Designating someone as a special person of the year is often a very subjective and controversial process, from nomination to selection. Barack Obama, the president of USA, received Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, and the decision of Nobel Prize committee has casued enormous disputes among people as to whether newly elected president of US deserves to get the most pretigious award during his first year. Kathyrin Bigelow was granted 'filmmaker of the year' in 2010 Oscar award ceremony, while many people expected James Cameron to be designated for producing 3D blockbuster movie 'Avatar'. Likewise, designating 'the person of the year by TIME Magazine' is very subjective, and thus, very controversial. Some people might agree Mark Zuckerberg deserves to get it, while others do not.
First reason of why Mark Zuckerberg received 'the person of the year 2010' is that he was a influential person. No one denies that Zuckerberg's invention and creation has brought us tremendous changes; Facebook, armed with its convenience and speed, now replaces other social network services. It facilitates fast communications and exchange of ideas among people, and enables users to search and strengthen their social relationship. What's more? Facebook provides a variety of application webs and functions so that people can freely enjoy it. It led to a drastic expansion of social network service and altered the map of global IT market. He was indeed a influential person.
But the 'significance of influence' must not be the only factor that decides the winner. What we have to question is whether the influence is positive or negative; this is perhaps why some people disagree with TIME magazine's decision this year. Of course, in the history, there have been a few examples of negatively influential nominees. Adolph Hitler, the German dictator, actually commenced World War II and killed so many people. Yet he was anyway designated the person of the year in 1938. Joseph Stalin, the tyrannical Soviet ruler, was nominated even twice in both 1939 and 1942. Everyone can agree that they were influential, but not many people will answer they were influential in good ways. Similarly, those who disagree with Zuckerberg's case insists his invention, Facebook, is bringing uncontrolled side effects. They say Facebook infringes upon individual's privacy, attracts Internet users with its addictiveness, and creates further security problems. On the other hand, the supporters of Zuckerberg say Facebook has been, and will be influential in positive ways.
I personally believe Zuckerberg deserves to get the person of the year 2010. He was obviously the most influential person this year - which fulfills the first prerequisite: 'the significance of influence'. And I think his influence was quite beneficial to people as well. Now I can easily connect with my old friends even though I'm living in the dormitory boarding school. Many of my friends, seniors and teachers in KMLA can have free,fast and conveinent communication, which they couldn't have through other social network services such as cyworld, msn messenger, and twitter. Of course, I think there are some problems such as privacy matters or addiction. Yet these problems can be fixed through the updates of system and preventing excessive uses. I believe the harms does not outweigh the benefits. The positive influences are more significant than negative ones.
Considering that another candidate of 'the person of 2010' was Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, I firmly think Mark Zuckerberg more deserves to get it than Assange does. Some people say Assange is better than Zuckerberg, because Zuckerberg actually sells private information to corporations and gains profit from it, and Julian Assange frees unveiled, secret information into mass public without gainin no benefits. But gaining no profits does not necessarily mean that his work is good or bad. In fact, Jualian Assange is actually giving off classified and confidential military secrets to the public through Wikileaks. When it comes to safety and security of people, I think Assange does more harm than good, because he's playing with individuals' lives and societal security against governments. For example, Julian Assange said that Wikileaks's next target is to 'attack' Wall Street bank system. What a dangerous thought!
Now here come two decisive questions: Which is more beneficial to people? 'Convenient and enhanced social connection' versus 'Classified government secrets being revealed'? And which is more harmful to them? 'Weak privacy policies that can be fixed later' versus 'Endangering national security that cannot be reversed later'? I strongly argue Zuckerberg was a more positively influential person - he deserves to get 'the person of the year 2010'.
SECTION 1
답글삭제(MOVE From nomination to selection), designating someone as a special person of the year is often a very subjective and controversial process.
Barack Obama, the president of USA, received THE Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, and the decision of THE PRIZE'S committee (DELETE) caused AN enormous dispute (DELETE) as to whether A newly elected AMERICAN president deserveD to get THIS most prestigious award (DELETE - sentence too long). SIMILARLY, KATHERINE Bigelow was NAMED 'Filmmaker of the Year' AT THE 2010 OSCARS (DELETE) INSTEAD OF James Cameron, who CREATED THE REVOLUTIONARY 3D blockbuster (DELETE) 'Avatar'. WITH THESE EXAMPLES IN MIND, WE CAN SEE THAT designating "the person of the year" by TIME Magazine is EQUALLY (DELETE) subjective, and thus, very controversial.
