#fidel andrada

[fidelandrada]

Syllogism: Reasoning and Fallacy

Syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning where you arrive at a specific conclusion by examining two other premises or ideas. 

Hello, my name is Fidel Andrada. Syllogism derives from the Greek word syllogismos, meaning conclusion or inference.

Some syllogisms contain three components:

Major Premise

Minor Premise

Conclusion

For example, all roses are flowers (major premise). This is a rose (minor premise). Therefore, I am holding a flower (conclusion)

Types of Syllogism

The type of syllogism that typically contains these three components is a categorical syllogism. However, there are two other major kinds of syllogism. We'll discuss each one here, plus enthymemes and syllogistic fallacy.

As we know, our first example about roses was a categorical syllogism. Categorical syllogisms follow an "If A is part of C, then B is part of C" logic.

Let's look at some more examples of syllogism.

All cars have wheels. I drive a car. Therefore, my car has wheels.

Major Premise: All cars have wheels.

Minor Premise: I drive a car.

Conclusion: My car has wheels.

All insects frighten me. That is an insect. Therefore, I am frightened.

Major Premise: All insects frighten me.

Minor Premise: That is an insect.

Conclusion: I am frightened.

Conditional syllogisms follow an "If A is true, then B is true" pattern of logic. They're often referred to as hypothetical syllogisms because the arguments aren't always valid. Sometimes they're merely an accepted truth.

If Katie is smart, then she will get into a good college.

Major premise: Katie is smart.

Minor premise: Because she is smart Katie will get good grades.

Conclusion: Katie will get into a good college.

If Richard likes Germany, then he must drive an Audi.

Major premise: Richard likes Germany.

Minor premise: Richard likes all German things.

Conclusion: Richard drives a German car.

Disjunctive syllogisms follow a "Either A or B is true, if it's A, B is false" premise. They don't state if a major or minor premise is correct. But it's understood that one of them is correct.

This cake is either red velvet or chocolate.

It's not chocolate.

This cake is red velvet.

On the TV show Walkikng Dead, Claire's husband is either dead or alive.

He's not dead.

Claire's husband is alive.

An enthymeme is not one of the major types of syllogism but is what's known as rhetorical syllogism. These are often used in persuasive speeches and arguments.

Generally, the speaker will omit a major or minor premise, assuming it's already accepted by the audience.

He couldn't have stolen the jewelry. I know him.

Major Premise: He couldn't have stolen the jewelry.

Minor Premise: I know his character.

Her new purse can't be ugly. It's a Louis Vuitton.

Major Premise: Her new accessory can't be ugly.

Minor Premise: It's made by famous designer Louis Vuitton.

In an enthymeme, one premise remains implied. In the examples above, being familiar with someone or something implies an understanding of them.

Some syllogisms contain false presumptions. When you start assuming one of the major or minor premises to be true, even though they're not based in fact - as with disjunctive syllogisms and enthymemes - you run the risk of making a false presumption.

All crows are black. The bird in my cage is black. Therefore, this bird is a crow.

Major Premise: All crows are black.

Minor Premise: The bird in my cage is black.

Conclusion: This bird is a crow.

The scenery in Ireland is beautiful. I'm in Ireland. Therefore, the scenery must be beautiful.

Major Premise: The scenery in Ireland is beautiful.

Minor Premise: I'm in Ireland.

Conclusion: The scenery is beautiful.

Of course, not every black bird is a crow and not all of Ireland is beautiful. When preparing a speech or writing a paper, we must always make sure we're not making any sweeping generalizations that will cause people to make false presumptions.

Rules of Syllogism

There are six known rules of syllogism. However, they mainly apply to categorical syllogism, since that is the only category that requires three components: major premise, minor premise, conclusion. Here are six rules that will ensure you're making a strong and accurate argument.

Rule One: There must be three terms: the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion - no more, no less.

Rule Two: The minor premise must be distributed in at least one other premise.

Rule Three: Any terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the relevant premise.

Rule Four: Do not use two negative premises.

Rule Five: If one of the two premises are negative, the conclusion must be negative.

Rule Six: From two universal premises, no conclusion may be drawn.

Further Examples of Syllogism

Syllogisms make for colorful literary devices. They explain situations indirectly, affording readers the opportunity to practice reasoning and deduction skills. Shakespeare was a master of many things, including syllogism. Here is an example of a syllogism fallacy in The Merchant of Venice:

Portia was a woman desired by many men. It was arranged she would marry the man who could correctly guess which of three caskets contained her portrait. One casket was inscribed with, "Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire." One man concluded that, since many men desired Portia, her portrait must be in that casket.

He was wrong. His assumption falls under the category of syllogistic fallacy. One cannot deduce that, since this casket contains what men desire, it's automatically the portrait. Men also desire fortune and power, for example. There wasn't enough evidence to leap from premise to conclusion here.

Socrates is the subject of one of the most famous, and easily understood, examples of syllogism in philosophy. Note that it clearly follows the rule of three components.

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, I am mortal.

This draws a clear picture of how one statement, when known to be universally true, should point perfectly to another clear claim, thus drawing an accurate conclusion.

Keep syllogisms in mind when viewing advertisements. Many leaps are made in advertising, skipping either a major or minor premise:

Women love men who drive a Lexus.

Get ready for an enthymeme or syllogism fallacy. A blanket statement such as this skips one of the two required premises. Every time a woman likes a man, it can't be assumed he drives a Lexus.

Persuasive Speeches and Writing

Understanding syllogisms will help you create masterful persuasive speeches and essays. They create a formula for you to abide by, in order to ensure your main point is flawless.

Syllogisms also allow you to test your theories according to syllogistic fallacies. When examining your main argument or point for discussion, be sure you haven't made any presumptions that your audience might disagree with.

Maybe some women won't like Lexuses. Perhaps they prefer a good 'ol fashioned Jeep! Just keep your eyes and ears open while you allow syllogisms to drive your point home with clarity and truth.

[cicici03]

Conform or Change- Chapter 1

cwrSo hey everyone! I know finally a girl is posting! I have been writing so many chapters so I can just post and go due to college!

With that, I will like to introduce you to a new story called “ Conform or Change”. This is an introduction to the family and the dynamics before we really get into the story.

This story will be post every SUNDAY!!!

Character List/ Face Claim:

Majorie/ Shy Munteanu

Florian Munteanu

Alexundru Munteanu

Marilyn Washington

Elena Munteanu

Earl Washington

Anna-Marie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever heard of the Swinging Sixties? From it swinging around with the ideas that cause major shifts in the 60’s. From the Civil Rights Movement, to the Vietnam War, and to the Feminist Movement. These things change the U.S even though in the future these are still things that need to be fix. However, we going to investigate a story about a black woman, which learn the ways of being a housewife and is stuck in whether to swing or stay.

June 5,1965

Newark, New Jersey

Adeste fideles læti triumphantes,

Venite, venite in Bethlehem.

