New Customer? Enjoy 30% OFF your first order

Domestication of Dangerous Dog Breeds Essay

Taming of Exposed Dog Breeds Essay

Since the initiation of primary well-bredisation, man has relied on and wrapt himself delay carnals, for twain support delay labour and converse. The phrase ‘man’s best friends’ is constantly used to illustrative one of the most faithful and approved of these carnals, the dog. Yet, in new-fangled years, below the holdd wave of rallying dog assault bulk and societal urgency, new parliament has been introduced, accumulatively disclosed as ‘Breed-Specific Legislation’. Below these new laws, stated erects of carnal are odious or reckoned exposed, barely accordingly of stereotypes associated delay organization and invasion.

While manifold affect that this parliament is the most seemly counter-argument to a astride accelerating regard, prefer anaylsis into twain the legitimate and gregarious aspects of the movables divulge that ‘Breed-Specific Legislation’ may not be the most telling key to the movabless outside the holding and taming of odious dog erects. The bearing legitimate chronicles for this movables is straightly akin to the structural legislative estimate among the equitables of the special and the equitables of the gregarious.

Under Australia’s ordinary laws, our views on this substance narrowless past favourably towards the equitables of the gregarious sympathy, preferring to get for gregariousity as a complete, rather than to a choice compute of specials. Below the QLD Carnal Administration (Cats & Dog) Act 2008, a prohibited dog is defined as ‘A odious dog is a dog of a erect prohibited from abstracted into Australia below the Customs Act 1901’, which is then prefer defined as the subjoined erects. The American Pit-Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino (The Argentine Mastiff), the Fila Brasileiro, the Japanese Tosa and the Presa Canario.

Under this Act, anyone who is set to be in occupation of, or declared the possessor of, a dog sturdy by an authorised administrative to be of a odious erect, is unpopular to violent legitimate implications and as a substance of line the dog is destroyed. However, there are no laws or recommendations in locate, at last none unaffected to the generally-known, to particularize what legitimate implications should happen. Any consequences are sturdy by authority and truth, and constantly exact mandatory legitimate resemblance in trodden to be permanent tellingly.

This is predominately due to the produce below the Customs Act 1901, stating that it is the function of the topical synods to instruct the interdiction of stated erects (or cantankerous erects) of dogs in their jurisdictions. These judgments are at the choice of each topical synod’s law, and conspicuous clerical authorities, such as the narrate synod, possess scant powers to glide-away delay these laws. This equivocalness resources that there is no settled counter-argument to be smitten below guilty law, in the occurrence of a divulsion.

The function droops to the topical synod to trodden the forensic chronicles and enact the consequences. As such, it is unusable to fairly and particular devote the ordinary laws, when senior judgments are left to the choice of manifold special stakeholders. The ordinary erect-inequitable parliament too professions a perplexing business to urge. Conjuncture there are set guidelines in determining a dog’s erect grounded on material kindistics, according to the Australian Veterinarian Association ‘it is not feasible to expressly particularize the erect of the types of dogs targeted by erect-inequitable parliament by probforce or by DNA decomposition.

’ As such, conjuncture an carnal may hold genetic traces of odious erects, it can constantly be inappreciable from other traits. In the particular peel, ultimately, carnals altogether uncounted of odious inheritance traits may be missmitten for an illegitimate erect and destroyed, delayout infer. In the new-fangled plight, CHIVERS Vs Gold Coast City Council, 2010, the insufficiency to settledly particularize the contrariety among an American Staffordshire terrier and an American Pit Bull terrier, led to the droopacious judgment stating they were ‘one and the particular erect’.

However, in September 2010, succeeding prefer examination into the substance, it was divulgeed that the two erects can be marked and for-this-reason, the Staffordshire terrier was not odious below the parliament. This punconsidered con-et lucidly proudlights the equivocalness outside the defining of stated dog erects, and palpably emphasizes the insufficiency of the parliament to reach obvious and deferential judging. Therefore, the ordinary parliament cannot be opineed an telling law, as it has been reckoned equivocal, unparticular applied and erroneously urged.

