Educational Unit “Cap Edmundo Chiriboga”

International Baccalaureate

Name: Joel Amaguaya.

Course: Pre “BI”

Topic: Essay

Graphic Organizer of Essay

Essay

Parts Definition
It is a written
composition that:
Introduction Body *describes, clarifies,
Conclusion arques, analyzes a
Map of Essay Argument of the Restate the
thours introduction specific topic.

Three
Hook Thesis Stament
Grands the
paragraphs
readers
attention

Grap of Essay
Types of Essays

Descritive Persuasive
essay Narrative Essay Argumentative Comparison and Scientist Essay
Essay Essay Contrast
 Graphic Organizer of Compare and Contrast
Essay

Compare and
Contrast Essay
Parts Definition

Compare similarities and

diferences between two
Conclusion topics, ideas or things
Introduction Body
Restate the
Map of Argument of introduction
Essay the thours
Focus on Focus on
Thesis Hook Three Similarities Differences
Stament paragraphs
Steps Compare Contrast

Decide on two items Make sure they have similar Decide an organizational
you plan to discuss and dissimmilar qualities structure for your essay

Write an introduction with write the main body

interesting hook with thesis
stament
Write a conclusion
paragraphs in
owith a restate of
accordance with the
structure you have the introdution
chosen.

Examples of Comparative Essay:

1.

Nature and Nurture, Then and Now

By Timandra Harkness

‘Oklahoma, 1973’, begins the documentary account of an experiment to teach a baby

chimpanzee human language and thus, in the words of one of the researchers, ‘test the
nature versus nurture hypothesis’. And through today’s eyes, the eyes of film-maker
James Marsh (of Man on Wire fame), much of that experiment seems bizarre if not
downright wrong. Nim’s first surrogate mother, Stephanie Lafarge, takes the baby chimp
into her home like another baby, changing its nappies, dressing it and even breastfeeding
the animal for several months.

The film is a mixture of interviews, archive footage. and reconstruction, and the testimony
of the humans involved is, of course, far more revealing about them than about Nim. Both
Stephanie and her daughter recall how Nim quickly learned to manipulate the dynamics of
the family, playing off the jealousy of Stephanie’s poet husband (who was not consulted
before the baby ape moved in) and defying the authority of the project’s supervisor,
professor Herb Terrace, when he visited.

But while chimps are social animals with a strong sense of power relationships, it is also
clear that Stephanie was playing games of her own. The ostensible purpose of the project
was to teach Nim sign language, but at one point, she says ‘words became the enemy’ in
her relationship with writer husband and linguistic psychologist (and ex-lover) Herb. And
when Herb removes the chimp, and puts Nim in the care of attractive 18-year-old student
Laura-Ann Pettito, the human dynamics continue to overshadow the scientific study of an
ape learning sign language.

Yet the excitement of the researchers is clear. If they can teach a chimpanzee to
communicate, they can find out how it ‘thinks’. They are well aware of how radical an idea
this is, a potential breaking down of the barrier between humans and animals. It is an ideal
that sits well in their hippy era and milieu. Unfortunately for them, a chimpanzee is not a
child. From the start, Nim uses violence to assert himself in social interactions, and as he
grows stronger physically, this makes the ‘chimp as child’ conceit harder and harder to
sustain. The researchers suffer bites that sever arteries and tendons, and one has her
face torn open. Nim uses the sign for ‘sorry’ after these attacks, but they continue.
Eventually, Herb decides to return Nim to the research facility where he was born.

Marsh’s interviews reveal just how emotionally involved the humans became with Nim, but
the story itself is told as a biography of the chimp. So, it is impossible to avoid seeing how
the contradictions of the human attitudes to the ape—treating it like a baby and then like
the dangerous animal it is—added to Nim’s distress. One minute he is a spoilt pet with the
run of a country house, the next he is in a cage with other chimpanzees, a social group he
has never learned to live in. So, while we are invited to empathise with the humans, still
crying all these years later as they recall leaving Nim in his cage, it also implicitly criticises
them for having taught him to live around humans and then thrown him back in with the
other experimental subjects. And yet, the film humanises Nim in our eyes too, so when he
is sold on to a medical research establishment, we identify not with the human scientists
but with the apes.