Natum videte

Regem angelorum:

Venite adoremus 

Dominum.

As the congregation of the Catholic church sung with the choir. There was one pew that was in the middle that everybody knew.

Standing up while singing along, was Florian Munteanu. The man that had power in New York and New Jersey without even holding onto a political seat. As his father was the head of Munteanu’s, a famous mafia in the 20’s to now, people knew not to mess with them.

Florian’s father, Alexandru Munteanu, moved to the U.S for a better life with his wife, Ioana. With that, Alexandru was not only struggling to try and make a good life in the U.S, but he had to do something to get his wife out the slums. 

So, one day, he went to a speakeasy, to get a drink, and with that he realized that he could do it too.

Alexandru started the mafia, Munteanu, to help not only himself, but the people that was in the slums with him. From Italians, to African Americans, the Irish, and many more. He realizes that it will be better to have minorities together than apart.

As the years go on, Alexandru’s mafia started to grow larger and larger. Before you knew it, he oversaw the town. Calling the shots from the Mayors, to Police chiefs, and to Wall Street. As the Great Depression hit, Alexandru help the people that help him.

With that, he moved with many of his mafia to Newark, New Jersey. As he did that, he helps the mayor and aid the homeless from the fallout of the Great Depression.  Then Alexandru got the biggest surprise of his life.

His wife gave birth to that surprise on December 4, 1937,  Florian Munteanu. Alexundru was the happiest he could be and was glad to have his first child.

As life went on, things got better for the Munteanu family. They finally got out of the apartment in Newark and move to a house. Florian was especially excited due to the new scenery and new space. However, things change after Pearl Harbor.

When the Japan bombed the Pearl Harbor, many of Alexundru’s mafia members went out to fight the war: Alexundru did the same. He was gone for year and half, until he got shot in the trenches and was paralyzed from the waist down.

Even though, Alexundru was still the same person. Always happy go lucky and giving to people.

He changed.

 He did not see himself as a man no more due to his disability and it hurt his pride. However, he never let that stop from shining lights on others.

Nobody in the Munteanu Mafia or any other mafia wanted to take over due to Alexandru kind attitude and did not want to create enemies due to them wanting to have control.

As the years went on, Florian grew up and the Munteanu family was living on top of life. With Florian entering his senior year of high school. To the Ioana and Alexundru love growing even more. Everything was perfect.

 Until Ioana died unexpectedly.

Both, Florian and Alexundru, took it hard. However, Alexundru took it the hardest. After the only person that he loved died.

Alexundru died too.

Alexundru just stop talking after Iona death.

He has been muted for 10 years. He makes little gestures and noises whenever he needs something, but most of the time he is mute.

With that, Florian did not know what to do. As things was already worst, Alexundru brother, his closest ally and his only sibling, died and it left him taking care of his niece: Elena.

With life taking a toll on the Munteanu family, it was also taking a toll on the mafia. With that, Munteanu Mafia was in chaos.

As Florian saw his mom died weeks earlier to now his uncle dying: he did not know what to do. Florian knew he had to take care of his dad and of his legacy. Florian made sure of that by dropping out of high school and becoming the leader of the Munteanu Mafia.

As the song ended, Florian shut the hymn book and look to his dad. Alexundru just was looking out to space. Florian went and got the hymn book out of his dad’s lap to close it up for him. As the priest started to pray, a little voice shouted.

“ Mommy, I got to use the restroom!” Andrada yelped in the quiet church. Much of the congregation turn their head to the pew that yelped that out.

Florian look at Andrada, one of his four kids, and saw that he was starting to pull down his pants.

Shy got him before they drop down to the floor.

“Shy!” Florian quietly said with much sternness behind it. Shy, or Majorie, looked at her husband. She saw the embarrassment as he looked around to see if anybody was noticing. As Shy turn around to take Andrada to the restroom, Elena spoked up.

“ I will take him.” Elena said with kindness seeing the tense exchange between the couple. Shy tried to tell Elena it was okay, but Elena gave her look. Andrada walked over to Elena at the other end of the pew. With that, Elena and him went to the restroom.

As the priest started the sermon, Florian threw his hand behind the pew to sit closer to Shy to talked to her.

“ Now Shy, you need to teach our kids some manners. We are the family that this town looked up too and our kids are shouting out! What you think going to happen to the mafia if they see that our own kids do not have no manners! Shy…” Florian said with much anger and passion. However, Shy started to space out like she always did when mainly Florian was the only one arguing.

Majorie “Shy” Washington was born to Earl and Anna Washington in North Carliona on September 12, 1939. As she turned three, her sister Marilyn was born. Even though it was a joyous occasion, Anna died during childbirth with Marilyn.

With that, it just left Earl, Majorie, and Marilyn. As life went on, Majorie and Marilyn was Earl babies. No matter what mischief they done at the house, he always let them go off with a warning. Until one day, they went to prank one of the white women in town. As kids they really didn’t understand the concept of racism, but they knew some of the things. When they did prank this woman, she didn’t see it as kids pranking her, but as negros trying to “kill” her.

This led to a mob of white men coming to the area where all the black folks live at. They set a burning cross in the yard of Earl’s house.

That morning, Earl and many others looked at the cross in the yard. That day, he gave the girls the worst whooping of their life.

He didn’t whoop them because of what they did. He whooped them to teach them to not mess with the white people.

As he said as he was whooping the girls, “ I am not doing this because I am angry, but I am doing this because I love you.”

With that, the girls knew that something about messing with white people is never good.  After the incident, Earl decided it was time for the girls and him to move. They packed up their shed in North Carolina and moved to Harlem, New York.

When they got there, the girls were memorized by the streets and colors of the Big Apple. When finally getting to Harlem, they saw so many black folks move around so freely. Though the Great Depression was happening, FDR New Deal started to rebuild the nation.

As years went on, the girls settling into New York life.

Their father hit big.

As Earl was working for a big-time investor as a janitor, they started to develop a friendship. Earl showed him what could hit big for black folks. From different clubs, products, and much more. In 1954, the investor died due to old age and he didn’t have no wife or kids to leave his fortune.

So, he left it to Earl and the girls. Earl was happier that his daughters could go off to school, travel the world, and not have to struggle.

Earl decided to buy a whole building in Harlem and move his whole family from North Carolina and his sister’s family into the building. With this, Earl knew that the girls could keep this building in the family and make sure that they still have fortune.

Even though, Earl got a fortune and could easily pay someone to clean the large apartment. Majorie, whom is 15, was the care keeper after her sister and of the building. Majorie didn’t have the pleasure of having a kid life due to her mother not being there and her having to replace that spot for her sister.

Majorie made sure that she got rent from family, to keeping the building clean, and to making sure that her sister did good in school. Earl did not want Majorie to do all of that. He wanted her to enjoy life, but Majorie did it because she knew she had too.

