Universidad del Norte – Depto.

de Lenguas 4920- ____

Extranjeras
2018.10
INGLES CONTENIDO 1 (Level 7)

Writing Assessment :Compare & Contrast Essay

DATE:___/___/___
Name: Camila Andrea Montilla Trespalacios
CLASS: _16_

Option # ___
1. The risk of intervening in another country's affairs VERSUS The risk of allowing a problem to escalate
within a country.
2. The risks of arguing about politics vs the risks of not standing up for your beliefs.
3. The risks of constructing more Buildings in Barranquilla VERSUS The risks of restricting progress and
modernization in Barranquilla.
4. The risk of producing trendy material (art, films, products) VERSUS The risks of producing unfamiliar items.

Compare and Contrast Diagram

RISKY SITUATION 1: Intervening in RISKY SITUATION 2: Allowing a
another country's affairs …versus… problem to escalate within a country

Differences

With regard to

(C/C* points)

The countries that want interfere might not The people who lead the could
understand and respect the differences restructuring the political system and
laws and political system that this other Political laws.
country has.

A big part of the population of the country The people can not decide how they
may be migrate to another countries want to live because the government
because their do not trust in the restitution Social oppresses them.
of their country.

The countries that are involucrate could The people that control the army will not
lose a part of his armies and this might want to lose the power and this can
affect their population and their defenses. Military generate more dead in the country.

The country do not have the resources to The country needs import and export
help reorganize and rebuild their society. products to sustain the economy of the

1
 Economic country.

Similarities
• The country that has the problem needs find a • Before and after the problem, the people in the
solution no matter how. country lives in a terrible conditions.

• •

• •

BLOCK STYLE OUTLINE: Compare & Contrast Two Risky Situations

Introductory Paragraph with Thesis
A. Hook
“The issues and preoccupations of the 21st century present new and often fundamentally different
types of challenges. As new realities and challenges have emerged, so too have new expectations for
action and new standards of conduct in national and international affairs.” (Evans & Sahnoun, 2001)
B. Connecting information
“The current debate takes place in the context of a broadly expanded range of state, non-state, and
institutional actors, and increasingly evident interaction and interdependence among them. This reflects
new sets of issues and new types of concerns. Also it is a debate that is being conducted within the
framework of new standards of conduct for states and individuals, and in a context of greatly increased
expectations for action.”(Evans & Sahnoun, 2001)
It is important foreground that “forcible action by states to prevent or to end gross violations of human
rights on behalf of people other than their own nationals, through the use of armed force without the
consent of the target government and with or without UN authorisation.” (Kardaş, 2001)
C. Thesis statement
If a country has a political and military problems, it could be a suitable option that other countries
interfere in the problem or is more advantageous let them solve their own problems.
Body Paragraph 1 -RISKY SITUATION 1: Intervening in another country's affairs
A. Topic Sentence

B. Social
A big part of the population maybe migrate to another countries because their do not trust in the
restitution of their country.
“Large refugee populations can foster instability if the refugees attempt to fight their way home or fall
into conflict with local populations.” (Valentino, 2011)
C. Military
The countries that are involucrate could lose a part of his armies and this might affect their population
and their defenses.
“States should re examine various aspects of unilateral military operations, particularly in relation to the
use of force for humanitarian purposes, because these acts have always been especially controversial”
(Krylov, 1995)
D. Political
The countries that want interfere might not understand and respect the differences laws and political
system that this other country has.

2
 “It is meaningful that such an is generally carried out in cases of gross violations caused by the state
itself or the state's collapse, in which case there is no potent authority.” (Kardaş, 2001)
Body Paragraph 2 -RISKY SITUATION 2: Allowing a problem to escalate within a country
A. Topic Sentence

B. Social
The people can not decide how they want to live because the government oppresses them.
“Thus, the correlation between international prerogatives and the realm of inter-state regulation is
changing. Numerous problems have left the bounds of domestic jurisdiction to become world
community problems.” (Krylov, 1995)
C. Military
The people that control the army will not want to lose the power and this can generate more dead in the
country.
“Political will involves to provide appropriately resourced military forces with the legal mandate to
enable them to protect.” (Massingham, 2009)
D. Political
The people who lead the could restructuring the political system and laws.
Concluding Paragraph
A. Restated Thesis
Depending the situation that some country might experiment, they could resolved the problems using
one of this solutions.
B. Final thoughts/suggestions/ideas
To conclude, it is highlight that in this two options the country that has the problem needs find a solution
no matter how. Also, it is essential take into account that before and after the problem, the people in the
country lives in a terrible conditions.

*C/C = Compare and Contrast

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Şaban Kardaş. (2001). Humanitarian intervention: the evolution of the idea and
practice. Journal of international affairs, 6(2), . Retrieved from http://sam.gov.tr/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/SabanKardas2.pdf
Nikolai Krylov. (1995). Humanitarian Intervention: Pros and Cons. Loyola Marymount
University and Loyola Law School, 2(1), 365-407 . Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=ilr
Gareth Evans & Mohamed Sahnoun. (2001). The Responsibility To Protect. Retrieved from
http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf
Benjamin A. Valentino. (2011). The True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention. Foreign
Affairs, 90(6), 60-73. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/charli/docs/ValentinoFA.pdf
Eve Massingham. (2009). Military intervention for humanitarian purposes: does the
Responsibility to Protect doctrine advance the legality of the use of force for humanitarian ends?.
International Humanitarian Law, 91(876), 803-831. Retrieved from
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-876-massingham.pdf