It is easy to welcome innovation and accept new ideas

It is easy to welcome innovation and accept new ideas, what most people find difficult, however, is accepting the way these new ideas are put into practice.

This assertion actually consist of two claims, that it is easy for people to accept the new innovation and ideas, that people, who welcome innovation and accept new ideas, are not willing to accepting the way of new ideas being put into practice. I strongly disagree with the first claims; nevertheless, I find some merits in the second claim. For the first claim, I believe that only through revolution can the history of any kind evolve, not only in the field of politics, but also in the field of science. For the second claim, I believe that although people may accept the new ideas, they tend to reject the ideas influencing there life.

Turning first to the statement's fundamental and threshold claim, are people easy to accept new ideas and welcome innovation? I strongly doubt so. Human beings, with their own principles and thinking, will hardly change their view of the world, only because of new innovation and ideas, without strongly convincing evidences to show them that they can benefit with these.

Furthermore, if the new ideas and innovation are violating the principles they believe in, people will tend to be strongly against them. It happens in both politics and physical science.

One convincing example is the argument of "centre of the universe" between the Roman Church and an astronomer "Bruno". When Bruno first introduced the ideas that the Earth is not the centre of universe, in fact, even the sun is only one of the stars in the universe, the Catholic Church in Roman was in panic. These ideas, violating the principles that the Church believing in for hundreds of years, eventually caused Bruno being hanged in front of the Church.

It happens not only in physical science, even in the social movements and politics. Martin Luther King Jr, as a great social and political leader, led the "March on Washington", gave the speech "I have a dream" in front of Lincoln Monument, and raised public consciousness of the civil rights movement, who has been treated one of the greatest orator in American history. However, it is his new ideas of "human right" "civil right" that violate some people's benefits and caused him being assassinated after the Movement. Whenever there are conflictions, there is revolution, only through which, people can understand and appreciate. And most of time, by accepting new innovation and ideas, there are always sacrifices, even cost of life.

Turning next to the speaker's second claim that, it is difficult for people who accept the new ideas, to accept the way of new ideas is put into practice. The speaker trying to define the definition of "accept the new ideas" by "accepting them exists", which means that people accept the ideas exist, but do not accept the ideas influencing their life. By granting this promise, I agree with the statement by exploring our intuitions and empirical evidences. Consider, for example, people who accept that ideas of nuclear of technology being used in the war, will not agree that any kind of nuclear weapons being used near their homes. People sometimes can accept the ideas exist, however, they cannot accept the ideas influence their lives.

In the final analysis, it is always hard for people accept the new ideas, which can be accepted only through revolution and strong convincing statements. At the same time, even people accept the new ideas, they will tend to against the new ideas to influence their lives.

guys, I am taking exams in less than three weeks, any comments would help. thanks!

Sorry, but what's the prompt:?


So to clarify this, try not to place both claims in one sentence. It's harder to understand. Also, when typing, or writing in general, don't use too many commas, or the sentence gets overly confusing.


their* lives*

I guess, since you are addressing these two claims separately, to either use quotations to place them apart, or state them each as an independent clause or single sentence. That way, it is much clearer what you are trying to say.


cause Bruno to be*
good. you get the construction of hanged* here :] yay


again, there is the comma issue. the last part is the one that needs to be fixed. It was not the civil rights movement who was the orator. it was MLK. the phrase you wrote modified the movement, not the person. confusing? ask around for clarification


Are you saying that people are willing to accept nuclear technology, but when it comes to adding it to their vicinity, they will be against it?

And as for your conclusion, yes I can somewhat see what you are saying, but some of it I think you need to add a bit more to support the claim, such as the


part

Good Luck. Cheers~

Is this really how they wrote the statement? It is a run on sentence.

I would do it this way:
This assertion actually consist of two claims: that it is easy for people to accept the new innovation and ideas, and that people, who welcome innovation and accept new ideas, are not willing to accepting the way of new ideas being able to easily put them practice.

When Bruno first introduced the idea that the Earth is not the centre of universe, and in fact that even the sun is only one of the stars in the universe, the Catholic Church in Rome was in panic. These ideas, violating the principles that the Church had believed in for hundreds of years, eventually caused Bruno being hanged in front of the Church.

It happens not only in physical science, but also in the social movements and politics. Martin Luther King Jr, as a great social and political leader, led the "March on Washington", gave the speech "I Have a Dream" in front of Lincoln Monument, and raised public consciousness of the civil rights movement, who has been treated one of the greatest orator in American history. ---- excellent sentence!! You have a real talent for writing...