Get help from the best in academic writing.

Admiral Kimmel And Pearl Harbor Get Essay Help

Leadership DecisionEssay Preview: Leadership DecisionReport this essayIn the summer of 1941, as relations between the United States and Japan were rapidly deteriorating, Admiral Kimmel, commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, received many warnings concerning the imminence of war. During this period, he worked out a plan in collaboration with his staff at Pearl Harbor, which gave priority to training key personnel and supplying basic equipment to U.S. outposts in the Far East. The plan took account of the possibility of a long, hard war with Japan and the difficulties of mobilizing scarce resources in manpower and material. At the time, Admiral Kimmel and his staff were keenly aware of the risks of being unprepared for war with Japan, as well s the high costs and risks involved in preparing for war. They appear to have been relatively optimistic about being able to develop a satisfactory military plan and about having sufficient time in which to implement it. In short, all the conditions were present for vigilance, and it seems likely that this coping pattern characterized their planning activity.


But during the fall of 1941, as warnings became increasingly more ominous, a different pattern of coping behavior emerged. Admiral Kimmel and his staff continued to cling to the policy to which they had committed themselves, discounting each fresh warning and failing to note that more and more signs were pointing to Pearl Harbor as a possible target for a surprise air attack. They repeatedly renewed their decision to continue using the available resources primarily for training green soldiers and sailors for supplying bases close to Japan, rather than instituting an adequate alert that would give priority to defending Pearl harbor against enemy attack.


Knowing that neither their own sector nor the rest of the U.S. military organization was ready for a shooting war, they clung to an unwarranted set of rationalizations. The Japanese, they thought, would not launch an attack against any American possession; and if by some remote change they decided to do so, it certainly wouldnt be Pearl Harbor. Admiral Kimmel and his staff acknowledged that Japan could launch a surprise attack in any direction, but remained convinced that it would not be launched in their direction. They saw no reason to change their course. Therefore, they continued to give peacetime weekend leave to the majority of the naval forces in Hawaii and allowed the many warships in the Pacific Fleet to remain anchored at Pearl harbor, as sitting ducks.


The Naval War College began to make such a claim, saying that the U.S. Marines were incapable of launching an attack (or even a single attack for that matter) against any U.S. defense, although the Marines had a few ships at Pearl Harbor:


Since Pearl Harbor, no U.S. military officer has been subject to the threat of attack by U.S. warships based on their positions in the Pacific. … The Navy has never had the greatest responsibility for a navy attack; rather, it has been responsible only in special situations when it knows a naval attack would result in any U.S. defense which might threaten it. We think that these facts suggest that the administration should have taken the precaution and assumed the most appropriate response, especially in such a remote and uncertain area.


The Naval War College later put together a plan, which was based somewhat on the concept laid out in its book, a “plan for the defense of Hawaiian and Pacific coastlines from a noncombatant” who had an independent duty to defend national security.


What The Navy Has Done in Hawaii


The Navy began by having regular patrols in large open field, known as the “Klatholian Islands,” on the south’s south coast known as Lantana and in Kibuna, where small groups of Japanese cruisers and destroyers had participated in a large scale Pacific air war. These ships followed the line of attack and followed the patterns outlined in the United Nation’s Strategic Air Command. These patrols were part of Operation Pendleton’s campaign to “prevent the U.S. Navy from engaging in long-term air defense.” The initial patrols were intended for Hawaii and the rest of the South Pacific, but continued down the South Pacific into the Pacific. Although the campaign ended with the defeat of the U.S. forces there, it showed that the military might of other nations were not quite equal to the U.S.-Japan relationship. The Navy was prepared to continue patrolling the South, but it had begun to suspect that a Japanese strike would cause other countries in the Pacific to come closer to Hawaii or Kibuna. The plan was to send three more troops to Kibuna and the U.S. forces to Hawaii to “provide support to the Americans as they plan to strike at Pearl Harbor and attack Pearl Harbor.” The plan did involve a number of Japanese ships in the South Pacific.


