서 업데이트해드렸던 Argumentative Essay 에 관련된 Instruction, Justification, 그리고 Organization Key 를 업데이트 해드릴거에요! :)

논증 논쟁적 에세이를 어떤 Instruction 토대로 작성되었는지, 그리고 작성된 에세이가 어떠한 이유로 잘 작성되어있는지를 설명도와드릴거에요 :)

Argumentative Essay Organization Key 도 같이 올려드리니, 참고하시면 좋을것같아요!

그럼 학업에 많은 도움 되길 바랄게요!

감사합니다.

Argumentative Essay: The Challenge of Euroscepticism Organization Key and Justification Sample: 논증 농쟁적 에세이 샘플 해독키

Instructions

The argumentative essay is a mainstay in college writing that represents the writer’s ability to conduct convincing and non-biased research that forwards arguments and defense on the writer’s position on the subject matter. Write an argumentative essay from a third person point of view on any of the possible essay topics below

   1. There is a rise in Euroscepticism.
   2. Teens should take parenting classes.
   3. Smokers should pay more in taxes.

The requirements include:

   1. Follow the essay format and have an introduction, body, and conclusion section.
   2. 3- 5 pages.
   3. APA format.
   4. Contain a reference page with at least 5 authoritative sources.

Justification

This is a good essay for the following reasons.

· The essay meets all the requirements with regards to page length, format, and page count.

· The introduction starts with a hook that then followed by background information that set the context for the essay.

· The introduction is strengthened by the inclusion of a Toulmin style thesis statement that describes the claim and warrants/evidences for the claim advanced.

· The essay is logically structured with an introduction, body and conclusion. Concluding sentences and topic sentences serve to make transitions between body paragraphs.

· While the topic sentences introduce the body paragraphs, they also relate back to the warrants/evidences in the topic sentence.

· The body paragraphs all have evidences within each paragraph that back up topic statement and its importance.

· The conclusion starts by reintroducing the thesis statement then generalizes the evidence contained in the body paragraphs. The conclusion ends by emphasizing the main theme and provides a take-away to the audience.

Argumentative Essay Organization Key:

Hook

Background

Thesis Statement

Topic Sentence

Discussion/Analysis

Concluding Sentence

Summary

The Challenge of Euroscepticism: The Growing Resentment over European Integration

The vote by the United Kingdom to exist the European Union (EU) was an existential shock to British and EU relations and a wake-up call to the growing skepticism towards the European Union. The EU represents a heterogeneity of diverse interests whose national interests are constantly compromised to comply with the bloc’s unified international agenda (Jones, Menon, & Weatherill, 2012). This integration has been positive in that it has imparted political and economic strength towards member countries that would not have been possible prior to their integration. Dubbed Eurosceptics, the term has been in use for decades to describe the group of persons who question the benefits of European integration (Kattago, 2017). Not all countries have been positive in implementing the supranational policies of the EU and resulted in political divergence in those in support and in opposition to the EU project. However, Eurosceptics pose as an important stumbling block towards the ability of the EU to compete in an increasingly globally-competitive world. Despite efforts to deepen the connection between EU member states, Euroscepticism has been on a rise as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, the migrant challenge in Europe, the bureaucracy and transparency within the EU, and a rise in popularity in Eurosceptic parties.

The damaging impact of the 2008 financial crisis and the resulting remedial measures has fueled the Euroscepticism not only among debt-ridden Euro nations, but among all other constituent countries. Part of the formation of the EU was informed by the need to form an alliance that could had a stronger bargaining power in global markets comparable to other powers such as the US and later China (Jones et al., 2012). This economic union saw the respective governments tie their economic policies, laws and regulations and established a common currency to be used among member states. This development, in turn, tied the economic fates of the different member states into one. While most countries have a certain level of debt, the 2008 financial crisis exacerbated these debt levels leading to a debt crisis in many nations. In particular, countries such as Spain and Greece whose economies are dependent on tourism were affected more as consumers worldwide cut down on travel due to lower disposable incomes (Pavolini, León, Guillén, & Ascoli, 2015). Affected Euro countries received billions of emergency funding and later established austerity measures to control the high levels of debt experienced. The unpopular austerity measures are directly related to the rise of the far-left Syriza party in Greece which has been vocally against the EU (Stavrakakis & Katsambekis, 2014). Additionally, the failure of Greece to meet repayment terms and constant debt restructuring deals have thrown doubt in the continued existence of the European Union project as lesser impacted countries are forced, by virtue of being in an economic union, to financially support debt-ridden member countries. Overall, among the most significant impacts of the 2008 financial crisis was to erode the special relationship enjoyed among European nations.

More recently, the European migrant crisis and the social burden experienced among the populace has fueled doubt on whether the supranational decision-making systems serve to meet the best interests of member states. Due to its proximity to the conflict-ridden Africa and Middle East regions, the European Union has been an attractive destination for millions of displaced persons seeking stability, safety, and prosperity. This journey has primarily been carried out by foot and by boat with the border nations of Spain, Greece, and Malta facing the brunt of the sea-bound traffic while Bulgaria and Hungary have faced the majority of the foot-traffic. In the EU, the member nations had codified the Dublin regulation - a unified asylum policy that stipulated that the country of entry would be responsible for a refugee (Jones et al., 2012). This fact meant that border EU countries experienced disproportionate responsibility. The absence of quotas in the initial period of the crisis meant that these border nations were left to bore the greater responsibility of taking care of immigrants over other interior EU nations. The record flow of immigrants into these destination countries and the social burden in providing food and safety to these groups have given rise to anti-immigrant tension (Kattago, 2017). This development has reduced the popularity of continued integration among affected EU countries as they see disintegration as a means to institute stricter immigration policies that reduce the economic and social burden faced.

