the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. Describe a specific situation in which a crime committed by an individual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government. Discuss what you think determines whether or not crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments A crime is a wrongful act performed by an entity. This entity is indistinguishable in terms of the law. A person who performs the crime is just as punishable by law as a similar crime committed by an organization or government. This is the definition of a true judicial system. A system where the act itself is the determinant of a crime and not the entity. Therefore crimes that are committed by inviduals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. For example, if an individual tortures another individual during a time of war to uncover sensitive information, his act is considered a crime based on the rules outlined by the Geneva Convetions. This act of torturing is also considered a crime if a government performs it. Most notably done by the United States of America recently during in Iraq. Numerous reports by local officials and soldieres revealed that the USA military used torture as a means of uncovering sensitive information from local citizens. As a result, those military officials who were responsible for the tortures where put to trial. The act of torture itself, regardless of the entity who performed it, was considered a crime by the eyes of the Law. However, sometimes a crime that is committed by an individual might not be perceived as the same when it is performed by a government. This is especially true when the reason to perform the crime is supported by the people that the government represents. When USA announced war on Iraq, it was obvious that there would be cases of death due to the warfare. However, these deaths were not considered a crime because they were supported by the Americans. The Americans who were devastated by the attack on the World Trade Center ( which was linked to terroist group in Iraq) wanted payback in the form of an invasion. They supported the government and felt that anything that was conducted, including crime, was necessary. On the other hand, if an individual were to commit a murder base solely on his own support his act would be considered a crime. In a case like this it shows that a crime committed by an invidual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government. Whether a crime committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments is determined by the issues surrounding the act. When an act is performed, there are many factors that must take into control. If a global treaty exists that clearly outlined what was considered a crime, then a government or an individual who performed it is acting wrongfully. If the act Highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities. 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 highly selective universities would not be more beneficial to society. Discuss what you think determines whether or not highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities. A university is an educational instutition that is designed to further develop inviduals so that they are able to contribute to society in meaningful ways. This would benefit society by increasing the economy and the workforce. However the costs to maintain a university is substantial and is often subsidized by the community. The community often sees this subsidization as an investment because the students who graduate have the potential to be able to contribute back into society. This potential that a student has is often correlated with their academic successes or their community involvement. Therefore a university that is highly selective of its students are more beneficial to society than those who are less selective because it selects students who have a higher potential from those who do not. For example, University of Toronto, is argubably one of the most prestigious university in Canada. It therefore is highly selective of who it wants to admit to the instution. Students are often selected by their academic successes and community involvement. As a result the university is able to develop individuals are are seen to be successful. This selection criteria has led to many reknown graduates who are able to benefit society such as the prime minister Stephen Harper. In this case, the investment that the community has provided to the university has produced a graduate who has clearly provided benefits to a society. If however, the university was less selective, candidates who the community "invested" in may not contribute to society and thus affect society in a non-beneficial way. However, sometimes a university that is highly selective may foster an atmosphere of competition that can create graduates who damage society. Again, the University of Toronto has numerous programs that are highly selective of its students, such as the Law program. This has led to students who are forced to compete with each other for admission to the program. The students develop a sense of competition where they may only help themself rather than others, the society, thus damaging society. They may also cheat on tests and assignments so that they could obtain higher marks. These attitudes may lead the path to lower morals in their job. Thus, it would lower the potential these graduate would be able to contribute to society. In this case, a highly selective university is detrimental to society than a less selective university. Whther or not highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities depend on the degree of selectivity. A university that is extremely selective in its students can create an atmosphere that negatively affects its students. The students may be pushed to do unquestionable acts in order to gain acceptance. These acts may hinder their educational development in such a way that they are unable to contribute to society in meaingful ways. A university that is selective, yet isn't impossible, is able to select students who are greater potential to contribute to society. Hi anto12e, Essay 1: I don’t think you copied in your full essay, but from what I read this was ok however your second example is a little thin – you state that the governments killing of people during war was not considered a crime because it was supported by the people of USA, however it is recognized that any nation at war will inflict some casualties, and as long these killings do not fall outside of the Geneva conventions that you mentioned, they are not considered crimes regardless of support of the nation or otherwise. Your resolution also seems to be based on this contention of support – thus your resolution is rendered somewhat weak as well. Make sure you fully think your examples through. Your first example was excellent - well thought out, relevant and specific. Your overall writing has improved a lot and I am happy to see your writing style develop here. Tighten up your arguments to keep scoring high. Score: 4/6 Essay 2: I think your overall argument is a bit off-point from what the prompt is trying to get at – although your task 1 and task 2 address valid points and are quite strong, your resolution talks about selective versus less selective universities, rather than selective vs. non-selective universities. This is an important distinction because so long as there is any selection at all, the effects you talk about in task 2 could very well occur. Always be sure to write a resolution that stems from your examples and also addresses the prompt entirely and specifically. Otherwise once again you have shown improvement, but as usual try to limit mechanical and sentence structure/grammar errors by proofreading rigorously. Score: 3.5-4/6 <- hard to say how an AAMC grader would gauge your resolution. Remember task 3 is the most important to your overall score because it can either tie together your whole essay or just convolute your argument – make sure it does the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Thank you for your feedback! Education serves to restrict the human mind rather than to free it. Describe a specific situation in which education frees the human mind. Discuss what you think determines when education restricts the human mind and when it frees it. “Knowledge is power” and the main purpose of education is to instil in its students an extensive database of knowledge. However, in the school system subjects are often objective with little room for imagination and creativity. Students are often criticized for “thinking outside the box” and praised on academic success which depends solely on memorization of facts and acceptance of rules. Regarding the topic of creationism, many public schools were introducing the theme of intelligence design into their biology curriculum as part of their discussion on evolution. However, this has been widely controversial as the theory of intelligence design directly contradicts creationism and many religious views. Currently, the teaching of intelligence design is banned in public schools across America, and although this may ease controversy, it is also preventing students from learning about this topic from both sides of the debate. Out of fear that students may begin to question their religion, education restricts the teaching of such subject matter. Although it is possible for the objectivity of some education systems to restrain the human mind, many educational subjects are also able to broaden the human mind. Many common school subjects, such as mathematics and art, are free from controversy and can provide students with an immense amount of knowledge. It is through education that students are able to learn about the successes and failures of past scholars, and use the knowledge of others in developing their own ideas. In many public school curriculums, art is offered from the lower grades to the higher grades and is deemed as necessary in encouraging creativity and imagination. By studying works of Picasso and Van Gogh, as well as drawing techniques, such as pointillism and shading, students are able to learn about famous techniques, while still having their abstract works be encouraged. One must regard education critically; although education may restrict the human mind by not teaching controversial topics within the school system, education can also provide students with essential tools to their development. In the case of controversial topics, students must understand that education may be hindering their unbiased knowledge of such topics and they must take the initiative to seek knowledge about such topics elsewhere. Other knowledge that is relatively free from controversy and shared in the curriculum should be embraced and seen as a way of broadening the horizons of one’s mind. In order to receive the most out of education, it is important to be able to distinguish between when the mind is being restricted and when the mind is being nurtured. Hello madison007, Your essay was well written and your first task was good, but your second example needed to be more specific and offer a description of an actual situation that has occurred that refutes the prompt. Also be careful not to start discussing more than one thing (i.e. mathematics and art) and not finish the discussion. In fact, better to only discuss one idea, issue or topic per paragraph/argument to keep things clear. Finally your resolution was ok but you introduce a new idea about “controversial topics”. Although you mentioned this in your first task you didn’t explicitly state that discussion of controversial topics is the idea that supports the prompt, thus bringing this up as part of your criteria hinders the unity of your essay. Make sure that your resolution flows from and is applicable to your examples, and beyond. As well, remember that your task 3 should offer criteria that determine when the statement is true and when it is false, not simply a statement of fact (i.e. the fact that different subjects offer different levels of restriction or freedom for the mind). Score: 3.5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Hi Sameer, Here's another 2 writing samples I wrote from a practice test. I know that I've posted a lot lately. I'm just trying to get as much practice and feedback as possible. Thanks so much again. I think these two have been an improvement on my last ones, but I want to see what your opinion is. I do think that the first example used in my second essay may not have been the best. But I hope I made it rational for the point of my essay. Thanks ------------------------------------------------- Prompt: Education comes not from books but from practical experience In muslim culture a boy is not considered a fully mature man until he reaches the age of 40. In western cultures, this seems outlandish. However, the reasoning behind it is rational. Until a man has reached such an age, there are so many events in his life that he has yet to experience. It is not enough, in muslim cultures, for a boy to merely know about being married and having children, but the boy must actually be married and have children to be considered mature. In terms of education, a similar view may be adopted. In life, education refers anything learned, whether it be a skills, ideas or even maturity. A great deal of education must be experienced, and not merely learned from books. In the medical profession, for example, when students graduate from medical school they may take a licensing exam to qualify them as doctors. However, upon passing their licensing exam, they are not allowed by the medical board, to practice independently. They are first required to undergo practical training, called residency. Only upon completing their practical training as medical residents are they allowed to practice as independent physicians. Thus, it is evident that education is required to come from practical experience in the development of independent physicians. However, it is not always the case that education is not learned from books but from practical experience. In many instances a bulk of education is acquired from books. Even going back to the example of training physicians, much of their medical education came from books. Prior to graduating from medical school, medical students study and learn extensively from text books. In some instances, education may even come soley from books. For instance, there was a young boy who grew up in a slum in India. At a young age he stumbled upon a discarded calculus text book. He was able to learn advanced calculus from this text book without any formal education from any schooling whatsoever. After mastering the mathematics learned in the textbook, he mailed a letter to MIT and they gave him a scholarship to learn at their institute. The complete basis of his education up to that point was from books. Thus, we see that education comes from books at times, and at other times comes