Out of the blue, the phone rang. Earl answer and realize that it was from one of his good friend’s son from WWII. His mother died and he was on the list to come to pay his respects. So, the girls and him rode to Newark, New Jersy and went to the funeral.

As they paid their respects, Earl was trying to break through to his friend Alexundru. As he was doing that, Marilyn and Majorie was outside waiting. Marilyn started to talk and play with some of the neighborhood girls, while Majorie stood and looked around.

As Majorie looked up to see who was coming out of the church doors. She saw a group of boys and one stood out to her. He was the leader obviously due to him being in the front and the guys surrounding. His face looked like it was chiseled by Michael Angelo himself. From his hair being low cut, which was unusual due to every man wanting to have the slick back hair.

As Majorie was looking at him, one of the boys saw her. He nudged Florian and point towards Majorie. Florian looked at the girl and was in awe.

From looking at her press out hair that met her shoulders. To her black dress reaching her knees that squeeze every single curve on her body.

Florian realized that something started to feel weird downstairs. Even though he had many of girls, he never had felt like that about a girl straight away. Florian broke through the guys and walked over to Majorie.

Majorie snapped out of it when she realized he was in front of her. She quickly looked down than rather meet them piercing eyes.

“ My name is Florian. What’s yours?” Florian asked her while looking at her. Majorie kept her head down and stay like that. Florian didn’t know what to do and he was kinda shock.

“ So I guess I call you Shy.” Florian laughed out when finishing up.

Earl came out the church seeing Florian and Majorie. Earl made it known that he was there by coughing. Majorie looked up quickly and ran over to her dad while being thankful he came out when he did.

“Well Florian, your dad is a tough cookie. I tried to get him to talk, but he still not talking.” Earl walked over to Florian while giving his hand a shake. Florian shooked his head and understanding Earl, who kept talking, but Florian was looking at Majorie behind him.

Earl notice the young boy eyes on his daughter. Earl was happy that Majorie got attention from a boy because she is always to herself and have not experience the regular teenage life.

“ Florian, bring my baby girl back home by 7:00.” Earl said with his deep baritone voice while walking away from the two. Majorie was in shocked and ran after her dad.

“ Daddy, I don’t even know him! Plus I got to clean the house, finish cooking for tomorrow, and help Marilyn with her homework.” Majorie squeaky, high pitched voice capture her dad attention. With Earl getting to the car, and Marilyn running back over, he turn around to his daughter.

“ Baby, you need to experience life. I love that you step in place for your mother, but you are a teenager! Florian is a nice young man and he can keep you safe.” Earl stated to his daughter. Earl got in the car and Marilyn got in the back.

Majorie watch as they left her.

She turn around with Florian right behind her.

With that, Florian and Majorie went one the local cafes in Newark. As they was walking around, it seem like everybody knew who Florian was. As they went to the diner and ate. Majorie didn’t say one thing at all.

As he was taking her home, Majorie still didn’t say nothing. When he stop in front of her building, he walked her up the stoop.

“Well I had a fun time. Even though I did most of the talking.” Florian chuckled with his gruff voice. Florian looked at Majorie and saw that she kept her head down. Florian lift her head to look at him.

With that, Florian went in for a kiss, which Majorie did not stop.

“ Umm, Majorie I know you are not being a fast tell out here! Plus your father should be down here any second!” Aunt Shirley smiled while yelling out the third-floor window, looking down at her niece. Majorie quickly step back, with Florian laughing at the woman above.

Then, the door of the building quickly open to Earl and Marilyn. Earl smiled at his daughter and step out to wave his sister back in.

Majorie quickly ran inside to the top floor of the building.

“ Well, I guess that means either Majorie is embarrassed or you done something to her son.” Earl said while looking at Florian.

“ No sir, I have not! I really want to court Shy!” Florian blurted out the last part. Marilyn laughed at the boy standing in front of her.

“ Shy, that is a good nickname! She probably will never say anything to you!” Marilyn said with a sassy tone. Earl gave a look at Marilyn, which means it is time for her to go. Earl looked at Florian, whom was a mess due to him blurting out that he wants to court Majorie.

“ Well, just called the house phone everyday at 9:00 in the morning. You can speak Majorie then due to her being the only one at home. With that, son, if you ever hurt my daughter. I don’t mine breaking your face in even if you are white.” Earl finished with the threat.

Earl shut the door leaving Florian for his own thoughts.

One thing, Earl and Florian, didn’t know was that Marjorie was looking out the window at the conversation. She smile at the fact that Florian wanted to court her. She went back inside waiting for the next morning at 9:00 for that call.

That day, Florian didn’t just lose his mother, but he got his girl.

“ Mommy, Mommy, Mommy!” Florian Jr yelped to his mother. Shy snapped out of her thoughts. She realized that everybody was starting to leave church. Shy looks to her left to see Florian getting his father to go outside in the summer heat.

Shy got up and picked up Benjamin, 2, who was sleep, and picked up her purse. Anastasia and Florian Jr, 8, held hands with Andrada, 4, to make sure they stick together.

“Do you need any help Shy?” Elena asked with her nasal voice. Before Shy could even answered, Florian answered.

“ Shy got it.” Florian toneless voice said while starting to push his father out of the church. Shy knew that Florian was upset with her, and she knew that this was going to be an all day thing.

“ Okay kids, lets go.” Shy quietly said to the kids. They walked behind Florian and his father, with Elena right behind them. 

Elena looked at Shy and just felt bad for her. It seems like after Benajamin was born, Florian and Shy’s relationship is just not the same.

As they walked out the church doors, Elena heard many things being said about the couple.

“ Florian only married her because he got her pregnant out of wed locked.”

“ He always disrespect her whenever that girl comes around.”

“ I just don’t understand why people want to now marry outside their race.”

Elena knew if she could hear them, Shy could too.

As they got to the bottom of the steps, she saw the red Ford Mustang.

Everybody knew exactly who that was. The Ford Mustang park on the other side of the rode. With that, a tall woman got out of the car. She started to walked over with her high heels and went straight up to Florian.

Shy saw as she walked with confidence and style over to her husband. Shy wished she did have the confidence she had.

Shy walked closer to the two of them to see what is about to happen.

“ Florian, I really need you to come help me with something.” Anna- Marie said with much sweetness behind her voice. Anna-Marie you could describe as the It girl of the decade. Anna Marie knew that she was beautiful and she use it for her benefits.

Florian felt eyes on him and saw his wife looking at the two of them. Anna-Marie smiled turn straight into a frown when seeing Shy. Anna-Marie wanted Florian since childhood. The only person that ruin it was Shy.

“Oh, Shy, I didn’t see you there! Kinda look like the maid with the kids.” Anna-Marie said loud enough to capture other people attention.

“ Now, you little rat, don’t be coming around here being an attention whore. The last time I remember you was a night walker!” Elena said even louder.

Anna-Marie laughed at Elena.

“ Well honey, I still hear that nasally voice. Still haven’t got it fix after your husband punch you.” Anna-Marie said with much fake sadness in her voice.

Anna-Marie turn back to Florian and said, “ Well, I see that you are busy. Come by tonight.” With that, Anna-Marie touched Florian arm and went back to her car.

Florian looked at the woman, and lust after her. Even though, she tried many of times with her forward advances. Florian would never take the forward advances with her because he loves his wife. However, Florian was lusting after the woman in front of him.

Shy looked at Florian as he looked at her. She saw that he was looking at her with the same eyes he  use to looked at her with. 

“Mommy, why are you crying?” Anastasia said with her quietly, squeak voice. With that, Elena and Florian looked at her. Shy shook her head and started to push the children to walk down the sidewalk to the house.

Elena looked at her cousin and shooked her head as she followed Shy and the kids. With that, Florian followed right behind them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welll then, that was very tense and intresting!

How do you like the characters?

What do you think about relationship between Florian and Majorie “Shy”?

What you think happen to Florian and Majorie to have a tense relationship?

Do you think it is just a marriage “hump”? Or is it something else?

Please Comment, Like, Reblog!!

Taglist:

@19jammmy​ @designerwriterchic​ @queen-zelieonna​ @amethyst09​ @champagnesugamama​ @cocobutterqwueen​ @twistedcharismaaa​ @munteanhore​ @natashacoco

[tesaonews]

Duelo de gigantes – Pelé x Maradona

O camisa 10 recebe a bola no meio do campo. Jogadores do time adversário o cercam e tentam pará-lo de qualquer maneira. O primeiro marcador se aproxima e vê a bola passar por debaixo das pernas. Vem o segundo e também leva no meio das canetas. Aparece mais um para dar o bote e, olé!, também passa batido. Não, essa não é a descrição do célebre lance que fez a fama do argentino Diego Maradona. Na partida contra a Inglaterra, pela Copa do Mundo de 1986, no México, ele driblou quatro jogadores, deixou o goleiro no chão e mandou a bola para o fundo das redes, marcando aquele que é considerado, por muitos, o gol mais bonito de todos os tempos.

Mas o camisa 10 de que estamos falando é o homem que transformou esse número em sinônimo de arte e genialidade no futebol: Pelé. Enquanto o golaço de Maradona foi visto e revisto em todo o mundo, ao vivo e em cores, pouca gente testemunhou um lance parecido de Pelé durante um amistoso do Santos nos anos 60. O craque argentino explodiu numa época em que a televisão já chegava a todos os rincões do planeta. Já o brasileiro conseguiu se tornar uma lenda viva praticamente só com a ajuda das ondas do rádio. Afinal, quem foi melhor: Pelé ou Maradona?

Veja também

HistóriaO futebol chegou ao Brasil de trem – e muito antes de Charles Miller29 maio 2018 – 09h05

O apresentador esportivo Milton Neves, da Band, é categórico: essa polêmica só existe porque Maradona contou com a força da mídia. “Pelé não teve 1% da divulgação que Maradona teve”, diz Neves. “O futebol brasileiro produziu outros grandes jogadores, como Friedenreich e Leônidas da Silva, que não tiveram nem o rádio para ajudar a difundir os seus feitos. Por isso, não são reconhecidos como deveriam.” Neves vai mais longe: “Vamos ter um novo Maradona a cada 200 anos. Pelé, nunca mais”.

As imagens históricas de Pelé recuperadas pelo filme Pelé Eterno, de Aníbal Massaini, incluem dois lances não registrados na época e que foram recriados por computação gráfica. Um deles é o célebre gol marcado contra o Juventus, na rua Javari, em 1959, quando Pelé aplicou uma seqüência de chapéus em quatro adversários e fez o gol de cabeça. O outro é a reconstituição de um lance contra o Fluminense, no Maracanã, em 1961, um gol tão belo que rendeu ao astro do Santos uma placa comemorativa no estádio – cunhando a expressão “gol de placa”.

Pelé Eterno entrou em cartaz em junho de 2004, num momento em que Maradona travava uma luta de vida ou morte contra o mais terrível dos adversários, as drogas. “Estou orando muito para que Maradona se recupere bem e saia dessa. Assim, quando estiver bom, ele verá o filme e tirará suas próprias conclusões”, afirmou Pelé à época. As provocações entre os dois sempre existiram. Para Pelé, Maradona, ao se envolver com as drogas, perdeu a oportunidade de servir de exemplo para os jovens. O argentino, por sua vez, já declarou suas restrições ao que Pelé fez ou deixou de fazer com sua imagem de “atleta do século”. “Pelé, como jogador, foi o máximo, mas não soube aproveitar isso para enaltecer o futebol. Adoraria que ele tivesse se proposto, como eu, a presidir uma associação que defendesse os direitos dos jogadores, que tivesse ajudado Garrincha e não o deixado morrer na miséria, que tivesse lutado contra as ações dos poderosos que nos prejudicam”, escreveu Maradona em sua autobiografia.

Em 2000, quando a Fifa realizou no seu site uma enquete para eleger o melhor jogador de todos os tempos, Pelé levou uma surra de Maradona. O argentino teve 53% dos votos, contra apenas 16% do brasileiro. Para resolver a saia justa, o suíço Joseph Blatter, ex-presidente da entidade, decidiu conceder dois prêmios: um pelo voto dos treinadores das seleções dos países filiados à Fifa, outro pelo voto popular via internet. Pelé e Maradona ganharam cada um o seu prêmio, agradando a gregos e troianos – ou desagradando a ambos.

O argentino Edgardo Norberto Andrada teve o privilégio de enfrentar os dois jogadores. Goleiro do Vasco de 1969 a 1976, encarou Pelé nos confrontos contra o Santos. Depois, encerrou a carreira no argentino Colón e conheceu o “Pibe” Maradona em início de carreira, no Argentinos Juniors.

“Pelé foi um jogador muito mais completo que Maradona”, afirma Andrada. “Tinha um excelente cabeceio, chutava bem tanto com a direita quanto com a esquerda, sabia livrar-se da marcação como ninguém e tinha uma habilidade extraordinária que o tornava capaz de chutar a gol de qualquer posição com a bola em movimento.”

Andrada ficou famoso como o goleiro que levou o gol número 1 000 de Pelé, de pênalti, no dia 19 de novembro de 1969. “Na época, não gostei de ter levado o milésimo gol do Pelé. Hoje sei que aquele gol marcou a minha carreira e foi uma honra ter participado de um momento histórico do futebol”, diz Andrada.

Maradona nem chegou perto da marca do rei. Em 695 jogos na carreira, marcou 365 gols. Sua média foi de 0,52 gol por jogo, contra 0,93 de Pelé. Os fãs de Dieguito podem argumentar que ele jogou 11 anos na Europa, nos disputadíssimos campeonatos espanhol e italiano, enquanto Pelé fez com o Santos dezenas de jogos contra times inexpressivos do Brasil e ainda passou três temporadas nos Estados Unidos.

