Writing Sample Critique Corner

[aKGDH]

Any business must be concerned with the long-term consequences of its actions.

 

What would be a good thesis for this? I can't really think of anything good :/

[future_doc]

think of the pharmaceutical industry, research and development, to bring out new patented drugs approved by the FAA, licence to print money. Thre problem is that FAA senior people come from the indiustry, so the public is not really protected. Accordingly, billions in claims for unnecessary deaths and injuries caused to patients by the indiscriminate use of drugs approved too quickly...Instead of making money as they supposed would happen, the claims far outway any profits they might have made..and delay of the process would have been a good thing...so it is not just social responsibility, it is to protect their own legal and financial backside....look at the tobaccos industry denying for decades the link of tabacco to cancer and death

[skp1187]

Any business must be concerned with the long-term consequences of its actions.

 

What would be a good thesis for this? I can't really think of anything good :/

 

Think about GM and how instead of producing fuel efficient cars in the past like Honda and Toyota during the 90s, their focus was on making huge gas guzzler trucks to satisfy the thirst of power and speed that is dominant in American culture. Well when gas prices skyrocketed last summer and with the recession, many consumers were forced to sacrifice using or buying GM trucks and instead switched to more fuel efficient cars such as the Toyota Prius or Honda Civic. GM was forced into chapter 11 bankruptcy and as a result, lost many of the car companies it owned such as Pontiac and Saturn.

[takashi]

I kinda ran out of time at the end and was not able to put some kind of concluding sentence at the end of my third paragraph. Also My last paragraph seems very repetitive :/. Any suggestions in what to say in the 3rd task other than the criteria? Also, do you guys think I need to work on my first task in terms of explaining what it means? In general, I am not sure how explicit does the explanation has to be. Thanks for all your input advance guys.

 

In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

 

 

 

In democratic societies, politician should resemble the people they represent in order to be successful. In this context, success for a politician is defined as the ability to solve the problems of the society thereby retaining his or her position in future elections. If a politician not does resemble his or her citizens, he or is not capable of resolving their problems. Consider Arnaldo Aleman, the 81st president of Nicaragua. Nicaragua is the 2nd poorest country in the western hemisphere. Most citizens live in extreme poverty and are unable to afford proper sanitation. In contrast, Arnaldo is very wealthy compared to the citizens of Nicaragua because he was a prominent lawyer prior to his presidency and owned several coffee plantations. It was discovered that he was involved in embezzling and laundering over 100 million dollars. Therefore, Arnaldo did not solve his country's poverty problem but may acutally have made it worse by stealing funding that could have gone to helping his citizens. Arnaldo clearly exemplfies a politician who does not resemble the orindary citizen and is not succesful as a result.

 

However, not all politicians need to resemble their citizens in order to be succesful. This can be seen in David Miller, the mayor of Toronto. His annual salary is approximately 200,000 per yer and thus he is relatively wealthy compared to the average Canadian who earns approximately 40,000 per year. Despite his wealth, he is still able to solve many of Toronto's problems. For example, because many Toronto residents have low income, he opposed the construction of a new condominium in High Park and wanted to use that land for affordable housing. This decision enabled low income families to purchase their own homes. Therefore, David Miller is an example of a politican who does not resemble the ordinary citizen yet is successful as a politician because he is able to resolve Toronto's problems.

 

Whether a politican needs to resemble their citizens is contingent on whether the society is wealthy. If the society is not wealthy, then the politican must resemble their citizen in order to be successful. In the case of Arnaldo Aleman and Nicaragua, Nicaragua is a very poor country and Arnaldo was unable to solve its problems because he did not represent the citizens due to his wealth. If the society is wealthy, then the politican does not have to resemble their citizens in order to be succesful. In the case of David Miller and Toronto, Canada is a wealthy country and David Miller was able to solve the problems of its citizens despite his wealth relative to the average Toronto citizen.

[allantois]

Well, the press in NK, in Iran, in Russia, in Burma only know one side and that is what the government want them to expose or state. Only in free, democratic societies do we have truly freedom of the press, where the press is free to discuss sides that the govt or even the people do not want to hear, such as torture or sending people, so-called prisioners, where the govt knows they will receive advanced ad horrific torture. As happened when the USA govt wanted to start a war based upon non-existent facts, e.g., weapons of mass drstruction, etc., the govt used such a powerful propaganda campaign, that the press, legislators went along with what the govt said, all lies and the other side was not exposed until much much later, afyter the damage had been doen, thousands of soliers hilled and hundreds of thousands of Iraquis killed and maimed. Sometimes even a free press closes their eyes and dont do their jobs and they become complicit in hiding the other side for whatever the reasons or motives.

 

Thanks so much for the help future_doc!

[future_doc]

Thanks so much for the help future_doc!

 

Most welcome!

[Swagga]

Would appreciate any feedback Thank you!!

 

In a free society, laws must be subject to change.

Describe a specific situation in which a law should not be subject to change in a free society. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a law in a free society should be subject to change.

 

 

Throughout history, scholars and politicians alike have debated endlessly on the role of law in a democratic society. Laws are sets of rules that are enacted by governments that citizens of a country must abide by. Often, these debates focus on the need for laws to be malleable and subject to change whenever the situation arises. Typically, laws are subject to change when they are deemed by a nation’s citizens to be discriminatory towards a particular group of individuals. An example of this comes from the Chinese Head Tax law that was enacted by the government of in the early 1900s. During this time, the Canadian government imposed a $100 tax on all immigrants of Chinese descent in order to curb Chinese immigration into the country. The effect that this tax had on the Chinese-Canadian community was brutal and durable as it unfairly placed a steep financial burden on young Chinese-Canadian men and their families. After many decades of this head tax and with the support of a large majority of Canadian citizens, the federal government removed the head tax as it was deemed greatly discriminatory towards a group of minorities.

 

 

However, there are also instances in which laws are not subject to change. These laws are typically sets of rules that are beneficial to every citizen because they apply to everyone equally. Take the case of the Canadian Bill of Rights introduced in the 1980s which explicitly incorporated human rights laws such as protection against discrimination due to race or skin colour. These laws apply equally to every citizen in Canada and thus, ensures that no group of individuals are purposely harmed due to their racial heritage. Since these laws safe guard the human rights of everyone equally, they are permanently enshrined in the Canadian Bill of Rights, making them very difficult to change. This clearly demonstrates an example in which a law is designed to be unchanging and permanent.

 

 

So what determines whether or not a law should be subject to change in a democratic society? This depends on whether or not a law applies to a small minority of individuals or the entire population. In the case of the Chinese Head Tax imposed by the Canadian government, the law purposely singled out Chinese minorities who were simply trying to start a new life in a new country. Although the law did not harm the vast majority of the population, the simple fact that it was overly harmful to a particular group was enough to ensure its removal from Canadian law. However, in the case of Canada in the 1980s where human rights laws were permanently enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the laws applied to everyone equally and without prejudice to a particular minority.

[future_doc]

Swagga, in my opinion, extremely well done and I cannot think of any suggestions. Your examples are marvelous and hit the nail on the head. I think you should join in and start helping others on this thread. To a degree, it is the blind leading the blind, however, I think your insights to posters on this thread can be valuable. I mainly chime in because others woho can make a contribution don't.

