Essay - Cars

[Smile_94]

Hallo,
ich wäre sehr froh, wenn einer mir mein Essay korrigieren könnten. Ich versuche zurzeit öfters ein Essay zu schreiben, da bald Prüfungen anstehen.

Danke!

Topic: It is a good idea to have a car?

In the last weeks there weere a lot of news in the television which complains that cars are to bad for our environment. But are cars really bad for us?
On the one hand cars producs C02 which destroys the environment. Because of the CO2 out world heats up. The conclusion of that case is thate the level of the ocean also increase. So the critys which are in the near of the ocean swamps up. As example Hamburg would be on of this citys.
On the other hand is good to have a car because most of the employers only want employees who already have a license and a car. If you live far away from the work u need a car to reach it. And your need it also if you must be flexible.
The most important arguement for having a car is that you are mobile and independet from others. In case of an emergency  you are mobile to drive to the next hospital. You dont have to wait for others or a taxi. This is especially important if any second counts.
The postive aspects outweigh the negative ones. But it is also important to take care about out environment.

[Schuyler]

Topic: Is it a good idea to have a car?

In the last weeks, there has been a lot of news on TV that* criticizes cars for being terrible for our environment. But are cars really bad for us?
On the one hand, cars produce C02, which destroys the environment. Because of the CO2, our world heats up. The result of this situation is that the level of the ocean also increases. So, the cities that are near the ocean become swamps. As an example, Hamburg would be one of these cities.
On the other hand, it is good to have a car because most of the employers only want employees who already have a license and a car. If you live far away from the work, you need a car to reach it. Owning a car also gives you more freedom for when you need to go somewhere.
The most important argument for having a car is that you are mobile and independent from others. In case of an emergency, you are able to drive to the next hospital. You don't have to wait for others or a taxi. This is especially important when every second counts.
The positive aspects outweigh the negative ones, but it is also important to take care of our environment.

*This is something I realized just recently: many people, including native speakers, confuse the difference between that and which. That is used to introduce a restrictive clause (a part of the sentence that gives essential information and cannot be removed without changing the sentence meaning,) while which is used to introduce a nonrestrictive clause (a part of the sentence that gives additional information and can be removed without changing the sentence meaning.)

In this sentence, you need to use that because the clause is restrictive: "that criticizes cars for being terrible for our environment" is necessary information to show what kind of news you are talking about. If you leave it out, your sentence does not have the same meaning: "In the last weeks, there has been a lot of news on TV."

As another example, in your sentence "On the one hand, cars produce C02, which destroys the environment," which can be used because "which destroys the environment" is extra information, which, although useful to know, is not essential for the meaning; therefore, it is a nonrestrictive clause.

Remember, also, that nonrestrictive clauses should be separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma. Restrictive clauses do not get a comma.

[tiorthan]

*This is something I realized just recently: many people, including native speakers, confuse the difference between that and which. That is used to introduce a restrictive clause (a part of the sentence that gives essential information and cannot be removed without changing the sentence meaning,) while which is used to introduce a nonrestrictive clause (a part of the sentence that gives additional information and can be removed without changing the sentence meaning.)

Here's what Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English usage has to say about the matter:
"You can use either which or that to introduce a restrictive clause--the grounds for your choice should be stylistic"

In fact, which is commonly used in restrictive relative clauses in all dialects of English and has been at least since Middle English times. The idea that it shouldn't be used that way was invented rather randomly in the mid 19th century and made popular by the 1926 edition of Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, not as a rule but as a style recommendation.

[Smile_94]

Hallo,
thank you guys.
I hope i can write a few other essays in the future to improve that.

THANKS

[Schuyler]

@tiorthan: Huh. Before I made that post, I checked with my former English teacher and several online sources I had known to be reliable, and they all said that and which are used differently. It's also a distinction I've always just felt to be true, if you know what I mean. I looked it up in the Oxford dictionary just now, though, and the information there is the same as with Merriam-Webster, so I assume that must be accurate. I'm not sure why I didn't check with those two dictionaries before, since I usually do use them as my main references, although this is the first time I've noticed a major discrepancy between them and my other sources. Thank you for pointing that out!

[tiorthan]

@tiorthan: Huh. Before I made that post, I checked with my former English teacher and several online sources I had known to be reliable, and they all said that and which are used differently.

Uhm, I hope my previous post did not come across as condescending (I'd really like some honest feedback on that).

[Schuyler]

No, no, I didn't take it as condescending. If my response sounded like I was offended or indignant about being corrected, I assure you that wasn't the case. I was just explaining how I came to the conclusion that restrictive clauses can't be introduced with which, but if Merriam-Webster and Oxford both say otherwise, I can accept being wrong ... Once in a while.

As for general feedback: I honestly don't see much I would criticize about your explanations and how you phrase things. I've noticed you tend to be pretty straightforward and matter-of-fact, which I guess some people might feel a little put off by, but I wouldn't worry too much about coming across negatively; I don't think most people would find your posts insulting at all. Personally, I very much prefer when people keep their explanations/corrections informative and to the point without too many pleasantries and such that make it harder to focus on what actually matters.

[tiorthan]

If my response sounded like I was offended or indignant about being corrected, I assure you that wasn't the case.

I wouldn't really know. I'm asking because I've managed to offend people that way (and didn't notice until I was told by someone else). It's one part of human interaction I haven't quite gotten the hang of.

[Schuyler]

Ah, I see. Well, of course I can only speak for myself and my own feelings, but I haven't seen it being an issue, especially on a forum like this where the members come here specifically to learn and have their mistakes corrected.

Although, to be honest, I'm often not very good at being polite or "softening" my words, either, so I might not be the best person to ask for advice in that area.  I think I generally do all right with online communication, but in real life (and sometimes online,) it's not unusual that I offend someone unintentionally with something I say.