The grade on your work is a Projected Grade. It is not your final mark, but an assessment of the skills you have demonstrated. It estimates the score you could achieve in a full-length essay if you applied these same skills consistently throughout. The feedback is designed to help you develop these skills further.
This shows an argument FOR the statement.
This shows an argument AGAINST the statement.
This shows your Conclusion or overall Judgement.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
The question of whether rights should be conditional on responsibilities is a fundamental debate about the nature of justice.This opening sentence shows a strong understanding of the topic and uses sophisticated vocabulary. On one hand, it can be argued that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin.This is a clear topic sentence for the 'for' argument. The right to live in a safe society, for example, depends on every citizen fulfilling their responsibility not to harm others.This uses a specific example to make a clear point. Therefore, when a person commits a serious crime like murder, they have broken this social contract. In this view, taking away their right to liberty by sending them to prison is a logical and just consequence needed to protect society.This explains the reasoning behind the point, making the argument well-developed. On the other hand, the principle of universal human rights suggests that rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, regardless of a person's actions.This is a clear topic sentence introducing the counter-argument. This is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states that all people are born free and equal.This uses specific evidence (the UDHR) to support the point, adding authority. From this perspective, even a criminal retains their fundamental rights, such as the right not to be tortured. To deny this would be to suggest that some people are less human than others, which is a dangerous path that could lead to abuse of power.This explains the negative consequences of the opposing view, which is a high-level skill. In conclusion, while it is necessary to remove certain rights like liberty as a punishment for serious crimes, I believe that fundamental human rights must always remain protected.This conclusion is nuanced. It doesn't just agree or disagree but offers a sophisticated middle-ground. A just society is not defined by how it treats its best citizens, but by how it treats its worst. Stripping people of their basic human dignity, no matter their actions, is a form of cruelty that ultimately harms society as a whole.This final sentence provides a powerful, philosophical justification for the conclusion.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
On one hand, some people may agree with this statement because they are not accepting what they are given eventhough instead of leaving that that person is not fulfilling their responsibility.This is a clear point for the 'agree' side, suggesting rights are a gift that can be disrespected. On the other hand, some people may disagree with this because Human Rights save peoples lives. It allows them to be free and so they can do many things.Good - a clear counter-argument explaining why rights are so important. In the UDHR, there are many rules that protect us and keep us away from danger. But the last one, the 30th Human Right protects us from anyone which is No one can take away your Human Rights.Excellent! Citing a specific article of the UDHR is a high-level skill that makes your argument very strong. To conclude this I think that I agree because it isn't fair for people who need its.This conclusion is very confusing. It says you agree, but your strongest paragraph was the 'disagree' one, and the reason given here is unclear.
Your conclusion should reflect your strongest argument. Based on your excellent 'disagree' paragraph, a much better conclusion would be:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement.This makes a clear judgement that matches your best point. Although people should be responsible, the principle in Article 30 of the UDHR is the most important idea. It states that "no one can take away your human rights," which is a rule to keep everyone safe.This summarises your strongest argument and evidence. Therefore, rights must be protected for all people.This provides a powerful final thought.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
"Some people may strongly agree with this statment because some people do Bad things so they should lose their rights.A clear, simple point for the 'agree' side. Evidence: if a mum gives birth and the baby get abused many times so that means they lose their rights.This is a very powerful and specific example to support your point. "However some may strongly disagree with this statment because human rights are there to proctect us.Good - a clear counter-argument. "To conclude, I personally believe that everyone should have human right because that persoa could get killed that day or spreed a viruse to everyone and the govement can't do anything about it.This is a good conclusion that explains the dangerous consequences of a world without rights.
Planning your essay in paragraphs is the most important step. Here is how you could structure your ideas:
For Paragraph: Some people agree that people who do bad things should lose their rights. For example, if a mother abuses her child, she has failed her responsibilities and should lose her right to freedom by being sent to prison.
Against Paragraph: However, I disagree, because human rights are there to protect everyone. Even a criminal in prison has the right not to be tortured. This right protects them from cruel punishment.