from practical experience. It is important to note that both types of education are important. However, education from books can only educate up to a point. For instance, the boy who learned all of his mathematics from a textbook needed to go to MIT, in Michigan, to further his training as a mathemetician with practical research experience. Education from books may serve as a basis for practical knowledge. For example, medical students learn from books, but expand on that foundational knowledge with practical medical training as residents. In the end, however, it is the practical experience that develops and produces a mature individual. Experiences like these are irreplacable, just as a young muslim can not replace the experiences of life by reading about life. ---------------------------------------------- Prompt: 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. The main characteristic distinguishing human-kind from all other known forms of life, is the ability to learn and discover. This is also the basis and driving force for scientific pursuits. The results of scientific pursuits have both aided and damaged society and human-kind as a whole with the advent of medicine, weapons and technology. This has both occured by accident as well as by design. However, in the pursuit of scientific discovery, threat to human life is rarely justified. Meaning, the importance of the scientific discoveries, themselves, are rarely worth more than the life of a human being. Recently, there has been great contention and debate of the use of human embryonic stem cells in research. With the current US government, under the administration of Obama, relaxing regulations of the use of these stem cells, there has been a protest of citizens against this. In this debate, there is no contention on whether it is right or wrong to research and threaten the destruction of a human being. All parties involved understand that it is morally wrong to do so. The contention lies in the definition of a human being. Whether an embryo is actually considered human is under debate. Under the Bush administration, the embryonic stem cell was considered a human life. In that instance, the threat to human life was not tolerated and stem cell research was not allowed. However, under the Obama administration, the embryonic stem cell is not considered equivalent to human life. So still, under this definition, the threat to human life is not tolerated. On the other hand, there are instances when a threat to human life is tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Take, for example, the Kennedy administration sending a man to the moon in the 70's. Certainly, the astronaughts of those lunar landing missions were facing real threats to their lives. For the scientific discovery, not only was the threat to human life tolerated but it was celebrated. Similarly, people undergoing experimental drug treatments or procedures have their lives threatened by undergoing unknown treatment. However, this is tolerated by the scientific community as well as society as a whole. Thus we see that, in the pursuit of science, the threat to human life is tolerated in some instances but not in others. The threat to human life can only be justified and tolerated when the individuals whose lives are being threatened can consent to the possible threats that may harm their lives. In the moon landing missions, the astronaughts knew of the dangers imposed on their lives but consented to the missions regardless. This is also true of patients undergoing experimental treatment. However, embryonic stem cells are unable to consent to experimentation on themselves. If these stem cells are considered human life, then such experimentation can not be tolerated (as it wasn't during the Bush administration). Scientific pursuits lead to many things both positive and negative on society but whether those pursuits can justifiably threaten human life depends on the consent of the lives that are being threatened. --------------------------------------- Essay1: You offered good examples here however in your task 2 you begin by readdressing medical training but then go on to talk about your other example of a self-learned boy. Try to stick to one idea and example per paragraph as more than one can convolute your argument. Your resolution is also lacking somewhat because you state that both books and practical experience are necessary, but the instructions are asking you to distinguish between the two. It is not enough to just state that both are true, you must resolve when the prompt is true and when it is not. Score: 3.5/6 Essay2 Your overall resolution is good here and your examples are specific, however your first example is a bit difficult to follow – you talk about the Obama and Bush administrations, the classification of stem cells as human or not, the threat to life, etc. Try to discuss only one major point per paragraph. I know that you had to explain the details of this intricate situation in order for the example to work, but this should signal that another example entirely could have been better in this case. Also in task 2 you bring up 2 examples – generally you want to avoid doing this, unless you can adequately explain and relate both examples and give enough attention to both examples to warrant their inclusion. It’s better to stick to one example that you deal with fully. Score: 4.5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 The more people rely on computers, the more people become alienated from one another. In a world where technology is continually evolving to make our everyday lives easier, there is always the risk of distancing ourselves from the very aspects of our society that made us successful as a species. Communication, and by default, social interactions are what experts have identified as critical components of the rapid advancement of the human species. The statement in question raises an important issue, as the technology designed to make our lives easier may lead us astray from the very concepts that made us successful as a species, such as communication. As we become more and more dependent upon technology such as computers there is the possibility to become alienated from one another. This is evident in the way we approach problem solving currently as opposed to the methods used traditionally. Traditionally if one had an issue the best course of action would involve asking those who have life experience in the area or are experts. For instance a young adult may ask a parent for advice on how to prepare a meal, or may ask a mechanic or teacher for advice on how to change the oil in their car. Increasingly though, we utilize computers to serve the same purpose that people once fulfilled. A simple internet search may yield not just a single recipe or expert opinion, but tens of thousands. However, it may also be argued that computers have also brought us closer together. Before the advent of computers, communication between people at distances greater than those that could be reasonably travelled in the normal course of a day was difficult at best. As technology such as postal service, telegram, and telephone evolved communication was vastly improved. With the introduction of the computer and later the internet, communication is possible nearly instantaneously at a global scale. Not only are we able to speak to our neighbour, but we can just as easily speak to a relative who is on the other side of the globe with the same amount of effort. With the click of a few buttons one can speak to anyone, anywhere in the world who has the same technology, for free on a teleconferencing program such as Skype. Whether computers alienate us or unite us with one another largely depends on how the individual person utilizes them. While computers make our lives easier it must be noted that they are not an outright replacement for face to face interaction and the benefits that are garnered from that process. Similarly, it must be considered that computers have offered us a means to vastly expand our traditional range of communication and can be powerful tools that provide global social interaction. Ultimately whether computers alienate us from one another or bring us closer together depends on how we use them and how we integrate them into our society. Hey Dr.Henderson, You have a very readable style and overall your writing is great. However your examples are on the hypothetical side – although the second example is specific, it still only describes a general idea that could occur, rather than one that has actually occurred. It is beneficial to use specific examples of actual events rather than descriptions of possible events. Still, overall your essay was strong and convincing, and well written. I would suggest however clearly stating your resolution criteria – instead of stating that the prompt depends on “how” we decide to use computers, actually state how one could choose to use computers that would make the prompt false, and how one could choose to use computers that would make the prompt true. Clearly stating your criteria will ensure beyond a doubt that the grader knows exactly what you’re trying to say. Score: 5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 The large increase of citizen involvement in social networking sites has permitted a different kind of political support-one involving the internet as a primary tool for campaigns. One example in particular is Facebook. The number of registered users is well into the hundred million rang; a number that has been increasingly growing since Mark Zuckerberg created the site in his dormitory at Harvard University. A particular example of a campaign would be that of Obama’s back in 2008. Obama hired one of the co-founders of Facebook, Chris Hughes, to set up his campaign page, clearly foreshadowing the plentitude of success that would soon come. Having a political campaign on Facebook allows for interactivity between voters and the campaign and allows the Politician get a better sense of what the voters expect of him/her, such that expectations will not only be met but also exceeded. Ordinary citizens, which can be defined as followers in this case, work as a group to ensure that the nation chooses the best leader with their technical skills such as posting on people’s walls about the campaign and to help get others involved. Everyone in the world, no matter how far away they are from each other, are easily connected through Facebook, which is what makes this social networking site so unique and demonstrates the power of technology. Overall, Facebook provides a connection to politicians on a personal level and therefore is a tool that is being used to create history in this modern era without any signs of slowing down. Alternatively, there are instances in which heroes, rather than ordinary citizens, determine the history of a nation. Heroes are those with whom the masses can relate to and is one held in high esteem. A hero is charismatic, a talented orator, and altogether an outstanding individual. Martin Luther King dutifully meets this description, a prominent African American who was majorly involved in the civil rights movement in the United States before he was assassinated. It is well known that he was one of the greatest orators in history, this undoubtedly contributed to his popularity and success. His dream of living in a color-blind society appealed to the masses not only because of the ethical side, but also because he had the talent of speaking to others in such a way that inspired them and made citizens want to strive for change. To influence an entire nation is a skill that few can learn so well as Martin Luther; he was a key inspirational figure in the history of the United States and will always be loyally seen as a hero. In conclusion, determining the history of a nation can be done by working as a group or from the performance of an outstanding individual. People are more likely to work as a group when they are provided with convenient technology to do so. The advancement in computers and easy-to-use features lets anyone learn quickly how to be proficient in different computer programs, especially the internet. It comes as no surprise that people are then linked to each other through the internet and work together for a common cause. It is an efficient use of time to rally for a cause that has tons of supporters; it is for this reason that Facebook has millions of groups targeting various issues whether they deal with cures for cancer or a political campaign. These groups are places where people with a common interest can get together and share their thoughts and goals, helping with the advancement of the cause. In contrast, ordinary citizens did not use computers frequently in the past. The society of the past called for one hero to guide people towards the ethical right and to appeal to the masses. To have the skill of speechmaking was essential back then, perhaps even more than it is now to determine the history of a nation. Hence, whether ordinary citizens or heroes determine the history of a nation depends on whether technology is in easy reach and access. Unfortunately your arguments do not come across clearly here. It is difficult to piece together how your first task is addressed by the example of facebook during the obama campaign and later by citing various groups active on facebook . Your second example is excellent but your resolution does not tie it in well. You state that technology determines whether heroes or ordinary citizens determine history, but aren’t there still heroes today, when technology is readily available? It would be difficult to convince someone of the opposite. Make sure you plan out your arguments and examples before you write, and remember that clarity is the key – a clear, concise essay that offers more simple arguments will always beat out a convoluted essay despite having complex arguments. Score: 3/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Hi Sameer,here's my essay on prompt #1 Privacy is a human right, and thus, breaching a person's privacy can result in serious legal punishment. Sometimes, one person's affairs can affect another person's, or can for example, affect the company for whom they work. If the private affairs of an individual can have affect a company, is that company entitled to know the details? To what extend should the company be allowed to breach an employee's privacy? All employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace. In this case the workplace can be defined as an office, and the right to privacy can be explained as the right to not have person information or communications monitored by the company. The personal affairs of an individual should be of no concern to a government office, as a leak of that information could have serious negative consequences on that individual. The best example of this would be if the government collected information about an individual's marital