The Navy’s next task was to attack a major U.S. military installation in Japan that the military was worried might pose a large hazard to the South and Japan. The Marines’ plan included a strike in Honolulu and a landing in Honolulu on an island off the coast north of Japan. However, the plan failed to reach Hawaii, and an amphibious assault on Honolulu was cancelled. Nevertheless, the Marines believed that the U.S. military presence in the South Pacific would prove valuable to Hawaii. They decided to strike on land and use land-based radar to gain some measure of control of the enemy. After dropping bombs on Japan’s


The Naval War College began to make such a claim, saying that the U.S. Marines were incapable of launching an attack (or even a single attack for that matter) against any U.S. defense, although the Marines had a few ships at Pearl Harbor:


Since Pearl Harbor, no U.S. military officer has been subject to the threat of attack by U.S. warships based on their positions in the Pacific. … The Navy has never had the greatest responsibility for a navy attack; rather, it has been responsible only in special situations when it knows a naval attack would result in any U.S. defense which might threaten it. We think that these facts suggest that the administration should have taken the precaution and assumed the most appropriate response, especially in such a remote and uncertain area.


The Naval War College later put together a plan, which was based somewhat on the concept laid out in its book, a “plan for the defense of Hawaiian and Pacific coastlines from a noncombatant” who had an independent duty to defend national security.


What The Navy Has Done in Hawaii


The Navy began by having regular patrols in large open field, known as the “Klatholian Islands,” on the south’s south coast known as Lantana and in Kibuna, where small groups of Japanese cruisers and destroyers had participated in a large scale Pacific air war. These ships followed the line of attack and followed the patterns outlined in the United Nation’s Strategic Air Command. These patrols were part of Operation Pendleton’s campaign to “prevent the U.S. Navy from engaging in long-term air defense.” The initial patrols were intended for Hawaii and the rest of the South Pacific, but continued down the South Pacific into the Pacific. Although the campaign ended with the defeat of the U.S. forces there, it showed that the military might of other nations were not quite equal to the U.S.-Japan relationship. The Navy was prepared to continue patrolling the South, but it had begun to suspect that a Japanese strike would cause other countries in the Pacific to come closer to Hawaii or Kibuna. The plan was to send three more troops to Kibuna and the U.S. forces to Hawaii to “provide support to the Americans as they plan to strike at Pearl Harbor and attack Pearl Harbor.” The plan did involve a number of Japanese ships in the South Pacific.


The Navy’s next task was to attack a major U.S. military installation in Japan that the military was worried might pose a large hazard to the South and Japan. The Marines’ plan included a strike in Honolulu and a landing in Honolulu on an island off the coast north of Japan. However, the plan failed to reach Hawaii, and an amphibious assault on Honolulu was cancelled. Nevertheless, the Marines believed that the U.S. military presence in the South Pacific would prove valuable to Hawaii. They decided to strike on land and use land-based radar to gain some measure of control of the enemy. After dropping bombs on Japan’s


The Naval War College began to make such a claim, saying that the U.S. Marines were incapable of launching an attack (or even a single attack for that matter) against any U.S. defense, although the Marines had a few ships at Pearl Harbor:


Since Pearl Harbor, no U.S. military officer has been subject to the threat of attack by U.S. warships based on their positions in the Pacific. … The Navy has never had the greatest responsibility for a navy attack; rather, it has been responsible only in special situations when it knows a naval attack would result in any U.S. defense which might threaten it. We think that these facts suggest that the administration should have taken the precaution and assumed the most appropriate response, especially in such a remote and uncertain area.


The Naval War College later put together a plan, which was based somewhat on the concept laid out in its book, a “plan for the defense of Hawaiian and Pacific coastlines from a noncombatant” who had an independent duty to defend national security.


What The Navy Has Done in Hawaii


The Navy began by having regular patrols in large open field, known as the “Klatholian Islands,” on the south’s south coast known as Lantana and in Kibuna, where small groups of Japanese cruisers and destroyers had participated in a large scale Pacific air war. These ships followed the line of attack and followed the patterns outlined in the United Nation’s Strategic Air Command. These patrols were part of Operation Pendleton’s campaign to “prevent the U.S. Navy from engaging in long-term air defense.” The initial patrols were intended for Hawaii and the rest of the South Pacific, but continued down the South Pacific into the Pacific. Although the campaign ended with the defeat of the U.S. forces there, it showed that the military might of other nations were not quite equal to the U.S.-Japan relationship. The Navy was prepared to continue patrolling the South, but it had begun to suspect that a Japanese strike would cause other countries in the Pacific to come closer to Hawaii or Kibuna. The plan was to send three more troops to Kibuna and the U.S. forces to Hawaii to “provide support to the Americans as they plan to strike at Pearl Harbor and attack Pearl Harbor.” The plan did involve a number of Japanese ships in the South Pacific.


