Of all the manifestations* of power, restraint in the use of that power impresses people most.

When discussing whether use of power impresses people or restraint in the use of it impresses people, it is important to distinguish between the types of power. So it boils down to whether the use of use of good power or restraint in the use of destructive power impresses people. Through this discourse, we will see that there are more forms of positive powers than negative ones and hence the impression of positive power is more on people.

An example of positive power is the power, which a CEO of a company possesses. The CEO uses this power to increase profits, keep customers, employees and shareholders happy. It can be argues that happy people are impressed. Another example classic example is the power of an elected government to bring necessary improvement to the country. This sort of power can be used to build infrastructure for growth of societies, grow industries, build railways, install telecommunication networks etc. Yet another example is that of a teacher, who is empowered to educate students. People are impressed with all these types are power because it is these which bring positive influence to societies, nations and our world.

Some people may argue that restraint of using muscle or military power is impressive. Use of this type of power means imposing the will of one person or a group of people, over others. While a restraint in using this type of power may appear impressive at first but because it does very little help to improve a society or a nation, its effect is lost over time. Hence it is not as impressive as using positive forms of power. A classic case study would be to look at nations like China and US, which are both economic and and military superpowers. While their economic relationship has strengthened over time, there is also uneasiness over each others global dominance. With the use of military power both may weaken each other, but yet they have restrained from doing so and are looking for diplomatic solutions to ease this tension. While this may be impressive at first, but upon deeper inspecting, it is clear that there is no other choice. This is because history has time and again shown that violence produces more ill effects than positive ones. So restraint of destructive power become a natural choice and doesn't impress as much as positive powers.

In conclusion, while both sides of power have their strengths, it is clear that use of good power impresses people more than the restraint in using destructive power.

It's a good essay. But I'm sure it could have been better.

I'm not an essay guru, at all... but here's my two cents. On the first paragraph you must clearly state your position (which side your on, let's say the use of power is what impresses people the most.). On the second you can state your reason for believing why your position is correct and persuade your reader into believing that it is so. The third, you can state another reason. The fourth, you can state yet another reason or you can say that you admit that there could be a counter argument (i.e an argument that can really support the other position, that the restricted use of power is what impresses people the most).

And then to finish you can kind of say that a balance is good but you must restate your position.

Just an opinion!

HTH

Any other opinions???
_________________

Thank you for your kudoses Everyone!!!


"It always seems impossible until its done."
-Nelson Mandela