 

I will give you another perspective, not that this would add to anything. The Rule of Law is enshrined in democratic societies. What does the rule of law mean? Well, to my understanding, it means simply we are to be govern by a set of laws passed by legislators who have been put into power by democratic means, i.e., the vote - and this is to be distinguished by the Rule of Man, which allows for capriciousness, corruption, favouritism, patronageand ensures uncertainty in all matters. The rule of man occurs when the laws created give arbitrary discretion power to any one person. For example, in Canada, there are laws dealing with the selection pprocess of dertermining whom shall be granted immigrant status or permanent residency into Canada and the law provides that after 3 years of lawful residency with such status, the person as of right can become a Canadian citizen. Well, there are other countries, democratic countries, that have laws determininig citizenship after a person has been an immigrant of such countries. The difference is that the immigrant is entitled to merely obtain the application form for citizenship. Citizenship is granted at the whim of the Minister owho can easily decide not to grant you citizenship without stating a reason. So, the law is set up deliberastely with this fundamental flaw that allows someone in power to abuse his discretion and authority without sanction. To the extent that laws are not discriminatory or do not give unfettered discretion to an individual and a set process is provided, this would be rule of law, but where the law gives such discretion that may easily be abused without sanction, this is rule of man under the guise of rule of law. There is an expression that power corupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[skp1187]

Hey looking at this prompt has got my head spinning.....isn't the antithesis asking for the same thing as the thesis?????

 

Political campaigns often present a false image of the candidate.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a political campaign did not present a true image of a candidate. Discuss what you think determines the degree to which a political campaign presents the truth about a candidate.

[Prion]

I kinda ran out of time at the end and was not able to put some kind of concluding sentence at the end of my third paragraph. Also My last paragraph seems very repetitive :/. Any suggestions in what to say in the 3rd task other than the criteria? Also, do you guys think I need to work on my first task in terms of explaining what it means? In general, I am not sure how explicit does the explanation has to be. Thanks for all your input advance guys.

 

In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

 

 

 

In democratic societies, politician should resemble the people they represent in order to be successful. In this context, success for a politician is defined as the ability to solve the problems of the society thereby retaining his or her position in future elections. If a politician not does resemble his or her citizens, he or is not capable of resolving their problems. Consider Arnaldo Aleman, the 81st president of Nicaragua. Nicaragua is the 2nd poorest country in the western hemisphere. Most citizens live in extreme poverty and are unable to afford proper sanitation. In contrast, Arnaldo is very wealthy compared to the citizens of Nicaragua because he was a prominent lawyer prior to his presidency and owned several coffee plantations. It was discovered that he was involved in embezzling and laundering over 100 million dollars. Therefore, Arnaldo did not solve his country's poverty problem but may acutally have made it worse by stealing funding that could have gone to helping his citizens. Arnaldo clearly exemplfies a politician who does not resemble the orindary citizen and is not succesful as a result.

 

However, not all politicians need to resemble their citizens in order to be succesful. This can be seen in David Miller, the mayor of Toronto. His annual salary is approximately 200,000 per yer and thus he is relatively wealthy compared to the average Canadian who earns approximately 40,000 per year. Despite his wealth, he is still able to solve many of Toronto's problems. For example, because many Toronto residents have low income, he opposed the construction of a new condominium in High Park and wanted to use that land for affordable housing. This decision enabled low income families to purchase their own homes. Therefore, David Miller is an example of a politican who does not resemble the ordinary citizen yet is successful as a politician because he is able to resolve Toronto's problems.

 

Whether a politican needs to resemble their citizens is contingent on whether the society is wealthy. If the society is not wealthy, then the politican must resemble their citizen in order to be successful. In the case of Arnaldo Aleman and Nicaragua, Nicaragua is a very poor country and Arnaldo was unable to solve its problems because he did not represent the citizens due to his wealth. If the society is wealthy, then the politican does not have to resemble their citizens in order to be succesful. In the case of David Miller and Toronto, Canada is a wealthy country and David Miller was able to solve the problems of its citizens despite his wealth relative to the average Toronto citizen.

 

I think your first example needs to be changed. It's a little confusing although I get the point you are trying to argue. You are presenting an unsuccessful politician that doesn't resemble the ordinary citizen whereas you should best be presenting a successful politician that does resemble the ordinary citizen. Not only is there a fine difference between the two, but I also would be a little concerned that the marker might take the opposite meaning of your example.

