Writing Sample Critique Corner

[future_doc]

Thanks for the response future doc... i can see how you say that I can look at 'education' from a different perspective although i just felt that to come up with an explanation, anti-thesis and resolution within the time given i took to a narrower view of the term.. i guess its something i have to work on..

 

I understand. I am just encouraging you in your thinking process to consider thinking 'inside the box' as you do...and then take a walk to the wild side:D and perhaps let your mind think in a wider perspective should anything come up - before embarkingon your course.

 

 

I tried this prompt today but came up blank : Laws cannot change social values

 

Prohibition (of alcohol) did not work b/c people liked to drink and did!

Smoking, laws have limited effect, although no smoking in restaurants, public buildings etc work (but look at the smokers outside the office buildings on their breaks)

so-called mercy killing of some societies..when they immigrate to Caanda, many of these families kill their daughters for 'dishonouring' them despite it is a criminal offence

 

on the other side: years ago people would not consider organ donation on death, it was anti-social....this has changed and laws have been made to regulate this with ethical considerations, e.g., no selling body parts

secx with younger people, i.e., under age, whereas years ago adults would take advantage of 13, 14, 15, 16 yr olds, especially in positions of trust, higher penalties have reduced but not eliminated this

 

I am having trouble with the other side, so you have what I came up with for now.

 

any possible suggestions for this one?

[future_doc]

Guys,

 

Fallback position Essay for Dummies101: If searching, think of NK. Examples, control of airwaves by govt., pros and cons in Canada but NK on lhy shows their audience what they want.....education......pure propoganda there......about politicians....it is a strict dictatorship, dynasty where the President is deemded to be G-d, etc.

 

It is a good example to constrast on almost any subject.

[allantois]

Hey guys... this seems to be a great thread... Could someone help me out with this:

A just legal system is one that will risk freeing a guilty person before convicting an innocent one.

 

really appreciate it.

[future_doc]

Hey guys... this seems to be a great thread... Could someone help me out with this:

A just legal system is one that will risk freeing a guilty person before convicting an innocent one.

 

really appreciate it.

 

 

Where to begin? Think of Russia where that oil billionaire who showed publicly anti-Putin signs was arrested, thrown in jail, his billions were confiscated, he was given a show trial, sentenced to 9 years I believe and they are about to try him on something else b/c Putin wants him to remain.

 

Sort of like that lady under house arrest in Burma who had her hony show trial, sort of like NK, where these 2 young American jiurnalists were sentenced to many yrs of hard labour and then recently released into freedom and the c ustody of a US Senator.

 

Yes, a just criminal legal system in democrsatic societies is about giving the "benefit of the reasonable doubt" to the guilty so as to ensure that the innocent remain free. Better a hundred guilty be found innocent than one innocent man or woman be convicted. That is why we have the jury system of 12 citizens more or less randomly chosen, representing society, where one vote of non guilty form amongst the 12 means not guilty and freedom. That is why we have the appeal sytstem so that if there was an error in law, there will be a retrail or the conviction will be overturned.

 

I think I have given you a head start. Enjoy and good luck writing!

[future_doc]

1. You fail to define what a "celebrity" is.

 

2.Traditionally, a celebrity is a person who through their accomplishments or noteriery is thrown into the public domain and become a piece of public property themselves, thereby losing some but not all rights of privacy the average citizen has and cherishes. It is a balancing act for them b/c in striving to keep their names in the public eye -for free and w /o paying for advertisements - they pay the price of loss of privacy. And mostly, they hire publicity agents to accomplish this free press. Then they cry 'foul' when they are caught in compromising situations that they would have preferred the press noty to have noticed.

 

3. The other sort of "celebrity" is the kind who have virtually no talent in any field and noi accompoishments - except for their ability to attract media attention. Examples that come to mind quickly are the late Anna Nicolle ? who tragically died, she had big boobs and her husband died at age 93 leaving billions. Then, there is Paris Hilton.

 

4. Moving on, I think the example you give in paragraph 1 can be shortened considerably, while still covering the required territoy.

 

5. I think you can develop para. 2 more strongly before you set in examples. You do not discuss under what circumstances their fremaining rights to privacy should be respected. Are their children fair game? Should there be a distance requirement? If they are taking their kid to the dr., should they be photographed or followed? What are the rules? Recently a 13 yr old girl, daughter of a celebrity, was photographed with bare boobs while in her bedroom with a zoom lens from far away, is this right? That famous flake singer/dancer who shaved her head liked exposing her her privates, wearing no panties, did anybody really care to see that in photos?

 

6. Don't ever send two essays together, most people would run....one at a time always:eek:

 

Celebrities, having sought fame, lose their right to privacy.

 

People often admire and applaud celebrities for their accomplishments and ability to appeal to audiences. A celebrity can be any individual who is famous, and well known to people in the world, such as an actor or a singer. The privacy that such celebrities lose typically constitutes their personal opinions and issues that everyday people are able to conceal from the public eye. The life of a celebrity can often be arduous as a celebrity often loses his or her right to conceal his or her issues and opinions from the world. For instance, High School Musical star Vanessa Hudgens was recently involved a nude-photo scandal. The young woman sent nude photos of herself to her boyfriend, and also co-actor, Zac Efron. These photos somehow leaked onto the internet and were exposed to the world, and consequently, Vanessa’s personal matters were no longer her own. Parents were outraged that their young and impressionable children were admiring a woman who involved herself in such “abominable”, in their opinions, practices. This is because Vanessa has been an idol for many young girls in the world, and this scandal has left her fans utterly confused and shocked. Thus, in this situation, it is apparent that actresses such as Vanessa Hudgens often lose their right to keep their issues to themselves upon seeking fame for the public often becomes aware of those issues. This loss of privacy can subsequently have very detrimental impacts on the celebrity who has been exposed, and Vanessa Hudgens can attest to this for her exposure to the world almost cost her her contract with Disney.

 

Though it is often the case that a celebrity loses his or her right to privacy upon becoming famous and well known to the world, there are various situations in which a celebrity should be permitted to maintain his or her right. Celebrities are quite apparently human individuals, and all people have their own biases and prejudices. If a celebrity’s opinions about, for example, their preference regarding the ethnicity of their life partner were to be revealed to the world, people may view the celebrity negatively and claim that the celebrity was racist. This would occur in spite of the fact that celebrities are humans and do have a right to their own opinions and views. Adults who watch such celebrities as Julia Roberts should thus not be concerned with her own personal prejudices for those are merely her own opinions, and adults are capable of holding their own opinions without being influenced by others.

 

Ultimately, it is apparent that celebrities often do lose their right to privacy upon entering the world of fame, yet that this right should often be maintained for such celebrities. Whether or not a celebrity should be permitted to retain such a right is contingent on the age group of celebrity’s target audience, where a celebrity who mainly aims to appeal to younger individuals often loses his or her right to privacy, while a celebrity whose target audience consists of older individuals should be permitted to maintain their privacy without concern that the adults who admire that celebrity will not suddenly lose faith in that celebrity simply for having his or her own opinions. Vanessa Hudgens is an idol for very young girls, and thus her privacy was not maintained because parents needed to see the true individual that Vanessa is so that they could monitor the types of individuals their young, impressionable children are admiring. Contrarily, Julia Roberts mainly appeals to older individuals and thus her opinions and prejudices should be able to be maintained as her own matters, and thus concealed from the public. This is because adults are much less impressionable, and should therefore not be as concerned with the personal life of a celebrity they admire. Thus, it is reasonable to determine that whether or not a celebrity is permitted to maintain his or her privacy ultimately depends on the age group of the individuals that comprise the celebrity’s target audience.

 

_________________________________________________________________

[future_doc]

The plurality of opinions in a democratic system often leads to political deadlock.

 

1. I liked para.1. The conflict in the US, even within the Democratic Party, over health care reform could have been another viable example but you made your point well, as is.

 

2. I liked para. 2. Where does the reader come from? Does he/she begin to have the slightest clue whom therse people are to whom you refer?

