<< Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En bas
Correction/In the 50ties
Message de loulouparis posté le 25-12-2008 à 17:16:01 (S | E | F)
Bonjour.
Pourriez-vous m'indiquer les quelques maladresses sur cet essai ?
In the 50ties, there were no brands, or very fiew many. People relied on adverstising to control the quality, and only one brand made feel the difference. Nowadays, with an expanding number of brands, consumer's perception is changing fast, becoming more and more cosmopolitan and diverse. The brand became essential to buy a product and to choose between different of them. So we may wonder what could be a world without brands, and consequences which follow from this situation.
On the one hand, without brands, all the products are the same, without distinct criterion. Product's values rely on prices , and only the price make feel the difference. Moreover we can stand up for the equality between consumers having a brand, which deals with social competition and wealth of each one.
Nevertheless, on the other hand a world without brands could have an impact on the product's guarantee, since the brand curtails the incertitude of consumers and permit them to spot a thing with the same values than other. Besides, we can underline the time that consumers should take in order to choose an object, without particular symbol. The customer can't identify himself to the product without brands. Consumers need to brands to establish a link between the company and increase their fidelity to the product. Most of the time the brand leads the consumer's choice. As a matter of fact we can highlight that a wold without brands could mean the abolition of consumption's decision, in favour of an anonymous world with basic products sold in weight.
To conclude, although this consequences may be mentioned, we can reckon brands couldn't disappear, since they're created bu consumers who have need it for a long time.
Merci !
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 25-12-2008 17:31
+ titre
Message de loulouparis posté le 25-12-2008 à 17:16:01 (S | E | F)
Bonjour.
Pourriez-vous m'indiquer les quelques maladresses sur cet essai ?
In the 50ties, there were no brands, or very fiew many. People relied on adverstising to control the quality, and only one brand made feel the difference. Nowadays, with an expanding number of brands, consumer's perception is changing fast, becoming more and more cosmopolitan and diverse. The brand became essential to buy a product and to choose between different of them. So we may wonder what could be a world without brands, and consequences which follow from this situation.
On the one hand, without brands, all the products are the same, without distinct criterion. Product's values rely on prices , and only the price make feel the difference. Moreover we can stand up for the equality between consumers having a brand, which deals with social competition and wealth of each one.
Nevertheless, on the other hand a world without brands could have an impact on the product's guarantee, since the brand curtails the incertitude of consumers and permit them to spot a thing with the same values than other. Besides, we can underline the time that consumers should take in order to choose an object, without particular symbol. The customer can't identify himself to the product without brands. Consumers need to brands to establish a link between the company and increase their fidelity to the product. Most of the time the brand leads the consumer's choice. As a matter of fact we can highlight that a wold without brands could mean the abolition of consumption's decision, in favour of an anonymous world with basic products sold in weight.
To conclude, although this consequences may be mentioned, we can reckon brands couldn't disappear, since they're created bu consumers who have need it for a long time.
Merci !
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 25-12-2008 17:31
+ titre
Réponse: Correction/In the 50ties de laure95, postée le 27-12-2008 à 18:45:25 (S | E)
Bonjour, voici ce que tu dois reprendre:
In the 50ties, there were no brands, or very fiew many ?. People relied on adverstising to control the quality, and only one brand made feel the difference. Nowadays, with an expanding number of brands,the consumer's perception is changing fast, becoming more and more cosmopolitan and diverse. The brand became (pourquoi le preterit?) essential to buy a product and to choose between different of them. So we may wonder what could be (interrogative indirecte: mot interrogatif + sujet + verbe) a world without brands, and consequences which follow from this situation.
On the one hand, without brands, all the products are the same, without distinct criterion. Product's values rely on prices , and only the price make (conjugaison!)feel the difference. Moreover we can stand up for the equality between consumers having a brand, which deals with social competition and wealth of each one.
Nevertheless, on the other hand a world without brands could have an impact on the product's guarantee, since the brand curtails the incertitude of consumers and permit (même remarque) them to spot a thing with the same values than other ?. Besides, we can underline the time that consumers should take in order to choose an object, without particular symbol. The customer can't identify himself to the product without brands. Consumers need
To conclude, although this (this pour le singulier, these pour le pluriel) consequences may be mentioned, we can reckon brands couldn't disappear, since they're created bu consumers who have need (present perfect: HAVE + PARTICIPE PASSE) it for a long time.
Bon courage pour les corrections et bonnes fêtes de fin d'année!
Réponse: Correction/In the 50ties de loulouparis, postée le 29-12-2008 à 15:48:04 (S | E)
Merci pour votre aide
Il me reste qqs questions à vous poser cependant :
je ne comprends pas pourquoi "the consumption's decision" est faux
pourquoi conjuguer le verbe "make"
j'utilise "became" au prétérit dans le sens de "est devenue"