 

Your second example is fine.

 

Also I would like to see a little more explanation on why your examples work the way they do because that's what adds insights and complexity to your argument. For example, David Miller might be able to solve the problems for the poor because he understands that poverty is an increasing problem for Toronto or that he cares for the poor etc etc.. and that a politician's idea and belief doesn't always have to be related to his or her personal image. And for your thesis I would argue that(keeping the same dichotomy) in a poor society, citizens feel a greater need to connect to the politicians in a personal way, so on and so forth.

[takashi]

Thanks Prion, and I completely agree with what you said about my first example. I had trouble of thinking of a real politician who resembled the average citizen.

[ratatat]

Hey looking at this prompt has got my head spinning.....isn't the antithesis asking for the same thing as the thesis?????

 

Political campaigns often present a false image of the candidate.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a political campaign did not present a true image of a candidate. Discuss what you think determines the degree to which a political campaign presents the truth about a candidate.

 

You're right. I guess they just made a typo.

 

Writing the exam on friday

Any comments are appreciated

 

No matter how oppressive a government, violent revolution is never justified.

 

The majority of the world's population live under authoritarian rule. Your first sentence should read 'The majority of the world's population lives under authoritatian rule.' In many of these countries, there exists I believe it should be 'exist' opposition groups which mostly operate underground and often accept violent revolutions as valid methods for overturining the existing regime. Many argue, however, that combating oppressive rule using violent revolution is never justified, as this simply leads to more violence and oppresion, albeit by a different party. There is merit to this argument, as violent revolutionaries often have radical objectives that rarely involve giving more power to the people.

 

There are many historical examples which demonstrate that violent revolution only leads to more oppression and violence. The 1973 Ba'athist revolution in Iraq was a successful attempt to overthrow a non-democratic regime. The revolutionary parties had radical ideas and were well-funded. The result, however, was the rapid progression to a much more oppressive and violent dictatorship.

 

On the other hand, there are some historical examples where violent revolutions have brought about democratic and peaceful systems of governance. An example is the American revolution against British colonial rule, a revlutions which eventually gave birth to freedom and democratic rule.

 

When evaluating the acceptability of a violent revolution, it is important to consider the change that the revolutionary forces aspire and the degree of support that the revolutionaries have within the general population. The Ba'athist revolution was mainly undertaken by radical ideologues who were funded by foreign allies, and who lacked support within the general population. Such kinds of revolution almost always lead to more violence and tyrannical rule, and are therefore never justified. On the other hand, the American revolution was backed by widespread popular support and held the ideals of freedom and democracy. Such revolutions, although they might lead to some loss of life, are justified because they represent the will of the people and therefore will lead to free and representative mode of governance.

 

I think you could elaborate more, in your second paragraph, on how 'violent revolutionaries often have radical objectives that rarely involve giving more power to the people'.

 

Also, perhaps be a bit more specific/[provide more examples for your antithesis. Maybe explain more thoroughly why the American Revolution was justified in your antithesis.

 

Anyway, your final paragraph is really great. You resolved the issue extremely well.

 

Overall, I liked your ideas. I'd just say try to be a bit more specific/provide more backing for your statements in your thesis and anti-thesis. Additionally, make sure your spelling is on point.

 

Good job though. You should be good for Friday with more practice.

[takashi]

Thanks for the help in advance. I had a hard time thinking of a proper criteria for my examples.

 

Youth and innovation are sometimes more beneficial in politics than are age and experience.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which age and experience were or might be more beneficial than youth and innovation. Discuss what you think determines whether youth and innovation are more beneficial than age and experience in politics.