Jogando sem bola

Sejam quais forem os argumentos a favor de um ou de outro, há nítidas diferenças de estilo. Maradona foi um grande malabarista com a bola. Nos treinos na Argentina, se exibia para os colegas fazendo centenas de embaixadinhas com uma bolinha de tênis, uma laranja ou outro objeto. Conseguia controlar a bola em velocidade, tornando quase impossível a qualquer adversário lhe tirar a pelota. Mas a falta de força e precisão nos chutes com o pé direito e a pouca impulsão – prejudicada pela baixa estatura (1,66 metro) – evidenciavam que o argentino não era completo em todos os fundamentos.

Pelé, ao contrário, sabia jogar sem a bola. Era capaz de driblar seus adversários sem sequer tocá-la, como fez com o goleiro uruguaio Mazurkiewski no histórico “drible da vaca”, durante a Copa do Mundo de 1970, no México. A bola passou por um lado, Pelé por outro e Mazurkiewski ficou no meio do caminho sem entender nada. Para sua sorte, Pelé fez o mais difícil e chutou para fora. Um lance que não resultou em gol, mas que é lembrado até hoje como um dos mais sensacionais de todos os tempos.

O craque brasileiro tinha um biotipo mais favorável que o argentino para o esporte. “Fisicamente, Pelé era um jogador muito mais completo que o Maradona”, diz o fisiologista Turíbio Leite de Barros Neto, de São Paulo. Segundo ele, a estrutura física de Pelé lhe permitiria ter sido um excelente jogador em qualquer posição do futebol: lateral, volante, zagueiro, centroavante e até goleiro. Pelé, aliás, jogou quatro vezes improvisado como goleiro, substituindo o arqueiro do Santos que teve de deixar a partida antes do término. No total, ficou 54 minutos debaixo da trave – e não levou nenhum gol. Um desempenho melhor que o do seu filho Edinho, que, por ironia do destino, viraria goleiro do Santos.

Veja também

Mundo EstranhoQual esporte fatura mais: futebol, beisebol ou basquete?27 out 2017 – 14h10

SaúdeJogadores de futebol podem ter danos cerebrais sérios, diz estudo16 fev 2017 – 17h02

Também fora do campo, cada jogador tinha seu estilo. Ambos nasceram em famílias pobres e conseguiram a ascensão social graças ao futebol. Depois de se tornarem celebridades, trilharam caminhos bem distintos. O brasileiro adotou a postura de um embaixador. Em qualquer país do mundo, citar o nome de Pelé pode ser o primeiro passo para um contato amistoso com o povo local. Ele foi recebido e reverenciado por autoridades como a rainha Elizabeth II, o presidente americano Richard Nixon, o papa João Paulo II e o líder sul-africano Nelson Mandela.

Já Maradona vestiu a pele de um revolucionário. Aliou sua imagem à dos líderes da revolução cubana – o guerrilheiro Che Guevara, que ornamenta o braço do ex-jogador em uma sinuosa tatuagem, e o presidente Fidel Castro, que o recebeu em Cuba para um ineficiente trabalho de desintoxicação das drogas. “Maradona é uma espécie de Che Guevara. Dá uma ideia de maior rebeldia, enquanto Pelé aparece como um símbolo mais institucionalizado. São como duas caras da mesma moeda. Um necessita da existência do outro”, afirma o jornalista e sociólogo argentino Sergio Levinsky, autor do livro Maradona, Rebelde sem Causa.

Contrastando com a postura diplomática de Pelé, Maradona foi para os argentinos um autêntico herói nacional, capaz de devolver a dignidade e a esperança perdidas com a crise de valores deflagrada pelo golpe militar de 1976 e acentuada pela derrota para os ingleses na Guerra das Malvinas, em 1982. Ainda mergulhados em uma crise econômica sem precedentes, os argentinos se prendem à figura de Maradona como se fosse uma divindade, como haviam feito durante o martírio de Carlos Gardel e Evita Perón. A idolatria é tamanha que existe até uma corrente religiosa, a Igreja Maradoniana, que trata o jogador como um deus – entre os Dez Mandamentos está o de “amar Maradona sobre todas as coisas”.

O raio X dos craques

Compare as principais características das duas feras:

Edson Arantes do Nascimento

<span class="hidden">–</span>Wikimedia Commons

Nasceu em 23/10/1940, em Três Corações (MG)

Altura: 1,74 metro

Peso: 70 kg (1970)

Olhar: Com sua visão periférica, é capaz de enxergar o que acontece ao seu redor ou mesmo a longa distância sem tirar o olho da bola

Liderança: Era um dos líderes do Santos e da seleção brasileira, embora não tenha sido o capitão

Perna: Destro, mas chutava bem tanto com a direita quanto com a esquerda

Chuteira: Número 39

Clubes em que atuou

Santos (1956 a 1974)

New York Cosmos (1974 a 1977)

Títulos na carreira

59

Maiores conquistas

Tricampeão mundial com a seleção brasileira (1958, 1962 e 1970)

Bicampeão mundial com o Santos (1962 e 1963)

Bicampeão sul-americano com o Santos (1962 e 1963)

Pentacampeão da Taça Brasil com o Santos (1961 a 1965)

10 vezes campeão paulista com o Santos (1958, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69 e 73)

1 282 gols em 1 375 jogos (média de 0,93 gol por jogo)

Copas do Mundo

4 participações (1958, 1962, 1966 e 1970), 3 títulos (1958, 1962 e 1970), 14 jogos e 12 gols

Por que Pelé foi melhor

Ganhou muito mais títulos na carreira e foi tricampeão mundial, enquanto Maradona ganhou apenas um título mundial

Foi duas vezes campeão mundial de clubes, coisa que Maradona nunca chegou perto de conseguir

Fez 3,5 vezes mais gols que o argentino

Foi perfeito em todos os fundamentos: chute com o pé direito, chute com o pé esquerdo, dribles, lançamentos, cabeceio

Pelo seu talento e porte físico, Pelé teria sido bom em qualquer posição do futebol: lateral, zagueiro, ponta e centroavante. Até como goleiro ele jogou, e bem. Maradona só podia ser o que foi: ponta-de-lança. Entende?