troubles. This information in no way benefits the office, but could seriously affect the individual concerned if that information was leaked and became public. If an employee had an affair for example, and the office was entitled to know that information, it would need to be stored somewhere. Thus, at least one other person would have access to that information. Should that person find out and spread the information, or should someone fall upon that information by accident, the news would be spread and the individual's reputation could be seriously affected. The individual could also be very emotionally hurt. Thus, employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace, and the office should not be able to meddle into that person's affairs. This is because that information, though having no relation to that individual's work, could be spread around the office, and negatively affect the individual. However, in certain very specific situations, it would be necessary for the employees to have less privacy in the workplace as they normally would outside the workplace. If an employee's work is top secret or dangerous, and could drastically affect the population should that information be shared, it would be important for that employee's life to be monitored to ensure the safety of that information. An employee working in a high-security lab for example, would have access to very dangerous pathogens. The spreading of these pathogens would result in nation-wide infection. It might be important to monitor that employee to ensure he does not share details about the pathogen and how to obtain access to it. This could include monitoring that employees e-mails for example. Although this would normally be considered a breach of privacy, it would be important to ensure the employee wasn't spreading dangerous information to the wrong people. Thus, in certain scenarios, an employee should have less rights in the workplace then normally allowed out of the workplace, as best exemplified by the monitoring of communications of an employee who has access to information that could endanger the global population. In sum, the defining factor in whether or not an employee should have the same rights to privacy in and out of the office would be whether or not the affairs of an individual's life pertain to the well-being of the office in any way. Information of a person's marital affairs does not pertain to the office, nor could put the office in harm's way, thus, the office should not be allowed to breach that individual's privacy in order to obtain that information. On the other hand, foreign communications between a high-security lab worker and any unauthorized second person could result in a national crisis. In order to prevent the spreading of dangerous information, the office should have the right to monitor an individual's communications, even if this entitles ignoring his right to privacy. Thanks! Hi am889182, Your overall arguments and resolution were effective here however your examples lacked specificity (task 1 and 2) and clarity (task 1). Your first example included far too much detail about how personal information can affect an individual at work – assume the grader is of average intelligence and will be able to infer why and how personal information can affect people at work, so you don’t need to explain in such detail. However, you could do well to spend some of that time explaining the significance of the example to your argument. Both of your examples were also general situations that could occur rather than actual situations that have occurred – remember that for top marks, you want to include examples that are recognizable situations from the public knowledge domain that support and refute your argument. Score: 4/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Hey Sameer,Found you! Here are three essays I have written. ~Alexander 1) Almost every great fortune is made at the expense of other people. 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 fortune might be made without harm to other people. Discuss the principles you think determine whether or not fortunes are made at the expense of other people. ------------------------------------------ Wealth, power, fortune and the american dream - it all comes at a cost: Hard work, long hours, and manpower. A white coller executive stands on the shoulders of his subordanants and reaps the benifits of their collective dedication and labour. An unfair class distinction is made even in the most 'progressive' of western and european nations, leaving wealth in the hands of the few while the rest can only dream of one day having their own fortune. Interational corporations, aided by international free trade laws, the International Monitary Fund and the World Bank develop industries and resources in poor and developing nations. They claim to, and in some cases do raise the general standard of living for the average person - but the true profits never reach the workers or the country, and the people remain impoverished. Nigeria is a country on the west coast of africa, rich in both oil and cheap labour. For decades it has been stricken with civil unrest and terrorism. Radical groups fight to try and raise the living conditions, safety standards, and wages of the nigerian prolitariot - but to no avail. Corrupt government and greedy oil corporations stifle all attempts to make changes. Profits are made in excess, huge oil reserves are tapped and exported and exectives laugh their way all the way to the bank. Regardless, profits are heightened by the abuse and exploitation of people on which the corporation depends. People who have no education, minimal health care, and no choice but to try to eek out a living on the scraps they are thrown. Now, it may be true that corporate and executive wealth comes largely at the expense of the workers, but there are examples of fair corporations, who share the benifits of sucess with the people who made it happen. Starbucks is a multinational corporation which makes enormous profits. It is well known to have high wages, buy only fair traid coffee and to have above industry standard employee benifits. It spreads the wealth a little (if only a little) and ensures employee well being. In the case of Starbucks, we can see that corporate profits do not come at anyones expense. It is not intutively obvious whether or not all fortunes come at the behest of doing people harm. In order to make the distinction between fair and harmful profits, one must examine the direct treatment of the workers and the standards of the industry which produced the profit. Oil companies not only allowed for Nigeria to be left an impoveristhed nation, its unjust treatment lead to civil unrest and deadly terrorist bombings. Starbucks on the other hand is looked upon as a model corporation in terms of its workers wages and benifits. It may be inescapable that only a fraction of people actually acheive incredible wealth, power, fortune and the american dream - but these fortunes can be evaluated on their harmfulness based on close examination of the living conditions and industry treatment of the workers. -------------- -------------- -------------- 2) New technologies often hide problems that are only revealed later. Describe a specific situation in which the benefits of a new technology might not hide later problems. Discuss what you think determines when the benefits of a new technology outweigh potential problems. --------------------------------------------------------------- Corporations have been characterized as sociopaths. Their specific stated function is to amass profit for their shareholders and nothing else. They guard their secrets, and they present a pretty picture. New technologies seem perfect, unhindered by problems, superior, and are marketed as if they will never experience a single issue. Unfortunately, we all know this is not true. Microsoft corporation has now developed an error reporting system, allowing the computer to record data on any computer error or incompatibility issue and send the data to Microsoft. Patches and updates are issued continually, and with the hundreds of thousands of programs available for computer users incompatibility issues and security threats are boundless. Unfortunately, only mainstream market programs are tested and designed for use on the latest operating systems (such as windows xp, vista or 7) and many users are left to wonder if the less well known program they just purchased will run smoothly on their computer. These issues are unforseeable and incredibly frustrating. It may be true that some operating systems will be unpredictably incompatible with future programs, but there are others which offer more flexibility, and allow the user to forsee and correct some problems. Linux is a widespread system which operates under a freeware licence agreement, meaning it can be distributed and changed by anyone. It is known as 'open sourced' and is touted by the 'hippies' of the computer word, superseeding profit mongering by giant corporations. Any user can view the source code (the core of the program) and make their own changes. Comercially available programs lock this data away as a corporate seret and users are left to wait to see if they experience problems. When they do, they are reliant on microsoft and any other software producers providing a fix. It is not always easy to define an operating system as predictable, but as a general rule open sourced software allows computer savy users to peer into the innards and estimate what will and will not work on their computer. Microsoft hides the source code and forces users to rely on their own error fixes where as linux users can forsee and correct problems themselves. Open sourced software does not hide future problems but closed source software does. ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- 3)In times of war, maintaining public support is often the most difficult battle. Describe a specific situation in which maintaining public support in a time of war might not be difficult. Discuss what you think determines when maintaining public support in times of war is difficult and when it is not. ------------------------------------------------------------ The Iraq war has now surpassed the Vietnam war as the singe longest military campaign the United States has ever been involved with. People dont want to be fighting a war. People don't like to think of the american casualties, or the civillian casualties, or the perpetual global conflict. People donlt like to see trillians of dollars spent a year on military, while there are hundreds of thousands of people living on food stamps. They just want to say enough is enough. No more death, no more killing. But wars are more complicated than simply pulling out. And some leaders believe that in order to ensure peace, a campain must be seen through to the end. They must fight the hardest battle on the home fronts, keeping the support of the people. Former President George W. Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq seven years ago, and yet American troops are still fighting and dying. For what? For for the non-involvment with the attacks of 9-11? For the non-existant weapons of mass distruction? For a doomed puppet democracy in a divided tribal nation? The public does not want to fight this war. Republicans and democrats alike want to see the troops come home. The most difficult task of the current adminstration is to maintain public support for the military presence in Iraq. Now it is true, the long drawn out conflict in Iraq is difficult to support, but when George W. Bush sent America to war once again, he did so with overwhelming support of the people. Immeadiately after the September eleventh attack on the world trade center by Osama Binladen, George bush starting to use the words, Al Queda and Sadam Husein in the same sentence. He rallied the people resonating with anger and fear from the tradgedy in new york, and directed their fear and fury towards the leader of Iraq. He fired the coals with 'proof' of weapons of mas distruction, and he manipulated the American public into accepting an unjust war. Fighting the home fronts was the easy part in the beginning. Its not always easy to decide if maintaining support for a war is harder than actually fighting it, but when the people can see something affecting them directly, and affecting them now, they will stand behind global conflict and will hoot and hollar to kill the enemy. September eleventh struck home to the American people so hard that they went to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attack. Today, as the lies of the Bush presidency sit bare before us, the only direct effects the people see are their loved ones dying, and their deficit growing. They can no longer support this unjust war. Essay1: Fortune Your writing is excellent however generally you should avoid using a colloquial tone and phrases (i.e. “laughing all the way to the bank”, “spread the wealth a little”, etc.) Your treatment of task 1 was very detailed and specific, however task 2 could have benefitted from a little more explanation. Your resolution principle also needs to be more encompassing – you basically state that what determines whether a fortune comes at the expense of others is whether others are exploited (this is circular). You should try to make a statement that offers criteria that can be applied to any situation that determines when fortunes are made at the expense of others and when they are not. Score: 4/6 <- your resolution holds you back here Essay2: Technology Here your resolution is too narrow – your criteria are good but can only be applied to operating systems and other computer software, but the prompt is talking about technologies in general. Using operating systems as your examples for both tasks 1 and 2 is fine but your resolution should be able to be applied to any new technology. Make sure you’re always thinking on a broad scale to maximise your score. Score: 4.5/6 Essay 3: War You should refrain from sounding emotional in your essay – you are asked to present a rather objective treatment of the prompt, and seeming emotional can bias your writing in one way or the other (thus losing you marks). Try to use more neutral language and discuss your examples and arguments in a way that sounds less entrenched in a point of view. Again your resolution here talks about how public support can be different in different situations, however you don’t offer criteria that determine when public support is easy to garner and when it is not. You have to be more general in your resolution. Score: 4/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Hi Sameer. Thanks for doing this. I really had trouble with this one Laws cannot change social values. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a law might change a social value. Discuss what you think determines when laws can change social values and when they cannot. Social values encompasses the ethical and moral views of an individual. Often times, these values are instilled and firmlay rooted in the individual by their family and community when they are young. As a result, this makes it hard for any law sanctioned by the government to change an idividuals social values. For example, in the 1930's, the US government intiated a period of prohibition, stopping the public from having access to alcoholic drinks. Many individuals felt that it was not morally irresponsible to enjoy a beer or other alcoholic bevarage. As a result, many people obtained their drinks illegally from gangsters and bootleggers. Seeing the futility, the government evnetually overturned the prohibition law. However, there are times where a law can change certain values. This is especially the case when there is mounting pressure for the creation of a law. For example, take the legalization of abortion. Before Wade vs. Roe, many pregnant women were forced to go underground and obtain illegal abortion. The legalization of abortion no doubt changed the values of some young women and allowed women another option when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. What should determine when laws can change social values and when they cannot is whether there is pressure to create the law. In the case of prohibition, there was very little pressure to change. In the case of abortion, there was increasing pressure to provide women this option legally, rather than forcing them to go underground and having the procedure done in questionable conditions. Hey sarup, It seems the difficulty you had with this essay prevented you from developing your arguments fully. You should let yourself write a bit more about each example and their significance even if you think they are not overly strong. True your second example and overall resolution are not the strongest they could be, but you can still garner points by being complete in your treatment of each task by offering a full discussion of each point. Basically you sold yourself a little short here by not writing enough. Score: 4-4.5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Hi Sameer, I'm writing in 2 weeks. Government regulation of business is necessary in a democracy. The government has not only the right, but also the responsibility to make decisions that benefit society as a whole. Government regulation is needed in certain aspects of democracy in order for the system to function properly. Although most democratic countries are capitalistic in their nature, a majority have some sort of government regulation in their economic affairs. Even though the free market system is often advocated my many economists, it is not theoretically possible in all businesses sectors. For example, in the recent health care debate in the United States, President Obama introduced more regulations on the part of private health insurance companies. Although many have disapproved of this decision, it is necessary for the well being of the nation. Before the bill was passed, companies could find endless loop holes in their contract and deny patients much needed, often life saving treatment. One of their main strategies is to deny coverage based on the notion of a "pre-existing condition." The media covered a story in which a woman who, after paying her hard earned money for years to her insurance company, was denied coverage for her surgery because she had failed to mention that she had acne. The new bill passed, just a few months ago, prevents these companies from making such claims and taking advantage of their customers. However, there are areas in business where the government should have minimum, if any regulation over. Some businesses should be left to the free market. For example, the recent law that passed in one state prevented restaurants from serving pizza or using salt. Even the recent ban of trans fats in restaurants in New York is an instance when government regulation was not necessary. Although the government should educate people about healthy eating habits, it does not have to right to force restaurants to serve certain foods while prohibiting others. Although the intentions behind these actions are clearly well meant, it is not the role of the government to mandate what is on the dinner plate. A sector such as hospitality services should be left to the free market in a democratic country. Government regulation of businesses should be only towards those that provide essential services. Affordable health care is an essential service. It is not a privilege given to those that can afford it. However dinning at a restaurant is a luxury, not a necessity. Citizens should be able to decide what they want to eat and businesses should decide what they want to serve. If there is a demand for healthy food, then businesses will pick up on this and change their menu. However the demand for affordable health care cannot wait for insurance companies to change their ways on their own. Immediate government intervention is necessary when people's lives are at risk. Hello 080310, Your examples were specific and your resolution was thoughtful. However I would suggest that any time you do use a specific example, make sure you can fully explain and describe at least some details of that example (i.e. a law that prohibits serving pizza? You definitely need to explain this more fully). Also instead of using an example of when “government regulation was not necessary”, why not use an example of when a lack of government regulation was still beneficial for society? The first form is based on your determination of whether the regulation was necessary or not, whereas the second form would show clearly that indeed government regulation was not necessary in that case. Always try to use examples that are based on actual facts and can be supported other than by your own conclusions. Score: 4.5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 "The primary concern of the government should be the well-being of its citizens" In a democracy, the government consists of representatives elected by the citizens. These representatives are obliged to put the interests of the people as their primary concern. One of the key roles of the governmetn is to make decisions regarding the allocation of limited capital resources towards the needs of the country. As representatives of the people the government must direct much of its capital resources to meet the needs of the citizens in order to ensure their well-being. A prime example of such a decision by a democratic government is the recent introduction of universal heathcare by the US President Barack Obama. This decision ensures that the limited capital resources of the country are directed to meet the healthcare needs of the citizens by providing affordable healthcare to most of the population, thereby ensuring their well-being. While there were opponents who claimed that the capital resources could be spent otherwise, the government made the well-being of its citizens its primary concern and made a decision otherwise. On the other hand, there are instances where it is necessary for a democratic government to allocate its limited resources to the needs of the country as whole, and may not be able to prioritize the well-being of its citizens. In such a decision, the immediate well-beings of the citizens may be sacrificed in order to ensure the long-term stability of the nation. An example of this is the allocation of government resources towards global peacekeeping missions. Certainly, the capital resouces may be kept within the country and allocated towards improving the well-beings of the citizens. However, as a democratic, developed, wealthy global citizen, it is the United State's responsibility to ensure global well-being in order to maintain global stability and peace. This act by the government is necessary since global instability may eventually threaten the nation in the long-term in the form of armed confrontation. Thus, there instances where the immediate well-being of the citizen must sacrificed in order to ensure the long-term safety of the nation as a whole. There are a few factors which determine whether a nation should allocate its limited resources towards the well-being of its citizens, or to direct these resources towards other tasks. If this task will benefit the nation in the long-term, such as peacekeeping missions, it may be necessary to sacrifice the well-being of its citizens and divert the necessary resources to ensure the long-term wellbeing of the nation as a whole. On the other hand, if a government is faced with a task that does not address the needs of the citizens nor does it benefit the nation in the long-term, then it must weigh the advantages of providing for its own citizens versuses providing for other tasks, and try to achieve a compromise that will ensure the citizens' well-being while addressing the need for funding the other task. Thanks in advance for all you help:) Hello mikejones, Great essay overall. Your arguments were clear and concise, and your resolution tied everything together nicely and was well thought out. Your second example needed to be more specific however (you could have named an actual peacekeeping or other mission that the U.S. is or was involved in, and how that contributed to long term stability – this would have made your argument much stronger). Otherwise this was good. Score: 5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Hey Sameer, can you just go over my essay and give me you feedback. Thanks a lot. True leadership leads by example rather than by command The ability of an individual to lead his followers to glory and acheivement is the mark of a leader. Alas those who accomplish such a feat with the most success are those who guide their group with their exemplary actions, rather than mere instruction. An individual who consistently demonstrates the manner in which to act to acheive success can claim to truly be leading his group, as Kevin Garnett had done to the Boston Celtics. Before the arrival of Garnett, the celtics were a talented but inexperienced team, whom garnett immediately transformed into a power house of the NBA responsible for inflicting fear into the hearts of every opponent. It was not simply his statistics that helped the celtics, but instead it was his tenacity and passion, the savagery with which he played night in and night out , an attitude which spread to every member of the team like a viral pandemic until they became a cohesive rabid force, devouring all comers on route to a championship. However there are times when a trued leader does not have to lead by example but are instead able to guide their group to great succes, merely on the power of their command. Phil Jackson arrived to coach a disfunctional lakers team in 2000, whom immediately on his arrival, went on to win 3 straight champpionships, simpy by following his instructions and teachings. The players whole heartedly gave into Phil Jackson's philosophy without question for he had won multiple championships in his career, and knew that he was highly capable. In conlusion there is a rather obvious distinction as when a leader must lead by example and when he can instruct his group to acheive its goals. Individuals who themselves have not acheived the success treasured by the group, must prove to the group by their actions that they are capable before they can take true control of the reigns. Whereas those who have relative prestigous accomplishments to their name command an aura of respect, and thus are able to immediately lead by command. Hi rraguloj, Your essay was effective overall. However it seems you ran out of time by the end because of your extensive first paragraph. Try to budget your time well remembering that the resolution is in fact the most important part of your essay. You can save time by being less verbose in the description of your examples (i.e. your vibrant description of Kevin Garnett’s playing style in task 1). As another note, although your examples and arguments did work well here, I would suggest avoiding the use of examples only from a specific realm – sports examples may work well but you should try to use a variety of topics to ensure that a grader will appreciate your examples. This is not to say that you shouldn’t use sports examples, but just to be aware that some graders may not necessarily see them for what they are. Score: 5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Hey Sameer, thanks for doing this, here are two essays I wrote in a practice MCAT, any suggestions would be really helpful! An understanding of the past is necessary for solving problems of the present. Is history doomed to repeat itself? This is a question that is often presented as a discussion-opener, whether it be in history class during discussion of the world wars, or in a counselling session about the likelihood of an abused child growing up to beat his own sun. This question has relevance in many different circumstances because we recognize that what happens in the past has significant sway over the events of the present and the future. Many of the great world conflicts present today can be traced back through history; often these conflicts have roots in centuries past. Without an understanding of these roots in the past, how can one possibly hope to try and solve the problem in the present? The Rwandan genocide of the 1990's is a perfect example of this type of long-rooted conflict. Though there has long been strife between the Tutsis and the Hutus, it was the massive genoicide of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis in the 1990’s that brought this conflict to international attention and aid. But this is not a type of problem that one can simply intervene in and fix. The problems between the Tutsis and the Hutus began hundreds of years ago upon the colonization of the country by Europeans. The Europeans divided the people of Rwanda into two distinct groups based on physical appearance, forcing them to wear identity tags at all times to show which group they belonged. They treated one group as more superior than the other, and this belief of superiority has poisoned the country and the people over the years to the point that mass murdering became commonplace. Without the knowledge of the past, without the understanding of where this division came from, it is impossible to try and bridge the gap between these peoples. Armed with this knowledge, on the other hand, the world has a whole is that much more prepared to insert themselves into the affairs as diplomatically as possible and try to solve the problem. It is this respect and understanding of the past roots of these conflicts that can - hopefully - eventually lead to their resolution. On the other hand, however, not all of the problems of the present are long, drawn-out conflicts with such deep roots. In our society today we are faced with many problems that are new, with no parallels in the past. For these types of problems, it is not a knowledge of the past that can help us, but instead innovative and new thinking. One of the most terrible epidemics of our times is the HIV virus, responsible for millions of AIDS-related deaths in our society today. Forty years ago, HIV and AIDS were unknown to us. Over the years, it has become a horrific part of our reality. While there have been epidemics in the past, HIV is unlike anything we have ever seen. No past knowledge of how to deal with pathogens can help us solve the mystery of HIV because it operates outside of our accumulated knowledge from the past. Looking to the past will not give us answers. It is only through new scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, through new ways of thinking that are outside the box and outside of what we have experienced before, that will hopefully eventually lead us to a cure. The past, then, has its place and its importance. To discount the lessons learned from the past would be to discount all that has been sacrificed; to not learn from the lives given in war so that humanity could learn a lesson, to not let the same mistake happen again. The past has much to offer us. It contains the roots of many present-day conflicts, an understanding of which is integral to ever coming to a resolution, such as in Rwanda. The past has lessons, from which we must learn if we ever wish to hope for societal improvement across the generations. There is much we can learn from the past, and understanding of what has transpired in history could not be more important. However, our present will also one day be the past, and it is here in our present that roots for new problems are created. New problems, problems without parallel such as AIDS, are not helped by looking to the past - in fact, this can hinder progress, hinder innovative thinking that could lead to solutions. So while looking to the past is undeniably important when present-day problems have past parallels, we must also recognize that we must look to our own present in solving problems that are new and without parallel in the past. Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please voters, not what is best for the country The usual definition of a politician is "public servant" - one who serves the public, one who stands up for the public, one who makes heard the voice and will of the public. This is especially true in democratic countries such as Canada, in which each political candidate in the House of Commons is meant to voice the majority will of the people in their riding. As such, these politicians are often not concerned with the greater picture of the entire country of Canada. Their job - and the reason democracies can function - is to ensure that their specific people are represented in the government. They must vote in the House of Commons as their riding expects and trusts them to do. This doesn't always necessarily correlate with what the majority of the country would love - however, it is not their place to do what is best for the country. It is the role of the entire government as a whole to do what is best for the country, and this can only happen with each politician accurately transmitting the will of their people. Thus, many riding politicians base their decisions on what they believe or know would please their votes. This can be clearly seen in the issue of Quebec separation. As a whole, the majority of Canada believes that Quebec separating would be a detrimental affair for the country, in both economic and social senses. Yet, the politicians of the Bloc Quebecois continue to push for this separation, because it is what pleases their people. However, this logic focuses on so-called "small-scale", riding politicians, those who are expected to base their decisions on what would please the majority of their voters. Not all politicians in office, though, can operate this way, especially those who are in positions of higher power. In some situations, these "higher-ups" are required to make decisions for the good of the country that are, generally, unpopular. An example of this type of unpopular decision is that of Trudeau enacting the War Measures Act during the October Crisis of 1970 with the FLQ. Many people felt that this stripped away integral human rights of freedom for a relatively small crisis. However, in the end, the threat was defeated and the country was made safe again. These types of drastic decisions are often made because they will benefit the country as a whole. The basis of political decisions, then, seem to centre around the position of the politician in question, and what role that politician is meant to play in the political world. Truly run-of-the-mill political servants - the ones meant to represent (and thus, please) voters - should be basing their decisions in such a manner. That is their role in society and their job in the government, and this is what allows for multiple voices to be heard, not just one overpowering voice stating what is best for the country. This overpowering voice, though, does have its place. For those politicians in greater power - and thus, having a greater responsibility to a greater public - their decisions are on a grander scale, and should be concerned with the good of the country, and not what would please individuals. This balance is an important one to consider in the world of politicians and in the running of governments, and finding the correct balancing point is the key to successful countries. Hey bangel, Essay1: Your examples and arguments were good here, but I would suggest being a little less verbose and more concise in your description of your examples. As well, your resolution paragraph tends to repeat itself several times. Try to eliminate mechanical errors by going back over and proofreading. In all you still did well here since you addressed the tasks, but make sure you clearly state your criteria in task 3 – your resolution paragraph was a bit convoluted and could turn a grader off of your overall argument. Remember clarity and simplicity are key to a high score. Score: 4.5-5/6 Essay2: Another good essay that is a little verbose. Try to streamline your writing by only saying one thing per sentence, and ensuring that each sentence contributes to the topic of that paragraph in a meaningful way. That is, generally, make every word count. This is a key point of short writing – every sentence must contribute meaningfully to the overall essay for maximum impact, and to keep the reader engaged. Your examples were good but also remember that you are being graded by American graders, so you must adequately explain examples when they deal with very Canadian affairs or content. An average American will have no idea what the FLQ is! Keep your examples clear by explaining them well enough (but not too much either). Score: 5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkles3288 Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Hi Sameer, Thanks so much! I write in two weeks. True leadership leads by example rather than by command The markings of any great leader are intimately tied to the ability to engage and capture those individuals that follow their steed. The most effective and enigmatic method for this to occur is leadership by example, rather than simply commanding at others. Following by example allows others to view characteristics of not only the leader, but also how they can use those markings for their own endeavors. One of the foremost leaders in the scientific field, Marie Curie, displays the true aspects of not only a good leader, but also a scientist. Dr. Curie’s groundbreaking work in radioactivity not only cemented her position as a leader in science, but also as a leader in the newly fashioned feminist movement. She accomplished this by not simply demanding those below her in the laboratory to carry out experiments, but instead fashioned these experiments herself. She not only engaged students with her intelligence and scientific creativity, but actually demonstrated how a female scientist could be successful. These efforts eventually lead to her death, but will remain in the minds of many scientists as a great leader in the field. There are times, however, when leadership by example can lead to faulty situations. Instead, a strong leader is needed that can take control and command of those people around them. Ralph Klein, former premier of Alberta, had displayed in his ten-year position of political power many instances of faulty leadership by the inability to command. Many instances during his time in office were of him socializing with various members of parliament and becoming a friend to these individuals, rather than a leader. More often than not, Premier Klein was found doing menial political work with MP’s rather than distributing the work to them. As a result, instances of political corruption arose due to MP feelings of friendship towards Premier Klein. In this situation, it would have been beneficial to take a hard-lined approach with cabinet and lead by command, rather than example of friendship and colleague-behavior. Money scandals, laundering, etc were afloat during this time and ultimately negatively affected his constituency. Ultimately, a good leader has the charisma to engage an audience and the presence to command and lead to successful outcomes, whatever context those may be. However, a critical trait to this successful leader must be the humility to step down and lead by example, to show the people they are one of them. A blend of these two traits could be seen in former Prime Minister Elliot Treadeau, who advocated feelings of community among the Canadian population and encouraged volunteer work. Not only did he require this of various members of parliament, but he himself went out and participated in many volunteer activities, such as the Terry Fox run. This sort of leadership by command and example are the markings of any successful leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberptra Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberptra Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Thank you I took what you said, and did a few more writing prompts. I appreciate the timely manner that you responded. I will be checking this forum again tonight, and tomorrow.. hopefully there is a reply before I leave for the MCAT. Thank you in advance. In politics, the correct course of action is one that will win the most votes. Within a democracy, politicians are elected into position by citizens. Since every citizen has a certain set of beliefts and values that are unique, each citizen may have a differnt opinion on what course of action the governement use to deal with issues within education, health, security, and the economy. During a political campaign, politicians reveal to the public their intentions and what they are will or will not do once they gain power. Therefore, citizens are more likely to vote for politicians that allign with their view and beliefs. Since the democracy of North America rely on the majority, the politician who gains office is the one who recieved the most votes. These politicians are the embodiment of the millions of people who voted for them to be in power. Therefore, the course of action that the politician proposes will be supported by at least half the population. By using a system of majority, the course of action will satisfy the greatest number of people and may be considered correct. This statement, however true it is for the current fundamental principles of democracy in North America, cannot be applied to the democracy of Germany after the first world war. Although Germany was a democracy and that the Nazi party came into power from an election, it does not justify the party's actions against certain groups of individuals in the country. Under the leadership of Hitler, the fundamental rights and freedoms of many minority groups were taken away. Furthermore, many of these minority groups were grouped together in large concentration camps and then often executed in gas chambers. Under Hitler's rule, the majority supported the policies of the Nazi party and allowed for the genocide of certain groups. Although the Nazi party was supported by the majority within Germany, their actions against humanity cannot be considered correct. What then determines whether a course of action that will win the most votes be correct? The nature of the course of action must be taken into consideration. If the course of action is socially accepted and does not infrige on the rights and liberties of another individual or group, then the course of action may be considered correct. However, any course of action that endangers another group will be considered incorrect despite having support from the majority of the population. Overall, this statement holds true most of the time only if the most popular course of action does not endanger the safety, rights and freedoms of another individual. History is merely a record of human warfare. Throughout history, humans have engaged in many wars. Evidence of human warefare can be read in many historical textbooks, seen on many paintings, and even heared from many songs. The world and society that we see today is very different from the one in the past. Even in the last hundred years, there have been many great wars that shape how the world works today. For instance, the United first took root after First World War, and is now one the most influencial organization in handling war. After the Second World War, the politics of the World changed drastically because of the threat of nuclear warfare. After the civil war in Rowanda, many nations were persued to establish universal human rights to prevent genocide of groups of people. Overall, a lot of what we are today is a result of human warefare; and therefore, should be contributed to human histroy. This statement, however true it is in showing history as a record of human warfare, has not considered other factors that contribute to history. One factor is the fact that history within the field of science shows the progression of human theories and ideas used to explain the natural world we live in today. Long ago, it was believed that the world was flat, which was later disproven. It was once believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, but with some carful observational measurements from a few scientist, that model of the universe was disproven. Similarily, the teleograph was later replaced by telephones. The invention of planes allowed for faster travel than boats. Step by step within the history of science, it shows how one idea replaces another. The theories that were rejected details our progression and should considered part of human history. What then determines whether history be a record of war and when it should be something else? No criterion determines what should or should not be a record of human history. Everything that has contributed to what we are today should be