 

Although the young lack experience, they can sometimes offer infuse life into a dire situation. Typically, the populace value older politicans because of the wealth of experience they bring. However, there are instances where relatively young politicians are more successful despite their lack of experience.For example, Barack Obama is one of the youngest U.S. presidents in the history of the U.S..As a result of his age, he has relatively little political experience in comparison to previous presidents. Despite this fact, he appealed to voters because the prior administration brought upon tremendous amount of problems to the U.S. such as economic instability. Several surveys revealed that moral and confidence in the U.S. goverment was extremely low among the citizens.The voters wanted change and Obama represented that change because of his youth. Confidence in the U.S. government has steadily increased as this is represented in this approval rating, where he has one the highest in recent memory. Barack Obama is a clear example where youth in politics is more beneficial than experience.

 

However, there are times when age and experience proves more valuable than youth. Consider Hazel McCallion, the currrent mayor of Misssissauga Canada. Hazel has held office since 1978 and was easily re-elected for her 11th consecutive term with 92% of voters chosing her over other candidates. Citizens relected Hazel because she an excellent job as the mayor.The city has been debt free since her tenure and continues to prosper. Her poltical experience enabled her to continue to be successful. Although Hazel is 86 years old, voters trust and continue to have confidence in the experience she brings. Thus, Hazel Callion illustrates where experience is more beneficial than youth.

 

Whether it is better to have youth or experience in politics is contingent on the state of the society. If the society is in a time of crisis, then youth is more beneficial than experience. In the case of President Barack Obama, the economy was dreadful and U.S. was enduring a recession. His youth was beneficial to the moral of the U.S. citizens because it symbolized hope and change to them. If the society is not in a time of crisis, then experience is more beneficial than youth. In the case of Hazell Mcallion, the city of Mississauga prospered under her reign and thus change was not necessary. Ultimately, the state of the society plays a vital role in determining whether young or experience is more valuable in politics.

[Swagga]

Swagga, in my opinion, extremely well done and I cannot think of any suggestions. Your examples are marvelous and hit the nail on the head. I think you should join in and start helping others on this thread. To a degree, it is the blind leading the blind, however, I think your insights to posters on this thread can be valuable. I mainly chime in because others woho can make a contribution don't.

 

I'm a little apprehensive about my writing (this is my 3rd rewrite and I got a Q both times), but hey I'll try my best! Cheers!

[Swagga]

Takeshi, here are my two cents.

 

Your first paragraph alluded to Obama's youth being helpful to winning his presidency. However, I think the reader may possibly be confused on whether it was youth or the prior administration making mistakes that helped him win his presidency. In my opinion, it is better if you try to force the fact that he was young into your argument for why youth is helpful in politics.

 

This is the same with the 2nd paragraph where the reader may be confused slightly on whether voters re-elected her because she did an excellent job as mayor or because she was an experienced politician. (or was it experience that made her become an excellent mayor and if so, it may be helpful to describe how exactly it helped her become an excellent mayor).

 

The closing paragraph I think is pretty good. The only thing I can recommend is to elaborate on your 2nd criteria where you state that stability leads to experience to be more valuable. However you may have contradicted yourself in your 2nd paragraph where you state that her experience led to prosperity.

 

I hope this makes sense and it's just my opinion on this. Good luck!

[allantois]

hey guys.. i feel like this prompt is a very average prompt, not sure why i'm struggling bleh,

 

The needs of the majority must take precendence over the needs of the minority.

[takashi]

Takeshi, here are my two cents.

 

Your first paragraph alluded to Obama's youth being helpful to winning his presidency. However, I think the reader may possibly be confused on whether it was youth or the prior administration making mistakes that helped him win his presidency. In my opinion, it is better if you try to force the fact that he was young into your argument for why youth is helpful in politics.

 

This is the same with the 2nd paragraph where the reader may be confused slightly on whether voters re-elected her because she did an excellent job as mayor or because she was an experienced politician. (or was it experience that made her become an excellent mayor and if so, it may be helpful to describe how exactly it helped her become an excellent mayor).

