Write an analytical essay of at least 750 words, in which you identify two central claims in "The Fallacy of Success," detailing how the author develops these claims. Your essay should include strong textual support, specific details, and a clear introduction and conclusion. Additionally, you should follow MLA guidelines for in-text citations and a works cited page. Click here to view the MLA Style Guide.

Explanation:

I really agree with the author about the sad way in which many people see success, even many of those people waste time publishing publications on how to "achieve success and be happy", when in reality happiness does not depend on success or Social position or studies that we have, happiness depends on feeling good about ourselves, feeling loved and accepted by our family, friends and acquaintances.

In reality, to achieve success and achieve our goals, we must first feel satisfied and happy with what we are and have achieved, that gives a sense of achievement to our way, according to Gomez Ruben (2015); true success in life lies in knowing how to live each day doing well what you have to do in each reality in which you are located. If you do your job well, take care of your family, cultivate your relationship with your partner, strengthen ties with your relatives and friends, you are succeeding in each of those areas because you are successfully completing each of the tasks and needs that encompass your life. A housewife who takes care of her home is a successful woman; the peasant who cultivates the field with love to provide sustenance for his family is a successful man; The young man who, by following his principles, has not betrayed or “straightened” others to advance financially, is a successful person.

To be happy is to be at peace with every aspect of your life, despite the circumstances that surround it. It does not mean being free of problems or having all your needs resolved. But none of those circumstances affect your mental and emotional stability.

On the contrary, can someone who, by satisfying only one area of his life, neglected all the others, be considered successful? Or is he who, even with a good financial position, cannot sleep in peace for a single night? How many people have sacrificed life, family, health, children and many other things to achieve a job promotion, stay well with friends or grow a business (I do not judge, I have done it many times and it is not entirely bad) so that , after a while stopping and turning to look back on the road, it is discovered that perhaps it was not worth so much what was lost for what was gained. Has this really been successful?

The essay initially pretends to be a critique of a type of self-improvement book popular at the time, which claimed to tell how to achieve success. These books defined success strictly in financial terms and assumed that if anyone follows certain steps, they will be able to duplicate the accomplishments of wealthy business owners. However, Chesterton’s review of these books includes a broader social criticism. The focus on the definition of success strictly in terms of money is central to his essay. But wrapped around that issue is the idea that each person can or should perceive success on the same terms as a business leader. He illustrates the point by saying a donkey is successful at being a donkey as much as a millionaire is successful at being a millionaire, so there is no point in calling a donkey a failed millionaire or vice versa.

To counter the common assumptions about success, Chesterton describes people in various walks of life and how each might more realistically succeed. In this description, he suggests that these books falsely pretend to help people succeed in their own social circles and encourage people to try to become something they are not and cannot ever be.

Chesterton says these writers tell the ordinary man how he may succeed in his career—if he is a builder, he may succeed as a builder; or if he is a stockbroker, he may succeed as a stockbroker. Chesterton increases his satire at this point, commenting that the authors say a grocer may become a sporting yachtsman; a tenth-rate journalist may become a peer, which is a British nobleman; and a German Jew may become an Anglo-Saxon. Obviously, these transitions are unlikely or even impossible. Chesterton then criticizes the main assumption of these books and the society that produces it. By claiming that average people can follow in the steps of business tycoons such as Rothschild or Vanderbilt, the book's author is taking part in "the horrible mysticism of money," in which people worship the unlikely possibility of achieving great riches.

Explanation:

answer: buck is a dog living a charmed life on the estate of judge miller, during the time of the klondike gold rush in 1897. he is the king of all the animals on the estate and as such enjoys special privileges, such as the run of the estate and the admirable position of being the judge's favorite dog.

this all ends the day he accompanies manuel on a walk through the orchard to a flag station, where manuel sells him to a stranger. manuel sells buck, because he has gambling debts he needs to pay and a family to support.

this one act changes buck's life irrevocably. it is the catalyst for the rest of the story about buck and his transformation from domestic pet to wild animal.

explanation: read thoughroly ! and u will find your answer and the mean time i will be keeping my eye on you !

what is the sentences