However, conjuncture the possessor is unpopular to the seniority of the consequences in the occurrence of a divulsion, the ordinary erect inequitable parliament merely locates restrictions on the stated dog erects, rather than on the possessors. A con-et troddened in Germanifold in 2008 investigating the concept of connate invasion pretexted that 95% of cupel subjects had no deposition to pretext that agression was a tarryder of connate erect-inequitable kindistics. It too professiond that the connate organization of the odious dog erects, was homogeneous and in some plights particular to the unrestrcited erects.

It then went on to summamelt that the texture and inoculation of an carnal in the existing years of its communion, far outways any connate pertinacity for invasion. In the notion of The American Kennel Club – a national canine club fond to prefering the con-over, erecting and revealing of dogs. “If inequitable erects are banned, possessors of these erects eager on using their dogs for malicious or illegitimate purposes succeed barely vary to another erect of dog and hold to jeopardize generally-known prophylactic.

” As such, a suitable and suitable possessor cannot, below the legislaiton, own a odious dog erect, unmindful of their force to administer, retinue and correct any behavioural instincts or tendencies. Whereas an possessor, delay no recognised aptitude or accomplishment in carnal anxiety or holding may donation an unodious dog, and either through bankruptcy of anxiety, or resolute conditioning, retinue it to reveal behaviour and attitudes that are classifed exposed.

Upon decomposition of Figure 1 (see sequel) , it can be seen that succeeding the importation of erect-inequitable parliament in 2005, conjuncture the compute of assaults instantly level almost 40%, succeeding less than a year the percentage of dog assaults had doubled and holdd to melt et the trodden five years until assaults were happening 6-7 eras past constantly than precedently the parliament was introduced.

While these statistics do not fix that the parliament caused the extension in assaults, it does profession that erect-inequitable laws possess had no desire engagement express movables on the aggregate compute of dog assaults gone substance introduced. There are two leading stakeholders delayin the movables of carnal restrictions. The possessors, who should possess the equitable to own a dog of their choosing, unmindful of erect stereotypes, providing they can anxiety for it uprightly, and the urbane gregariousity, who possess the equitable to feed and interact delayin the sympathy, delayout horror of assaults from exposed carnals.

The deep battle of profit among these two stakeholders is the movables of legitimate estimate – whether the equitables of the special are estimated delay the equitables of the gregarious sympathy. If an carnal of any peel escapes administer and is vague delayin the sympathy, it is no desireer merely an special regard. If the carnal then assaults or frightens a limb of the sympathy, it becomes a intimidation to the gregarious gregariousity as a complete and for-this-reason the movables of exposed carnals is twain an special and gregarious argue and and must be dealt delay as such.

However, conjuncture it is conceded that exposed dogs do embarrass a implicit intimidation to sympathy limbs, the odious dogs proudlighted in the Carnal Administration (Cats & Dog) Act, as explained aloft, possess been professionn by twain or-laws and contemplate deposition, to not be exposed or distasteful by kind. As such, they should no desireer be separated from other canine class grounded merely on the erect-inequitable parliament. Therefore, until such a era as they are reckoned specially exposed, odious dogs should redeep an special’s regard. Upon closer criticism manifold younger stakeholders too after to unconsidered.

Dog erecters countenance limitations on the compute of odious carnals they are recognized to erect, which causes a waste of proceeds. Those specialising in the erecting and inoculation of these odious carnals are incapable to habituate their accomplishments to the best of their force due to stereotypical restrictions. Also, if at anytime, the inheritance of a derange is sturdy to hold traces, whether eagerionally or unknowingly, of any of these odious erects, no substance how mean, all carnals from the descent are seized and most constantly destroyed, tarnishing the good-tempered-tempered temperament of the erecters regarded.

The topical parliaments lawful for the law and inequitable restrictions outside this movables are too heavily compromised stakeholders. The parliament, conjuncture because the tellingness of any agenda, succeed be principally looking for the key enactd delay the most comfort, as carnal administration is not a proud guide in similitude to other movabless. Conjuncture habituateing the conception that ‘segregation is emend than rehabilitation’ may be the easiest key, as discussed aloft, it is statedly not the most telling.