 

The closing paragraph I think is pretty good. The only thing I can recommend is to elaborate on your 2nd criteria where you state that stability leads to experience to be more valuable. However you may have contradicted yourself in your 2nd paragraph where you state that her experience led to prosperity.

 

I hope this makes sense and it's just my opinion on this. Good luck!

 

Thank you for your critique and I agree with what you said. I needed to elaborate more specifically how in each example whether it was youth or experience was more beneficial.

[takashi]

hey guys.. i feel like this prompt is a very average prompt, not sure why i'm struggling bleh,

 

The needs of the majority must take precendence over the needs of the minority.

 

Ill give this a try, I am just going to put what examples I probably would use and the synthesis. Tell me if it works.

 

Thesis example - Raising taxes for people with large salaries (minority) in order to have more funds for gov't funded programs such as education or health thereby benefiting the majority at the cost of the minority

 

Antithesis example - Using tax money to pay for programs that benefit the homeless such providing them with clothes during winter, shelter, soup kitchens etc. These funds obviously could be used to benefit the majority but instead used to provide the homeless with basic human necessities.

 

Synthesis - When the minority does not lack basic necessities for survival, then majority takes precedence. Raising taxes to people with large salaries will not likely prevent them from affording food, shelter, and clothing.When When the minority lacks the basic necessities for the survival then they take precedence over majority. The homeless cannot afford food, shelter and clothing so the government needs to fund programs that help them.

[takashi]

Society is best served by giving people as much freedom as possible.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which society might not be best served by giving people as much freedom as possible. Discuss what you think determines when society is best served by giving people as much freedom as possible.

 

 

Freedom, or to be not bound by the rules or laws, is desired by all individuals. Many believe that the best most effective societies provide the most freedoms to its people. This is clearly evident when the freedoms promote prosperity,growth and human survival. Consider Charapan farmers in 1918 when they were ruled by British landlords. The farmers were forced to grow indigo plants instead of plants necessary for their survival. The British landlords imposed heavy fees and provided very little compensation for the indigo. Consequently, the farmers were extremely poor and lived in atrocious conditions. However, Ghandi was able to organize several protests and with the guidance of the British goverment, was able to persuade the British landlords to give the farmers more control of their farms and also lowered their taxes. As a result of gaining more freedom from their landlords, the farmers were able to provide food for their families and obtain proper compensation for their crops. Clearly, the farmers benefited tremendously when they given the freedom to choose what crops they wanted to grow.

 

However, not all freedoms should not be given to society. Consider the many rules and regulations against the use of alcohol. In North American, there are strict regulations with the use alcohol in order to protect society. For example, drivers are forbidden by law to driver their vehicles if their blood alcohol level surpasses a threshold value. As a result of laws against drunk driving, road saftey is promoted. If drunk driving was allowed in society, there would be more car accidents, resulting in the deaths of many innocent individuals. In some European countries, the allowed blood alcohol leevel is much higher and these countries experience a much higher incidence of car accidents.This example shows that some freedoms should not be give to society and the society is best served when these freedoms are forbidden.

 

Whether or not people should be given as much freedom as possible is contingent on what the freedom promotes. If providing society with freedom promotes survival of the society, then society should receive as much freedom as possible. In the case of Charapan farmers, freedom to grow what they desired resulted in better living conditions because they were able to grow food for survival. If providing the society with freedom promotes criminal and dangerous acitivities, then society should receive as little freedom as possible. In the case of laws against drunk driving, freedom to drive while drunk promotes drunking driving which is dangerous to others on the roads. The crucial factor in determining whether society should receive freedoms is what the freedom promotes.

[blackpearl]

Hey everyone! Only recently I found out this site and I cant say how helpful its been, from MCAt prep to knowing general info on med schools!

 

anyways here is one of my essays I wrote for practice...could anyone give me some feedback on it?..Id really appreciate it !!!...thanks a bunch

 

The government should fund scientific research only when it has a direct application to societal problems.