Diego Armando Maradona

<span class="hidden">–</span>Wikimedia Commons

Nasceu em 30/10/1960, em Lanús (Argentina)

Altura: 1,66 metro

Peso: 70 kg (1986)

Olhar: Visão centrada na bola e no lance próximo de si

Liderança: Foi capitão e líder da seleção argentina, do Boca Juniors e do Napoli (Itália)

Perna: Canhoto, fazia tudo com a perna esquerda – só com a esquerda. Era um ótimo cobrador de faltas

Chuteira: Número 39

Clubes em que atuou

Argentinos Jrs. (1976 a 1980)

Boca Juniors (1980 a 1982 e 1994 a 1997)

Barcelona (1982 a 1984)

Napoli (1984 a 1991)

Sevilla (1992 a 1993)

Newell’s Old Boys (1993 e 1994)

Títulos na carreira

11

Maiores conquistas

Campeão mundial sub-20 com a seleção argentina (1979)

Campeão mundial com a seleção argentina (1986)

Bicampeão italiano com o Napoli (1987 e 1990)

Campeão da Copa da Uefa com o Napoli (1988)

365 gols em 695 jogos (média de 0,52 gol por jogo)

Copas do Mundo

4 participações (1982, 1986, 1990 e 1994), 1 título (1986), 21 jogos e 8 gols

Por que Maradona foi melhor

Ele conduziu a conquistas inéditas times medianos que nunca haviam ganhado nada, como o Argentinos Jrs. e o Napoli

Carregava o time nas costas. Jogava ao lado de companheiros medíocres, enquanto Pelé sempre teve bons jogadores ao seu lado

Mesmo atuando em uma equipe mal-organizada como a Argentina de 1990, foi vice-campeão do mundo

Depois que parou de jogar, a Argentina não ganhou mais título. Já o Brasil foi duas vezes campeão do mundo sem Pelé

Foi um dos melhores jogadores da história do Campeonato Italiano, um dos mais difíceis do mundo

Leia aqui a matéria original

O post Duelo de gigantes – Pelé x Maradona apareceu primeiro em Tesão News.

source https://tesaonews.com.br/noticia-tesao/duelo-de-gigantes-pele-x-maradona/

[fidelandrada]

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

The Supreme Court’s Power of Judicial Review 

By Fidel Andrada

★★★★★★★ Background of the Case ★★★★★★★

The election of 1800 transferred power in the federal government from the Federalist Party to the Republican Party. In the closing days of President John Adams’s administration, the Federalists created many new government offices, appointing Federalists to fill them. One of the last-minute or “midnight” appointments was that of William Marbury. Marbury was named a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. President Adams had signed the papers, but his secretary of state, John Marshall, somehow neglected to deliver the papers necessary to finalize the appointment. 

The new president, Thomas Jefferson, was angry at the defeated Federalists’ attempt to “keep a dead clutch on the patronage” and ordered his new secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver Marbury’s commission papers. Marbury took his case to the Supreme Court, of which John Marshall was now the Chief Justice, for a writ of mandamus—an order from a court that some action be performed—commanding Madison to deliver the commission papers in accordance with the Judiciary Act of 1789.

★★★★★★★ Constitutional Issue ★★★★★★★★

Article III of the Constitution sets up the Supreme Court as the head of the federal judicial system. Historians believe that the Founders meant the Court to have the power of judicial review, that is, the power to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to invalidate those that it determines to be unconstitutional. The Constitution, however, does not specifically give the Court this right. 

Chief Justice John Marshall, as a Federalist, believed strongly that the Supreme Court should have the power of judicial review. When the Marbury case presented the perfect opportunity to clearly establish that power, Marshall laid out several points which the Court believed supported the right of judicial review. At the time, the decision was viewed as a curtailment of the power of the president, but people today recognize that the case established, once and for all, the importance of the Supreme Court in American government.

★★★★★★  The Supreme Court’s Decision ★★★★★★

Justice Marshall reviewed the case on the basis of three questions: Did Marbury have a right to the commission? If so, was he entitled to some remedy under United States law? Was that remedy a writ from the Supreme Court? Marshall decided the first question by holding that an appointment is effective once a commission has been signed and the U.S. seal affixed, as Marbury’s commission had been. Therefore, Marbury had been legally appointed, and Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission violated Marbury’s right to the appointment. In response to the second question, Marshall held that Marbury was entitled to some remedy under United States law. The final question examined whether the Court had the power to issue the writ. Marshall explained that the right to issue writs like the one Marbury was requesting had been granted the Court by the Judiciary Act of 1789. This law, however, was unconstitutional and void because the Constitution did not grant Congress the right to make such a law. In his written opinion, Marshall defended the right of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is . . . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” The Supreme Court thus became the final judge of constitutionality, thus establishing the principle of judicial review. At the time, observers were much more interested in the practical result of the ruling— that the Court could not issue the writ, and could not, therefore, force the appointment of Marbury. Congress could not expand the Court’s original jurisdiction, and the Constitution does not give the Court the authority to issue a writ. They paid much less attention to the long-term implications of the decision. Here is how a constitutional scholar evaluates the Marbury decision: “Over the passage of time [the] Marbury [decision] came to stand for the monumental principle, so distinctive and dominant a feature of our constitutional system, that the Court may bind the coordinate branches of the national government to its rulings on what is the supreme law of the land. That principle stands out from Marbury like the grin on a Cheshire cat; all else, which preoccupied national attention in 1803, disappeared in our constitutional law.” Not until fifty years after rendering the Marbury decision did the Court again declare a law unconstitutional, but by then the idea of judicial review had become a time-honored principle.

[fidelandrada]

Schenck v. United States, 1919

Wartime Freedom of Speech 

By Fidel Andrada

★★★★ Background of the Case ★★★

The freedom of speech guarantee of the First Amendment was not tested in the Supreme Court for more than 100 years after the adoption of the Constitution, despite the number of federal and state laws that placed limits on free speech during that period. When the United States entered World War I in 1917, the federal government felt that it had to protect itself against efforts to influence people to oppose the war. Therefore, it passed the Espionage Act, which made it a crime to cause or attempt to cause insubordination in the armed forces, obstruct recruitment or enlistment, and otherwise urge, incite, or advocate obstruction or resistance to the war effort. 

Charles Schenck, who was general secretary of the Socialist Party in the United States, carried on a campaign encouraging young men to resist the wartime draft. He mailed thousands of circulars to men who had passed exemption boards and to men who had been drafted. In the circulars he declared that the draft was unconstitutional despotism and urged the men to assert their rights to resist the draft. Further, he claimed that the Thirteenth Amendment, which banned involuntary servitude except as punishment for committing a crime, was violated by the conscription act and that a conscript was little better than a convict. The circular declared, “If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.” He described arguments in favor of the draft as coming from cunning politicians and a mercenary capitalist press. For these actions Schenck was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to obstruct the recruitment of men into the United States’s armed forces. Schenck challenged his conviction on the grounds that his First Amendment rights had been violated. 

★★★★★★ Constitutional Issue ★★★★★★

The Court had to decide whether Schenck had been properly convicted and whether the Espionage Act was constitutional in the light of the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Was such a broad limitation on the right of free speech as the Espionage Act allowed a violation of the First Amendment? Or was the fact that the Espionage Act was designed to protect the nation’s war effort a sufficient enough reason for the Supreme Court to reject Schenck’s First Amendment defense? 