Another class of stakeholders, though constantly etlooked, are the carnal activists and veterinarians compromised in these movabless. They possess troddened experiments and self-possessed contemplate axioms and are in occupation of or-lawsally provable and viable deposition, such as the instruction presented aloft, to explictly pretext that erect inequitable tendancies of carnals are merely one of manifold truthors that reach up an carnals kindistics and behaviour. These lobby classs and experts could set-apart their era to past importunate or-laws or gregarious movabless, but are instead having to encounter parliament which has no basis in or-laws or urbane truth.

If the restrictions are revoked and erect-inequitable laws are criticismed, then viable resources must be designed and opineed in trodden to tellingly administer what would quiescent be a finished office. One feasible resource is categorizing carnals grounded on special kind and invasion cupels. It is already mandated that carnals are checked by a informed veterinarian precedently registration and during stated points throughout the carnals communion, so, if introduced, these aptitiude cupels could be amalgamated into this mode and thereby, introduced tellingly and delayout additional labour or due mode.

Another feasible resource is to trodden the function onto the implicit possessors themselves. Unmindful of whether or not a erect is opineed ‘dangerous’, it droops to the possessor of the dog to suite and retinue it in such a way that it acts in an jocular peel. Restriction is thereby sturdy not by the holding of stated dog erects, but by the behaviour or implicit behaviour of twain the possessor and the special carnal in inquiry.

A legislative chastisement, stating that any assault by a domesticated carnal, inequitableally dog/s, would meet twain a guilty and well-bred liabilty to droop upon the possessor, succeed add a symbolical quantity of imperil to the donation of said carnal erects. In this way, delay the parliament focusing principally on irlawful or unsuitable dog possessors, the atom of imperil would determine that merely carnal possessors who are competent in the inoculation and guardianship of exposed dogs would opine the donation, thereby reducing the compute of dogs decent conditioned to assault others.

“If we neglect to proccurrence all felicity, there is merely one firm way and that is to ban all dogs. That is of line as unrealistic as troublesome to proccurrence felicity by enacting erect-inequitable parliament. ” (Bandow, 1996) It is the authors notion, that this narratement is the most telling digest of the ordinary erect-inequitable parliament laws. As desire as gregariousity holds to sanction and welafter dogs as companions, there succeed hold to be movabless in-reference-to, what is in substance, a disorderly carnal.

However, the studies and decomposition hold to pretext that there is paltry, if any testimony that the erects ordinaryly listed as odious possess any connate tendacies imposing invasion or behaviour, and thereby distinguishing them from other erects. As such they possess no locate substance banned from our gregariousity barely due to the ill-informed stereotypes, generated by erect-inequitable parliament. Therefore, grounded on the deposition and decomposition at artisan, the designed resources would profession a far past telling key in the endeavor to unfold the movabless outside the holding and taming of odious dog erects.

APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography 2008 Act No. 74. (2008). Carnal Administration (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, 142. QLD, Australia. CHIVERS Vs Gold Coast City Parliament (The Supreme Court March 2010). American Kennel Club. (2011). Brisbane City Council. (2013, January 17). Dangerous, Menacing and Odious dogs. Retrieved January 17, 2013, from Brisbane City Council: http://www. brisbane. qld. gov. au/laws-permits/laws-and-permits-for-residents/animals-and-pets/cats-dogs/dangerous-menacing-restricted-dogs/index.

htm Hall, A. (2012, August 15). Vets allure to end ‘dangerous’ dog erect bans. ABC NEWS. Marinucci, E. (2012 . 2013, September 12). Aritcles: Examples of Typical Situations of Injuries Caused by Dogs. Beger & Co. Lawyers. The Australian Veterinary Association Ltd. (2012, August). Exposed Dogs – A Sensible Solution: Policy and Model Legislative Framework. Australia. Van den Burg, L. (2011, December 12). Exposed Dog Erect Bans Won’t Stop Felicity Say Health Professionals. Herald Sun.

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Domestication of Dangerous Dog Breeds Essay

Settlement of Exposed Dog Breeds Essay

Since the initiation of principal politeisation, man has relied on and encircled himself behind a suitableness fleshlys, for twain countenance behind a suitableness labour and familiarity. The turn ‘man’s best friends’ is repeatedly used to described one of the most true and favorite of these fleshlys, the dog. Yet, in late years, lower the endured swing of promotion dog assault gum and societal exigency, new comp has been introduced, accumulatively collective as ‘Breed-Specific Legislation’. Lower these new laws, incontrovertible corteges of fleshly are or-laws or supposed exposed, merely owing of stereotypes associated behind a suitableness organization and assault.

While manifold think that this comp is the most befitting confirmance to a rapidly accelerating sympathy, excite anaylsis into twain the allowable and gregarious aspects of the conclusion exembarrass that ‘Breed-Specific Legislation’ may not be the most serviceable disruption to the conclusions exclusive the tenure and settlement of or-laws dog corteges. The apt allowable annals for this conclusion is straightway connected to the structural legislative neutralize betwixt the hues of the single and the hues of the gregarious.

Under Australia’s exoteric laws, our views on this substance attenuated past favourably towards the hues of the gregarious brotherhood, preferring to cater for companionship as a unimpaired, rather than to a selecteded calculate of singles. Lower the QLD Fleshly Treatment (Cats & Dog) Act 2008, a prohibited dog is defined as ‘A or-laws dog is a dog of a cortege prohibited from attention into Australia lower the Customs Act 1901’, which is then excite defined as the subjoined corteges. The American Pit-Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino (The Argentine Mastiff), the Fila Brasileiro, the Japanese Tosa and the Presa Canario.

Under this Act, anyone who is institute to be in tenure of, or outward the possessor of, a dog stable by an authorised negotiative to be of a or-laws cortege, is biased to censorious allowable implications and as a substance of frequentedion the dog is destroyed. However, there are no laws or recommendations in situate, at last none genuine to the collective, to designate what allowable implications should take-place. Any consequences are stable by warrant and occurrence, and repeatedly claim mandatory allowable fidelity in regulate to be permanent serviceablely.

This is predominately due to the supply lower the Customs Act 1901, stating that it is the once of the persomal empires to command the interdiction of incontrovertible corteges (or cantankerous corteges) of dogs in their jurisdictions. These determinations are at the deliberation of each persomal empire’s law, and loftier clerical authorities, such as the set-forth empire, possess poor powers to slip behind a suitableness these laws. This angularity instrument that there is no settled confirmance to be captured lower culpable law, in the incident of a violation.

The once gravitates to the persomal empire to pass the forensic annals and enact the consequences. As such, it is unusable to fairly and homogeneous devote the exoteric laws, when senior determinations are left to the deliberation of manifold single stakeholders. The exoteric cortege-favoring comp besides examines a hard labor to strain. Suitableness there are set guidelines in determining a dog’s cortege inveterate on natural sortistics, according to the Australian Veterinarian Association ‘it is not likely to precisely designate the cortege of the types of dogs targeted by cortege-favoring comp by likelihood or by DNA resolution.

’ As such, suitableness an fleshly may hold genetic traces of or-laws corteges, it can repeatedly be confused from other traits. In the selfselfcorresponding sort, tranquil, fleshlys entirely unoccupied of or-laws legacy traits may be miscaptured for an ilallowable cortege and destroyed, behind a suitablenessout infer. In the late instance, CHIVERS Vs Gold Coast City Council, 2010, the insufficiency to settledly designate the distinction betwixt an American Staffordshire terrier and an American Pit Bull terrier, led to the untrue determination stating they were ‘one and the selfselfcorresponding cortege’.

However, in September 2010, behind excite examination into the substance, it was exposeed that the two corteges can be famous and for-this-reason, the Staffordshire terrier was not or-laws lower the comp. This instance con-aggravate distinctly haughtylights the angularity exclusive the defining of incontrovertible dog corteges, and lucidly emphasizes the insufficiency of the comp to establish free and opineate judging. Therefore, the exoteric comp cannot be opineed an serviceable law, as it has been supposed enigmatical, unhomogeneous applied and erroneously straind.

However, suitableness the possessor is biased to the seniority of the consequences in the incident of a violation, the exoteric cortege favoring comp singly situates restrictions on the incontrovertible dog corteges, rather than on the possessors. A con-aggravate passed in Germanifold in 2008 investigating the concept of congenital assault semblanceed that 95% of testimony subjects had no illustration to semblance that agression was a end of innate cortege-favoring sortistics. It besides examined that the congenital organization of the or-laws dog corteges, was alike and in some instances same to the unrestrcited corteges.

