i think my hand writing is OK,it is legible and my writing style is neither flowery nor very simple.
from the previous posts what i gather is that an essay should be of more than 2000 words, the content of the essay matters a lot and one's writing style should be simple to an extent that even an eight grader could comprehend what the essay is about.

Funny thing is, a PhD student from Columbia University (USA with 14th rank in the world) could not pass it, I wonder if Columbia knows how to train people in doing research. Similarly, quite a few people who wrote for leading English newspapers of Pakistan could not make it.

Another funny thing is, English Paper 2 is related with grammar, so how come people are passing with good marks in paper 2 but not in essay.

My dear friend first thing *This is not USA* .
How can this even possible that my brother who has got 79 in English composition but only able to have 30 marks in Essay ?
Same because he never used the research technique in it.
People are not following the clear cut given godliness.
I met a guy who was cursing FPSC for giving him F grade in Essay. As he passed in composition. When I asked him how had he written his essay ? He told me all the things necessary for a good essay but he said that he didn't write *Outline*.

Technology makes a man stolid
Introduction; Technology revolutionized the life of man; it awarded life with abundance and ease; increasing wealth resulted in increased competition and led the world towards instability.
1. Abundance and ease offered by technology; progressive technology blesses agriculture with a variety of food; the possessions of daily use are easily found in a great quantity and vast variety; life is as easy as it had never been before; increased products result in favorably low prices and ensures availability to majority of people; dip in level of poverty; the more the abundance, the more the physical needs are satisfied.
2. Tamed fears of destitution and fatal diseases and the avarice
3. Prevailing commercialism promotes instability.
4. Augmented materialism deprives the man of spontaneity.
5. Leading Cause of Materialism ‘the satisfaction of vanity’
6. Nature is subdued, but the man has been enslaved.
7. Understanding human nature can bring more happiness than the understanding of science and nature.



Technology revolutionized the world; the bigger the machines were invented, the easier the work became, and it multiplied the physical comfort. Relief from arduous manual tasks provided men an opportunity to multiply his activities to enrich its civilization; the time to work on literature, art, peace, and harmony among nations, increased many folds. Ease did not remain limited to increased leisure but men were also provided with a variety of colorful dresses, luxurious furniture, plush cars, and abundant foods. The access became easy to the leisure, earlier provided to the high class only. It was not before the high commercialism and cut throat competition for material gains that the debate on banes of technology started. The higher the technology went in providing commodities and ease, the farther the men went off his virtues for attaining high status and comfort provided by technology. Improved living standard, promised by technology, was offered in return of money paid to producers, this increased the value of material wealth and also the competition for more and more material gains. Men became busy while being indifferent to the pains and pleasures of society; increased amount of work left no time for the enrichment of the civilization and consequently the society became unstable.

The feeling that technology has made the man oblivious to the pains of others may hold much water, but its services for making man’s life easier cannot be refuted. Before the industrial revolution men’s problems were physical; hunger, starvation, disease and higher mortality rates. Improved technology provided tools to fight all these substantial problems. Life was provided with abundance and ease; the agricultural field revolutionized to produce more crops and variety of foods. Life became as easy as it had been never before; markets were flooded with cheap commodities of daily use and were easily available to all the people of society. The hard manual labor reduced and the production of goods and foods increased. Increased availability of substantial products ensured their access, on favorable prices, to the common man. This development transformed the hunger and famine -stricken world to a world of ease and comfort.
The consistent fears of being marginalized by natural forces of destitute diminished. Man became powerful enough to defeat the diseases that had been killing him before the revolution of technology. With the man’s control over physical threats to its existence, came a new problem, a problem of emotional needs. The opponents of the race of technology projected its rise as a threat to the humane nature of man; man himself becomes, with the excessive use of machines, emotionless. Unending activity for more progress and wealth makes a man greedy, and he becomes insensitive to the harms he causes to others for his benefit. Consequently, a man himself, who is distinguished from other animal for his emotions, becomes unconscious of the pains and happiness of society. Man’s this feature makes the world of technology a difficult place to live in. The world of technology has been providing an ambiance of competition, a competition in which the strong considers himself right in crushing others for his gains. This plight of man by his stronger fellows made people think the role of technology in making people insensitivity.
The technological improvement gave rise to the feelings of subjugation, subjugation of nature and other people. Consequently, a selfish society emerges with a passion of getting control over others. This passion forces humans to use their technological advancements for killing, plundering and suppressing millions of resourceless people. Rising egocentrism and desire for more material gains, besides making humans selfish, produces an unhappy and unstable society. Therefore, a society with all the leisure, comfort and ease deprives itself of peace, tranquility and harmony. Thus, deprivation of humane emotions and harmony in society makes peaceful coexistence of humanity impossible. On one hand technological advancements made the life easier, and on the other hand they made world a place unsafe for love, peace and progressive development of human mind and nature.
Progressive development of mind and nature relieves the man of the emotions of haste, anxiety and lust, but the demand for more industrial development leaves no time for cultivation of human nature. Increased development demands an unending work, and consequently mental dissatisfaction prevails. Consistent activity in the society makes a man mechanized; he rejects the nature’s call for mental rest and break. The emotional needs of nurturance of one’s inner self are ignored by the society, involved in never ending work. The virtues of work are preached in a way that the emotions, natural feelings and heart contentment drop on the back foot. Man becomes regular like a machine; this regularity deprives men of spontaneity. Augmented commercialism and materialism turn man into a machine, a machine indifferent to and unaware of the feelings of others.
Improved technology and commercialism have made the life easier. People have achieved all the necessary resources to meet their substantial needs. However, there still exists a surge of the notion of work, work and work. There may arise a question that while many people have been living below the poverty line then how can the point of satisfaction be justified. The facts testify that the deprived people are not as actively involved in the race of work and materialism as the people who have enough to live on. Notion of materialism has been followed by a man already blessed with enough resources to be pleased with. Consequently, a man can live a happy life with already existing resources, then what makes a man neurotic for work and indifferent to others? The answer is technology has transformed the world into a competitive field. Everyone has been involved in competition to out distance others; this is a race to obtain the best of the best. The one, who has more, is more respectable. People strive hard to increase their wealth and comfort from others; in turn others also try to accomplish more. Thus, the satisfaction of vanity gives birth to the unending race of materialism, which results in the death of emotions.

