[QUOTE=iFarazAhmed;722704]However the topic was: Great Nations Win WithOut Fighting; so it is not mandatory to support such arguments that "If they (Great Nations) fight they must win."
I guess the objective of this essay was "Great Nations" other portion of topic - Win WithOut Fighting - was merely added to examine one's analytical approach.
I think they are already Great whether they fight or not; they are already winners.
Please comment if I'm wrong.
This is my personal opinion, I'm just beginner and eager to appear at least after 2 years![/QUOTE]

Thank you for posting your query. Topic was "Great Nations win without fighting". Keywords in this were Great nations, winning, and fighting. So according to the demand of the essay, you have to stick in your writings to these keywords. I hope you understand it now. Yes the essay required analytical approach, but the analysis should circulate around the keywords.
Seniors could also comment on this.

[QUOTE=iFarazAhmed;722704]However the topic was: Great Nations Win WithOut Fighting; so it is not mandatory to support such arguments that "If they (Great Nations) fight they must win."
I guess the objective of this essay was "Great Nations" other portion of topic - Win WithOut Fighting - was merely added to examine one's analytical approach.
I think they are already Great whether they fight or not; they are already winners.
Please comment if I'm wrong.
This is my personal opinion, I'm just beginner and eager to appear at least after 2 years![/QUOTE]

It wasn't merely added. It is actually the topic. Great Nations win without fighting. Now you can take a position either for it or against it and proceed with your essay. You can also take a middle ground. Now 'winning' and 'fighting' and 'Great' are vague terms. You have to define them. What's a win? Economical, technological, scientific, geo-political, militaristic win?? And what's a 'fight'? A brawl in the club? A battle? A war or just any struggle?

If we interpret fight as struggle, then the only arguments that are strong go against the topic. No Nation becomes great without striving for it. And what is a great nation? What parameters are needed to gauge greatness? It must have a big economy, its economic indicators should be high enough, standard of living should be above the world average. Finland fits the profile. But how about geo-political influence? A say in the world affairs? For that you need Armies, technology, alliances etc. then the United States comes to mind. How did it become a great nation then? After winning the second world war, and then the cold war. So economic, scientific, technological, militaristic struggle or fight is necessary for a nation to become Great.

Are you writing a book?

[QUOTE=LSJan;723312]Are you writing a book?[/QUOTE]

No. It's just an essay I wrote for my exam

Great Nations win without fighting.......
 

kindly evaluate my outline.........kindly seniors give me marks out of 10 for my outline and your valuable suggestions.
Introductions:
Topic Defined
General Remarks
What makes Great Nations great:
Political Stability
Sound economics Policies
Accountability and Justice
Technological Advancement
Social Maturity
military Power
Fighting .......Does not mean Violence rather it means competition.
Competition of Economy
Competition of Military
Competition of Scientific innovations
Competition of Diplomacy
Great Nations wins without bloodshed
Economic monopoly
Diplomacy ......victory without wars.
Technological advancement.....long term victory over world
Political Stability.........Leadership of the world
Huge Military........threatens rising revolt against their supremacy.
An overview of few great Nations of 21st century.
Americans.........lead the world
Chinese..........Economic Big Wigs.
Germans........heirs of Romans
Japanese.......worshippers of rising sun.
Can Pakistan be ranked among great nations
Conclusion:

[QUOTE=Matee ur Rehman;726469]kindly evaluate my outline.........kindly seniors give me marks out of 10 for my outline and your valuable suggestions.
Introductions:
Topic Defined
General Remarks
What makes Great Nations great:
Political Stability
Sound economics Policies
Accountability and Justice
Technological Advancement
Social Maturity
military Power
Fighting .......Does not mean Violence rather it means competition.
Competition of Economy
Competition of Military
Competition of Scientific innovations
Competition of Diplomacy
Great Nations wins without bloodshed
Economic monopoly
Diplomacy ......victory without wars.
Technological advancement.....long term victory over world
Political Stability.........Leadership of the world
Huge Military........threatens rising revolt against their supremacy.
An overview of few great Nations of 21st century.
Americans.........lead the world
Chinese..........Economic Big Wigs.
Germans........heirs of Romans
Japanese.......worshippers of rising sun.
Can Pakistan be ranked among great nations
Conclusion:[/QUOTE]

Did you write this in exam or wrote this after reading the thread?