Conclusion: In conclusion, I believe everyone must have rights because without them, as you said, people could be killed or a virus could spread, and nobody would be safe.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement, where it says that their rights will be taken if they can't do the right things because if there is a lot of bad things going on and the person keeps doing the same thing over and over again.This is a clear explanation of the 'for' argument, focusing on repeat offenders. However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because even if people do the worst things they still should have rights because it's not fair or equal and everyone should have a second try/chance to fix up their behaviour.Good - a clear counter-argument based on the principles of fairness and second chances. To conclude, I believe that no one should ever have to go through a life with no right or oppotunities to experience because it is unfair and cruel. And everyone has Rights for a reason so it should stay with them unless they repeatedly do something extremly horrible.This is an excellent, nuanced conclusion. It shows you are thinking about the severity of the action, which is a high-level skill.
Your conclusion is great because it's nuanced. You can apply this same thinking to your main paragraphs. For example:
On one hand, I disagree that rights should be taken away for minor issues.This makes your point clearer. For example, if a person is frequently late for work, they should face consequences like a warning, but they should not lose their fundamental human rights. Everyone deserves a second chance to fix their behaviour for smaller mistakes.This uses a specific example to explain your point about second chances.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because back then there was not human right people was kill and people had no expression.This is a good point, but it seems to support the 'disagree' side. A world without rights was a bad thing, so we should keep them. one i tame is king said that slave was free to go and they got to chose there regien but in France and Europe was fight and that time England had a war with Germany and Hiter was kill lot's of Jewish people.This is a lot of historical information, but it is not clearly linked to the question about rights and responsibilities. However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because people still need right's. Everyone need human right and no one should take them away.A clear, simple point for the 'disagree' side. To conclude, I personally belive that huhman is inpot and people have the right to live have a job have a family.A good conclusion that lists some important human rights.
Your point about a time before human rights is a good one. You could use it to build a strong 'disagree' paragraph like this:
I disagree with the statement because a world without rights is a dangerous place.This is a strong topic sentence. For example, as you said, in the past before human rights were established, people were killed and enslaved, like the Jewish people during the war with Hitler.This uses your historical knowledge as a powerful example. This shows that human rights are essential to protect people from cruelty. Therefore, they should not be taken away, because that would risk a return to that dangerous past.This explains what the example proves.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
1) los derechos humanos casi son la cunda el gobierno les puse derechos humanos para que todo este bajo control. 2) por que esa persona talves no lo sabia y la iso por que no tenia carnane. 3) por que el gobierno crea los derechos asi que si no prodria por el perderia sus derechos. 4) apeno que por las derecha tadas es to mas asladbu si no tubieramos derechos mucho toda el mundo no eria segura asi que estay feliz que agan creado los derechos humanos.
1) Human rights are almost the cradle, the government gave them human rights so that everything is under control. 2) Because maybe that person didn't know it and did it because they didn't have a choice. 3) Because the government creates the rights so if it couldn't, it would lose its rights. 4) I am glad that for the right all this is more isolated, if we didn't have many rights the whole world would not be safe so I am happy that human rights have been created.
You can structure your good ideas into an essay format like this: (Puedes estructurar tus buenas ideas en un formato de ensayo como este:)
For Paragraph (A Favor): Some people agree with the statement. They believe that if someone breaks the law, they are not being responsible. Therefore, they should lose their rights as a punishment. (Algunas personas están de acuerdo con la afirmación. Creen que si alguien infringe la ley, no está siendo responsable. Por lo tanto, deberían perder sus derechos como castigo.)
Against Paragraph (En Contra): However, I disagree, because as you said, human rights keep us safe. If we didn't have rights, the world would not be safe. For example, the right to a fair trial protects us from being wrongly put in prison. (Sin embargo, no estoy de acuerdo, porque como dijiste, los derechos humanos nos mantienen a salvo. Si no tuviéramos derechos, el mundo no sería seguro. Por ejemplo, el derecho a un juicio justo nos protege de ser encarcelados injustamente.)
Conclusion (Conclusión): In conclusion, I am happy that human rights were created because they are essential to keep everyone in the world safe. (En conclusión, estoy feliz de que se hayan creado los derechos humanos porque son esenciales para mantener a salvo a todo el mundo.)