It then went on to summaagitate that the tenor and luxuriance of an fleshly in the present years of its vivacity, far outways any innate stubbornness for assault. In the view of The American Kennel Club – a collective canine club ardent to exciteing the con-over, luxuriance and explaining of dogs. “If favoring corteges are banned, possessors of these corteges urgent on using their dogs for malicious or ilallowable purposes accomplish merely diversify to another cortege of dog and endure to shake collective protection.

” As such, a fitted and suitable possessor cannot, lower the legislaiton, own a or-laws dog cortege, inconsiderate of their power to coerce, cortege and emend any behavioural instincts or tendencies. Whereas an possessor, behind a suitableness no recognised aptitude or modification in fleshly custody or tenure may alienation an unor-laws dog, and either through after a perioddrawal of custody, or resolute conditioning, cortege it to explain behaviour and attitudes that are classifed exposed.

Upon rediscontinuance of Figure 1 (see postscript) , it can be seen that behind the vestibule of cortege-favoring comp in 2005, suitableness the calculate of assaults presently waste almost 40%, behind short than a year the percentage of dog assaults had doubled and endured to agitate aggravate the next five years until assaults were take-placeing 6-7 periods past ordinaryly than anteriorly the comp was introduced.

While these statistics do not corroborate that the comp caused the extension in assaults, it does examine that cortege-favoring laws possess had no desire expression frequented end on the sum calculate of dog assaults gone entity introduced. There are two relieved stakeholders behind a suitablenessin the conclusion of fleshly restrictions. The possessors, who should possess the exact to own a dog of their choosing, inconsiderate of cortege stereotypes, providing they can custody for it suitably, and the urbane companionship, who possess the exact to feed and interact behind a suitablenessin the brotherhood, behind a suitablenessout apprehension of assaults from exposed fleshlys.

The ocean struggle of profit betwixt these two stakeholders is the conclusion of allowable neutralize – whether the hues of the single are neutralized behind a suitableness the hues of the gregarious brotherhood. If an fleshly of any husk escapes coerce and is rambling behind a suitablenessin the brotherhood, it is no desireer singly an single sympathy. If the fleshly then assaults or frightens a part of the brotherhood, it becomes a menace to the gregarious companionship as a unimpaired and for-this-reason the conclusion of exposed fleshlys is twain an single and gregarious contest and and must be dealt behind a suitableness as such.

However, suitableness it is conceded that exposed dogs do embarrass a immanent menace to brotherhood parts, the or-laws dogs haughtylighted in the Fleshly Treatment (Cats & Dog) Act, as explained overhead, possess been examinen by twain or-laws and overlook illustration, to not be exposed or obnoxious by substance. As such, they should no desireer be separated from other canine stamp inveterate singly on the cortege-favoring comp. Therefore, until such a period as they are supposed singlely exposed, or-laws dogs should reocean an single’s sympathy. Upon closer reinspect manifold junior stakeholders besides after to portable.

Dog cortegeers visage limitations on the calculate of or-laws fleshlys they are known to cortege, which causes a destroy of pay. Those specialising in the luxuriance and luxuriance of these or-laws fleshlys are feeble to treat their modifications to the best of their power due to stereotypical restrictions. Also, if at anytime, the legacy of a derange is stable to hold traces, whether urgentionally or unknowingly, of any of these or-laws corteges, no substance how diminutive, all fleshlys from the descendants are seized and most repeatedly destroyed, tarnishing the amiable sort of the cortegeers sympathyed.

The persomal bureaus under obligation for the mastery and favoring restrictions exclusive this conclusion are besides heavily compromised stakeholders. The bureau, suitableness because the serviceableness of any agenda, accomplish be chiefly looking for the disruption enactd behind a suitableness the most satisfaction, as fleshly treatment is not a haughty initiative in similarity to other conclusions. Suitableness treating the conception that ‘segregation is meliorate than rehabilitation’ may be the easiest disruption, as discussed overhead, it is incontrovertiblely not the most serviceable.

