SIMPLE !

Disusun oleh : Mutiara Pratama Putri 1500026038 Kelas B Dosen Pengampu : DR. Kardimin, M.Hum Sastra Inggris Fakultas Sastra Budaya dan Komunikasi Universitas Ahmad Dahlan Yogyakarta 2016 --- Kata Pengantar Puji dan syukur kehadirat Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa atas segala rahmat yang diberikan-Nya sehingga tugas makalah yang berjudul “Penilaian Umum dalam Penerjemahan” ini dapat saya selesaikan. Makalah ini saya buat sebagai kewajiban untuk memenuhi tugas. Dalam kesempatan ini, penulis mengucapkan terimakasih yang dalam kepada semua pihak yang telah membantu menyumbangkan ide dan pikiran mereka demi terwujudnya makalah ini. penulis menyadari bahwa makalah ini belum sempurna, oleh karena itu saran dan kritik yang membangun dari rekan-rekan pembaca sangat dibutuhkan untuk penyempurnaan makalah ini. Yogyakarta, 30 Desember 2016 Mutiara Pratama Putri Daftar Isi Halaman judul .....

I don’t agree with the needle ex-change plan. Although there are many ways that can make it safe to people, it still means like that we support people to use drugs indirectly. The safe way from the using of syringes even has many bad impacts than the good impacts.                 The using of syringes just supports and helps the rich drug users. So how is with the poor one? In the end, they use needle ex-change plan because it is more cheap than the syringes. Besides, in some countries, it is not easily can be used by people because they need some requirement before it is used like the doctor’s prescription. Other things is about the availability of the syringes. It is impossible if all the countries provide it. It because some are developing countries, not developed countries.                 The needle exchange plan who make it easier for drug user has a lack, too. It will just increase the number of drug users because of the easy way to use drugs. They just have to give their

Introduction Arms and the Man by George Bernard Shaw To the irreverent--and which of us will claim entire exemption from that comfortable classification?--there is something very amusing in the attitude of the orthodox criticism toward Bernard Shaw. He so obviously disregards all the canons and unities and other things which every well-bred dramatist is bound to respect that his work is really unworthy of serious criticism (orthodox). Indeed he knows no more about the dramatic art than, according to his own story in "The Man of Destiny," Napoleon at Tavazzano knew of the Art of War. But both men were successes each in his way--the latter won victories and the former gained audiences, in the very teeth of the accepted theories of war and the theatre. Shaw does not know that it is unpardonable sin to have his characters make long speeches at one another, apparently thinking that this embargo ap