I need a 5 paragraph argumentative essay can be about anything .

Well here's one about whether or not music artists should get Nobel Prizes in literature that I did today. I ran it through a checker and it's 84% plagarized, the other 16% is basic stuff that can be found anywhere.

Explanation:

The Nobel Prize is is a set of annual international awards bestowed in several categories by Swedish and Norwegian institutions in recognition of academic, cultural, or scientific advances. The prize is in accordance with will of the Swedish chemist, engineer and industrialist Alfred Nobel, who established the five Nobel prizes in 1895. The prizes are widely regarded as the most prestigious awards available in their respective fields, awarded to outstanding people who have contributed immensely to these fields in a way that is beneficial to the whole world.  The Nobel Prize in Literature is one of the fields that is awarded the Nobel Prize. It is a Swedish literature prize, awarded annually since 1901, to an author from any country who has, in the words of the will of Alfred Nobel, produced "in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction." The award is based on an author's body of work as a whole.

Music as we all know is a form of literature accompanied by melody and beats, it is not a literary exception simply because it isn't  just restricted to spoken words or text. The fact is that, singer-songwriters should be accorded more respect; they embody a vast combination of talents because they don't just have to write, they also have to sing and in some cases, act out their songs in a video cover of their songs. In the words of Alfred Noble, the prize should be awarded to people that have "in the field of literature [produced] the most outstanding work in an ideal direction." It is only logically and morally right for us to admit that some singer-songwriters have blessed us with  songs very rich in content. Singer-songwriters like Micheal Jackson, Elton John and Micheal Bolton among others, all have given us songs powerful enough with so much positive message that  has in most cases reached down deep within us and touched our humanity within.

Some people have argued that some singer-songwriters have tainted the music world as a whole, but we cannot ignore the very outstanding few just because of a whole other lots of skewed singer-songwriters. Conventional literature too isn't without its share of rouge writers, still, the outstanding ones among them are recognized (the same should be done in the music world). Encouraging prestige in song-writing will only encourage singer-songwriters to aim for soul dignifying songs.

Truth be told, we all know that music has been a bigger driver than conventional literature. Most people are able to relate more with good songs than they would say with 'a good poetry'. Music is inherent in the human nature, and if we wish to change or make the world a better place, the message can only be sent through a single language, 'Music'.

The above reasons are just a tiny fraction of a world of reasons why singer-songwriters should be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, singer-songwriters don't just make good music most times, they make the world a little better and tolerable with messages of hope and love, and the best among them preach humanity.

    i got this from a website called shmoop. i will give you a link and i will show you half of it. hope it : )

explanation:

mrs. mallard has a heart condition, which means that if she's startled she could die. so, when news comes that her husband's been killed in an accident, the people who tell her have to cushion the blow.

mrs. mallard's sister josephine sits down with her and dances around the truth until mrs. mallard finally understands what happened. the deceased mr. mallard's friend, richards, hangs out with them for moral support.

richards originally found out because he had been in the newspaper headquarters when a report of the accident that killed mr. mallard, which happened on a train, came through. richards waited for proof from a second source before going to the mallards' to share the news.

when mrs. mallard finds out what happened she acts differently from most women in the same position, who might disbelieve it. she cries passionately before deciding to go to her room to be by herself.

in her room, mrs. mallard sits down on a comfy chair and feels completely depleted. she looks out the window and looks out at a world that seems alive and fresh. she can see the sky coming between the rain clouds.

mrs. mallard sits still, occasionally crying briefly like a kid might.

the narrator describes her as youthful and pretty, but because of this news she looks preoccupied and absent.

she seems to be holding out for some kind of unknown news or knowledge, which she can tell is approaching.

mrs. mallard breathes heavily and tries to resist before succumbing to this unknown thing, which is a feeling of freedom.

acknowledging freedom makes her revive, and she doesn't consider whether she should feel bad about it.

mrs. mallard thinks to herself about how she'll cry when she sees her husband's dead body and how much he loved her. even so, she's kind of excited about the chance to make her own decisions and not feel accountable to anyone.

mrs. mallard feels even more swept up by the idea of freedom than the fact that she had felt love for her husband.

here is the link: