Solution for Business English Question Paper 2082 | BBS 1st Year | MGT-201 | MGMT - TU

Introduction to Brainstorming in Essay Writing

Brainstorming is a pre-writing activity where you quickly write down ideas, thoughts, or points related to a topic before starting your essay. It helps you explore different angles, organize your thoughts, and discover creative ideas that you might not have thought of right away.

1. Generates Ideas: Brainstorming helps you gather as many ideas as possible. This gives you more options to choose from when deciding what to include in your essay.

2. Clarifies Your Focus: It helps you understand the topic better and decide what your main point or thesis will be.

3. Organizes Your Thoughts: By sorting your ideas into groups or categories, you can build a logical structure for your essay.

4. Saves Time Later: Planning your essay through brainstorming makes the actual writing easier and faster because you already know what you want to say.

5. Improves Creativity: It encourages you to think freely and creatively without fear of being wrong, which can lead to unique and interesting content.

In "Only Daughter," Sandra Cisneros uses a non-linear structure, presenting her life story not as one continuous narrative but as a series of brief, related episodes. Throughout the essay, she pauses the storytelling at key moments to comment on or analyze her experiences, adding depth and personal reflection to the events she describes.

One place Cisneros interrupts the narrative is when she discusses her role as the only daughter in a Mexican-American family with six sons. Rather than simply stating this fact, she reflects on how this position made her feel invisible and isolated, but also gave her time to develop her creativity and identity. She comments that being left alone allowed her to become a writer, suggesting that her solitude was both painful and productive.

Another significant interruption occurs when she recalls how her father always told people he had "seven sons," overlooking her completely. Instead of just presenting this as a moment of rejection, Cisneros analyzes how it shaped her deep desire to gain his recognition. She admits that everything she wrote was, in some way, for him—to finally win his approval. This emotional reflection adds complexity to what might otherwise seem like a simple family anecdote.

The most powerful interruption comes toward the end, when Cisneros shares the moment her father reads one of her published stories in Spanish. She shifts from telling the story to analyzing the significance of the moment—how her father's quiet approval, expressed in few words, meant everything to her. It marked a turning point, not just in her career, but in her relationship with him.

This strategy of breaking the narrative to insert personal reflections accomplishes several things. First, it allows the reader to see the deeper emotional layers of Cisneros's experiences, making the story more relatable and meaningful. Second, it turns simple events into thoughtful commentary on gender roles, cultural expectations, and the struggle for identity and acceptance. Finally, it gives the essay a reflective, almost conversational tone, inviting the reader to connect with her journey not just as a story, but as a shared human experience.

According to Engber, the public's attitude toward taxing junk food and soda is complex and somewhat divided. While many people acknowledge the health concerns linked to excessive consumption of sugary drinks and unhealthy snacks, their opinions about using taxes as a way to control these habits are mixed. On one hand, some members of the public support such taxes because they believe they can help reduce obesity rates and encourage healthier eating habits. On the other hand, there is significant resistance fueled by concerns over personal freedom, the role of government intervention in private choices, and worries that such taxes unfairly burden low-income individuals who might spend a larger portion of their income on these products.

In her essay “Two Ways to Belong in America,” Bharati Mukherjee employs a comparative narrative strategy to explore the differing experiences and attitudes of two Indian immigrant sisters living in the United States. Through this approach, Mukherjee contrasts her own viewpoint—embracing American culture and citizenship—with that of her sister, Mira, who chooses to maintain strong ties to India and resists fully assimilating into American society. This juxtaposition of two distinct “ways” to belong creates a dynamic framework that allows Mukherjee to delve deeply into themes of identity, assimilation, cultural loyalty, and the immigrant experience.

Mukherjee uses this comparative strategy for several reasons. First, it personalizes the broader immigrant narrative, grounding complex issues of identity and belonging in the intimate relationship between sisters. This makes the topic more relatable and emotionally resonant for readers. Second, the contrast highlights the spectrum of immigrant experiences rather than presenting assimilation as a single or uniform path. By presenting both perspectives fairly, Mukherjee acknowledges the diversity within immigrant communities and invites readers to understand why some immigrants choose to assimilate while others preserve their original cultural identities. Third, this method allows Mukherjee to critique restrictive U.S. immigration policies and the challenges immigrants face, especially regarding citizenship, without alienating readers who might sympathize with either sister’s stance.

Mukherjee’s intended goal appears to be encouraging a conversation about the complexities of immigrant identity and challenging the notion that there is only one “correct” way to belong in America. She wants to show that belonging is multifaceted and that immigrants negotiate their identities differently based on personal choices, experiences, and political realities.

I believe Mukherjee successfully accomplishes her goal. By sharing her own story alongside her sister’s, she provides a nuanced and balanced exploration of immigrant identity that goes beyond simplistic binaries of assimilation versus resistance. The personal tone invites empathy and reflection, making readers consider the broader social and political forces shaping immigrant lives. Her critique of U.S. immigration policies, especially the loss of rights experienced by non-citizens like her sister, brings attention to real-world implications of these policies. The essay leaves readers with a better understanding of the difficult decisions immigrants face and the varied meanings of “belonging” in a multicultural society.

However, some readers might argue that Mukherjee’s own preference for assimilation colors the essay, subtly privileging her perspective over her sister’s. This could be seen as limiting the full representation of alternative ways of belonging. Still, by presenting both sides honestly, Mukherjee largely avoids overt judgment and instead fosters dialogue.

Tabarrok’s title “The Meat Market” is a carefully chosen metaphor that effectively encapsulates the central theme of his essay, which critiques the nature of modern dating, particularly in the context of online dating platforms. The title is both provocative and vivid, immediately evoking an image of a place where products—in this case, people—are displayed, inspected, and judged primarily on superficial qualities such as physical appearance. This metaphor aligns closely with the essay’s subject matter, which explores how dating apps and sites often reduce complex human relationships to quick judgments based largely on looks, much like customers selecting cuts of meat at a market.

Given Tabarrok’s purpose—to analyze and critique the commodification and transactional nature of contemporary dating—the title succeeds in framing the discussion in a clear and memorable way. By using a term that is commonly understood but also carries negative connotations, Tabarrok prepares the reader for a critical examination of dating culture that may challenge romanticized notions of love and relationships. The title’s bluntness and slightly cynical tone signal that the essay will take a realistic, perhaps somewhat humorous or ironic, look at the ways people present and perceive themselves in the dating world.

The appropriateness of the title is further enhanced by considering the intended audience. Tabarrok likely addresses a general readership, including young adults who are familiar with dating apps and the social dynamics involved. For this audience, the metaphor of a “meat market” resonates because it captures a shared cultural understanding of the frustrations and superficiality many experience in online dating. It also serves as an effective hook that grabs attention and provokes curiosity, encouraging readers to reflect on their own experiences and societal norms.

However, it is important to recognize that the title can be viewed as harsh or even dehumanizing. Comparing people to meat implies objectification and reduces complex individuals to mere commodities, which might offend or alienate some readers. This dehumanization, while effective as a critique, risks oversimplifying human relationships and ignoring the deeper emotional and psychological aspects of dating. Some might argue that the metaphor overlooks the genuine connections and meaningful relationships that do develop despite the superficial elements of online dating.

Nevertheless, this critical edge is likely intentional on Tabarrok’s part. The provocative nature of the title serves to highlight and question the problematic aspects of dating culture that many prefer to overlook. It challenges readers to confront uncomfortable truths about how physical appearance and instant judgments influence dating choices, especially in an increasingly digital and image-focused society.