 

3. Para. 3: more than age is involved in the decision making, the public perception of the issue, their faith in the people making potential dedcisions, the charisma and ability of the politicians fo mobilize both public opinion and other decision making politicians to his/her side is a necessity; the art of compromise, knowing what to give up when for political advantage to accomplish the major goals is vital. You did an oversimplification in my view. Age may be a factor rarely, in your skewed example, you made age a facotr, however, how typical is that example and have you tortured and squeezed the prompt into a form you could more easily anser? I don't know. Again, you repeated the very same example and if the reader does not hae the slightest clue of whom you are talking about (b/c eg the reader has no local knowlsge) where does that leave you in the scheme of things in terms of marks. Where possible, your example should have the appeal of a wider audience simply b/c the rwader may be from far far away and heard of Obamaa but not these guys.

 

4. Disclaimer: I am the first to admit and tell you I dont know waht I am talking about, and therefore, filter carefully anything I say. Good luck.

 

Opinions are unique, personal and incredibly numerous, and often times these can cause the existence of opinions, specifically have a plurality of them, to be hindering to the progress of a political council. A plurality of opinions can basically be seen as being more than one opinion—as long as these views differ, there will undoubtedly be some friction within the democratic system’s political council. Political deadlock is essentially a lack of progress occurring in this democratic system, and it is often the unfortunate result of having conflicting views exist on a political council. Politicians and democratic society typically evoke the images of a large society, such as a town, being governed by individuals of power. However, democratic societies often exist within high schools as well, where the students on the School Council often serve as the politicians. On a high school’s School Council, it is often very likely that having numerous conflicting opinions will lead to stagnation in terms of the council’s goals for helping the school progress. This can be attributed to the idea that high school students are quite young and inexperienced in the fields of politics, compromise and decision making. Thus, on School Councils in high schools, where various members have differing opinions on how to help the school progress, it is often the case that no progress is ultimately made, and that “political deadlock” sets in for the students are often unable to effectively resolve their conflicting ideas, and decide upon the main issue that the council is intended to be dealing with.

 

Though it is often the case that having more than one view being held by politicians in a democratic system impedes the progress that council makes, the contrary is actually often observed in society. Reza Moridi and Bryon Wilfert are two members of parliament representing York Region, and these two men, being on the same political council, are working together to resolve issues plaguing the district they govern. When confronted with the issue of how to spend a large portion of tax payers’ money, Moridi and Wilfert held widely differing opinions—Moridi was of the view that the money should be put towards assisting small businesses thrive, while Bryon felt that the money should be directed towards initiatives to assist the environment. Though these differing opinions created some tension, these two men ultimately reconciled their opinions, compromised, and came to the decision to assist small businesses in becoming more environmentally friendly—a decision that drew upon the ideas of both politicians, and has brought great success to York Region. Thus, it is apparent that differences in opinions in a democracy can often be helpful when the politicians presented with the issues are experienced enough to compromise and work together.

 

Ultimately, a democratic system can either face a lack of progress, or flourish when more than one opinion exists on the political council. Whether or not having more than one opinion actually leads to a hindrance in progress, or a “political deadlock” is determined by the age of the individuals making the decisions and dealing with the issues at hand. Though it is difficult to demarcate an exact age at which the democratic system will begin to thrive from the multiplicity of opinions existing on the political council, it is reasonable to state that a council comprised of younger individuals will face difficulties and a lack of progress as a result of numerous opinions, while a council of older individuals will have opposing consequences. School Councils comprised of high school students can attest to the idea that younger individuals on a council will face deleterious effects from numerous opinions for high school students do not have the experience or maturity to comprise, and find a common ground amongst their various opinions. However, a political council consisting of older individuals, such as Reza Moridi and Bryon Wilfert, shows that progress is the result of having various opinions exist within a democratic society, for those who are older are typically wiser and more mature, and thus capable of compromising with one another to reach the best conclusion for the society they are governing. Thus, whether or not a democratic society will experience a lack of progress as a result of numerous opinions on the political council is contingent upon the age of the individuals on that council.