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
To conclude, I personally believe this sentence is partially true but mostly wrong.An excellent, nuanced start to an essay. Structuring it as a conclusion is unusual, but the thinking is high-level. Why I think this is wrong is because you cannot take away someones rights leaving them to an unfair life.A clear, well-reasoned point. I rather believe that if they are doing wrong they should be fired or punished in jail with their rights still part of their identity - They are still humans and can still be taught.This is a brilliant point, distinguishing between punishment and the complete removal of rights. On the other side of my perspective I conclude they should lose few rights such as freedom to go outside and right 19 and 20 (freedom of expression and the right to public assembly) as they are the human rights that allow their freedom but only for a short period of time.This is an outstandingly sophisticated argument, using specific UDHR articles to argue for the temporary loss of SOME rights, but not all.
You need to re-organise your points into separate paragraphs. Here is how your essay could be structured:
Introduction: In my opinion, the statement is partially true, but mostly wrong.
For Paragraph: On one hand, I agree that people should temporarily lose a few specific rights if they are irresponsible. For example, as stated in UDHR Articles 19 and 20, rights like freedom of expression or assembly can be limited if they are used to harm others.
Against Paragraph: However, I believe it is wrong to take away a person's fundamental human identity. Even if someone is punished in jail, they are still human and can be taught. Their basic rights should remain.
Conclusion: In conclusion, while minor rights can be temporarily limited as a punishment, a person's core human rights should never be taken away.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly believe in this point if they had been a victim of someones unlawful acts. A reason for this point is rights are what give you freedom.A clear point for the 'agree' side, linking the argument to the perspective of victims. However others may disagree with this statement as they can see it as unfair. My evidence for this is in the Universal Declaration of Human rights (which was made in 1948) as the 30th rights claiming "No one can take away your human rights!"Excellent! You are using a specific, key piece of evidence and you have even included your own historical knowledge about the date. This could be due to the fact that without your human rights you are not able to do much and end up as the slave of some one that does own these life-saving statements.This is a powerful explanation of the consequences of losing rights. (No conclusion written)Your answer ends here. You must always add a conclusion that gives your final, personal judgement.
You have all the ingredients for a top-level conclusion. It could look like this:
In conclusion, while I understand the feelings of victims who want justice, I strongly disagree with the statement.This shows you have weighed both sides before making your judgement. My main reason is that, as stated in Article 30 of the UDHR, rights cannot be taken away. This rule is essential because, as I argued, a person without rights is unable to do much and could end up like a slave.This summarises your strongest arguments and evidence. Therefore, to protect everyone from this danger, human rights must be universal.This provides a powerful final thought.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because if you don't respect other people's rights why should they respect yours?A clear and logical argument for the 'agree' side, based on the principle of reciprocity. But on the other hand, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because all humans should have their rights no matter who they are.Good - a clear counter-argument based on the principle of universal rights. Also, if you don't have your rights then what about article 30?: nobody can take your human rights.Excellent use of specific evidence to support your point. To conclude, I personally believe that they shouldn't be taken away even if you don't do your responsibilites because taking them away goes against the human rights and people worked and fought so hard for human rights so it would be a shame if we lost them.This is a fantastic conclusion, bringing in the historical context of the fight for rights to make a powerful emotional and logical point.
Your conclusion is excellent. You can make it even stronger by being more specific about what you mean:
I believe rights shouldn't be taken away, because people fought so hard for them.This is your original, powerful point. For example, people like the Suffragettes campaigned for years to win the right to vote. These rights were not given easily.This adds a specific historical example. To take these hard-won rights away would be a "shame" because it would be disrespectful to the sacrifices of the past and would return us to a less fair and equal society.This explains the reasoning in more detail.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
No, they should not lose their rights if they don't do the right thing, that's like saying if you forget to water the plants because you forgot, you should lose you rights. I completely do not agree because everyone deserves chances and people forget to do things sometimes.This is a clear point for the 'disagree' side, with a good, simple example. Yes, I agree because everyone else does the right thing and fufil their responsibilites, so if someone else doesn't do it their rights should be taken away, it's only fair.Good - you are showing the opposing argument based on fairness. Like saying if I do not pay my bills my house will be taken away and that's fair because we all should be paying our bills and taxes to provide for ourselves and familys.This is another excellent, well-explained example.
Instead of agreeing with both sides, you should present one as a counter-argument. Then, add a conclusion.
Main Argument: I disagree that rights should be lost for small mistakes, like forgetting to water the plants, because everyone deserves a second chance.