A generation, lacking in emotions, substantiates the cause against rising technology. Technology, on one the hand serves the men to subdue the natural difficulties in his life, but on the other hand, it enslaves people. It makes people think that their life is dependent on machines. High dependency on machines makes machines a master, and the man begins living a life mechanistic in nature and devoid of sensitivity and feelings. Consequently, machines dictate the life of people; the more powerful machines a nation have, the more the quest of the nation to crush others. Thus, rising mastery of machines generates a need for their use; the unremitting wars in the world and the use of lethal weapons can be heavily attributed to the rise of technology. One may argue that the wars were also fought in the pre-technology era, it is true, wars were fought, but they had not been as much bloody and dreadful as they are today. Technology has enslaved the nature of man; the emotions, feelings and desires of man are largely controlled and conducted by machines.

Technology became the master because it made the man’s life easier and comfortable; the success of technology is greatly accredited to its quality of understanding the nature of science, developments in the field of science and man’s physical needs. This is a tested fact that technology made the life satisfied in terms of physical need, but the mental and emotional needs became vulnerable to the changes made by technology in the society. On one side, man’s need of security was satisfied, but on the other side, man was provided with harmful equipment to satisfy his instinct of harming others. Thus, the man’s physical satisfaction did not prove sufficient in making life a happy place to live in; instead it made the man an emotionless creature. Therefore, the life on earth demands the understanding of human nature; it will make technology capable of satisfying the emotional as well as physical needs of the society.
Conclusion
Please evaluate and criticize all the weak areas; every type of constructive criticism is welcomed. it does not have a comprhensive outline, as i didnot have time, but plz plz evaluate it. i want to know your valuable views about my writing style, ideas etc.i hope my request would be entertained.

Don't you think this is the wrong thread Waqar?

sorry! aik admi but honestly speaking i did not c life in any other threads. no response all time.anyhow, i apologise, in past, i haven't used this forum. so, im not conversan with its protocols.

tell me the right thread also please

Never mind. Let's see if you get a response. If you don't, we'll discuss it anyway. But there are more experienced members here...

I wrote an essay on " When life throws you lemons, make lemonade" of 12 pages and passed Alhumdulilah. I believe it's how effectively you deliver your thoughts while avoiding complexity.One more thing I went straight to the point and then discussed a holistic view but only surrounding one narrative that was the meaning of this proverb. my strategy was 1: situation 2: complication 3: raising questions 4: remedial measures or conclusion.

Could you share your outline please?

Nice essay Waqar. But be clear about your thesis statement. You do well to put forth the uses and positive effects of technology before returning to defend your real thesis; that technology has made man stolid. But keep it structured.

First, give your intro
Second, forward arguments in favour of technology
Third, defend your thesis
Fourth, conclude by substantiating your thesis

You Have actually done this but sometimes you tend to intermingle pro and anti arguments. This would irk the examiner.