美国大学申请文书写作方法：奴隶种植作物

在： ,

美国大学申请文书写作方法：奴隶种植作物

在咖啡生产方面，最初奴隶主采用阿拉伯的作物种植制度，无视当地的作物生产。该地区不同的土壤需要不同的生产方法。奴隶主有任务系统和奴隶团伙来控制工人(Morgan, 1988)。在这个体系中，工人没有任何发言权。他们被要求服从命令，破坏森林系统来创造土地，他们遵循垂直的咖啡生产系统。奴隶们在咖啡生产协议中没有任何发言权。这反过来又导致人们破坏原有的景观(Dean, 1997)。然而，在该地区发展咖啡生产的技术被提供给了在该地区经营的奴隶。这就是马科斯暗示奴隶与该地区的咖啡生产关系不大的原因。奴隶们被迫做苦工，在起义前受到压迫。它们最初是按照阿拉伯种植园主在7世纪实行的一种制度制作的，后来根据土壤发生了变化。
在这整个过程中，尽管当地人对当地的土壤有了更多的了解，但是奴隶们并没有得到任何关于不同种植园开发方法的发言权。在朱迪思·卡尼(Judith Carney)的分析中，它指出，大米和奴隶已经成为一个单一的排他身份。由于西非奴隶的知识，水稻得以种植和大规模生产。在奴隶和水稻生产之间存在着一种二元关系。它已经成为奴隶和他们的苦难的转喻(Carney & Carney, 2009)。在卡尼的论证中，它建立在一个隐含的论断之上，即奴隶导致了所有权的范式转变。水稻的种植有着复杂而模糊的任务。这是一个多学科的方法，把不适宜居住的湿地变成了水稻种植区。这是因为奴隶的知识和劳动，因此它已经成为该地区奴隶生产的同义词。

美国大学申请文书写作方法：奴隶种植作物

In the case of Coffee production, initially the slave owners resorted to following the Arabian system of plantation of the crops by disregarding the indigenous crop production. The different soils in the area required differential methods of production. The slave owners had the task system and slave gangs to control the workers (Morgan, 1988). In this system, the workers did not have any voice. They were made to follow orders, destroy the forest system for creation of the agrarian lands and they followed the vertical system of coffee production. The slaves did not have any voice in the protocols for the coffee production. This in turn leads to the people destroying the original landscape (Dean, 1997). Yet the technology for developing the coffee production in the area was given to the slaves operating in the region. This has been the reason alluded by Marques to state that the slaves had little to do with the coffee production in the area. The slaves were made to do hard labor and were treated to oppressive conditions before the uprising. They were made to follow a system practiced by Arabian plantation owners of the 7th century initially and had subsequently changed based on the soil.
In this whole process, the slaves were not given any voice about the different plantation development methods, even though the locals made more awareness of the soils in the region.In the analysis by Judith Carney, it states that the rice and slaves have become a single exclusive identity. Rice was grown and the large scale production of the rice cultivation was possible owing to the knowledge of the West African slaves. There has been a dichotomous relationship between the slaves and the rice production. It had become a metonymy for slaves and their hardships (Carney & Carney, 2009). In the case of Carney argument, it was founded on the implicit assertion that slaves caused a paradigm shift in the ownership. Cultivation of rice has a complex and obscure mandates. It is a multi-disciplinary approach that had turned the inhospitable wetlands into cultivable rice plantation areas. This was because of the knowledge and the labor of the slaves, and hence it has become synonymous with the slave production in the areas.

美国大学申请essay：同居关系接受度调查

在： ,

美国大学申请essay：同居关系接受度调查

同居关系接受度均值的置信区间为0.688 ~ 0.912，置信值为95%。这意味着，如果重复采样，95%的情况下，上述问题的平均值将在0.688到0.912之间。对于婚前同居关系是否更稳定的回答均值为0.56。95%的置信区间是0。4和0。72。婚前同居关系中离婚概率均值的置信区间为-0.496 – -0.104。同样，承诺水平均值的置信区间为0.411和0.749。因此，从上面的讨论可以明显看出，样本的平均想法是，他们接受同居关系作为他们在自己生活中可能考虑的一种生活方式。这种影响在不同性别中都很显著。两组性别的均值在统计上是不平等的，这意味着两组性别对同居关系的适应有不同的认知。由于男性的平均水平高于女性，男性比女性更愿意接受同居关系。
然而，跨性取向的方法在统计上是平等的，这意味着考虑的两种取向都同样可能接受同居关系。该样本认为，婚前的恋爱关系往往会降低离婚的几率，增加婚姻的承诺程度，并带来婚姻的稳定。然而，这项调查有几个局限性。样本量非常小，这意味着可能存在抽样偏差。该样本可能不能代表人口，因此上述结果可能不适用于整个印度。即使样本试图保持随机，但由于抽样偏差的存在，样本的随机性可能较低。开展这项调查的一个更好的方法是让更多的人参与到同居关系中来。此外，分层必须是平等的，这意味着在每一层内，分类特征的发生率即使不相等，也应相当接近。

美国大学申请essay：同居关系接受度调查

The confidence interval for the mean of acceptance of live-in relationships lies in the range of 0.688 to 0.912, the confidence being 95%. This means that if a repeated sampling is done, 95% of the times, the mean for the aforesaid question will lie between 0.688 and 0.912. The mean of the response for whether or not a marriage preceded by live-in relationships are more stable, is 0.56. The confidence interval for this mean at 95% is 0.4 and 0.72. The confidence interval for the mean of probability of divorce in a marriage preceded by live-in relationships is between -0.496 and -0.104. Likewise, the confidence interval for mean of level of commitment is 0.411 and 0.749. Thus, from the above discussion it is apparent that the average thinking of the sample is that they accept live-in relationship as a possible mode of lifestyle they might consider in their own life. The effect is significant across the gender. The means of the two groups of gender are statistically unequal which implies that the two genders have different perception about adapting live-in relationships. Since the mean for men is higher than that for women, men are more willing to accept live-in relationship as compared to women.
However, the means across sexual orientation are statistically equal which means both the orientations considered are equally likely to accept live-in relationships. The sample thinks that live in relationships preceding marriages tend to reduce the chances of divorce, increase the level of commitment and bring stability in the marriage.However, this survey has several limitations. The sample size is very small which implies that there might be a sampling bias. The sample might not be a representative of the population due to which the above results might not hold true for the whole of India. Even though the sample is tried to keep random, the randomness might be low in it due to which sampling bias occurs. A better way to conduct this survey would be to include more people who have been in live-in relationships. Also, an equality in stratification is required which means within each strata, the incidence of classifying characteristics should be comparably close to each other, if not equal.