Counter-Argument: However, some people would agree with the statement, arguing it is about fairness. They would say that if you don't fulfil a serious responsibility like paying your bills, it is fair that you lose the right to your house.
Conclusion: In conclusion, I believe that while there must be consequences for failing serious responsibilities, fundamental human rights should never be taken away for small, forgetful mistakes.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
My point for agree is that people have had too many chances. Evidence suggest they, have had two months to pay the rent. And they haven't payed their rent. My explanation is that they have given two months to pay your rent and, you haven't so you've lost your house and human rights.This is a fantastic paragraph. You've created a specific scenario and used the Point, Evidence, Explanation structure perfectly to argue your case. My point for disagree is that this is the first time they messed up and forgot to pay their rent. Evidence suggest that she has payed but she payed rent late. My explantion is that they have now lost their human rights just because of one thing.Excellent - you are now showing balance by looking at the same scenario from the opposing point of view. My conclusion is that you shouldn't lose your human rights for not paying your rent.A clear conclusion that gives your final judgement on the scenario.
You can connect your great example to the bigger picture of human rights like this:
My conclusion is that you shouldn't lose your fundamental human rights for not paying rent.This clarifies your point. While a person might lose their rental property, they should not lose their universal human rights. For example, they still have the right to life and the right to be treated with dignity.This new part makes the important distinction between losing a specific privilege and losing universal rights. To make someone homeless and then also take away their other rights would be a cruel and disproportionate punishment.This explains your reasoning.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Although some people may strongly disagree with this statement because all people have responsibilites and it your responsibilit- is to follow your responsibilites, Futhermore, if you dont follow your responsibilities how you ment to follow your human rights.This is a slightly confused but interesting point, suggesting that being responsible is a necessary skill for properly using rights. However other people might say disagree with this statement because in the U.D.H.R article 30 says no one can take away your human rights.Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific, accurate evidence. Also human rights agree with everyone no matter how they act or look.A good explanation of the principle of universality. However I disagree with this statement because all humans should have human rights and all member of the U.D.H.R has agreed to follow this rule.A strong, evidence-based conclusion that gives a clear final judgement.
Your 'for' argument has a good idea. You could phrase it more clearly like this:
Some people agree with the statement because they believe that being responsible is a necessary part of having rights.This states the point clearly. For example, you have a right to freedom, but you also have a responsibility to not use that freedom to harm others. If you cannot handle that responsibility, it shows you cannot handle the right that goes with it.This provides a clear example and explanation.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
However if a person did an illegal thing like kill somebody they could be sentenced to death or in prison and they will lose their rights to freedom of their own things as they have not fulfilled their responsibilities.This is a strong point for the 'agree' side, using a very powerful and specific example. On the other hand there are simply some rights that can't be taken away like the right to freedom of thought or public assembly and also the right to food and shelter.Excellent - another well-argued paragraph that uses specific examples of inalienable rights. Overall, I disagree with the statement if people should los their rights if they haven't fulfilled their responsibilities because Right Number 30 NOBODY can take away your human rights.A great conclusion that gives a clear judgement and supports it with a key piece of evidence.
Your essay starts a little abruptly. An introduction would help the reader. It could be as simple as this:
The question of whether people should lose their rights for failing their responsibilities is a complex one, with strong arguments on both sides.This sentence introduces the debate. Some people agree, arguing that serious failures should have serious consequences.This briefly introduces the 'for' side. However, others believe fundamental rights can never be taken away.This briefly introduces the 'against' side.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Rights are the rights you simply have because you are human and an important right everyone has is 'No one can take your rights'. This is because to treat everyone equally.A very clear and well-supported argument for the 'disagree' side. Someone would strongly agree with this statement because everyone is expecting you to do your part of the job so nothing goes wrong as everyone wants it to be a success. Also it might be seen as disrespectful since you are not trying or putting effort into it.This is an excellent counter-argument, explaining the 'for' side from a workplace/community perspective. On the other prespective, some may strongly disagree with this statement because we are humans not perfection so we can make mistakes and that task may not be capable of you level.Another strong point for the 'disagree' side, focusing on human error and capability. To conclude, I personally believe that you shouldn't lose your rights just because of something you are not capable of as their was a document recorded called the U.D.H.R... It was formed in 1945 and established 1948 which made human right official.An outstanding conclusion. Not only do you give a clear judgement, but you support it with specific, correct historical knowledge about the UDHR.
