EXAMPLES OF PAPERS THAT USED DIFFERENT RHETORICAL

PATTERNS
1. PERSUASION

Reasons to Become a Volunteer

In our modern capitalistic world, the idea of doing something for free might sound strange.
Western society has oriented itself on success and profit, people possessing honed professional
skills, and being able to sell these skills; therefore, the idea of working for free does not fit into
such an outlook. However, it strongly depends on how you look at it; for instance, volunteering,
which has become popular in recent decades, is one of the greatest examples of how a job can
pay off not with just money. It can be said that everyone should at least once in their lifetime try
volunteering due to a number of reasons.
Although it may sound paradoxical, volunteering is one of the easiest ways to find a job.
After graduating from a college or university, many get stuck in the situation of trying to find a
job, but needing working experience, but you cannot obtain working experience because no one
hires you. Statistics show about 73% of employers would rather prefer to hire a person with
volunteering experience in the field than a person without one; 94% of employers share the
belief that volunteering helps potential employees obtain new skills and diversifies their
qualification, and thus are more prone to hiring people who volunteer. Respectively, 94% of
those people believe that volunteering can add to ones skills; 94% of people who were hired
after a volunteering experience say such an experience aided them in getting their first job, or
benefited them in other ways, such as quicker promotion, salary increases, or obtaining new
skills (World Volunteer Web). Having relevant work experience obtained during volunteering and
specifying it in your CV can be a kickstarter for your career, because nowadays more and more
employers tend to count volunteering as actual work experience (ReachOut.com). Besides,
volunteering is a great option to explore possible career opportunities if you are unsure what you
would like be doing for living. Through various programs, you can try yourself in a number of
organizations, working on different problems, and on different positions, without having to do
job-hunting, and then job-hopping. Therefore, if you still think you do not have time to volunteer
because you need to look for a job, or because volunteering could be a nuisance to your duties,
you might want to reconsider your opinion.
Also, volunteering is a natural way of socialization and getting to know your surroundings,
meeting new people, and finding useful contacts. Regularly meeting with a group of people
who share the same activities, way of thinking, and goals can make it easier for you to make
friends. Besides, volunteering could make a great example for your children; if you want to teach
them responsibility, compassion, and how one person can make a difference by personally
participating in solving it, you should volunteer; children tend to learn through observing what
adults do, and by your example they will have a great role model to adopt. And, of course,
through volunteering you can find a lot of useful contacts, resources, and activities for your
whole family (HelpGuide).

There have been surprising research studies connecting helping other people on a
voluntary basis with mental health; specifically, people who are known to be involved into
different forms of selflessly helping other people, animals, and so on, felt like they were
undergoing some sort of beneficial therapy. In particular, according to CSV, millions of people in
the United Kingdom doing voluntary work started to feel less depressed; about 48% of those
who have been involved in volunteering during the last two years felt relief in terms of
depression, and improvement of their mental condition. Among more than 600 volunteers who
were observed during the experiment, 63% of people aged between 25 and 34 said that
volunteering reduced their stress levelsso did about 62% of volunteers over 65 years old.
According to CSVs research, volunteering also helps reduce work-related stress, and even
boosts productivity: 31% of people aged between 18 and 24 said they had taken less time off
work since starting to volunteer (The Guardian).
All these facts demonstrate that volunteering is a great alternative to a number of other activities,
since it can help you acquire work experience and get a job; makes you more sociable, and turns
you into a good role model for your children; and besides, it decreases the levels of stress we are
exposed to on a daily basis, and helps people effectively combat depression. Therefore, you
might want to start volunteering as soon as possible.