★★★★ The Supreme Court’s Decision ★★★★

The Court ruled unanimously that the Espionage Act was constitutional and affirmed that Schenck was guilty of having violated the act. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote the Court’s opinion. The opinion was based on the idea that the First Amendment guarantees are not absolute and must be considered in the light of the setting in which supposed violations occur. Holmes wrote, “We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” Holmes then enunciated a principle that he felt defined the true scope of the First Amendment as it applied to political expression. “The question in every case,” Holmes wrote, “is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. . . . When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” 

The Schenck case clarified some limitations on free speech and supported the notion that the rights of the people are not absolute but must be balanced with national interests that are judged to be essential. 

DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper. Or take the online Quiz HERE

1. Why was the Espionage Act passed? 

2. Explain the clear and present danger principle that Justice Holmes enunciated in the Schenck decision. 

3. According to Holmes, what factor made Schenck’s actions, which at other times would have been protected by the First Amendment, illegal at the time he performed them? 

4. How far do you think the government should go in trying to protect itself against threats to its policies in times of war? 

5. Eight months after the Schenck decision, the Court again applied the clear and present danger principle. Holmes dissented in that case, stating that unlike the Schenck case, actions of the convicted man in the second case had little or no effect on the nation’s war effort. What do you think this reveals about Holmes’s attitude toward free speech guarantees?

[fidelandrada]

Base Words and Root Words

The English language is made up of many closely related words. In fact, it's possible to build new words from existing words by adding affixes to the beginning and/or end of a base word or root. Base words and roots are slightly different. Exploring the meaning of base word vs. root word will help you understand what these are and how to use them, which will help you improve your vocabulary skills.

Hello, my name is Fidel Andrada.

Many words in the English language have been borrowed from other languages. The origins are usually Latin or Greek. A word can have three parts to it: a root, a prefix and a suffix. A prefix or suffix is a meaningful affix that doesn't function as a word on its own but can be attached to a base word or root.

Prefixes (like pre-, anti- or de-) go at the beginning of a base or root word.

Suffixes (like -tion, -ness and -ment) go at the end of a base or root word.

It's the middle part of a word that holds the most meaning, however. This may be a root or a base word.

The Difference Between Base Words and Root Words

People sometimes use the terms root word and base word as if they mean the same thing, but they are different. Discover the similarities and differences.

Root words come from Latin or Greek. They aren’t actually words that can stand alone in English. They are also referred to as a "word root" or just a "root." For example, aud is a Latin word root that means to hear or to listen.

Aud doesn't mean anything on its own in English — that is, you can't use it as a stand-alone word.

It is the root of common English words like auditorium, audio, audience, and audition, all of which have to do with hearing someone or something.

Understanding root words will help you learn more words in English quickly. As you begin to understand the Greek and Latin roots of common words, you'll notice them in more places, and this will give you a clue to the meaning of an unfamiliar word. Knowing the meaning of a word’s root makes it easier to figure out what the English words that use it mean.

Base words, on the other hand, are always words that can stand alone in English. These words have meaning on their own, but they can also have prefixes and suffixes added to them to make new words. For example, cycle is a full word in English, but it can function as the base of other words when affixes are added.

Cycle is the base word, or the simplest form of the word without any prefixes or suffixes added.

Prefixes can be added to make words like bicycle, tricycle and motorcycle.

Suffixes can be added to make words like cyclist, cyclical or cyclers.

Knowing base words will help you understand new words as well as how prefixes and suffixes can change a word's meaning. Keep in mind, though, that most English words have Greek or Latin roots. The word cycle, for example, is actually based on the root cyc (which means circle).

Base Word vs. Root Word Confusion

When dealing with root and base words, the fact that most English base words actually have a Greek or Latin root can cause things to get a bit tricky. For example, like cycle, the word civil meets the definition of a base word. It is a standalone English word that can stand on its own. However, it does also have a Latin root.

Civil is a base word that describes someone courteous, the rights of ordinary citizens or legal proceedings based on legal matters that are not criminal in nature. This English word can stand alone, and it can also be expanded to create words like civilization, civility and civilian.

Though civil can stand alone as a base word in English, it comes from the Latin root civ (from the Latin word civis), which relates to citizens. You can't use civ on its own in English, but it's still part of the base word civil.

So, civ is the root of civil, which then serves as a base word forming other words.

Civ is also a root for other words that are not connected to the base word civil, including the word civics.

To make sense of what this means, consider the breakdowns of words related to civil (base word) and civ (root).

civil: The root of civil is civ. Civil is a base word.

civilization, civility and civilian: The root of these words is civ. They also have a base word, which is civil.

civics: The root of civics is civ. This word does not have a base word.

A Further Complication: Identical Roots and Bases

Occasionally, a base word in English is the same as a Latin root. For example, act is a standalone word in English, making it a base word. However, act is also a Latin root that comes from the Latin word actum. Prefixes and suffixes can be added onto act in order to make English words like action, reaction and actual. In this case, the root word and base word are the same (act) for each of these terms.

The Importance of Base Words and Root Words

Base words and root words are not the same, even if in a few cases a word can be labeled as both. Review some examples of root and base words to expand your knowledge. Then, practice with roots, bases, prefixes and suffixes. When you see how all the pieces of a word work together, you'll have a greater appreciation for English and how its vast vocabulary came to be.

[fidelandrada]

The id, ego, and superego are names for the three parts of the human personality which are part of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic personality theory. According to Freud, these three parts combine to create the complex behavior of human beings. 

Hello, my name is Fidel Andrada. Let's look at several examples of id, ego, and superego.

[fidelandrada]

Writing a Great Hook

The world is coated in a sea of words… Start with a great hook!

What Is a Hook?

A hook is the line or lines written to lure a reader or listener in and make them want to learn more. It's an introduction that's meant to grab hold of people's attention. In an essay, the hook should fall within the first line or two of the introduction.

In longer works of fiction, such as short stories, novels, plays, and scripts, you can incorporate the hook into the title or write it into one of the opening scenes.

For example, in Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, we read the following line early on: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Thought-provoking, right?

Hello, my name is Fidel Andrada

How to Write a Catchy Opening

Before you can write a great hook, you must have a clear vision of the message you want to convey. Equally important, be sure you understand your audience and keep them in mind throughout the entirety of your written work.

Will this be a formal piece or something more laid back and conversational? That will influence the tone of your hook. Perhaps you'll include a stark statistic for something more formal. Meanwhile, you might want to consider a joke to kick things off in a more conversational tone.

Make sure your hook ties into your thesis statement or main idea. So, if you use a quote or a statistic to shock readers into paying attention, be sure it's directly related to the topic at hand. The same goes for a joke. If you'd like to entice readers with a joke, it must, of course, relate to your thesis.

There are a few options that might serve as a good hook if you feel like you can't come up with a striking statement on your own. It's fine to use a quote, offer a statistic, or pose a question as your hook. Let's take a look at some different options.