Your point about 'disrespect' is very good. You could make it even more powerful by using a non-workplace example:
Some people agree because failing a responsibility can be seen as disrespectful to others.This is your original point. For example, all citizens have a responsibility to follow the law to keep society safe. If a person decides to ignore this and commits a crime, they are disrespecting the safety and rights of everyone else.This provides a more serious, societal example. Therefore, it is fair that they face a consequence for this disrespect.This explains the logic.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they believe that if you don't fufill the task that belongs to the rights you should not be rewarded.A clear point for the 'agree' side, seeing rights as a 'reward'. In addition, if you are not doing your responsibilities there is no purpose having the rights. for example, if you go to work, your duties are to complete your tasks and be on time, if you don't obey you could get fired.This is a great, real-world example to support your point. Despite having a strong argument the fact that some people believe you should lose your rights if you don't fufil their responsibilities some people strongly disagree. This is due to them believing that we are all united and shouldn't have our rights taken away as a punishment.Good - a clear counter-argument based on the idea of unity. Furthermore, article 30 explains how no one can take away your rights.Excellent use of specific evidence. To conclude I personally believe that we should not have our rights taken away, however there will be consequences for not fufilling responsibilities.This is a very sophisticated and well-reasoned conclusion that shows nuanced thinking.
Your conclusion is fantastic. You can make it even better by using an example to explain what you mean by 'consequences':
In conclusion, I believe we should not have our rights taken away, however there must still be consequences for irresponsibility.This is your original, excellent point. For example, if a person commits a crime, they should face the consequence of going to prison and losing their freedom. However, they should not lose their fundamental human right to be treated with dignity and not be tortured.This specific example clearly explains the difference you are talking about. This shows we can have punishments without being inhumane.This provides a powerful final thought.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people agree with the statement Since your right link to your right. In the UDHR for artical 29 is 'responsibility' which show if you can't do your responsibility you are not using that right correctly.This is a good attempt to use specific evidence, but be careful - Article 29 is about duties, but it doesn't say you lose rights if you don't fulfil them. However the same may dissagree because in artical 30 is "nobody can take away your rights" which means that your right can't be taken from you.Excellent - this is a much clearer and more accurate use of evidence from the UDHR. To conclude my personally opinion is that nobody can take away your right so I disagree with the question for the folowing resons: Artical 30 nobody can take away your right.A clear conclusion that is well-supported by your strongest piece of evidence.
Instead of relying on a misread article, you can make a logical point for the 'agree' side like this:
Some people agree with the statement because they believe rights and responsibilities are connected.This is a clear topic sentence. They would argue that you only deserve to have your rights protected if you fulfil your responsibility to protect the rights of others.This explains the reasoning. For example, if you physically assault someone, you have not respected their right to safety, so it is fair that you should lose your own right to freedom by being sent to prison.This adds a powerful, specific example.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may agree with this statement as for example people may take advantage of their rights and do not do their responsibilities.A clear point for the 'agree' side. Another reason is that some people may use their rights for a bad reason for example people could use their rights to lie or to hart others.This is an excellent point, supported by good examples. However to balance things out some people may strongly disagree as in the Article 30 of human rights it says, no one can take away your human rights.Excellent! A clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. Also some people may have personal problems in their life and some may have disabilities.This is a very insightful and empathetic point, showing you are thinking about the reasons behind people's actions. To conclude, I personally believe that no one should lose their human rights. This is because as I said earlier in this essay in Article 30 of human rights no one can take away your rights.A good conclusion that gives a clear judgement and supports it with your strongest piece of evidence.