considered part of human history. Among other things, Human warefare shows how societies have developed within our world, the countries we see today, and the diversity of culture in our world. However, science has also contributed to what society is today. Through science, many discoveries were made, and these discoveries shape the world in ways such as travel, communication, and food. In a free society, law must be subject to change Law is the set of rules that everyone in society follows. It prevents citizens from doing whatever they please. Without law, society would be in a state of chaos. Therefore, law is a system that limits the rights of individuals in order to protect society as a whole. However, in a free society, law may be subject to change. Although America has always been considered a "free society", not everyone living in North America were equal. There were once laws that promoted segmentation and differeintiation between groups and individuals. For instance, it was once law that women and African Americans were not allowed to vote in elections, nor be educated in universities, nor be present in Casinos or bars. As North American societies developed, these law were repealed, which increased universality between all citizens within society. By changing these laws, these societies became more "free". This statement, however true it is for laws that promote segmentation, cannot be applied to every law in society. There are fundamental laws in North America that should not be subjected to change. These laws protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. If these laws were to be changed, it would be going against the constitution. For instance, in Canada there is a law that prohibits officals from detaining citizens arbitarily unless their is immediate and apparent danger. Therefore, this law protects an individual's liberty. If this law was appealed, then it would mean that individuals would be able to be detained for any reason, and it would go against the Canadian consitution. What then determines whether a law in a free society should be subjected to change? The nature of the law and what it represents should be taken into consideration. If the law is designed to protect the basic rights and freedoms of individuals, then changing it would be restricting these fundamental values that North American countries cherrish. However, laws that are restricts the rights and freedoms of groups and individuals should be subject to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Thank you I took what you said, and did a few more writing prompts. I appreciate the timely manner that you responded. I will be checking this forum again tonight, and tomorrow.. hopefully there is a reply before I leave for the MCAT. Thank you in advance. In politics, the correct course of action is one that will win the most votes. Within a democracy, politicians are elected into position by citizens. Since every citizen has a certain set of beliefts and values that are unique, each citizen may have a differnt opinion on what course of action the governement use to deal with issues within education, health, security, and the economy. During a political campaign, politicians reveal to the public their intentions and what they are will or will not do once they gain power. Therefore, citizens are more likely to vote for politicians that allign with their view and beliefs. Since the democracy of North America rely on the majority, the politician who gains office is the one who recieved the most votes. These politicians are the embodiment of the millions of people who voted for them to be in power. Therefore, the course of action that the politician proposes will be supported by at least half the population. By using a system of majority, the course of action will satisfy the greatest number of people and may be considered correct. This statement, however true it is for the current fundamental principles of democracy in North America, cannot be applied to the democracy of Germany after the first world war. Although Germany was a democracy and that the Nazi party came into power from an election, it does not justify the party's actions against certain groups of individuals in the country. Under the leadership of Hitler, the fundamental rights and freedoms of many minority groups were taken away. Furthermore, many of these minority groups were grouped together in large concentration camps and then often executed in gas chambers. Under Hitler's rule, the majority supported the policies of the Nazi party and allowed for the genocide of certain groups. Although the Nazi party was supported by the majority within Germany, their actions against humanity cannot be considered correct. What then determines whether a course of action that will win the most votes be correct? The nature of the course of action must be taken into consideration. If the course of action is socially accepted and does not infrige on the rights and liberties of another individual or group, then the course of action may be considered correct. However, any course of action that endangers another group will be considered incorrect despite having support from the majority of the population. Overall, this statement holds true most of the time only if the most popular course of action does not endanger the safety, rights and freedoms of another individual. History is merely a record of human warfare. Throughout history, humans have engaged in many wars. Evidence of human warefare can be read in many historical textbooks, seen on many paintings, and even heared from many songs. The world and society that we see today is very different from the one in the past. Even in the last hundred years, there have been many great wars that shape how the world works today. For instance, the United first took root after First World War, and is now one the most influencial organization in handling war. After the Second World War, the politics of the World changed drastically because of the threat of nuclear warfare. After the civil war in Rowanda, many nations were persued to establish universal human rights to prevent genocide of groups of people. Overall, a lot of what we are today is a result of human warefare; and therefore, should be contributed to human histroy. This statement, however true it is in showing history as a record of human warfare, has not considered other factors that contribute to history. One factor is the fact that history within the field of science shows the progression of human theories and ideas used to explain the natural world we live in today. Long ago, it was believed that the world was flat, which was later disproven. It was once believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, but with some carful observational measurements from a few scientist, that model of the universe was disproven. Similarily, the teleograph was later replaced by telephones. The invention of planes allowed for faster travel than boats. Step by step within the history of science, it shows how one idea replaces another. The theories that were rejected details our progression and should considered part of human history. What then determines whether history be a record of war and when it should be something else? No criterion determines what should or should not be a record of human history. Everything that has contributed to what we are today should be considered part of human history. Among other things, Human warefare shows how societies have developed within our world, the countries we see today, and the diversity of culture in our world. However, science has also contributed to what society is today. Through science, many discoveries were made, and these discoveries shape the world in ways such as travel, communication, and food. In a free society, law must be subject to change Law is the set of rules that everyone in society follows. It prevents citizens from doing whatever they please. Without law, society would be in a state of chaos. Therefore, law is a system that limits the rights of individuals in order to protect society as a whole. However, in a free society, law may be subject to change. Although America has always been considered a "free society", not everyone living in North America were equal. There were once laws that promoted segmentation and differeintiation between groups and individuals. For instance, it was once law that women and African Americans were not allowed to vote in elections, nor be educated in universities, nor be present in Casinos or bars. As North American societies developed, these law were repealed, which increased universality between all citizens within society. By changing these laws, these societies became more "free". This statement, however true it is for laws that promote segmentation, cannot be applied to every law in society. There are fundamental laws in North America that should not be subjected to change. These laws protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. If these laws were to be changed, it would be going against the constitution. For instance, in Canada there is a law that prohibits officals from detaining citizens arbitarily unless their is immediate and apparent danger. Therefore, this law protects an individual's liberty. If this law was appealed, then it would mean that individuals would be able to be detained for any reason, and it would go against the Canadian consitution. What then determines whether a law in a free society should be subjected to change? The nature of the law and what it represents should be taken into consideration. If the law is designed to protect the basic rights and freedoms of individuals, then changing it would be restricting these fundamental values that North American countries cherrish. However, laws that are restricts the rights and freedoms of groups and individuals should be subject to change. Essay 1: Your example for task 1 should be more detailed and specific – you’ve simply stated that north America has a democracy. You should offer an example of an actual situation that demonstrates the prompt (like you did for task 2 in refuting the prompt). Your resolution was again well thought out and showed that you thought the prompt through. Improve your examples and again watch for sentence structure/grammar issues Score: 4.5/6 Essay 2: You seemed to have trouble with this prompt. Your both of your tasks are rather convoluted as you deal with several topics and bring up several ideas in each, but do not develop any of them fully. The first two paragraphs read rather confusingly, and you lose the reader amongst all the ideas you’re discussing. Remember that clarity and simplicity are your best tools to score high – the easier it is to read, the easier it is to mark. Talk about one idea per paragraph, and make every sentence you write count (that is, each sentence in a paragraph should relate to the topic of that paragraph). You may benefit by spending more time planning out your examples and arguments before you write, so that you do not get mixed up in talking about all the ideas that come as you write. Also your resolution here was not strong – you are asked to distinguish between two opposing views inherent in the prompt, and combining them in this way is very risky. Better to present both sides of the topic, even if your arguments for those sides are slightly weaker – at least you are following the instructions. Score: 3/6 Essay 3: You’ve done ok here however you could have offered a deeper examination of the topic by delving into just what a “free” society is, and how this necessitates (or doesn’t necessitate) changeable laws. Attempting to look at the broader social implications of a prompt usually will point in the right direction. Still what you’ve written about is good, as you do offer examples and good resolution criteria. However you could have spent more time explaining your examples and offering more detail to really make them convincing. Score: 4.5-5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asglover Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Hi, Could you please review and grade the two essays provided below. Thank you. An understanding of our past is necessary in finding solutions to our present problems. An understanding of our past in some cases may be beneficial in finding solutions to our present problems. When we are able to go back into our past to look at certain trends,issues or events it gives us an insight to present issues that may be currently taking place and it may provide effective solutions to these problems. A good example of this is the study of the holocaust. A lot of emphasis has been placed on understanding who this event came about, who it affected and how it does not foster collectivity or inclusion in society. By teaching students and members of society what happened during the holocaust, society is able to address the present problem of discrimination in our society. This is because by understanding the past/history of the holocaust, people are able to realize that the holocaust was as a result of subtle discriimination and by avoiding discrimination, they can solve the present problems that result from discrimination including hate crimes and racism, However, understanding the past may not always necessarily help to solve a present problem.Lets consider a political party that has been voted into power for a second term of office. Their understanding of how they ruled the country during their first term of office may not provide solutions to the present problems that the country is facing. The country may have developed a new set of problems that will have to be looked at from a new perspective in order to provide a good solution. In this case, an understanding of the past methods will not be helpful in solving the problem at hand. Rather, the government would have to look for new and innovative strategies to solve the present problem, In conclusion, an understading of the past should be considered in solving present problem based on the type of problem to be solved. When the problem is one of social justice as deciribed in the first example, a society can rely on examples of the past to glean effective solutions. However, if the problem is political and it involves a government developing new strategies, then an understanding of the past is not necessary. Politician base their decisions on what pleases the voters and not what is best for the country There's a famous addage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. This addage expresses the relationship between politicians and their voters. Often times, politians base their decisions on what they feel will please their voters in order to secure votes in the next election. Politicians work primarily to serve the people and they usually ensure that the requests of their voters are stongly considered in order to secure their place in power. A typical example of this was the recent Unified health insurance that the Obama administration tried to implement. Based on extensive research and analysis, the Obama administration had proposed a unified health system where all US citizens can access affordable health care. This was to replace the current "pay as you go" health system. This new system would have benefited all people especially the poor and underpriveleged but it was fought by many affluent Americans who are no doubt voters who can afford health care and don't want to switch systems. The decision to implement this system was not supported as the voters had a huge impact on the Obama adminsitration and the administration had to do what the people requested. This was also because the people had a direct say as to whether or not this system should be implemented. The government could not implement this without the people's approval/ vote on it. However, there are times when politicians base their decisions on what is best for the country and not just what pleases their voters. This is usually what happens when issues of national security are involved. A good example of this is the US sending troops to fight the war in Iraq. Since the US security was involved and the government had carefully considered the consequences, it did not have to directly consult the people before it sent troops to Iraq. It did so as it saw fit. As a result, the US people were not consulted directly on the issue before the decision was made. In conclusion, politicians will decide to either base their decisions on what pleases their voters or on what is best for the country depending on the type of decision to be made. If the decision at hand can be made without the voters approval then politicians will have to listen to their voters. However, if the decision involves an issue of national security where a decision has to be made quickly then the voters will not be involved in the decision making process and as such the politician will have to decide what is best for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Thanks so much for the feedback, this will probably be one of my last essays :S I write this week, I've been trying to find more specific examples, or atleast inputting specific names of companies. Hopefully it's getting better, Education comes not from books, but from practical experiences. It can be said that education is something that exists all around us. The simple fact that learning is ongoing throughout a persons' life derives the conclusion that education comes from practical experiences. As a person grows older and enters post-secondary education, they have a choice of college or university. Although college is typically seen as the route that leads learning from practical experiences, the same can be said for its post-secondary counterpart. Many occupations such as the electrician, plumber, or mechanic learn most of their practice by observing and doing it themselves instead of reading theories from a textbook. This is not to say that the underlying principles of their craft is not important, it is just not as necessary for the purpose of their job. Going back to education in universities, many post-secondary programs at these institutions contain labs and thesis projects which all constitute education from practical experiences instead of books. A specific example of such an opportunity available for students of this caliber is the Canadian Astrobiology Training Program where undergraduate students experience real life research in topics linking astronomy and biology. In collaboration with NASA, this type of education the student undergoes is obtained by performing experiments, making observations, and analyzing data. Such practical experiences is where the education comes from, no textbooks are used to teach anything in this circumstance, and skills learned from research are even transferable to other areas such as robotics, medicine, and astronomy. However, to say that no education ever comes from books is too extreme. Many books consists of background theory in their subject areas which are important for a young person to know. Having a basic understanding of underlying principles is a goal for all formal high school and lower education in preparation for the future. Textbook companies such as Nelson and McGraw-Hill pours an exorbitant amount of money into developing their Physics books with colourful diagrams and equations, with the goal in mind of educating its target: young students. At such a young age, it is more efficient for a teacher to use textbooks as resources for the material they cover in class. The basic foundation of knowledge in preparation for future academia is laid at this stage, and the medium with which this is brought to the student is through books. By examining where education comes from, one can say that it comes from both books and practical experience depending on the circumstances. The factor in dividing this issue is age. During childhood when students are still taking part in formal education before post-secondary studies, the primary form of education that takes place is through books because there is good knowledge that should be imparted on the students in preparation for future uses. On the other hand, when the student has grown into adulthood, it is practical experience that takes over. As seen in the Astrobiology research example, education takes a much diminished role in the form of books, but is primarily obtained through practical experience. In conclusion, it can be said that both books and practical experience provide good education to the student, but the degree in which they provide such knowledge differs with increasing age. Hi imagination07, here is my feedback. Hopefully you get this in time to review, sorry for the late response. Good luck tomorrow. Although you have presented some valid arguments here, I don’t think your reasoning is broad enough. You consider age as the determining factor as to whether education comes from books or practical experience, but what about learning a new trade or a new field of study at an older age? Wouldn’t you still need books or practical experience at this age as well? Perhaps what you were trying to get at was the stage of education rather than age. Still, you did address the three tasks and you offered a specific example for task 1 (although task 2 was less so). Your first paragraph could benefit from some cleaning up – talking about the two forms of education and bouncing back and forth between them hindered clarity here. Score: 4/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkles3288 Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 Hi Sameer, I think you missed mine. I'll post it again: Hi Sameer, Thanks so much! I write in two weeks. True leadership leads by example rather than by command The markings of any great leader are intimately tied to the ability to engage and capture those individuals that follow their steed. The most effective and enigmatic method for this to occur is leadership by example, rather than simply commanding at others. Following by example allows others to view characteristics of not only the leader, but also how they can use those markings for their own endeavors. One of the foremost leaders in the scientific field, Marie Curie, displays the true aspects of not only a good leader, but also a scientist. Dr. Curie’s groundbreaking work in radioactivity not only cemented her position as a leader in science, but also as a leader in the newly fashioned feminist movement. She accomplished this by not simply demanding those below her in the laboratory to carry out experiments, but instead fashioned these experiments herself. She not only engaged students with her intelligence and scientific creativity, but actually demonstrated how a female scientist could be successful. These efforts eventually lead to her death, but will remain in the minds of many scientists as a great leader in the field. There are times, however, when leadership by example can lead to faulty situations. Instead, a strong leader is needed that can take control and command of those people around them. Ralph Klein, former premier of Alberta, had displayed in his ten-year position of political power many instances of faulty leadership by the inability to command. Many instances during his time in office were of him socializing with various members of parliament and becoming a friend to these individuals, rather than a leader. More often than not, Premier Klein was found doing menial political work with MP’s rather than distributing the work to them. As a result, instances of political corruption arose due to MP feelings of friendship towards Premier Klein. In this situation, it would have been beneficial to take a hard-lined approach with cabinet and lead by command, rather than example of friendship and colleague-behavior. Money scandals, laundering, etc were afloat during this time and ultimately negatively affected his constituency. Ultimately, a good leader has the charisma to engage an audience and the presence to command and lead to successful outcomes, whatever context those may be. However, a critical trait to this successful leader must be the humility to step down and lead by example, to show the people they are one of them. A blend of these two traits could be seen in former Prime Minister Elliot Treadeau, who advocated feelings of community among the Canadian population and encouraged volunteer work. Not only did he require this of various members of parliament, but he himself went out and participated in many volunteer activities, such as the Terry Fox run. This sort of leadership by command and example are the markings of any successful leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blending_in Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 An understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of the present The expression "Don't follow in the footsteps of your uncle or aunt..." is often heard by a young child who is being warned by his or her parents not to follow what they consider a poor path in life. The past can often provide essential insight into the decision making of the future. Through chronicling the history of what has happened before us, history reveals what works and what doesn't. It offers direction when faced with a new problem, by offering how certain approaches in the past have fared. An example of this is clearly seen in governmental responses to the recent recession we face. Through an understanding of recessions in the past they are able to apply policies that effectively combat a recession. The past has shown that depressions follow a cyclical mode, an in order to remove ourselves from a depression we must jumpstart ourselves out of the rut. Such is the policy that has been followed by President Barack Obama. In order to lift the U.S. economy has provided a $700million dollar stimulus package to aid in job creation. His strategy has worked as it should be expected to. In contrast, there are often times situations in which no amount of past understanding will be able to solve the issues at hand. This occurs when the problems we face are entirely novel; they have never been seen before. No amount of past knowledge will apply to the situation and the solution must be so to speak "played by ear". For example the recent oil spill by British Petroleum in Deep Horizon is a novel situation. There have certainly been a number of oil spills but never has an underwater source blown out. This has certainly presented challenges as no solutions repairing the leak previously existed. Past methods of combatting oil spill are unapplicable and as a result the company has been forced to turn to innovative science to churn out solutions to the leak. With much trial and error with different solvents and sophisticated machinery to install caps they seem to have worked to remedying the disaster. Whether a knowledge of the past is a requisite to solving a current problem is dependent on the precedent before it. In the case of the U.S. Economy it would have been foolhardy not to listen to analysts on strategies that worked in the past. By following strategies that worked previously in history the mistakes of the past could be avoided and avoid unecessary lengthening of the problem. In contrast for British Petroleum, information of the past was unable to help as there was no precedent on how to react to the disaster. It only now that British Petroleum has set a precedent for the future that an understanding of the past has paved the road for possible oil spills before them. Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please voters, not on what is best for the country President Obama recently said "You know, there's a time and place for campaigning and there's a time for actual policy making." It seems that in a democracy politicians are pre-occupied with maintaining their political position. In order to retain their political power they must appease the voters even if there are in fact ramification to the country as a whole. A prime example of this was seen in the recent U.S. Presidential Election. Senator John McCain strategically picked a running mate who would appeal to a large demographic of voters. His choice was Sarah Palin a woman who had scarcely been heard of before his announcement. Yet her appeal to women was enormous, many could relate to her as a self described soccer mom. At the same time Sarah Palin was a person who was later revealed to lack in depth knowledge of political issues. Her answers given to many probing question concerning political policy were vague and she required extensive preparation from John McCain's campaign team to prepare for the U.S. Presidential Candidate debate. It is clear that the election of Sarah Palin lack of necessary experience and knowledge could have been detrimental to U.S. Policy. After all every policy requires an informed politician who understands the intricate of the issue. This is simply a case where John McCain's self interest in becoming elected was placed ahead of the interest of the country. In contrast in the recent passing of the new U.S. Healthcare policy President Obama faced enormous criticism and saw a significant drop in his approval ratings. It was evident that he was sacrificing his own popularity for a policy that he sincerely believed in. For President Obama, he saw the mounting problems that were intrinsic in the current health system. Many people could not afford health care due to changes in their insurance contracts when an insurance companies found out about a person's conditions. He also saw problems in the doughnuthole in which citizens faced with costs not high enough to be considered critical were receiving no aid from the governemnt. Yet one cannot be led to believe that President Obama is completely altruistic. He enforced this policy in a time in which he was safely elected as president. At this point, as a president who does not intend to seek a second term, he was free to place his political vision ahead