[future_doc]

Thanks for your input. I actually did attempt to give the reader an idea of who the two men are, as I said "Reza Moridi and Bryon Wilfert are two members of parliament representing York Region, and these two men...". Perhaps this was not a clear enough explanation? And I agree with you on my synthesis...I definitely could've used something deeper. I think I am just really trying to have a synthesis principle that presents obvious opposites (like young vs old) that I don't realize a more applicable idea. Thanks for pointing that out to me Haha and appologies for submitting both on here, but I'm glad you didn't run

 

You are correct. You did give context that I overlooked. The young vs old is good but not totally complete b/c the conclusions you drasw apply only in that isolated case, however, it is good, and for sure, I am no expert, my brain is still fried from recently writing. And remember, Noth Korea potentially can be used in almost any scenario they throw at you in this.

 

The only reasons I did run are that I knew with absolute certainty nobody else would touch it and recently I am one of the very few wiling to set up to the plate and give any feedback. There are many people on this forum who know in just in their fingernails what I know, but they are not coming forward. So, I try my best to help. Keep at it but don;tburn out from over exertion, seriously. The mind needs to relax to handle all of this. Carry on.

[future_doc]

ladeeda, in my opinion, it is gold. excellent with great and the most approrpriate examples. Wellthought out. If you go back on the last two pages, you can see the identical prompt, essay and comments.

[spiderpig]

I'm doing a practice AAMC test, and just finished the writing sample prompts. I would really be grateful for feedback on these, especially if you could tell roughly what you think it deserves out of 6...

Thanks in advance!

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

 

Education is an institution whose purpose is to provide its disciples with skills, knowledge and thought processes that they can apply in their life. This goal is best achieved if the student learns by doing rather than by reading, because the former is a far more active process requiring the involvement of all the faculties that one possesses. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was embarking on a journey of education by studying the process of trait inheritance in pea plants. The discoveries he made could not have been found in books of the time. They required him to work on experiments himself, and use his experiences and collected observations. Thus he was able to gain an understanding of the world and further his own eduction.

 

However, in the pursuit of education, basic foundations need to be laid if understanding is expected to be gained. This knowledge must come from books, which are accumulations of past people’s experiences. Certain theories and concepts must be learned and understood by the student. Without teaching the student any concept of what he is doing, the teacher becomes just a robot trainer. For example, a lab technician can be trained to carry out Polymerase Chain Reactions in test tubes to make substantial quantities of DNA, by being told to carry out a pre-written protocol. However, without a basic understanding of what DNA is, and how the various conditions in the steps of the reaction catalyze the multiplication of the DNA, the lab technician is nothing but a piece of equipment. He has not been truly educated.

 

So when should weight be given to learning by experience, as opposed to learning through the experiences of others in books? There are two main factors involved in making that decision. Does the student have basic understanding of the theory and concepts that are at the base of the field he his venturing in? And does the student have the critical thinking skills that are required to take an experience and learn from it? If both elements are present, then experience is an excellent venue to further the student’s education, by getting him to apply himself. However, if these elements are missing, then they need to be fostered through theory found in books.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

 

Science in its most general sense, is the study of everything that a human can observe. One of the primary purposes of scienctific pursuits is the improvement of human life through a better understanding of himself and his surroundings. Therefore it follows that harm should not come to a human as a result of this study – that would be counterproductive to its purpose. In medicine and research, strict guidelines and rules are in place to ensure the safety of all that are involved. Experimentation on humans is forbidden unless several conditions are satisfied, including the absence of any other method of inquiry, and a lack of adverse side-effects in other similar animal models. Researchers themselves are also required to go throught workplace safety and biosafety training, and regulated to use personal protective equipment. All of these measures are put in place to ensure that no human is put under any threat as a result of scientific inquiry.

 

Nevertheless, there are examples in history where, in the pursuit of science, possible threats to human life have been disregarded. Marie Curie was one such scientist, who researched radioactivity and whose contributions have been a major milestone in subject of physics, and has far reaching applications including medical therapies. However, in the pursuit of science, Madamme Curie was exposed to radioactivity that eventually claimed her life. Even in present day, advances in science continue to be made, which could prove very detrimental to humanity. Like the concept of nuclear fission was used as a weapon to wreak havok on humans, many current day discoveries are surrounded by possibilites of being used to do harm to others. And yet, the science behind them continues. Such possibilities are tolerated in the name of science.