Your point about disabilities is excellent. You can make it even stronger by explaining the implications, like this:
I disagree because some people may have disabilities that prevent them from fulfilling all their responsibilities.This is your original, excellent point. For example, a person with a physical disability may not be able to work a manual job. It would be incredibly discriminatory and unfair to take away their rights because of something they cannot control.This provides a specific example and explains why it would be wrong. This shows that rights must be universal, to protect the most vulnerable people in society.This explains the wider importance of the point.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because people can misuse the rights that they have and can take advantage with their rights.A clear point for the 'agree' side. My evidence is with "we can't have rights without responsibilities" that statement shows that we need to use our rights in good ways.This is a good piece of reasoning to support your point. However some may strongly disagree with this statement because In article 30 it states, that "nobody can take away human rights".Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. This shows that everybody has many chances to change themselves and people could also use their rights in good ways to help others and themselves.A good explanation of the philosophy behind the UDHR article. To conclude, I personally believe that people should not lose their rights, if they they do not fulfil their responsibilities. I also think that if it was a one time mistake rights shouldn't be take away. Therefore if it is a continuous mistake rights should still not be taken away rather they would not be allowed to go or do the certain thing again.This is an outstandingly nuanced conclusion, distinguishing between one-time and continuous mistakes and suggesting alternative punishments.
You could bring your sophisticated thinking from the conclusion into your main paragraphs. For example:
However, I disagree that rights should be taken away for a 'one-time mistake'.This uses your own excellent vocabulary. For example, if a person forgets to pay a bill once, it would be a disproportionate punishment to take away their fundamental human rights. They should be given a chance to fix their mistake.This provides a clear example. As Article 30 states, human rights should not be taken away, and this is especially true for minor errors.This links your idea to your strong evidence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I disagree with this statement because if they don't have rights, they would suger or die when everyone is given the things they need.A very powerful opening argument, focusing on the life-or-death importance of rights. Furthermore a human right says "No one can take away your human rights". This can link to when children in England a few centuries ago had no rights.Excellent! Using both a specific rule and a historical example makes your argument very strong. However some people may agree with this statement because if they disobey their important responsibilities, like not treating other humans with respect, then they might consider taking away their rights to show them how those people felt.This is a very sophisticated 'for' argument, based on the idea of justice as empathy ("an eye for an eye"). In conclusion you shouldn't get your rights taken away because it wouldn't be fair for them to be below everyone else just due to the fact they don't fufill their responsibilities.A clear conclusion that gives your final judgement.
Your main paragraphs are excellent. Your conclusion should reflect that quality. Here's an example:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement.This is your clear judgement. Although the argument for taking a right to 'show someone how it feels' is tempting, it is a form of revenge, not justice.This shows you have weighed both sides. As history has shown with children's rights, a society is only fair when everyone has basic protections. Taking rights away would risk a return to that cruel and unequal past, and as the UDHR says, our rights cannot be taken away.This summarises your strongest arguments and evidence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because it is useless and keeps those better suited for a task doing it and others not.This is a slightly confusing but interesting point about efficiency and suitability for a role. For example the right to a job. Some people who don't attend to their job will get warnings, fired and may be considered unable to do their job correctly resulting in them not being able to work.This is a great, clear, real-world example to support your point. However some may strongly disagree with this statement because of the articles stated 30 in the UDHR. It states "No one can take away your human rights".Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. For example, someone misbehaves in school. They can get expelled but also have a bad report on their permanent record. This can result in multiple schools not accepting them and they will lose the right to education.This is an outstandingly well-developed example, showing you are thinking about the long-term, knock-on effects of a punishment. To conclude I belive that this is wrong. A mistake or non finished responsibility should not be met with a lost right.A clear conclusion that gives your final judgement and a strong, memorable summary statement.
Your point about school expulsion is brilliant. You can make it even stronger by explicitly linking it to Article 30:
I disagree, as taking away one right can lead to the loss of others.This is a strong topic sentence. For example, if a student is expelled for misbehaviour, this bad record might stop other schools from accepting them. This means that a punishment for breaking school rules has resulted in them losing their fundamental right to an education.This explains your excellent example. This is why Article 30 is so important; it exists to prevent such a chain reaction where one mistake leads to a person losing all their chances in life.This links the example directly to your evidence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly believe that people should lose their rights if they do not fulfill the responsibilities that come with them because by not fulfilling these responsibilities, you are endangering other people's rights.This is an outstanding 'for' argument, based on the sophisticated idea that our responsibilities are directly linked to protecting the rights of others. For example, Article 5 of the UDHR (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) says: "Nobody has the right to torture us". The responsibility that comes with this right is that you do not hurt or torture others. However, if you do not fulfill this responsibility, you are violating other people's rights.This is a brilliant and perfectly executed P.E.E.L paragraph, using a specific article and explaining it with perfect logic. On the other side of the spectrum, many people may strongly argue against this statement since all humans have human rights, it would be degrading and dehumanizing to take away someone's human rights.Good - a clear counter-argument with strong vocabulary. In conclusion, I believe that people should lose their rights if they do not pulfil their responsibilities because they are endangering the rights of others and in addition, are not contributing to the communities they are a part of.A clear conclusion that gives a final judgement.
