This was a system which Dealt with things sensibly and realistically in a way which is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations unlike Mao whom was obsessed with ideology, this is where a system of ideas and ideals (Maoism), especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy introduced by ministers. Furthermore Mao was a key figure because when he saw the new ministers as a threat as they succeeded in ending the famine, growing increasingly popular within the party unlike Mao whom actually started the catastrophic famine and failed to meet industrial targets during the Great leap forward.
Good conclusions usually refer back to the question or title and address it directly - for example by using key words from the title.
How well do you think these conclusions address the title or question? Answering these questions should help you find out.
Do they use key words from the title or question?
Do they answer the question directly?
Can you work out the question or title just by reading the conclusion?
"In conclusion, one realises that there were a varying number of factors that contributed to Bolivar's failure to unite the Latin American States. These reasons however branch off of two specific factors. Firstly, Bolivar refused to accept the states' newfound nationalism as a strong and important factor, to understand the differences among the states. This showed in the elites' unwillingness to accept Bolivar's grand plans for their independent nations.
Secondly, Bolivar, against his earlier judgement attempted to manage a republic over too vast a geographical area. As he could not be everywhere at once, his large republic became increasingly difficult to maintain. Eventually this led to individuals acting freely in his absence. Though Bolivar was quite a humble gentleman, he allowed those around him to persuade him that his popularity as 'liberator' would allow him to be successful in his plans.
1 Belaunde, Victor A. Bolivar and the Political Thought of the Spanish American Revolution, 1967."
"In conclusion, I think that the immediate cause of the outbreak of war was definitely the July crisis in the summer of 1914. However the crucial decisions made by the leading figure were in fact influenced by the rise in international tension from about 1905 which was partly generated by the German policy of Weltpolitik. It's obvious to say that between 1905 and 1913 no-one is authority actually wanted a war and Britain in the actual crisis of the summer of 1914 was neither planning a war nor even sure about what to do in the event of one whereas the Germans as early as 8th July 1912 had discussions about a possible war. The outbreak of war was not a result of a badly mismanaged Balkan crisis in the summer of 1914, it was the final straw of long-standing rivalries."
"In conclusion, technological advances have only slightly affected the importance of location in the foreign policy behaviour. It permits to strong states to diminish, to some extent, the disadvantages of their locations. As for weak states, they try to take advantage of their locations to fill their lack of technology. In spite of his modern army, the Soviet army was unable to destroy the resistance in the Mountainous Afghanistan. America can invade Iraq and Afghanistan with its advanced weapons but has neither shattered the Iraqis' resistance nor captured Bin-Laden."
Marked by a teacher
This document has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read
the full teachers notes when you download the document.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay
reviewing squad. Read the full review on the document page.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student document
reviewing squad. Read the full review under the document preview on this page.