Wow. If i have come across the best outline for this essay, its this one. When i looked at the topic for the first time, I sketched an imaginary outline almost same as yours.

Most aspirants didnt consider the other side of the topic - Great nations DO engage in fight/wars if its a requirement of the time.

Plus the fight against evils that you mentioned - Though most people elaborated the Nation versus Nation fight, the perspective - that a nation has to fight against many things internally too to become great- is a desperate requirement to score in the 50's or 60's band.

:clap :clap

[QUOTE=Matee ur Rehman;726469]kindly evaluate my outline.........kindly seniors give me marks out of 10 for my outline and your valuable suggestions.
Introductions:
Topic Defined
General Remarks
[B]What makes Great Nations great:
Political Stability
Sound economics Policies
Accountability and Justice
Technological Advancement
Social Maturity
military Power [/B]
Fighting .......Does not mean Violence rather it means competition.
Competition of Economy
Competition of Military
Competition of Scientific innovations
Competition of Diplomacy
Great Nations wins without bloodshed
Economic monopoly
Diplomacy ......victory without wars.
Technological advancement.....long term victory over world
Political Stability.........Leadership of the world
Huge Military........threatens rising revolt against their supremacy.
An overview of few great Nations of 21st century.
Americans.........lead the world
Chinese..........Economic Big Wigs.
Germans........heirs of Romans
Japanese.......worshippers of rising sun.
Can Pakistan be ranked among great nations
Conclusion:[/QUOTE]

I like the following point,

What makes Great Nations great:
Political Stability
Sound economics Policies
Accountability and Justice
Technological Advancement
Social Maturity
military Power

One of my dictionaries defines fighting as:
<--- Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English --->
fighting
n [uncountable] when people or groups fight each other in a war, in the street etc
fighting between
--- heavy fighting between government and rebel forces
--- Fighting broke out in the crowds.
Now, what I mean to say is: You can take the topic in either way, against the topic or in favour of the topic. But, if your stance is against the topic then your argumentation should be very strong to convince the examiner that ''Great nations win by fighting/struggling''. Moreover, for perception in either way, you must throw some light in the very start that how do you perceive the topic. Like, you should define the topic, the keywords I mean, according to your own perception. This thing will make your essay confusion-free even for the common man who would read your essay. Consequently, making things simple an easy and hitting the target(Topic of essay) result in getting good marks.
Anyone can differ in opinion. :)

[QUOTE=The Shah Ends;727147]One of my dictionaries defines fighting as:
<--- Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English --->
fighting
n [uncountable] when people or groups fight each other in a war, in the street etc
fighting between
--- heavy fighting between government and rebel forces
--- Fighting broke out in the crowds.
Now, what I mean to say is: You can take the topic in either way, against the topic or in favour of the topic. But, if your stance is against the topic then your argumentation should be very strong to convince the examiner that ''Great nations win by fighting/struggling''. Moreover, for perception in either way, you must throw some light in the very start that how do you perceive the topic. Like, you should define the topic, the keywords I mean, according to your own perception. This thing will make your essay confusion-free even for the common man who would read your essay. Consequently, making things simple an easy and hitting the target(Topic of essay) result in getting good marks.
Anyone can differ in opinion. :)[/QUOTE]

An essay is not merely expansion. You can go against the topic. Even going for the topic requires strong and convincing argumentation. There isn't such criteria that going for the topic will be easier and fetch more marks than going against the topic. In every essay you have to define keywords according to your own perception because the keywords given are often vague or ambiguous. For example, according to the Google dictionary the word 'fight' means to take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons, engage in a war or battle; quarrel or argue; struggle to overcome, eliminate, or prevent; strive to achieve or do something; to endeavour vigorously to win (an election or other contest) etc.