 

Oftentimes, what determines whether or not science takes precedence over a threat to human life or vice versa, is what society at the time deems as “the greater good for the greatest number”. Will a calculated risk to human life result in discoveries that can be used to save thousands of lives? Medical studies involving human subjects can be found where the answer to this question is yes. On the other hand, if the risk is incurred purely for the benefit of progressing science, with no forseeable benefit to mankind, then the threat to life is not tolerated.

[future_doc]

I am not a number girl, but I vote "gold" x 2.

[spiderpig]

I am not a number girl, but I vote "gold" x 2.

 

LOL, okay - hopefully gold is equivalent to 4 . I did terrible in WS last year, so I'm really worried about it.

[future_doc]

"In fulfilling their responsibility to cover all significant news events, the media must take care that the very act of covering"

 

Any ideas for this prompt? mainly the antithesis?!!?!?

 

Responsibility to whom? In what society? In a democratic society? Or a dictatorship or almost dictatorship?

 

Responsibility of media in a dictatorship: propaganda arm of the government, they don't cover the news, they pretend to cover the news so as to give a slanted version of the facts that will not stand careful scrutiny, but scrutiny is impossible in these societies

 

North Korea the news is whatever the President says it is

Iran ask the Iatolah

No scrutiny, no international press

Russia, report what the govt wants or we shut you down

 

Freedom of the press in democratic societies..with increased technology and communication, ireporting, we can witness protests in Iran and a woman being kiiled in real time, we get a variety of news reports and so we are able to make up our minds if the media is creating a story or it is genuine

 

media should not be part of the news and be objective, odes not always occur b/c of sympathy for victims..eg, Israeli entering Gaza/West Bank, media can show dead Palestinian children only or a balanced view, depending upon their sympathies

 

hope this helps somewhat although not what you asked for

[future_doc]

LOL, okay - hopefully gold is equivalent to 4 . I did terrible in WS last year, so I'm really worried about it.

 

for sure, do not worry. You will do fine:) , and remember North Korea is a potential example for so many prompts. BTW, you need a refreshed brain for the day, not a worried brain.

[takashi]

Thanks in everyone in advance. You guys do a wonderful job

 

Only those politicians who have learned the art of compromise can achieve their political goals.

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 a politician might achieve a political goal without compromising. Discuss what you think determines when politicians should compromise to achieve a political goal.

 

Politicians who compromise can acheive their goals when the goal is to meet the demands of society. Politicians are chosen by society to represent them in the government. As a result, one fo the political goals of politicians is to ensure that the society's views are met. However, society is composed of many people with different opinions which often results in diffferent demands. Politicians who have learned how to compromise are better able to achieve the goal of satisfying the demands of the society. For example, David Miller, the mayor of Toronto, was able to end a garbage strike due to his ability to compromise. During the summer of 2009, garbage workers were unable to agree on a contract with the city. The garbage workers wanted better raises and job security while the city did not to increaes their wages. The lack of agreement resulted in weeks of garbage strike. Toronto residents were unhappy becaues they were unable to dispose of their garbage. The garbage workers were also unhappy because they were unable to secure a contract that met their needs. David miller stepped in after weeks of poor neogotiations between garbage workers and the city. Because of this ability to compromise, he was able to work out a deal that satisfied the garbage workers but at the same time did not harm the city's budget in the future. His ability to compromise resulted in his goal of satisfying the Toronto residents and garbage workers.

 

However, there are situations where politician who do not compromise are still able to their acheive political goals. This occurs when the goal of the politician is the improve the country. Consider the Canadian recession in 1980s when they faced a huge national debt. One of the political goals of the Prime Minster was to reduce the huge national debt. Reducing the national debt would improve the country by reducing interest that would be payed in the future. The Prime Minster decided to raise personal taxes to eliminate the national debt. This was not agreed by the majority of society because every individual would have to pay more taxes. The Prime Minister did not compromise with society and chose to raise taxes depsite the wide disapproval of the citizens of Canada. However, with the additional funds, the Prime Minister was able to reduce the national debt and achieve his politcal goal. Therefore, his lack of compromise allowed him to achieve his political goal.

 

Whether politicians need to compromise to achieve their political goals depends on the what the goal is. If the goal of the politican is to satisfy the society needs, then the politican should use compromise achive this goal. In the case of David Miller and the garbage workers, his goal was to keep both the Toronto residents and the garbage workers happy. His use of compromise allowed him to achieve this goal because he ended the garbage strike. If the goal is to improve the country, then the politican does not need to use compromise. In the case of the Canadian Prime Minister, his goal was to imrpove the country by reducing natioanl debt. His decision to increase taxes and not compromise with the citizens of Canada allowed him to achieve his goal of reducing national debt. Therefore, what determines when politicans should or should not use compromise to achieve a political goal depends on the what the political goal is.

[future_doc]

Jumping to your closing paragraph, where you say, "If the goal is to improve the country", you are impliedly saying this conflicts with society's needs, why not add "and not satisfy society's stated demands or needs"...but it is not necessary to add that.

 

When I read through your essay, I was at first struck by the manner of your writing. It appears to be short sentences, following one after another. So, in a sense, it is a series of sentences put together. However, every sentence contains somerthing new and important. Therefore, this structuring works for you. The entire essay is coherent and well thought out. You should stick to your approach in style b/c in this you are comfortable and you are cracking the code of substance. Substance is of far greater importance than style. I might otherwise have suggested an otherwise easier read by changing style, but I don't. You have done a good job in my evaluation. I would like to see others join in, but I seem to be in a minority asnd not the greatest expert in the critique dept. I encourage you to stick to your methodology and style.

[takashi]

Jumping to your closing paragraph, where you say, "If the goal is to improve the country", you are impliedly saying this conflicts with society's needs, why not add "and not satisfy society's stated demands or needs"...but it is not necessary to add that.

 

When I read through your essay, I was at first struck by the manner of your writing. It appears to be short sentences, following one after another. So, in a sense, it is a series of sentences put together. However, every sentence contains somerthing new and important. Therefore, this structuring works for you. The entire essay is coherent and well thought out. You should stick to your approach in style b/c in this you are comfortable and you are cracking the code of substance. Substance is of far greater importance than style. I might otherwise have suggested an otherwise easier read by changing style, but I don't. You have done a good job in my evaluation. I would like to see others join in, but I seem to be in a minority asnd not the greatest expert in the critique dept. I encourage you to stick to your methodology and style.

 

Thank for reading over my essay and I really do appreciate your efforts . I dont quite understand what you meant by "substance" though lol.

 

After re-reading my essay, I do see that a lot of sentences seem choppy. I probably need to work on the flow of my essay. I was moving a lot of sentences around so that likely contributed to lack of flow.

[future_doc]

substance=content

Next time, don't change the order......and then, make the changes and see which reads better.

[takashi]

I had a lot of trouble with this one. I dont feel I did a good job at all because its a bit confusing. Here it is nonetheless:

A country's strength increases in direct proportion to its freedoms.

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 a country's strength might not increase in direct proportion to its freedoms. Discuss what you think determines when a country's strength will increase in direct proportion to its freedoms and when it will not.

 

A country's strength will be often determined by the amount of freedoms it possesses. The strength of a country is defined as the function of its military power and wealth. In this context, freedoms are defined as the ability to perform any action as a citizen or country sees fit. When a country is forbbiden to increase their miliary power, they have lost one of its freedoms. Consequently, the strength of the country will decrease in direct proportion. For example, after World War I, the Treaty of Versailles placed several restrictions on Germany. These restrictions included limiting Germany's military power in order to prevent any future wars. In addition, The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to pay the Allies war reparations which in turn adversely affected Germany's economy. Because of the restrictions placed on Germany, they were unable to rebuild their war torn country and recover. Therefore, the decrease in amount of freedoms resulted in lowering Germany's strength.

 

However, a country's strength is not always directly related to its freedoms, especially if it is going through a period of stability. Consider the country of North Korea and its communist government. Because it is communist goverment, it able to place any restriction on its citizens without consequences to its strength as a nation. For example, citizens of North Korea are unable to leave the country without goverment permission. The goverment also regulates the media and ensures that the citizens only hear what they want them to hear. Thus, the citizens have very few freedoms relative to democratic nations such as Canada or United States. However, North Korea does not lack in terms of miliatry strength and in fact has been testing several nuclear weapons in the last few years. The country of North Korea clearly exemplifies that a country's strength is not in directly related to its freedoms.

 

Whether or not a country's strength is direclty related to its amount of freedoms is contingent on whether the freedoms of the country or its citizens are affected. A country's strength is directly related to its freedoms when it pertains to the country's freedoms. In the case of Germany, the miliatry restrictions placed by the Treaty of Versailles deecreased its miliatry freedom and consequently the country's strength. A country's strength is not related to its freedoms when the freedoms pertains to the citizen's freedom. In the case of North Korea, its citizens lack the freedom to move freely and listen to unbiased media. However, this does not affect North Korea's strength as a country and as a miliatry power in the world. Therefore, what determines whhen a country's strength will increase in direct proportion to its freedoms and when it will not is whether the freedoms of the country or citizen are affected.

[future_doc]

Well thought out, it flows and well done, you did a good job so have confidence in yourself. The flow in this one is an improvement over what you have done before, itis easier to read, greater readability.

[takashi]

Thanks again future_doc.

 

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.

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 progress might simplify more than it complicates. Discuss what you think determines whether progress complicates or simplifies.

 

Humans have continually strove to improve the standard quality of life through advancements in technology. However, progress in technology can lead to complications as often as it simplifies daily activities. Consider the use of IPhones and smart phones such as Blackberrys. They are becoming more powerful and are able to run more applications simultaneously. For example, one is capable of sending business emails during a casual lunch. However, their power and prevalence has caused a number of problems. One specific problem is the use of cell phones while driving. Studies conducted by research scientists in Yale have shown that an individual using a cell phone while driving is comparable to impaired drivers. Therefore, progress in cell phone technology has made driving more dangerous.

 

However, there are scenarios where progress in technology does not lead to complications. This is clearly evident in computers. Computers are becoming a necessity in society because of the many functions they provide. Computer are able to process information much quicker than the average human. Therefore, many research institutes and businesses have chosen to use computers rather than humans for several tasks such as data analysis because of their processing power. As computer technology progresses, computers have increasingly become faster and more powerful resulting in decreased processing time and become more efficient in completely tasks. Therefore, technological advancement in computers does not result in more problems to research institutes and businesses.

 

Whether progress complicates as much as it simplifies human lives, depends on whether the benefits of the progress outweigh their costs. If the benefits of the progression of a technology is less than the costs that come with them, then progress complicates as much as it simplifies. In the case of cell phones such IPhones and Blackberrys, the increasingly ease of their use has led to distracted drivers. If the benefits of the progress of technology is more than its costs, then progress does not result in problems. In the case of computers, more powerful computers has made data processing more efficient and effective which have no negative consequences to research institutes and businesses.

[future_doc]

Well done, again!!

[allantois]

can someone help me with this:

 

The press should be held accountable for presenting both sides of the issue.

 

Thanks!

[future_doc]

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.

[future_doc]

Your essay is well thought out and well executed. You make your points. I do not agree necessarily with your arguments, or, at least one of them. The Stalin purge was not as you proclaim "necessary to keep his people safe and protected". These were the acts of a diabolical madman who was intent upon his irrational desire to subjugate and make his own innocent people victims of horrific tortue, deaths and lives in the infamous gulag. He ruined milllions upon millions of lives just because.....a mass murderer and torturer by another name. He was n o better than Hitler, the only person who was able to get as good night's sleep dutring his regime was him. So, form my perspective you misdescribe, mislcharacterize what occurred and this is a substantive issue, not an oops, I spelled the word wrong. Other than that I believe there is a minor duplication of thought in para. 1. It is well done.

[shestheman]

thanks for the input! you brought something really important to my attention