Write a unified essay in which you accomplish the following tasks. explain what you think the above statement means. describe a specific situation in which the government should fund scientific research that does not have a direct application to societal problems. discuss what you think determines whether or not the government should fund scientific research that has no direct application to societal problems.

 

Research is a rapidly growing field in science as scientists try to make discoveries that would change the world for the good of mankind. A great deal of funding for research work comes from the government. Governments are very keen on financially supporting research labs whose work would directly benefit the society. Take for instance the disease AIDS. Millions of people around the world, mainly in Africa, are battling with this horrendous disease and still thousands are contracting it everyday. This issue has caught the attention of many scientists as they now are striving to find a new drug that would at least slow down the progress of the disease and increase the life span of AIDS victims, if not find a cure. Scientists who wrack their brains everyday trying to come up with the ‘miracle’ drug to save those people afflicted with AIDS can not do it alone. This is where the government comes into play. It funds scientific research in the hope that one day, some light would be shed onto those suffering from the fatal disease.

 

Nevertheless, not all scientific research would directly have a positive outcome. As new discoveries are made, they lead onto more discoveries and so on until one that could be used to benefit the people. No matter what the area of research is, be it trying to find a new drug or trying to figure out the potential proteins involved in apoptotic signaling, all research must be financially supported by the government. Consider the case of autism. Scientists are still on the path to discovering a potential cure for the disease. While autism has not become a societal problem like AIDS, it is still an issue for those who are suffering from it.

 

In essence, what determines whether or not the government should fund research that would not directly impact the society are the financial resources the government has. Since diseases like AIDS is a major problem in today’s society that calls for some immediate action, research related to that disease must be given top priority. If there is sufficient funding for other areas of research, then by all means the government should financially support those work as well.

[pm09]

^ I think the prompt requires that your thesis have something to do with the idea that not all forms of research should be funded, namely research that is not applicable to societal problems. There is no obvious thesis/anti-thesis contrast in your essay

[gamma]

The government should fund scientific research only when it has a direct application to societal problems.

Write a unified essay in which you accomplish the following tasks. explain what you think the above statement means. describe a specific situation in which the government should fund scientific research that does not have a direct application to societal problems. discuss what you think determines whether or not the government should fund scientific research that has no direct application to societal problems

 

for this prompt, would the antithesis be wrong if you say that "gov. should NOT fund research which has a direct application to societal problem" ?

[allantois]

Ill give this a try, I am just going to put what examples I probably would use and the synthesis. Tell me if it works.

 

Thesis example - Raising taxes for people with large salaries (minority) in order to have more funds for gov't funded programs such as education or health thereby benefiting the majority at the cost of the minority

 

Antithesis example - Using tax money to pay for programs that benefit the homeless such providing them with clothes during winter, shelter, soup kitchens etc. These funds obviously could be used to benefit the majority but instead used to provide the homeless with basic human necessities.

 

Synthesis - When the minority does not lack basic necessities for survival, then majority takes precedence. Raising taxes to people with large salaries will not likely prevent them from affording food, shelter, and clothing.When When the minority lacks the basic necessities for the survival then they take precedence over majority. The homeless cannot afford food, shelter and clothing so the government needs to fund programs that help them.

 

ahhh i understand whats going on.. thanks so much

[anthony]

any idea about this prompt????

 

 

The scientific pursuit of truth is flawed by economic and personal interests.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the scientific pursuit of truth is not flawed by economic and personal interests. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific truth is flawed by economic or personal interests.

 

 

I'm really confused about this one, any ideas will help...

thanks.

[Halcyon]

any idea about this prompt????

 

 

The scientific pursuit of truth is flawed by economic and personal interests.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the scientific pursuit of truth is not flawed by economic and personal interests. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific truth is flawed by economic or personal interests.

 

 

I'm really confused about this one, any ideas will help...

thanks.

 

What exactly are you confused about?

 

Let us know