Related, European solidarity has been put to the rest following increased terrorist attacks on European social that has created a climate of resentment and feat. In November 2015, France was the victim of a terror attack in the Paris metropolis that left 130 dead and 430 injured following multiple bombings and shootings over the course of one night (Kepel, 2017). The attack was blamed on ISIS militants whom had placed terror cells in the country. This attack and others within Europe such as those in Germany and the UK demonstrate a significant terror threat within the EU region. However, by virtue of global politics, some EU countries such as France and the UK are more at risk as compared to states such as those in Western Europe. Moreover, terror laws and intelligence systems are not standardized between the different countries leading to challenges in response coordination. According to Markortoff (2016), the wake of the Paris attacks led to the establishment of the European Counter Terrorism Centre but more than a year later, over 90% of the information submitted for counter-terrorism purposes has come from only five EU member states. Such statistics reinforce the idea of lack of cross-border cooperation in the political and economic union. More importantly, terror attacks and unquailed cross-border movement has provided fodder for Eurosceptic parties in Europe to shift public sentiment against the EU.

Beyond issues with migrants, debt, and terrorism, Euroscepticism is part of a long-standing interest over the legitimacy of the EU and the bureaucracy of the system. Among skeptics, the image of the EU has been a bureaucracy that establishes policies with little democracy and transparency leading to apathy and discontent. According to Ford and Goodwin (2017), the transfer of decision-making powers away from the national level to the European level has raised concerns on a deficit of democracy as national representative institutions face a reduced role in decision making. In that, the perception is national parliaments are unable to enact legislation not approved by the European Commission. However, this perception of a reduced role in decision-making does not match reality as EU citizens have indirect representation through the Council of the European Union and direct representation through the European Parliament (Jones et al., 2012). Moreover, concerns have been fielded by skeptics on the transparency of the EU. Research has shown that the complexity of the EU legislative process raises legitimate concerns on transparency with the legislation impacting on the entire populace (Baratta, 2014). Additionally, research by Brandsma (2018) on proceedings of the European Parliament committees evidence a shroud of secrecy as the main EU institutions engaged in closed-door negotiations in policy making processes. This process undermines the claims of transparency in the EU legislative process. Related, the administrative functions of the EU contribute to a large bureaucracy and associated high administrative expense. This expense budget has been a bone of contention among skeptics fueling the negative sentiment on the bureaucracy of the EU system.

Finally, the rise of nationalism and populism in Europe has increased anxiety on continued European integration and parties ride on a platform of disintegration. In June 2016, the UK run a special referendum to determine the countries continued stay in the EU. The pro-exit group was led by vocal EU detractors who perceived the UK’s relationship with the EU as limiting the country’s national sovereignty (Ford & Goodwin, 2017). The fallout by these skeptic parties was that the UK chose to leave the EU. However, these parties are not exclusive to the UK. In fact, the 2014 capture of European Parliament seats by vocal Eurosceptic parties such as the UKIP in the UK, Danish People’s Party in Denmark, the Syriza Party in Greece, and the National Front in France demonstrated the increasing clout of Euroscepticism in the EU. According to the Stokes (2015), there has been a marked decrease in public faith in not only European institutions but also the European project. While these parties do not have universal appeal, they are still a vocal minority with the capacity to mainstream disenchantment and resentment in the EU. These parties commonly tap into issues such as migrants, globalization, political elitisms, unemployment, and austerity – matters with popular appeal among the general public – to idealize a false statement on a failing EU. Kattago (2019) terms this populism as divisive and capable of disturbing the fragile peace in Europe. If Brexit is anything to go by, then Eurosceptic parties present as a real challenge to EU integration.

The continued existence of the EU is threatened by the fallout from the 2008 global financial crisis, the influx of migrants into Europe, concerns over democracy and transparency in the EU bureaucracy, and the rise in nationalist and populist parties in Europe. The financial crisis brought demonstrated the deep economic ties between member nations and how a crisis in one nation could extend to the others, and the inability to independently control economic policies in the union. Additionally, the migrant crisis has disproportionally burdened the exterior EU member nations and increased the popularity of disintegration in order to institute independent immigration policies. This need has also been fueled by an increase in terror attacks that take advantage of the free movement of persons in Europe and the lack of proper cooperation in national security among member states. Moreover, the reduced role in decision making among national legislators and the lack of transparency in the EU policy making process has increased resentment in the political union. Eurosceptic parties have leveraged these real concerns to grow their influence and fuel further division over integration. The seeds of doubt will only grow if the EU administrative arms fail to institute reforms and demonstrate to the general European public the benefits of the complex relationship that is the EU.

=========================================================

The following is PLAGIARISM REPORT for 'Argumentative Essay: The Challenge of Euroscepticism Organization Key and Justification Sample - by Homeworkvan'.