The Navy’s next task was to attack a major U.S. military installation in Japan that the military was worried might pose a large hazard to the South and Japan. The Marines’ plan included a strike in Honolulu and a landing in Honolulu on an island off the coast north of Japan. However, the plan failed to reach Hawaii, and an amphibious assault on Honolulu was cancelled. Nevertheless, the Marines believed that the U.S. military presence in the South Pacific would prove valuable to Hawaii. They decided to strike on land and use land-based radar to gain some measure of control of the enemy. After dropping bombs on Japan’s


Kimmel regularly discussed each warning with members of his staff. At times he became emotionally aroused and obtained reassurance from the members of his in-group. He shared with them a number of rationalizations that bolstered his decision to ignore the warnings. On November 27, 1941, for example, he received an explicit “war warning” from the chief of naval operations in Washington, which stirred up his concern but did not impel him to take any new protective action. This message was intended as a strong follow-up to an earlier warning, which Kimmel had received only three days earlier, stating that war with Japan was imminent and that “a surprise aggressive movement in any direction, including attack on Philippines or Guam, is a possibility.” The new warning asserted that “an aggressive move by Japan is expected within the next few days” and instructed Kimmel to “execute appropriate defensive deployment” preparatory to carrying out the naval war plan.


The threat conveyed by this warning was evidently strong enough to induce Kimmel to engage in prolonged discussion with his staff about what should be done. But their vigilance seems to have been confined to paying careful attention to the way the warning was worded. During the meeting, members of the staff pointed out to Kimmel that Hawaii was not specifically mentioned as a possible target in either of tgvthe two war warnings, whereas other places–the Philippines, Malaya, and other remote areas–were explicitly named. Kimmel went along with the interpretation that the ambiguities they had detected in the wording must have meant that Pearl Harbor was not supposed to be regarded as a likely target, even though the message seemed to be saying that it was. The defensive quality that entered into this judgment is revealed by the fact that Kimmel made no effort to use his available channels of communication in Washington to find out what really had been meant. He ended up agreeing with the members of his advisory group that there was no chance of a surprise air attack on Hawaii at that particular time.


Since he judged Pearl Harbor not to be vulnerable, Kimmel decided that the limited-alert condition that had been instituted months earlier would be sufficient. He assumed, however, that antiaircraft and radar units under army control would be fully activated. But, again, reflecting his defensive lack of interest in carrying out tasks that requir4ed acknowledging the threat, Kimmel failed to inquire of Army headquarters exactly what was being done. As a result, he did not discover until after the disaster on December 7 that the Army, too, was on only limited alert, designed exclusively to protect military installations against local sabotage.


On December 3, 1941, Kimmel engaged in intensive discussion with two members of his staff upon receiving a fresh warning from naval headquarters in Washington stating that U.S. cryptographers had decoded a secret message from Tokyo to all diplomatic missions in the United States and other countries, ordering them to destroy


Charismatic Leader And Emotional Intelligence essay help app: essay help app

Leadership Review

Essay Preview: Leadership Review

Report this essay

When I think of a charismatic leader Im reminded of a football coach that I had in high school. By having this coach while I was in high school became a very valuable asset as I have grow and matured from those times, everyday I think back to the things that he told us. This man took a group of kids that should not have been playing football and turned us into one of the most successful teams in the state. Because of his charisma and belief in us we were able to achieve things that we would have not with out him. Coach was very demanding of us but as a group we believed him and did what he commanded because he had been there and we knew it. To be a charismatic leader like coach you have to have emotional intelligence, coach understood his emotions and knew ours, and one must have a very positive attitude. People will feed off of your attitude, if you are positive about a situation you followers will be positive about a situation, if you are negative, your followers will be negative. By having this emotional intelligence he was able to inspire us because knew what we needed to hear and feel to perform at the best of our ability or above or ability. It takes emotional intelligence to inspire people to the fullest capacity; one must be able to read their own emotions and the emotions of other to have the greatest impact on an individual. This is explained better by being self-aware and having social awareness. These are the main components of emotional intelligence that a charismatic leader must have to be effective with this style of leadership. There is a personality trait that is essential to the traits needed to be a charismatic leader, and that is being extroverted. Extroverted is defined as being outgoing, sociable, talk able, and energetic. Is a person is quiet and afraid to speak up around new people and is not willing to be talkative and sociable around people this person is not a charismatic leader and will not be successful if they attempt this leadership style.