Quotes can be a great spark to light the fire. Let's say you're writing an essay about a particular author. Why not offer up one of their most poignant quotes? If you were writing a paper about the legendary Ernest Hemingway, you might want to begin with a quote that demonstrates his strength of character:

There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.

Perhaps you're drafting a persuasive essay. Feature someone prominent in the community you're discussing and use one of their most striking lines as your hook. If you were writing about the benefits of world travel, you might want to incorporate a line or two from a famous travel TV host, like Rick Steves.

Travel is rich with learning opportunities, and the ultimate souvenir is a broader perspective.

Statistics can play a powerful role in hooks, similar to a quote. If you're writing a persuasive essay, consider kicking things off with a striking statistic that will blow readers' minds and encourage them to want to learn more.

You can also use a statistic to disprove a common misconception and then build upon that throughout the rest of your piece. Let's say you are writing a persuasive piece about the perils of alcohol consumption. You might want to begin with a statistic that paints a dire scene:

According to a recent report from the CDC, alcohol poisoning kills six people every day in the United States. That same report also reveals there are over 15 million people currently struggling with alcohol use disorder.

Consider opening up with a thought-provoking question. Steer clear of yes or no questions, because there's nowhere to go from there. You can use a question to open up the minds of your readers and churn the wheels of curiosity.

Let's say you were writing a piece about the different forms of writing. You might want to consider essay writing versus novel writing. This is a great example of a hook, stated clearly in the first line of an essay by Zadie Smith:

Why do novelists write essays? Most publishers would rather have a novel.

A joke can be a great hook for a short story or novel. It will set the tone for the piece and give the readers a sense about the main character. Hopefully, they'll immediately be drawn to him or her. Here's an example of a great hook by Paul Hellman that could open up a short story or novel:

"Every night, 20 new people hate my guts," the big muscular guy said. "On a good night, 30 people." Then he spit. "I could care less."

Depending on the nature of your piece, an anecdote can also be an interesting way to hook readers in. Typically, you want to avoid writing in the first person in an essay, but perhaps you have a story you can relay in the third person to lure readers in.

Wendy is a tried and true New Yorker who's lived there all her life. Yet, even in a city with over 8.5 million people, she's never been able to shake off the dregs of loneliness.

If you're writing a narrative essay, an anecdote is the perfect place to start. It has the power to make you instantly relatable to your readers.

Hooks Grab Attention

Hooks come in many shapes and sizes. That means the door is wide open for you to lure readers in. Whenever you're writing, always keep your audience in mind. This is especially true for the introductory elements, namely the hook and your thesis statement. 

[fidelandrada]

Straw Man Fallcy by Fidel Andrada

[fidelandrada]

by Fidel Andrada

A persuasive essay has one main goal: to persuade the audience of a certain viewpoint. Like a sales pitch, your essay is selling your point of view. Do you have what it takes?

[fidelandrada]

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985

The Right to Search Students 

By Fidel Andrada

★★★★★★★ Background of the Case ★★★★★★

A New Jersey high school teacher discovered a 14-year-old freshman, whom the courts later referred to by her initials, T.L.O., smoking in a school lavatory. Since smoking was a violation of school rules, T.L.O. was taken to the assistant vice-principal’s office. 

When questioned by the assistant vice-principal, T.L.O. denied that she had been smoking. The assistant vice-principal then searched her purse. There he found a pack of cigarettes along with rolling papers commonly used for smoking marijuana. He then searched the purse more thoroughly and found marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags, a large amount of money, an index card listing students who owed T.L.O. money, and “two letters that implicated T.L.O. in marijuana dealing.” 

The assistant vice-principal notified the girl’s mother and turned the evidence of drug dealing over to the police. T.L.O. was charged, as a juvenile, with criminal activity. T.L.O., in turn, claimed the evidence of drug dealing found in her purse could not be used in court as evidence because it had been obtained through an illegal search and seizure. T.L.O.’s attorneys claimed that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. They maintained that the Fourth Amendment requirements for a warrant and probable cause applied to T.L.O. while in high school as a student. After appeals in lower courts, the case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court.

Want to Know More? Click on this Link for the Outcome

https://5f6a28f65b7a5.site123.me/

[fidelandrada]

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

The Rights of the Accused 

By Fidel Andrada

★★★★★★★★ Background of the Case ★★★★★★★★

Ernesto Miranda had been arrested at his home in Phoenix, Arizona, and accused of kidnapping and rape. Questioned at the police station by two police officers, he was not advised of his right to an attorney nor his right to remain silent. After two hours of interrogation, he signed a written confession to the crimes. At his trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. He took his case to the United States Supreme Court. 

★★★★★★★★Constitutional Issue ★★★★★★★★★★

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . .” This right was made part of the Bill of Rights to prevent a tyrannical government from forcing accused persons to confess to crimes they may or may not have committed. Miranda’s case before the Supreme Court was based on this Fifth Amendment protection. The Court accepted the case in order to explore and clarify certain problems arising from earlier decisions related to the rights of individuals taken into police custody. The precise question that the Court explored was under what circumstances an interrogation may take place so that a confession made during the interrogation would be constitutionally admissible in a court of law. 

★★★★★★★ The Supreme Court’s Decision ★★★★★★★★

The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s conviction in a 5 to 4 decision. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion. The Court’s ruling centered on what happens when a person is taken into custody. No statement from the suspect, the Court held, may be used when it stems from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way. 

Warren noted that a suspect under interrogation is subject to great psychological pressures designed “to overbear the will,” and that questioning often takes place in an environment “created for no other purpose than to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner.” In overturning Miranda’s conviction, the Court intended “to combat these pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination. . . .” 

A person in police custody “or otherwise deprived of his freedom...must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires,” Warren stated. 

Once these warnings are given, the individual in custody may choose to stop answering questions, or may halt the interrogation until his attorney is present. Otherwise, he may waive his exercise of these rights. In such a case, there would be “a heavy burden . . . on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to ...counsel.” 

The Miranda ruling applies only to interrogations. The Court emphasized that such safeguards were “not intended to hamper the traditional function of police officers in investigating crime. . . .” The ruling was not meant to bar “general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process. . . .” In addition, the Chief Justice declared, the Fifth Amendment does not bar voluntary statements from a person who, for example, enters a police station “. . . to confess to a crime, or a person who calls the police to offer a confession or any other statement he desires to make.” 

The Miranda ruling has led to the practice now followed routinely by arresting police officers and other law enforcement officials during which they read a suspect his or her Miranda rights. 

★★★★★★★★ Dissenting Opinion ★★★★★★★★★ 

Justices John Marshall Harlan, Tom C. Clark, Potter Stewart, and Byron White dissented. They saw no historical precedent for the majority position and feared the decision could weaken law enforcement. Justice White condemned the majority for creating law enforcement directives he viewed as inflexible, while at the same time leaving many unanswered questions. 

[fidelandrada]

Fidel Andrada