Your 'disagree' paragraph just needs an example. You mention Article 30 on the next page, so you could have written this:
On the other hand, many disagree because taking away rights would be degrading and dehumanizing.This is your original, excellent point. This view is supported by Article 30 of the UDHR, which states that "No one can take away your Human Rights."This adds the specific evidence. This means that rights are fundamental to our human identity, and to remove them would be to treat someone as less than human, which is a cruel and dangerous act.This explains what the evidence means.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may agree with the statement because if they don't fufill their responsibilities it could lead to any sort of chaos.A good point for the 'agree' side, focusing on social order. Another key reason to support this statement is Article 29. Responsibilities, we have a duty to other people, and we should protect rights and freedoms. So breaking this right would possibly lead to jailtime.Excellent! Using a specific UDHR article to support the 'for' side is a clever and high-level approach. However some may strongly disagree with this statement because if someone is unable to fufill this responsibility like having a disability then losing their rights wouldn't be following article 30.This is another outstanding point, using Article 30 to support the empathetic argument about disability. This shows excellent critical thinking. (No conclusion written)Your essay stops here. To get the top marks, you must always include a conclusion that gives your final judgement.
You have all the ingredients for a top-level conclusion. It could look like this:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement.This gives a clear final judgement. While Article 29 shows we have a duty to others, your argument about people with disabilities is more powerful. It would be deeply unfair to punish someone for failing a responsibility they are unable to fulfil.This weighs up your two main points and explains your choice. Therefore, as Article 30 states, human rights must be protected for everyone to ensure the most vulnerable are kept safe.This uses your evidence to make a final, powerful point.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because it is useless and keeps those better suited for a task doing it and others not. For example the right to a job. Some people who don't attend to their job will get warnings, fired and may be considered unable to do their job correctly.This is an excellent 'for' paragraph, supported by a clear, well-explained, real-world example. However some may strongly disagree with this statement because of the articles stated 30 in the UDHR. It states "No one can take away your human rights".Good - a clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. For example, someone misbehaves in school. They can get expelled but also have a bad report... This can result in multiple schools not accepting them and they will lose the right to education.This is an outstanding example, showing you are thinking about the long-term, knock-on effects of a punishment. To conclude I belive that this is wrong. A mistake or non finished responsibility should not be met with a lost right.A clear conclusion that gives your final judgement and a strong, memorable summary statement.
Your point about school expulsion is brilliant. You can make it even stronger by explicitly linking it to Article 30:
I disagree, as taking away one right can lead to the loss of others.This is a strong topic sentence. For example, if a student is expelled for misbehaviour, this bad record might stop other schools from accepting them. This means that a punishment for breaking school rules has resulted in them losing their fundamental right to an education.This explains your excellent example. This is why Article 30 is so important; it exists to prevent such a chain reaction where one mistake leads to a person losing all their chances in life.This links the example directly to your evidence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people agree because the person who did something didn't repect their right should be punished. As you are expected to respect everything and you might have misund your rights.A clear point for the 'agree' side, focusing on punishment and respect. But, on the other side of the argument, everybody should have rights no matter what they did. In article 30 of the U.D.H.R it informs that "no one can take away your human right."Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific, accurate evidence. Therefore, in my opinion... I think, people should not lose their rights, if they don't fulfill them.A clear, if slightly repetitive, conclusion that gives your final judgement.
Your point about Article 30 is great. You could develop it by explaining *why* it's so important:
I disagree because, as Article 30 of the UDHR says, "no one can take away your human rights."This is your original, excellent point. This is a vital rule because it ensures all people are treated with a basic level of dignity, no matter what they have done.This explains the reasoning behind the rule. Without this rule, governments could abuse their power and punish people in cruel and inhumane ways. Therefore, Article 30 protects everyone.This explains the dangerous consequences if the rule didn't exist.