When I think of a transactional leader Im reminded of my boss that supervised me over the summer. He was exceptionally good at completing the necessary task completed to make sure that everything ran smoothly. He was very good at making sure that tasks that were handed down to me or others were explained in very great detail, and when we did an exceptional job he was very good about making sure that we received the proper rewarding for a exceptional completed job. He was very good at recognizing which of us was the best at a certain task and would make sure that we assigned to that task. My boss this summer was a very great person to work for and I could not have asked for a better boss, and this was because of is transactional leadership skills. As a employee I always knew what was expected of me and I knew exactly what was needed to get things done. My summer boss had great emotional stability, which I believe is a trait that is need to have this style of leadership; he was calm and controlled and made sure to have control of himself and the situation to the best of his ability. Conscientiousness was another personality trait that my summer boss had that made him very effective, he was very responsible, dependable, very persistent, and very achievement oriented. This made my job a lot easier because I knew that he was going to be there everyday and would be working hard and as a follower I did not want to let him down, this is because I knew that he would not let me down.


I had a job at a landscaping company back home when I was in high school and my boss then is a perfect example of a transformational leader, he was very innovative and let us employees on the job site make our own decisions. In this type of business he could not be on the job site all the


Physical Disability And Sophocles Presents Blindness college admissions essay help

Oedipus the King – BlindnessJoin now to read essay Oedipus the King – BlindnessBlindness plays a two-fold part in Sophocles’ tragedy “Oedipus the King.” First, Sophocles presents blindness as a physical disability affecting the auger Teiresias, and later Oedipus; but later, blindness comes to mean an inability to see the evil in one’s actions and the consequences that ensue. The irony in this lies in the fact that Oedipus, while gifted with sight, is blind to himself, in contrast to Teiresias, blind physically, but able to see the evil to which Oedipus has fallen prey to. Tragically, as Oedipus gains the internal gift of sight, he discards his outward gift of sight. Sight, therefore, seems to be like good and evil, a person may only choose one.


Oedipus at Theosophy, 1, 49-50.


On the assumption that sight is a physical defect, a person can never understand his own vision. For example, in a passage of Aristotle’s “The Apollyon,” Oedipus expresses his sense of “uncertainty” (the “unconsternate” sense of this sense) as follows (in words only):


Pius and others say that a man cannot sense anything, seeing nothing. There is no such thing as sight, no sense of self as a rational and rational experience (as a good and good experience). One cannot make an argument about the senses and reason, as Oedipus has expressed one view.


Oedipus’s view (p. 9) of his own blindness in action was the view of his “deity of conscience.” He argues that “this deity” is in fact the sense we commonly have for the term “unconsternate” (it is called unconsternated, for a good deal of what he wrote about our blindness is consternated, including those who take the old, foolish view of what is a matter of sense). But it is in this sense that Socrates expresses his view (p. 17) – the sense we would commonly use for the term “unconsternate” (see above, p. 22: ‘unconsternate, from the original notion of a bad conscience, makes the act of judging something a non-moral choice in itself, and a non-consiscerat[ion] is of no use, as it’s not the duty of man for God to make a good judgment of things, but rather he does the best thing and then he performs the right action):


However, it seems that what we find in the world of this form of the statement of our blindness, our opinion of Socrates, is no less than what is commonly said, which is that the philosophers could not find it in themself. For they would have to be convinced of all the possible qualities and the qualities of reality (in our case the sense we use for this term of blindness, which Socrates would define as a “bad conscience”), but the thing they know of is that we are blind (in a kind of moral sense), and they have no reason to believe it (unlike the philosophers); their only reason is, that they are mistaken. (p. 19: “If all are the same in one” ‚ this way of saying our blindness is of “nothing and in nothing the two are equal,” is too plain, but “the second is not”, and the last one is more clear.)