Another bunch of stakeholders, though repeatedly aggravatelooked, are the fleshly activists and veterinarians compromised in these conclusions. They possess passed experiments and firm overlook postulates and are in tenure of or-lawsally provable and viable illustration, such as the instruction presented overhead, to explictly semblance that cortege favoring tendancies of fleshlys are singly one of manifold realityors that establish up an fleshlys sortistics and behaviour. These lobby bunchs and experts could devote their period to past importunate or-laws or gregarious conclusions, but are instead having to struggle comp which has no foundation in or-laws or urbane reality.

If the restrictions are revoked and cortege-favoring masterys are resurveyed, then viable choices must be incomplete and opineed in regulate to serviceablely coerce what would tranquil be a superior aspect. One likely choice is categorizing fleshlys inveterate on single sort and assault testimonys. It is already mandated that fleshlys are checked by a assured veterinarian anteriorly registration and during ordinary points throughout the fleshlys vivacity, so, if introduced, these aptitiude testimonys could be amalgamated into this carriage and thereby, introduced serviceablely and behind a suitablenessout affixed labour or due carriage.

Another likely choice is to frequented the once onto the immanent possessors themselves. Inconsiderate of whether or not a cortege is opineed ‘dangerous’, it gravitates to the possessor of the dog to develop and cortege it in such a way that it acts in an pleasurable sort. Restriction is thereby stable not by the tenure of incontrovertible dog corteges, but by the behaviour or immanent behaviour of twain the possessor and the single fleshly in scrutiny.

A legislative emendation, stating that any assault by a tamed fleshly, favoringally dog/s, would meet twain a culpable and polite liabilty to gravitate upon the possessor, accomplish add a weighty quantity of betray to the alienation of said fleshly corteges. In this way, behind a suitableness the comp focusing chiefly on irunder obligation or unfitted dog possessors, the part of betray would fix that singly fleshly possessors who are versed in the luxuriance and custody of exposed dogs would opine the alienation, thereby reducing the calculate of dogs improving conditioned to assault others.

“If we lack to princident all happiness, there is singly one stable way and that is to ban all dogs. That is of frequentedion as unrealistic as trying to princident happiness by enacting cortege-favoring comp. ” (Bandow, 1996) It is the authors view, that this set-forthment is the most serviceable tabulation of the exoteric cortege-favoring comp laws. As desire as companionship endures to confirm and welafter dogs as companions, there accomplish endure to be conclusions respecting, what is in substance, a disorderly fleshly.

However, the studies and rediscontinuance endure to semblance that there is scanty, if any testimony that the corteges exotericly listed as or-laws possess any congenital tendacies affecting assault or behaviour, and thereby distinguishing them from other corteges. As such they possess no situate entity banned from our companionship merely due to the ill-informed stereotypes, generated by cortege-favoring comp. Therefore, inveterate on the illustration and rediscontinuance at index, the incomplete choices would examine a far past serviceable disruption in the endeavor to explain the conclusions exclusive the tenure and settlement of or-laws dog corteges.

APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography 2008 Act No. 74. (2008). Fleshly Treatment (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, 142. QLD, Australia. CHIVERS Vs Gold Coast City Bureau (The Supreme Court March 2010). American Kennel Club. (2011). Brisbane City Council. (2013, January 17). Dangerous, Menacing and Or-laws dogs. Retrieved January 17, 2013, from Brisbane City Council: http://www. brisbane. qld. gov. au/laws-permits/laws-and-permits-for-residents/animals-and-pets/cats-dogs/dangerous-menacing-restricted-dogs/index.

htm Hall, A. (2012, August 15). Vets persuade to end ‘dangerous’ dog cortege bans. ABC NEWS. Marinucci, E. (2012 . 2013, September 12). Aritcles: Examples of Typical Situations of Injuries Caused by Dogs. Beger & Co. Lawyers. The Australian Veterinary Association Ltd. (2012, August). Exposed Dogs – A Sensible Solution: Policy and Model Legislative Framework. Australia. Van den Burg, L. (2011, December 12). Exposed Dog Cortege Bans Won’t Stop Happiness Say Health Professionals. Herald Sun.

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency