The bond between siblings is the most enduring bond that any of us experiences.
This bond is not as demanding and as critical as that of our parents, children or spouse and this is potentially longest relationship we will ever have in life.I think you should rewrite this sentence if you keep it. I would rewrite it is "This bond is potentially more enduring lasting than that between a parent, child or spouse.
The bond that is shared with siblings helps to determine the quality of bond we will experience
with our other relationships in life in all other relationships.
Children who have brothers and sisters usually have more perspective
life than the only children. Sibling relationships can teach children the differences between the views of life, not just only from parents but it is also from their brothers and sisters close to their own age. I had to reread that last line. You make an interesting point, how being brought up with sibling presents an alternative perspective that has considerable influence that is also near in age. I do see a few flaws that I think you could address. You're assuming the siblings are close in age. Wouldn't a close childhood friend have the same advantage/benefit?
The first thing that children who have brothers and sisters
learn is how to share.
with others. With others is implied.
social skills at a young age
, which are crucial throughout life. Although sometimes children just want to keep something for their[s]s
own, they have to think about their siblings before doing that every time. It is just like a conception of sharing. [/s]
Children with siblings are able to make and maintain friendships.What you had to bring the paragraph to this point wasn't working. It was repetitive and didn't add much. You should explain how the head start on social skills will give these children the advantage when it comes to making friends. Flaws: only children make friends too, which is why I added that second part. Also, even if children with siblings get a head start, is it not possible for only children to catch up?
However, the only child in a family has all the things that they
are given. They don't have to worry about
their sibling who they have to share with or think about. sharing with their siblings. However, I
f the only child is around other children that do share, it can cause an altercation. Do you have proof for that last sentence? I don't like the repetition of "however" in the beginning of the last two sentences.
In early childhood, children who have brothers and sisters, have constant companions and playmates, they can play games together, have conversations, learn to play make-believe and share problems with each other. Having siblings also teaches younger siblings things such as learning to walk and talk sooner, because the younger child will try and imitate with the older child is doing. Wouldn't they imitate their parents doing the same?
They can also help to take care of each other. The older sibling can help the younger siblings with learning to make their bed, play football, basketball or help with homework. There is no limit to what siblings can do for each other. In comparison to only children who receive more of their parents' attention, which may give them an advantage with help with homework, more playtime with dad or mom, and perhaps more or better toys, educational items, clothes, etc. because there is more money available. The money argument is weak.
not have the opportunity to socialize as much with other children. Days can be long with them. These parents may go to the parks more, and join mommy and me groups to help their children learn to interact with other children.You're not being very authoritative in your writing. There is a lot of second-guessing yourself
As an adult, one usually finds a happy memory of their childhood to share with another person, of the relationship with their sibling. This could bring back feelings of happiness or hostility, depending on the severity of sibling rivalry. For some siblings, the rivalry carries on into adulthood and becomes unhealthy. You've spent the who paper talking about how having a sibling is an advantage. If you're going to have a concession in your paper do it earlier on, right after the intro and thesis. To be honest I ran out of time here. I only skimmed over the rest, seemed decent.
On the other hand, a possible disadvantage for only children when they get older and reflect back on their childhood memories, is that they may regret not having a sibling. At the time, it may have seemed better to be the only child and have more physical things and attention. But upon growing older, they may miss the bond and relationship they could have had.
In conclusion, an only child will always be just that. Once older, the family does not extend and they will not know the joy of having nieces and nephews and the special bonds and memories that come along with that. Also, the relationships among brothers and sisters are boundlessly varied, but whatever their characteristics, these bonds last throughout life. After the loss of a parent, a sibling is the only on that can truly understand what you are going through as well as the pain of your loss.[/quote]
[i]You risk offending your reader. There's between 10-20% chance that he or she will be an only child./i]
Hope this helps, good luck!