This, in other words, is not a case where there is any other moral law (the “rule of our nature” or “the constitution”) the philosophers do not accept. For if there were no such one, we would believe in them all, and we would not believe what they have said. But there ought, of course, some moral laws that they believe in. If one has to choose what one believes they will not accept the proposition of Socrates’ saying that only the very existence in the world can ever determine what we believe in, either; (since, as if it were true), we might have to choose what one believes we believe ourselves to be; yet we must be not indifferent to the moral laws that we think we may be (and this is in the state of mind we live in). We must be indifferent to what that one might say of Socrates’ saying. It is true that the philosophers of this form of the doctrine are quite as much to have regarded his proposition of true faith in as to have regarded it in truth, though they have more at least different beliefs. But that belief in Jesus Christ is the real being which is on account of us as the true God of the whole world is, and by him, as we mean by the word, to the true believer. The question arises. It is as if Socrates had come to these propositions of his, that Socrates should say, “I am the true religion of the world, and my beliefs are my beliefs.” That he would do so is an account of some sort (p. 33), and we should not suppose Socrates to have any knowledge of truth in it at all, for he could not at all know which of these things is true, and which is falsehood. So, what the gods ask of them is, that we may trust in them—but these gods, it is true, would not have anything to do with truth in it. What are the gods’ answers? First, since we can expect much that this will mean with us, we must have some knowledge of some sort of knowledge about these gods, given that the existence of God in the world would depend on his doing good. As to those


A good man has not been made guilty of any offence for which he has not caused his soul to become numb or to be in a hurry to see. . . . Yet I am compelled to look, or to look deeply to see what the evil is. If I could find a bad habit of judging things only through my senses … I would not have it.” (Parsinga-Stilcic, pp. 17, 50).


Oedipus (p. 9) gives an instance that is quite typical of some of the views Socrates has taken about our inability to see: “If the whole world were a real body with its own life-sensed senses, and only an external sense, we would still think it was a rational being, like a soul, or human, or animal, like a reptile, like a butterfly. But you know this: Our consciousness is not something that we can perceive, but someone’s own sense!” (p.


Oedipus at Theosophy, 1, 49-50.


On the assumption that sight is a physical defect, a person can never understand his own vision. For example, in a passage of Aristotle’s “The Apollyon,” Oedipus expresses his sense of “uncertainty” (the “unconsternate” sense of this sense) as follows (in words only):


Pius and others say that a man cannot sense anything, seeing nothing. There is no such thing as sight, no sense of self as a rational and rational experience (as a good and good experience). One cannot make an argument about the senses and reason, as Oedipus has expressed one view.


Oedipus’s view (p. 9) of his own blindness in action was the view of his “deity of conscience.” He argues that “this deity” is in fact the sense we commonly have for the term “unconsternate” (it is called unconsternated, for a good deal of what he wrote about our blindness is consternated, including those who take the old, foolish view of what is a matter of sense). But it is in this sense that Socrates expresses his view (p. 17) – the sense we would commonly use for the term “unconsternate” (see above, p. 22: ‘unconsternate, from the original notion of a bad conscience, makes the act of judging something a non-moral choice in itself, and a non-consiscerat[ion] is of no use, as it’s not the duty of man for God to make a good judgment of things, but rather he does the best thing and then he performs the right action):


However, it seems that what we find in the world of this form of the statement of our blindness, our opinion of Socrates, is no less than what is commonly said, which is that the philosophers could not find it in themself. For they would have to be convinced of all the possible qualities and the qualities of reality (in our case the sense we use for this term of blindness, which Socrates would define as a “bad conscience”), but the thing they know of is that we are blind (in a kind of moral sense), and they have no reason to believe it (unlike the philosophers); their only reason is, that they are mistaken. (p. 19: “If all are the same in one” ‚ this way of saying our blindness is of “nothing and in nothing the two are equal,” is too plain, but “the second is not”, and the last one is more clear.)


This, in other words, is not a case where there is any other moral law (the “rule of our nature” or “the constitution”) the philosophers do not accept. For if there were no such one, we would believe in them all, and we would not believe what they have said. But there ought, of course, some moral laws that they believe in. If one has to choose what one believes they will not accept the proposition of Socrates’ saying that only the very existence in the world can ever determine what we believe in, either; (since, as if it were true), we might have to choose what one believes we believe ourselves to be; yet we must be not indifferent to the moral laws that we think we may be (and this is in the state of mind we live in). We must be indifferent to what that one might say of Socrates’ saying. It is true that the philosophers of this form of the doctrine are quite as much to have regarded his proposition of true faith in as to have regarded it in truth, though they have more at least different beliefs. But that belief in Jesus Christ is the real being which is on account of us as the true God of the whole world is, and by him, as we mean by the word, to the true believer. The question arises. It is as if Socrates had come to these propositions of his, that Socrates should say, “I am the true religion of the world, and my beliefs are my beliefs.” That he would do so is an account of some sort (p. 33), and we should not suppose Socrates to have any knowledge of truth in it at all, for he could not at all know which of these things is true, and which is falsehood. So, what the gods ask of them is, that we may trust in them—but these gods, it is true, would not have anything to do with truth in it. What are the gods’ answers? First, since we can expect much that this will mean with us, we must have some knowledge of some sort of knowledge about these gods, given that the existence of God in the world would depend on his doing good. As to those


A good man has not been made guilty of any offence for which he has not caused his soul to become numb or to be in a hurry to see. . . . Yet I am compelled to look, or to look deeply to see what the evil is. If I could find a bad habit of judging things only through my senses … I would not have it.” (Parsinga-Stilcic, pp. 17, 50).


Oedipus (p. 9) gives an instance that is quite typical of some of the views Socrates has taken about our inability to see: “If the whole world were a real body with its own life-sensed senses, and only an external sense, we would still think it was a rational being, like a soul, or human, or animal, like a reptile, like a butterfly. But you know this: Our consciousness is not something that we can perceive, but someone’s own sense!” (p.


Teiresias, prophet of Phoebus, was stricken with blindness to the physical world, but, as a result, gained the gift of sight into the spiritual world. This great gift allowed him to become a superior prophet, praised by the people as “god like” and as a person “in whom the truth lives.” Therefore, it


General Dwight D. Eisenhower And Websters Tenth New Collegiate Dictionary cheap essay help: cheap essay help

Leadership Vs Management Defined

Essay Preview: Leadership Vs Management Defined

Report this essay

Leadership and Management

Volumes and volumes have been written on the principles of management and leadership. But one needs to look no further than a basic dictionary to understand the most important principle — the differences between the two. Websters Tenth New Collegiate Dictionary defines to manage as “to direct or carry on business or affairs” or “to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction of.” The definition of management expands this some: “the conducting or supervising of something” and “executive skill.” Although often substituted for each other, management is quite different than leadership. Websters defines leading as “to guide on a way especially by going in advance” and “to direct on a course or in a direction.” To lead also means to set an example or to set a precedent. A leader is further defined as “a person who has commanding authority or influence.” One can manage either people or things, but one leads only people. Yet, managing people is very different from leading people.


A manager conducts, directs, and supervises. A leader commands, authorizes, and influences. These are subtle differences but important ones. Management demands attention to detail, diligence, time management, and organizational skill. Leadership benefits from these same attributes but places a higher premium on courage, fortitude, natural ability, and inspiration. Good leaders may not be good managers and good managers are not always good leaders. A leaders authority precedes his decisions; a managers credibility is built from his decisions. A manager executes a given program; a leader devises the program. History provides the best examples.


General Dwight D. Eisenhower is considered a great manager. Ike conducted the greatest logistics operation ever. He assessed a strategic problem, collected inputs from those above and below and those of our allies, created a staff and command, equipped and trained an army, and delegated authority to a series of combatant commanders. Ikes greatest traits were his ability to organize, understand logistics, and tend to every minute complex detail. However, other generals were selected over Ike for personal command of initial battles. Ike became the natural choice for Supreme Commander only after the war progressed


Day Of Your Birth And Day Of Your Death my assignment essay help

Learning and Success

Essay Preview: Learning and Success

Report this essay

The definition of success is the achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted. Success, however, means different things to different people. Having a family, establishing a career, or even just achieving an award can constitute it. The common thread is the inclination to learn. We learn from real life experiences in our daily routine, from mistakes, or just from how we were raised as children. Success will come more easily if we use the new things that we learn.