Works Cited
1. Benefits of Volunteering. World Volunteer Web. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.
2. Segal, Jeanne, and Lawrence Robinson. Volunteering and Its Surprising Benefits: How
Volunteering Makes Us Healthier and Happier.HelpGuide.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept.
2016.
3. 6 Reasons Why Volunteering Is Good for You. ReachOut.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept.
2016.
4. Volunteering Linked to Fall in Depression. The Guardian. Guardian News and Media,
28 Sept. 2004. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.
- See more at: https://academichelp.net/samples/academics/essays/persuasive/reasons-tobecome-a-volunteer.html#sthash.oaN9JtLr.dpuf
2. Comparison and Contrast
A Comparison and Contrast of Three Ancient Roman Philosophies
by Melanie Pelzel
Introduction
This paper compares and contrasts three different views of philosophy of Roman times: Epicureanism,
Stoicism, and Neo-Platonism. These three philosophies were created out of a need for explanations about the
meaning of life. According to Lamm, "Epicureanism and Stoicism, two eminent Athenian schools of philosophy of
the third century BC, developed ethical systems that could help individuals feel more secure in an unstable and

hostile world. Materialistic and practical, both philosophies suited thoughtful, educated Romans who chose to
confront the problems of living an ethical life in a society plagued by dissension, vice, and corruption" (241).
It was the era that sprouted such philosophies. According to Shapiro, The moral and emotional conditions in
the first true Age of Anxiety suffered in the western worldthe Hellenistic Agecalled forth and nourished three
great philosophical responses: Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Neo-Platonism (1).
Purpose in Life
This section will compare and contrast the three philosophies regarding the question "What is one's purpose
in life?" In Epicureanism, securing tranquility is the answer. The followers of this particular philosophy also
believed the highest good in one's life is secure and lasting pleasure. According to Lamm, Epicurus considered
pleasure the ultimate good and adhered, with remarkable consistency, to the consequences of this view (241). The
only way a person could achieve tranquility and pleasure is, as De Lacy says, "through the philosopher. Intelligent
choice is also needed, and practical wisdom is more to be prized than philosophy itself. Practical wisdom measures
pleasures against pains, accepting pains that lead to greater pleasures and rejecting pleasures that lead to greater
pains. It counts the traditional virtues (justice, temperance, and courage) among the means for attaining the pleasant
life; they have no other justification" (4).
The followers of Epicureanism also felt that if a person were full of fear and anxiety, he or she would be
hindered in achieving her purpose in life. Religion and the dread of death were viewed as the two great sources of
fear for mankind. To rid mankind of these fears, De Lacy says, "Epicurus stated that peace of mind is achieved
when the study of natural philosophy has removed all fear of the gods, when death is recognized to be merely the
limit of experience and therefore irrelevant to the quality of experience, and when the gratification of desires that go
beyond what is necessary and natural is seen to result in greater pains than pleasure" (4).
This brings up an interesting point, one that should be addressed. Epicureanism has been given
the reputation of saying that sensual pleasures are the highest good and this is what a person should
strive for. This view is actually mistaken. According to Burkhardt, Intense bodily pleasure has
consequences which are painful. In the long run, therefore, the highest good lies not in bodily pleasure
but in the maximum of equilibrium or absence of pain (272). The highest good is not in complete bodily
pleasure, but in creating a total balance between pleasure and pain.
How do the Stoics answer the proposed question "What is ones purpose in life?" They viewed purpose in
life as the pursuit of virtue. According to Lamm, It was seen that virtue was the sole good in an individuals life;
health, happiness, possessions are of no account. Because virtue resides in will power, everything good or bad in a
persons life depends entirely on that person (242). Lamm goes on to say, Virtue is seen as a detached calm, and
one must guard himself from allowing others from interfering with this calm. One can finally achieve freedom by
freeing oneself from all non-important desires (242). We can now see that Stoicism and Epicureanism have a
common thread: to achieve ones purpose in life, she must look within. Clark expands on this idea by saying, to
desire the impossible is irrational; and we should concern ourselves only with what is in our powernot wealth,
pleasure, or reputation, but our inward reaction to the circumstances of life (539).
The Stoics also wished to abolish passions, which were thought of as a mental disturbance.
According to Sandbach, The passions came in four generic kinds: fear, lust, mental pain, and mental
pleasure (60). A person who truly followed the Stoic philosophy tried to achieve a detached calm in any
situation. This person could have lost his wife and children in a fire, but would take care not to let it
disrupt his calm. He would try to view such a circumstance as of no account to him. If he did let it
distract him, then he would worry that he was jeopardizing his ultimate goal of achieving virtue.
Last is the Neo-Platonic view of ones purpose in life. This philosophy is somewhat different from
Epicureanism and Stoicism. According to Lamm, The main idea of ones life is to approach as near as possible to
an understanding of reality while on earth so that, upon death, one is fit to enter the City of Good and contemplate
the True Reality (243). In Neo-Platonism, there is the belief that nothing exists in its pure form. Pure form is seen
as impossible to experience it in this life. According to Sweeney, Neoplatonism tends, then, to put little emphasis
on the material universe and reuses all value to the unique, distinguishing characteristics of an individual human
person; for Plotinus these are unreal and unworthy accretion and must be put aside when one attains the One (297).
The idea then, is to live this life as ideally as one would live after death. By doing this, a person is more prepared
when faced with the True Reality.

God
This section will compare and contrast the three philosophies regarding the question "Is there a
God?" De Lacy states, Epicurus preferred the view, like all other atomic compounds, men have come
into being when the necessary conditions have been met. They have no creator and no destiny (4). It
was his belief then that no God did, in fact, exist. But Epicurus was influenced by society's belief at that
time that there was a multitude of gods. Even though he himself believed that there was no creator, he
devised a way to explain the possibility of the existence of these gods. According to Armstrong, The
gods live in the gaps between the universes. They are peculiar atomic structures, immortal in that the
flow of atoms into them exactly balances the outflow (505). Armstrong explains this state as follows:
Nothing exists but atoms and the empty space in which they endlessly move. Universes, including our
own, and all in them are just chance concatenations or chains of atoms, which are always coming into
existence and being dissolved infinite space (505). To compromise his own view with society's, Epicurus
further stated that the gods have no power over mortals and do not interfere in our lives or affairs.
In Stoicism there was a belief in God. According to Hallie, The Stoics defined God as a rational
spirit having itself no shape but making itself into all things (21). Hallie also states, he key words in the
Stoic vocabulary are all basically synonymous: God, Zeus, creative fire, ether, the word (logos), reason of
the world, soul of the world, law of nature, providence, destiny, and order. The Stoics were monists.
There is no qualitative difference between God and the rest of the universe (21). In their view then, God
is made up of everything; without Him nothing would exist.
Neo-Platonists supported belief in a multitude of gods. However, according to Shapiro, the gods
have no power over the universes. They must exist because humans believe in them, but there is no
need to fear them. Philosophers can derive peace and joy from contemplating the ideal existence of
gods (334). Therefore, even in their existence, they remain completely separate from mortals. There is
a point that does need to be clarified, though. In Neo-Platonism there is often the use of the words "The
One." This has led many to mistakenly interpret this philosophy as arguing for the existence of God or a
Creator. However, according to Dillon, The One can be defined as a principal superior to Intellect and
being, total, unitary and simple (95). Another way of defining The One is, according to Sweeney, as
follows: The One is cause and final goal that unifies us and our love terminates in it. No one knows for
sure what The One is, but its beyond being, knowledge, and language (297). Therefore, The One does
not represent the idea of God, but in fact an idea in itself.
Soul
This section will compare and contrast the three philosophies regarding the question "Is there a soul?" In
Epicureanism there was the belief in a soul, but it was not seen as living forever. In order to have a clearer picture of
this, it is necessary to understand how this philosophy viewed the workings of the body. According to De Lacy,
The human organism is composed of atoms undergoing characteristic patterns of change. Body and soul are
interdependent; neither can survive without the other. The souls atoms are of four kinds. Three are the same as the
atoms that constitute air, wind, and heat; the fourth, the smallest and most mobile, is sui genesis and nameless (4).
Thus it is that the soul is intertwined with the bodys functions, and has no purpose once the body dies. In this
regard, Epicureanism saw religion and the concept of eternal life as a threat. According to Lamm, Religion was not
a consolation but a threat [to Epicureans]; it was a supernatural interference with nature and a source of terror
because immortality denied release from pain. Death was both extinction and liberation (241).
Stoics also believed in a soul. They used the word pneuma, which is "breath" or "seed."
Pneuma is what we now consider the soul in modern terms. According to Reesor, The Romans
considered the pneuma to be a tensional motion within each entity, a stretching or tightness responsible
for the entitys coherence (735). Another interpretation of the Stoic's understanding of soul is explained
by Clark. He says, According to a biological analogy that was proposed, the particular things of the world
are governed in their emergence and development by the inherent power of seedsparks, as it wereof
the divine reason. The underlying substance of the world, this divine reason, is an intelligent fire that
directs all events (539). Without this pneuma, soul, or fire, nothing would exist.
Neo-Platonism also expresses the view that humans have souls. They also believed that the soul continues
on after the body dies. Lamm says, The goal [in Neo-Platonism] is to approach as near as possible to an

understanding of reality while on earth so that, upon death, one is fit to enter the City of Good and contemplate the
True Reality (243). This illustrates the Neo-Platonic view that there is a life after death, which--in this
philosophy--is dearly embraced because it frees the soul for better things. Concerning this, Shapiro says, Plotinus
expresses contempt for all that is of sense, blames the commerce of soul with body as enchainment, an entombment,
and upholds as a great truth the saying of the mysteries that the soul is here a prisoner (280).
There is a point that needs clarification, though. Many have confused the use of the word "soul"
in Neo-Platonism. According to Dillon, "The Soul is regarded as a level that generates time, and receives
the forms into itself as reason principles (logoi). Our physical, three-dimensional world is the result of the
lower aspect of the Soul (nature) projecting itself upon a kind of negative field of force (matter). Matter
has no positive existence but is simply the receptacle for the unfolding of the Soul in its lowest aspect,
which project three-dimensional space" (95). Therefore, the use of Soul in Neo-Platonism refers to one of
the levels of the universe, and not to what resides inside humans.
Conclusion
As we can see, these three philosophies share some common threads of thought, and greatly diverge on
others. Though modern technology has proven some of the ideas that held these structures together as incorrect,
some we still have yet to disprove. As Hallie says, Stoics compared their logic to the wall, their physics to the tree,
and their ethics to the fruit of a fertile field (21). This passage holds very true; many wonderful things and ideas
have sprouted out of these three philosophies, and many more will surely follow.
Works Cited
Armstrong, Hilary. Epicureanism. Encyclopedia Americana. 1998.
Burkhardt, Fredrick. Epicureanism. Colliers Encyclopedia. 1996.
Clark, Gordon H. Stoicism. Colliers Encyclopedia. 1996.
De Lacy, P.H. Epicureanism. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1967.
Dillon, J.M. Neoplatonism. Encyclopedia Americana. 1998.
Hallie, Phillip. Stoicism. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1967.
Lamm, Robert C. The Humanities in Western Culture. New York: Random, 1996.
Reesor, Margaret E. Stoicism. Encyclopedia Americana. 1998.
Sandbach, F.H. The Stoics. New York: Norton & Company, 1975.
Shapiro, Herman. Hellenistic Philosophy. New York: Random, 1965.
Sweeney, Leo. Neoplatonism. Colliers Encyclopedia. 1996.

3. Argument

Drug Abuse
Introduction: Drug abuse has always been a very delicate question as it always it deals with the
health, well-being and even lives of human beings belonging to any country. The position of the
United States of America towards drugs has always been very clear and distinctively negative.
Throughout the history of the country there were numerous cases against drug dealers, buyers
and many more. These cases did always catch the attention of civil people who by showing
interest in such cases revealed their worries about the future of their own children that one-day
might face this problem, too. As time goes by it get even more clear that people need to feel
protection from the side of law-enforcement establishments such as police. Drugs may destroy

the life of a person, therefore while fighting with drug dealers and buyers cooperatives no other
interest rather than removing this elements from the society should be taken into account. The
case, which is known as United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative did more than
just catch the attention of people. Million of people followed the case from its very beginning
and did have certain expectations concerning the outcome of the case. The specifics of the case
made people have twofold points of view when analyzing the solution that was delivered by
Justice Clarence Thomas concerning the case. Nevertheless, to understand the solution it is
necessary to examine the case deeper and only then decide whether the Courts decision is really
twofold, ambiguous or completely justified.
2. Main points of the case. Summarizing the main point in the opinion of the case it is necessary
to start from its very beginning. The case was argued on the 28th of March 2001 and the decision
was delivered on the 14th of May 2001. It was argued intensively and both of the sides were
acted rather confident. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative with Jeffrey Jones as a head
started its life according to Californias Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and was started to
follow medical purposes of distributing marijuana to people that in accordance with their state of
health qualify for it as a treatment. This organization spent two years distributing marijuana to
qualified patients until the year of 1998, when it was sued by USA. The main point of the
argument was that USAs government charge of Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative breach
of the Controlled Substances Acts and mainly its embargo for distributing, manufacturing, and
possessing of the substance, as far as marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substances Act. The
activity of the Cooperative continued in spite of the Districts Court decision and its activity was
very intense. The key issue presented by the Cooperative was its medical necessity defense, other
words they stated that all the marijuana that was distributed by means of their organization was
only distributed according to the medical necessity of this substance by qualified patients. As it
has been already mentioned the District Court made an injunction concerning the activity of the
organization and the following consideration of the case lead to the Court of Appeal. According
to the Court of Appeal all the medically necessary distributions were to be permitted. So the
reason the United Stated of America charged the organization is for the violation of the policy
concerning the distribution and manufacturing of the substance. On the other side the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Cooperative cited the medical necessity defense which was approved the Court
of Appeal and lately made the District Court change its injunction concerning the activity of the
cooperative.
2a. The main argument of USA suing the Cooperative. The United States of America on its side
presented a tremendously weighty argument that deals with the law of the country in the first
place. The mentioned above Controlled Substances Act is a certain prohibition concerning
narcotics, which has been made by experts and considered to be a law. Ordinarily, there is no
exception from the law that already exists; it is similar to the situation when the fact of not
knowing a certain law does not release from the responsibility for its violation. The argument of
the case was related to the possibility to make an exception concerning the Controlled
Substances Act prohibitions. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative implied that marijuana is
medically necessary for a definite group of people and the USAs government considered this to
be a violation the Controlled Substances Act. The degree of marijuanas necessity in medical
purposes was point that caused the majority of the questions throughout the case. The Court was
supposed to solve the problem and announce its verdict.

3. The Courts decision. "The statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical
benefits worthy of an exception; medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and
distributing marijuana," these words of Justice Clarence Thomas clearly reveal the decision of
the Court. The degree of medical necessity of marijuana was decided not to be enough to make
an exception in the Controlled Substances Act and therefore sell it to people, who may medically
require it. Manufacturing of marijuana as a fact in the activity of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Cooperative and therefore its possibility to distribute marijuana to the citizens of the country was
concluded to be weightier than marijuanas medical treatment characteristics. Therefore the
Court confirmed USAs position of the impossibility to make violate the prohibitions of the
Controlled Substances Act. The opinion of the Court basically reflected the next no distribution
should be justified even by medical necessity and no defense should be given to such
distributors. The possibility to make an exception was reviewed in four medical cases: "The
foregoing injunction does not apply to the distribution of cannabis by the Oakland Cannabis
Buyers Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones to patient-members who (1) suffer from a serious medical
condition, (2) will suffer imminent harm if the patient-member does not have access to cannabis,
(3) need cannabis for the treatment of the patient-member's medical condition, or need cannabis
to alleviate the medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition, and (4)
have no reasonable legal alternative to cannabis for the effective treatment or alleviation of the
patient-member's medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition because
the patient-member has tried all other legal alternatives to cannabis and the alternatives have
been ineffective in treating or alleviating the patient-member's medical condition or symptoms
associated with the medical condition, or the alternatives result in side effects which the patientmember cannot reasonably tolerate." This critical exception by itself caused a lot of arguments
and undermined the steadfastness of the Controlled Substances Act. Nevertheless, the decision of
the case remained unflinching and by this produced a lot of opposition.
4. Various aspects of the case. The decision of the court is obviously twofold and makes every
person think deeply before expression any kind of opinions. People who really do suffer from
hard diseases and may require marijuana might experience certain difficulties and probable
complications in their health state. Therefore hospitals, which previously primarily had to deal
with people belonging to this group, find themselves in the situation of inability to help their
patients. They need to find more high-priced medicaments for the patients treatment, which may
hit hard the budget of the hospital and of the patient. This definite case is very complicated due
to its connection to the most valuable thing the life and health of a human being. This
ambiguous case may require new statutes or constitutional amendments, due to the statutory
ambiguity according to the opinion of some people. Nevertheless, this ambiguity is rather
questionable and the Controlled Substances Act points it rather clearly. It seems that it is better to
find a medical substitute of marijuana, which is easier to do nowadays when medicine keeps
providing new innovative medicaments, than it was for instance, 30 years ago. And maybe this is
one of the primary reasons the Controlled Substance Act becomes so restrictive. It is obvious that
it was designed in order to protect the health of the citizens of the country from drug-dependence
and therefore any statement claiming that it will kill people has no base under itself. It was a case
of health v. health, and the only difference was that the Controlled Substance Act protected
million of potential dope fiends and the cooperative defended a certain group of people who may
find an alternative medical treatment. So, the Courts decision remains the same: there is no

medical necessity exception to the prohibitions at issue, even when the patient is "seriously ill"
and lacks alternative avenues for relief.
Conclusion. Is marijuana that advisable after all? This was the main question that the Court
answered by its decision. It is obvious that this case did touch certain moral issues, as the case
was about the health of human beings. Analyzing the destructive influence of marijuana in
general it is necessary to remember that marijuana does more harm than it does good. Therefore,
would not it be the main question to stop the outcry against the policy. A narcotic will always
remain a narcotic; even the famous genius Sigmund Fried went through this trying to treat
people. Why should we do it? Let us put the health of the nation ahead of everything.

Bibliography:
1. United States Supreme Court multimedia
2. Herman, Caroline United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative: whatever
happened to federalism?(Supreme Court Review)/Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology /
Northwestern University, School of Law/2002.
3. Liddick, Donald The Global Underworld: Transnational Crime and the United States
(International and Comparative Criminology)/ Praeger Publishers/2004.
4. Drug Regulation - Marijuana
5. Text of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision
4. CAUSE AND EFFECT

Causes of Having a Bad Mood

If you ask someone if they would rather be in a good or in bad mood, this person will most likely
think that you are weird. The majority of people obviously prefer to feel good and to be in a good
mood; this is a natural desire around which the entertainment, pharmaceutical, and other
industries were built. Whenever you feel down, you can find a way to increase your mood; this is
effective, but not a long-lasting measure; unfortunately, rarely people seek to find and understand
the reasons causing their bad mood. Knowing these reasons, people would be able to maintain
and control their emotions better.
Surprisingly, one of the most significant causes is what psychologists refer to as ego depletion.
This idea belongs to the researcher Roy Baumeister, who believes that when people use their
willpower, it drains their cognitive resources, and makes them feel worse. The more a person
strives to abstain from doing something, the more annoyed their mind becomes. There is some
kind of stress threshold: at some point, when ones willpower depletes, accumulated frustration

manifests itself as anger, irritability, cynicism, and other negative emotions. In its turn, these
effects increase a persons blood pressure, as well as the levels of the stress hormone cortisol,
which eventually gets a person even more flustered (Lifehacker).
A more trivial but not a less important reason why you might be in a bad mood regularly or even
all the time is stress caused by excessive work; being a workaholic may be beneficial for your
career and reputation, but it takes its toll: you put yourself at the risk of burning out.
Energy that you have is a depletable resource, and learning how to manage it properly is the
best way to avoid fatigue and the bad mood caused by it. There are other causes that add up to
fatigue (and can be connected to working all the time) the lack of vitamins from fresh
vegetables and fruit. Many people nowadays have to eat on the go, having no time to have
proper, balanced meals. Consuming food should be a relaxing and pleasant process not just
stuffing ones stomach with calories. And after all, if you have not been in direct sunlight for a
while, you are guaranteed to be in a bad mood (Huffington Post).
Unfortunately, among all the ways to get rid of excessive stress and bad mood, many people
choose the easiest ones; some of them are more or less socially acceptable playing video
games, for example, or going to dancing clubs, and so on. However, more often people seek
respite in substances such as alcohol or light drugs. Beer, all kinds of cocktails, wines, liquors,
and other sorts of drinks are considered to be an easy and legal way to relax. The same refers to
marijuana since it is being legalized widely and is not considered to be a heavy drug, people
smoke it to get in a better mood. However, numerous research studies prove the opposite:
consuming substances like alcohol or drugs may make you feel better for a short time, but
then there is necessarily a hangover, a feeling of guilt, temporary memory loss, and so on.
Moreover, consuming such substances has numerous negative long-term effects (for example,
mental degradation and/or addiction) so in this perspective, these substances only make you
feel worse (QuickAndDirtyTips).
So, the next time you feel that your mood goes down, spend a minute to analyze your recent
activities in an attempt to figure out what might be wrong. Activities that lead to the depletion of
cognitive resources, fatigue and overworking, the lack of vitamins and sunlight, as well as the
consumption of alcohol and other drugs can be factors that you might want to eliminate in order
to start feeling better.

References
Klosowski, Thorin. The Science Behind a Bad Mood and What You Can Do About It.
Lifehacker. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.
8 Causes and Treatments of Mood Swings. Quick and Dirty Tips. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.
Chan, Amanda L. 9 Sneaky Reasons Youre In A Bad Mood (And What To Do About It). The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

5. DESCRIPTIVE

Tokyo Skytree
Japan is widely known as a country of wonders. Not to mention its magnificent contrasts on the
edge of modernity and traditionalism, this country can boast of incredibly beautiful nature, rich
culture, and technological progress that has outpaced the rest of the world for decades. One of
the manifestations of this progress is the famous Tokyo Skytree: an enormous skyscraper built
right in the city center, which has changed the citys appearance dramatically.
The Tokyo Skytree belongs to the most prominent constructions ever raised by human
beings. It is a communications and observation tower located in the Sumida district. It
would not be an exaggeration to say it can be seen at almost any place in Tokyo, because it
is so incredibly high.
To be precise, the Tokyo Skytree is 2,080 feet high, which makes it Japans tallest structure, and
the second highest building in the world, before the famous Burj Khalifa. In this building,
broadcasting companies, restaurants, and observation grounds are located, so anyone can enjoy
the panorama from the Skytrees heights.
The tower reminds of a gigantic tripod in its base, and at the half of its height (1,050 feet) its
three legs conjoin and form a cylinder, which helps create possibilities for panoramic views all
over its perimeter. The tower is painted in a color that is officially called Skytree White. It is said
that this bluish white color is based on the so-called Aijiro color, which is traditional for Japanese
visual arts. Besides, the tower is illuminated with LED lights, so the Tokyo Skytrees colors
change daily, from pale purple to sky blue.
Due to the use of modern technologies, Tokyo Skytree can also withstand even powerful
earthquakes, which occur in Japan rather often.
The Tokyo Skytree without a doubt is a wonder of technology and industrial design. It makes
Tokyo, which has consistently been futuristic, look like a city from the distant future. And,
considering Japans constant growth and development, many other futuristic buildings will be
raised.
- See more at: https://academichelp.net/samples/academics/essays/descriptive/tokyoskytree.html#sthash.YqhcPvWa.dpuf