If this 1970s experiment reveals that era’s confusion about where apes end and humans
begin, the film says much about today’s ambivalent attitudes too. So, it is worth comparing
it to Francois Truffaut’s L’Enfant Sauvage, a 1970 feature film based closely on Dr Jean
Itard’s account of his own experiment 170 years earlier. In 1798, a boy is found in the
woods, apparently without language and completely unsocialised. Dr Itard reads about the
boy and brings him to Paris to be the subject of his own experiment in nature and nurture,
to see whether a child of around 11 can be transformed by education from a near-animal
into a civilised man.

At first, there are many parallels in the behaviour of the boy, whom the doctor names
‘Victor’, and that of Nim. Both show instinctive fear and resistance, bite their captors, and
have to be restrained with a rope from running away. Both learn table manners and to ask
for food and drink. Both—in strikingly parallel scenes—love to be wheeled around at high
speed, Nim in a child’s pushchair and Victor in a wheelbarrow. But there are vital
differences in the two experiments. Dr Itard wants to teach Victor language not to see the
world through the eyes of a boy who survived in the forest for 10 years, but to equip him to
communicate with the wider world and—crucially—to be able to ask for things which are
not in front of his eyes. He is thrilled by Victor’s spontaneous tool making, when the boy
fashions a chalk-holder, but even more thrilled when he shows that Victor has developed a
sense of justice and thus become ‘a moral being’.

This investigation into human nature happened in revolutionary France—supported by a

grant—and aspired to prove that the most savage human being had the potential to be
civilised—that human potential outstrips what initial circumstances endow on us, and that
we are all capable of learning not only the superficial trappings of human society but to be
free, moral agents. Through the prism of 1970, the 1798 experiment looks cruel at times,
but though Dr Itard treats Victor harshly, he sees the fellow human in him. The educator’s
struggle to turn a wild child into a full member of human society, and the implicit faith that
we are all capable, given the right conditions, of thus flourishing, is an echo of
Enlightenment optimism in 20th century France.

By contrast, the Project Nim experiment saw the capacity for language as not uniquely
human. It was based on the idea that nurture alone is responsible for making us human—
that even an ape can have essentially human characteristics if it is reared with
humans.Though the film, with 21st century eyes, is critical of confusing chimpanzee nature
with human nature because of its adverse effects on Nim’s happiness, it does not entirely
reject the basis of the failed experiment. As well as criticising human willingness to treat
animals as experimental subjects, Project Nim draws implicit parallels between Nim’s
behaviour and that of the humans studying him. It takes care not to elevate Nim to human
status, but it does, at times, reduce the humans to primate social groups, with dominant
males and nurturing females. Nim may be ruled by the desire for instant gratification, but
so are the researchers, is the implication.

Both films tell us something about human nature, but they tell us more about how our view
of that nature, and that potential, has changed since 1798 and since 1970. And not for the
better.

(https://academichelp.net/samples/academics/essays/compare-contrast/nature-and-
nurture-then-and-now.html)

2.

Differences between Good and Bad Bosses

Everyone knows how important it is to have favorable conditions at the workplace. Starting
from trivial things such as air conditioners or coolers with fresh water, and ending up with
flexible schedules and good relationships with colleagues—all this, as well as many other
factors, impact employees’ productivity and quality of work. In this regard, one of the most
important factors is the manager, or the boss, who directs the working process. It is not a
secret that bosses are often a category of people difficult to deal with: many of them are
unfairly demanding, tyrannic, prone to shifting their responsibilities to other workers, and
so on. At the same time, there are many bosses who not only manage to maintain their
staff’s productivity at high levels, but also treat them nicely, fairly, with understanding, and
are pleasant to work with. Let us try to figure out the differences between good and bad
managers, or bosses.

There are numerous cases when a boss sees his or her staff as personal attendants. The
scales of this attitude can vary: some bosses may from time to time ask an employee to
bring them a cup of coffee—this is tolerable, and in many cases this can be evaluated as a
friendly favor a coworker would do for another coworker without feeling inferior or
exploited. However, there are managers whose personal demands go far beyond friendly
requests. Highly qualified workers sometimes have to face humiliating demands; for
example, Jennifer (the name is changed)—a finance executive in a big company—had to
dress up like a Japanese woman, because her boss demanded her to do so. Or, another
victim of unfair chief-subordinate relationships, Marisa, had to stay in the office late after
work, because her boss required her to (attention!) trim his ear hair (Everwise).