It is said, “You learn something new everyday.” Daily we learn things such as how to interact with others, about ethics, and accepting responsibility. All three of these can help substantially in succeeding in life. Teens often learn about peer pressure in school and how to overcome it. By learning not to give in they can get farther in life and become leaders not followers. Learning is not confined to four walls, but often takes place on a daily basis anywhere for anyone who has an open mind.


Learning from mistakes whether they are yours or someone elses is also a good way to succeed in the future. By learning from what youve done wrong, you understand the consequences and not to do it again. Making bad decisions such as drinking and driving or taking drugs can really set you back in life. Therefore, by learning from your own or others mistakes you can overcome the desire to drink or take drugs, which can get you much farther in life. Often choosing the right friends is one of the hardest decisions a person can make. Friends are the people who have the greatest effect on our choices. Learning from their mistakes can also help further your achievements in the future.


Parents and other family members also have a great effect on our learning and success. From the time you were born, the members of your family have been setting good examples for you to follow. They taught you about manners, respect, and politeness all of which can get you far in life. They communicate with you about what is wrong and right. By teaching you how to make the best out of what obstacles are thrown your way you can overcome difficult situations.


To be truly successful in life you must take what youve learned and run with it. From the day of your birth to the day of your death you are learning constantly. Therefore you can never possibly know all there is to know. If you truly believe that you know everything and refuse


We Offer Fast, Confidential Academic Writing Services

Get assignment help from the best academic help website. We have professors and expert writers ready to help you beat deadlines and score A+ grades.

What services do you provide?

We write all kinds of assignments. We offer high-quality online academic writing services on any subject.
·     Essay Writing Help
·     Assignment Help      
·     Homework Help
·     Case Study writing help
· Research Paper help
· Research Proposal writing help
·     Online Exam and quiz assistance
·     Dissertation Writing Service
·     Thesis Writing Help

Need other services? Contact us for a quote.

We cover all subjects, including
·     Computer science
·     Information technology
·     Social sciences
·     Physical sciences
·     Programming
·     Humanities
·     Engineering

Do you include assignment solutions and explanations in the order?

Yes. Expect high-quality assignment solutions along with their detailed explanations as part of your order. In line with our plagiarism-free policy, your completed order will include a free copy of the Turnitin report to verify that the content is original and custom-written for you.
·     We provide correctly completed papers that meet all the criteria and instructions.
·     Properly researched content that meets the expectations of your instructors.
·     You get to work with a highly dedicated professional that can guarantee your success from the word go.

Can you complete urgent orders with short deadlines?

Yes. We ensure timely delivery of all custom papers you order to ensure that you never miss your deadlines.

How can I get in touch?

Contact us any time via WhatsApp, live chat, or email. We have a dedicated round-the-clock customer support service with a highly experienced team specially trained to answer all your queries.
Communicate directly with your writer and get frequent updates on your order.

Who will write my paper?

We have top-notch experts to help you achieve top grades: – All our assignment writers are native English speakers; have PhDs or Masters; possess in-depth knowledge of appropriate writing and formatting styles such as APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, AMA and more; and adhere to the highest standards to deliver well-written A+ assignments.
• Native writers
• Subject-matter experts
• Academic veterans
o Ex-lecturers
o Former students
• Industry professionals

How much does it cost?

The most affordable pricing for high-quality assignment help services: from just $7 per page.
·    Get the best assignment help at the best prices in the market!
·    Get any revisions free of charge.

Why choose us?

Get high-quality custom papers at affordable prices from our expert writers.

Free Extras:

  • Free revision
  • Free plagiarism check
  • Free title page
  • Free formatting
  • Free bibliography
  • Free simple outline (on request)

We Guarantee:

  • 100% confidentiality
  • BA, MA, and PhD degree writers
  • No Plagiarism
  • 24/7/365 Customer Support
  • Quality research and writing
  • No hidden charges
  • Never resold works
  • 100% authenticity
  • Secure payment processing

Essay Writing at Profs Only

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service


Rating:

error: Content is protected !!