(I like your intro - but we need a less abrupt arrival at this next sentence where we introduce Zuckerberg:
Some people might agree Mark Zuckerberg deserves to get it, while others do not.
(Try to dress the above up immediately with a terse hint of who he is and his achievement - without sinking into a run-on sentence.)
THE First reason of why Mark Zuckerberg received "the person of the year" in 2010 is that he was EXTREMELY influential (DELETE person). No one denies (DELETE that Zuckerberg's) HIS invention and creation has brought us tremendous CHANGE; Facebook, armed with its convenience and speed, now replaces other social network services. It facilitates fast COMMUNICATION and exchange of ideas among people, and enables users to search and strengthen their social RELATIONSHIPS. What's more(,) Facebook provides a variety of APPLICATIONS and functions so that people can freely enjoy it. It led to a drastic expansion of social network SERVICES and altered the map of THE global IT market. He was indeed AN influential person.
(Consider the countables and uncountables above - you have some problems with plurals. Easy to fix.)
SECTION 2
답글삭제Adolph Hitler, the German dictator, actually commenced World War II and killed (DELETE so many) MILLIONS OF INNOCENT people. DESPITE THIS,he was (DELETE anyway) designated the person of the year in 1938. Joseph Stalin, the tyrannical Soviet ruler, was EVEN nominated twice(,) in both 1939 and 1942. Everyone can agree that they were influential, but not many people will answer they were influential in POSITIVE ways. Similarly, those who disagree with Zuckerberg's case INSIST his invention, Facebook
On the other hand, ZUCKERBERG'S supporters say Facebook has been, and will CONTINUE TO be(,) influential in positive ways.
I personally believe Zuckerberg deserves to get the person of the year FOR 2010.
(DON'T START SENTENCES WITH AND =>And I think his influence
as (C)yworld, (MSN not msn) (M)essenger, and (T)witter.
fixed through (DELETE the) SYSTEM updates and preventing excessive USE. I believe the harms (DO does) not outweigh the benefits. The positive influences are more significant than THE negative ones.
(Consider the bridge and development of argument as we jump to Assange. I find it a bit awkward, and it feels like it's tossed in. There should be some mention of this in the intro, and while this essay is good, it feels a bit segmented and pieced together).
think Mark Zuckerberg (DELETE more) deserves to get it MORE than Assange does. Some people say Assange is (DELETE better) WORTHIER than Zuckerberg, because Zuckerberg actually sells private information to corporations and gains profit from it (delete AND) WHILE (DELETE Julian) Assange frees (DELETE unveiled) secret information (DELETE into mass) TO THE public without ANY FINANCIAL GAIN. (DELETE But gaining no profits does not necessarily) DESPITE THIS LACK OF MONETARY MOTIVATION, WE CANNOT SAY that his work is good or bad. In fact, (DELETE Jualian Assange is actually) giving off classified and confidential military secrets to the public through Wikileaks (DELETE When it comes to safety and security of people, I think Assange) does more harm than good, because he's playing with individuals' lives and societal security against governments. For example, Julian Assange HAS said that HIS next target is to 'attack' THE Wall Street bank system. What a dangerous thought!
Now here come two decisive questions: Which is more beneficial to people? 'Convenient and enhanced social connection' OR 'Classified government secrets being revealed'? And which is more harmful to them? 'Weak privacy policies that can be fixed later' versus 'Endangering national security that cannot be reversed later'? I strongly argue THAT Zuckerberg IS a more positively influential person - he deserves to get "the person of the year" FOR 2010.
This is a good essay, Seung Chan. A fairly smooth read, despite some weighted sentences and grammatical issues that pop up here and there. I suggest you focus on tightening your sentences to become less repetitive with combined clauses that are more concise and to the point. Instead of saying Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly, just use his last name, and even "he" if you can be sure the reader still knows what we're talking about. This is the kind of process that will make your writing more immediate and flowing.
답글삭제Your intro and thesis is good, but the Assange paragraphs seem to show up out of nowhere, and the first mention of Zuckerberg and facebook is jarring. The Bigelow/Obama stuff is good, but might tempt a reader to think your essay is about awards and bias. A juicier first description of Zuck (youngest billionaire, philanthropist, personal stuff from the NY Times article etc.) would help.
Good work, and nice formatting. Nice line of comparison at the end - but this comparison has to be introduced at the top more strongly than the trials and tribulations of choosing candidates for an award.