A “good” boss would obviously not treat his or her subordinates like this. Respecting their
feelings, dignity, and personal space, such a boss would not demand colleagues to do
personal favors, making use of a higher position in a company’s hierarchy. As it has been
mentioned before, asking for a cup of coffee or some other small favor can be tolerable if it
does not harm a worker’s productivity and/or somehow infringes upon their dignity. Such
favors are often made by subordinate employees for each other, and probably cannot be
evaluated as exploitation. Things like those described in the previous paragraph, however,
go far beyond a friendly attitude, and feel more like exploitation.

There are bosses who are typical “emotional vampires.” These people are extremely
difficult to work with, and even though they may possess traits necessary for performing
their duties excellently, their subordinates usually suffer severe stress because of their
bosses’ psychological peculiarities. According to the clinical psychologist Albert Bernstein,
vampires fall under four categories: anti-socials, who pursue excitement in all of its forms;
obsessive-compulsives, who meticulously seek for the slightest flaws in their subordinates’
work and micromanage everything; histrionics, who need other people’s attention, and
narcissists, who believe they are the most spectacular, valuable, and professional
employees in the company (Everwise). Each of these types can be emotionally dangerous
for employees. For example, anti-social bosses may provoke conflicts within the office
environment, and then enjoy the emotional dramas following up; narcissists will criticize
everything and everyone, never satisfied with the work their subordinates do, but never
“stooping low enough” to organize it in such a way that benefits everyone; obsessive-
compulsive bosses can drive employees crazy with trying to handle and regulate every
little detail of the working process—implementing rules for ridiculous things like how sharp
should pencils be, or what angle monitors should be. It does not mean that emotional
vampires do it on purpose: rather often, such traits are subconscious behavioral patterns,
but this still does not make employees’ lives easier.
A “good boss,” on the contrary, does not try to regulate everything, or put himself or herself
on a pedestal. Such a person is supportive, knows the weak and the strong professional
traits of each of his or her subordinates, listens to what staff has to say (and not just
listens, but cares about implementing good ideas), encourages personnel, and cares not
just about the work done but also about the team in general and about each of the team’s
members. “Bad” bosses may be highly competent in the latest theories regarding their field
of work, but it is the skill to manage personnel, to inspire rather than to enforce, which
makes yet another difference between the good and the bad boss (Developing People).
And even though it is important for a manager to care about the tasks his or her team must
accomplish, a good manager will always consider the capabilities and skills of his or her
team, instead of blatantly demanding results without regarding how people in the team
feel.

All this does not mean that a good boss is one who is nice and tender to his or her
subordinates, and a bad boss is one who demands too much, though. In fact, a “good”
boss can possess all the traits of a “bad” one: he or she can criticize, yell, or force people
to do a lot of work within a short period of time, for example. However, it is the sense of
limits that makes the difference. Robert Sutton, a professor of management at Stanford
University, says that: “The best bosses have that ability to sort of turn up the volume, to be
pushy, to get in people’s faces when they need it, maybe to give them some negative
feedback, and to back off when it’s the right time to do that as well. We want people
leading us who are confident, who are competent, who act like they’re in charge, who
make firm decisions, but we don’t want to work for arrogant, pigheaded bastards who can’t
take input. And so what you end up with is sort of this challenge—what great bosses do is
find a way to walk the line between these two things” (Business Insider). In other words,
many of the “nasty” things “bad” bosses do can be done by “good” bosses as well, but a
“good” boss uses such tactics only when it is necessary and knows when to stop being
pushy—unlike “bad” bosses, who know no other manner of management.

The relationships between bosses and their employees greatly affect the productivity and
the quality of work within any company—this is why it is important that these relationships
are, if not friendly, then at least constructive and respectful. Unfortunately, not all
managers know how to treat their personnel well. There are traits that indicate a bad boss
with almost 100% accuracy: such bosses often treat their subordinates as personal
attendants, are demanding, pushy, and offensive for no real reason, or may let their
negative traits of character loose, turning the life of regular employees into psychological
hell (as in the case of emotional vampires). On the contrary, good bosses treat their
subordinates with respect, consider their emotions and professional capabilities, care
about teamwork, try to inspire employees instead of forcing them to do something, and
even when they need to be pushy and harsh, such bosses always know when to stop.

(https://academichelp.net/samples/academics/essays/compare-contrast/nature-and-
nurture-then-and-now.html)