Hi Urooj ,
You are doing a great job for the forum members.

I also need your guidance regarding the explanation ,plz comment on my paragrph as well.

Charms strike the sight but Merit wins souls.

In this world of fantasy ,one comes up with many allures of the world and finds it difficult to escape from them. The dazzling lights of this material world can easily trap the people .So it is very likely that men get themselves caught up in illusions around them because it needs a saintliness to control one's desires.

As competition is growing fast in the corporate world of today, ephasis is being given on the presentation of the things to increase their market value.Everything is being presented with attractive looks and wraps to increase the sale but it does not make sure the durability of a thing.Nothing can influence an acute beholder unless the thing has some merits.

In the same way ,no youth can get a reasonable job on the basis of a charming personality ,unless he possesses the relevant skill and knowledge for the desired post.One cannot inspire the employer by mere glibness.

When we peep into the history ,find that how the truth of Abdul Qadir Gillani won the hearts of the dacoits and turned them into pious people .His single moral act brought salvation for the whole caravan.

Today,artificiality is taking place of originality and is being considered the key of success .But one should always remember that artificial flowers can never smell like true roses though they attract the eyes.As someone has rightly said, that most beautiful things in the world are most useless.

Charms strikes the sight but merits win the soul

Charms are meant to catch the interest of human eye. Human eye can rarely escape the beauty and attractiveness what it sees. However, this does not necessarily mean everything attractive would be meritorious as well. And it is the inherent qualitative merit which appeals human soul, rather than mere attractiveness.

The above mentioned fact is very significant as it draws line between the real and obvious. It employs the separation of character from personality; character being the inner inherent core habits while personality being the outward instant expressions. But many amongst us are not able to demarcate the difference between the charming and the meritorious. Consequently, they are fooled by those who employ charm to deceive. Hitler deceived masses through the charms of fascism, and so did Napoleon. Many commercial entities employ advertising to deceive masses through portraying charming packaging. But as the saying, ‘you can fool some of the people for all the time, and all the people for some the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time’ goes, charms are only meant to attract eye, not soul.

Thus, outwardly charms are of no use, until it is accompanied by the real essence – the merit in it because reality is revealed at last.

Good job Jageen!

Please note the following points and feel the difference:

1. Make only three paragraphs in expansion. First, introduction. Then Expansion followed by the Conclusion. Also follow the word limit.

2. At the end of the expansion on the extreme write give the word count as:
3. Try to write in Active Voice as much as possible.

4. Little care in grammar would give you better result. I'll try to come up with some good and easy rules for good grammar as well. I am pointing out few things that you could put in better fashion. They are not all but some:

Changes:
Comes up = Comes across (Line 1)
needs a saintliness = takes abnigation (self-sacrifice) (Line 3)
is wrapped* (Line 5)
make sure= ensure (Line 6)

Do not use first person. When you say....we peep in history. It would be better to avoid WE. If you use the person, use third person. E.g. One peep in history or change the phrase.

I hope it makes some positive difference.
All the best.
Regards.

Thank you so much Urooj for this detailed analysis .You have not only highlighted my mistakes but have corrected them too.

You have advised to make just three paragraphs but as in my case ,I have presented three examples ,so should I put them in a single paragraph?

Your work is good. I add few points here, please have a look at them.

1. I suggest that you use IT instead of THIS in Line 2.

2. Do not begin your sentences with 'but' & 'and' unnecessarily. Omitt 'but' from line 3.

3. You tried good examples but somehow they are not that relevant. Reason, for Hitler and His Nation Fascism was not that much charming as it was the way out; atleast to them. Secondly, Napoleon was a French hero. He has many things to his credit; not just charm. But if you replace Napoleon with the French Monarch; the Bourbons then the example becomes more relevant. As Bourbons had charms but not real merit. I have got another suggestion for somewhat general example from real life. Take SHOES; they might be pretty that is to say charming but not comfortable at all. See there is no merit in them. Contrary to this, some very ugly looking shoes may put feet to such an ease that they win the soul.

4. About sentences. I also am addicted to long sentences! You may try to cut them short. For example:Line 2, Paragraph 3. Give a break after personality and start a new sentence from Character.

I hope you gain something better out of this. I am not a master myself

I found your feedback very much to the point, in fact self evident, I just needed somebody to point towards them...thanks again

Looking forward

Yes Nageen you may write all three examples in single paragraph of expansion. You see your expansion would work as something like up-hill motion (Introduction), reaching top (Expansion) and down-hill motion conclusion. Do practice more and put up your work here. I'll try to come up with something useful by Tuesday. Also if you want something on Essays do visit: Let us catch up on Essay Writing. All the best to you.
Regards.

Hi everyone,

I didn't see any more practice on Expansion. So write something Post some titles too I will try to expand them.

I'm sorry for a late response.Actually ,exams are near that's why no active participation.
But thanks to you for volunteering your services.

Plz, expand these topics.

"War can bring peace."
"Mere absence of war is not peace."

I've written on War can bring peace. It is somewhat related to Mere absence of war is not peace. You can change it in some aspects to write about one thing or other.

Here it is:

War Can Bring Peace

The idea that war can bring peace is as disturbing as the failure in realization of peace. Giving war excuses to rule is a thought provoking stance that needs to be reconsidered. Only point that war brings clarity about is the need of peace and nothing else. Peaceful means can very well be incorporated to flourish peace itself. It might not be wrong to claim that peace begets peace.

Peace and tranquility are amongst the most valued ideals of human existence. The pursuit of peace through massive warfare and slaughter of human lives is nothing to be appreciated and preached. The argument put forth here is: What is the insurance of peace after any war? The two World Wars didn’t ensure eternal peace. Atomic upheaval on Hiroshima didn’t leave many to live peacefully hence forth. Unfortunately, small phases of peace ensured by treaties after wars serve as breathing time to build up more war fare for future. Wars may play the only role of highlighting the importance and necessity of peace. At present volatile situation of world affairs when struggle is made to preserve peace one will only be a fool to consent to war. Wars might be initiated but they can never be concluded according to one’s will. The idea that war can bring peace stands as obsolete today where the nature of any clash will be only massive as well as globally destructive. Who would dare vote for another World War? Does anyone volunteer?

In short, one may consider that war can bring peace. However, it is mere speculation. There exists no rationale in professing and advocating something as unpredictable as war. There are multiple avenues for projecting peace. Why say no to white flag? Why not dialogue and bring about consensus for peace?