of his need to please his voters. Politicians face a precarious balance they must juggle advancing what they believe while at the same time appeasing voters who are often resistant to change. What determines whether a politician will do best what is best for his country or please his voters is dependent on whether he has secured the position he desires. For John McCain in order to exert his power as a politician he would have to first become elected, and therefore at all costs he aimed to please his voters. For President Obama, he has already attained the position he has desired, and now as he says it's time for policy to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red&black Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 Hi Sameer, I write in two weeks so all comments are appreciated! Citizens who enjoy a country’s benefits during peacetime have a responsibility to support their nation in times of war. Describe a specific situation in which citizens might justifiably not support their nation in time of war. Discuss what you think determines whether or not citizens should support their nation in time of war. The government is instituted to ensure the well being of its citizens. It acts to maintain the country's economic and social stability and safety. Sometimes, fighting a war with another country is necessary to achieve those ends. Since the citizens are the beneficiaries of government's attempts at economic, social and political peace and stability, they have a responsibility to help the government attain those goals when the government calls upon them. This often means supporting the government in a time of war, whether it be through fighting or working to produce supplies needed for the war. However, a civil war, where the citizens hold an uprising against the government, is a prime example of when citizens need not support their government during a war. Civil wars are often preceded by social unrest and great economic disparity. The government fails to adequately address, or even furthers, this inequality among the classes of citizens, and consequently large numbers of citizens revolt. During the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century, for example, the middle class grouped together and overthrew the aristocracy and the monarchy. This war was necessary to improve the living conditions of the working class and by not fighting against the government in a time of war, the oppression of these masses of people would have continued. Since the government was unable to ensure the well being of its citizens, the public had good reason to not support their government during the revolution. Whether or not citizens should support their nation in a time of war depends on the purpose of the war. If the purpose of the war is to help the government maintain the economic or social stability of the country so it can continue to provide for the well being of its citizens, the public has a responsibility to support their nation in war. Conversely, if the purpose of the war is for the citizens to acquire their own well being since the government is not providing them with that, then they do not have to support the government and can instead go against it. In business, competition is superior to cooperation. Describe a specific situation in which cooperation might be superior to competition. Discuss what you think determines when competition is superior to cooperation in business and when it s inferior. From the perspective of a consumer, competition between companies trying to sell a similar product is preferable to cooperation, as the price for the product will decrease. Purchasers look to be economical by buying goods at the lowest price available. Consequently, businesses in a competitive market must try to keep their prices lower than their competitors in order to attract customers and be a viable and profitable business. For instance, for several years, cottage goers in Parry Sound only had the option of buying their groceries at the A&P near the highway. A few years ago, however, No Frills, another large grocery chain, opened a store in the same mall as the A&P. This created competition between the two stores. As No Frills was establishing itself and trying to gain the consumer market, it chose to sell almost all of its products for slightly less than A&P. This pleased the cottage goers as they could spend less on groceries of comparable quality, so they started shopping more often at No Frills. The competition between businesses was advantageous for customers because of the lower price of goods, but negatively affected A&P as they lost their market share, making that franchise no longer profitable and forcing its close. Although competition is economically superior to cooperation for a consumer, as explained above, from the viewpoint of a business, cooperation may be economically favourable to competition. In Canada, for example, there are only three main cell phone network providers: Rogers, Telus and Bell. Although they compete for the market share through their advertising campaigns, the cost of using a cell phone remains very high regardless of which company one uses. These companies have come to an agreement that the cost of a voice and data plan remains at or above $65 each month. As a result of this high minimum price, the three companies are able to increase their profits because there are no companies that offer a better price to entice consumers and thus forcing the other companies to also lower their prices. Consequently, cooperation is economically superior in this instance to competition. Whether or not competition in business is superior to cooperation depends on whether a minimum price for a good has been set. If there is no minimum price, then for a consumer competition in business is superior to cooperation as the price will fall. If there is a set minimum price that is high, then cooperation is superior for the businesses to generate a profit. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoebola Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 Hello, I was doing one of the practice AAMC tests and was wondering if you would mind grading my essays. They are not one of the posted sample topics. Thanks Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies: Explain what statement means; describe a situation where progress simplifies more than it complicates; what determines whether progress simplifies or complicates Whether social or technological, society is constantly is evolving. In the technological field, one is constantly bombarded with new inventions that are meant to simplify one's life. However, today's society is progressing so quickly that sometimes what is meant to simplify turns out to make ones life more complicated. Whether, progress complicates or simplifies depends on whether the change to behaviour that is required is greater than the improvements that come with the progression. When the blackberry was invented, it was meant to revolutionize communication. In one palms was a device that was a phone, a keyboard for text messaging and a way of searching the internet. However, with its progress in the area of data encryption came the complication for governments in the terms of security. A whole new set of problems arose. How can individual security be maintained? How about terrorists using it to send messages behind the government's back? It is clearly evident that a technology that was meant to simplify provided a major headache for governments around the world; they were now faced with new problems of security versus individual freedom that needed to be sorted out. Although the blackberry provided major complications for policy makers it simplified the lives of many users. A clear case is its use by people with severe alzeihemers and dementia. The blackberry could function as an alarm for when one needed to take pills, a notepad to remind individuals of appointments and meetings and a phonebook so that they could easily find phone numbers. As such these individuals could function much more independently before the advent of technology. Another example of technology simplifying is the use of robots to perform dangerous jobs, such as mining or blowing up road side explosives. It was Newton who stated that every force has an equal and opposite force. In a similiar vain, progress can simplify one's life while at the same time present challenges that were never imaginable. What determines whether progress simplifies or complicates depends on the difficulty of using the technology compared to performing the task the old fashioned way. Is it more complicated to figure out how to work an electronic robot vacuum or to simplify vacuum oneself? Human behaviour is generally to resist making drastic changes. Thus, for progress to simplify the changes that it entails must be moderate and gradual. In closing progress on some level implies improvement. Only progress that in the long simplifies would be viewed as progress; everything else is ideas that need to be recycled and simplified in order to progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoebola Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 Thanks again :-) Laws cannot change social values- Explain what statement means; when might laws change social values; what determines when laws can or cannot change social values Abortion, gay marriage and universal health care, these are just a few hotly debated issues that people have strong opinions on. A social value is a belief, about the morality of an issue or action, that is shared by the majority of individuals in a given society. Laws are often drafted to mirror the values of society; there is a law against stealing since stealing is deemed socially wrong. However, just because something is made into law, does that imply that overnight everyone's opinion on the issue would be changed? Whether a law is able to change social values or merely reflect them depends on how strong people's beliefs are around the issue and the amount of time that is passed. When a law is created, does societal values change overnight? A contenious law was just passed in California that legalized gay marriage. The law passed by a slim majority, meaning that a large minority of individuals strongly opposed the law for religious, moral or other regions. Even though gay marriage is now legal, these same individuals would likely still feel uncomfortable with the issue as there opinion was not based on legality but for some other rationalle that still remains. One the other hand, in certain situations laws are able to change societal values. A key example is the law banning segregation. In the beginning half of the 20th century a fair number of people in the south believed the segration was natural and necessary for society. However, today, 50 plus years after the laws were passed complete integration and equal opportunities is deemed the only morally acceptable situation by most people. After the law took affect, people saw that armaggedon did not result. When Blacks were included people could see that they were indeed just like themselves and thus deserved equal rights. As a whole society changed from endorsing segregation to denouncing it. Another example of laws influencing public values has to do with antismoking legislation. The more antismoking legislation that is implented the more likely individuals are to frown on the activity. Society's opinion on smoking will likely turn into something that was simply dangerous and foolish to something that is a moral vice that is scorned. Laws are able to have a powerful affect society's values, but there affects are not instantaneous. Laws are unlikely to change deeply entrench values like killing. Even if murder was made legal people are never going to believe murder for the sake of murder is ethical. However, once the law for universal health coverage is passed, people are likely to turn around and see that this is a value that society should endorse. There is nothing strongly morally or religious repungant to universal health care. To the contary, it is a law that would improve sociey. Thus, it is a value that is likely to be endorsed by the majority of society in the near future. A law could never change everyone's beliefs on an issue, however it is likely to sway some people. It would be interesting to see if gay marriage would have such a strongly vocal opposition in 20 years in the state of California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iluvsoccer Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 Hey Sameer, I know you are super busy but please evaluate by previous two essays as I write in two weeks and would appreciate some feedback - thanks a lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan19 Posted August 21, 2010 Report Share Posted August 21, 2010 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. The process of scientific inquiry is heavily rooted in the need to satisfy one's intellectual appetite, and such discoveries do not endanger the life of any humans when scientific research focuses on first describing novel theories and revelations. No human life is sacrificed in this process because many scientific theories may perform experiments on similar species of organisms, and may extrapolate such data and apply it as such, to generalize a new novel discovery that has been made in science. For example, in 1979, Steve McCowan was interested in finding a novel method to combat bacterial organisms, and discovered the use of antibiotics and recognized a bacteria's ability to disrupt the membrane of other foreign bacteria. He observed the species at first with other bacterial species, then conducted experiments using mammalian cells. In doing so he discovered that a certain antibiotic, tetracycline, did not affect the protein synthesis of mammlian cells such as monkeys or whales, it would most likely not harm humans. In first describing such a novel breakthrough, he was able to form the basis of modern antibiotics, and his scientific process was rooted in the desire to discover, and no human life was harmed in the process. There are instances; however, when scientific inquiry is rooted in satisfying one's intellectual curiousity, yet harms a human life in the process. These instances occurs mostly in clincal research, and when patients who are terminally ill are given experimental treatment, whose effects are unknown, and may be in fact detrimental. The patients will die in the impending future, and hence, if such an experimental breakthrough occurs, and saves the patient's life, then it will greatly be beneficial to the scientific community and to the patient; however, if the patient dies, then in doing so, such a subject proved to be useful into providing insight of a experimental treatment. In 1995, Dr. Banner discovered that the use of ribavirin could be used to successfully treat patients with Hepatitis B. There had been many people who had been co-infected with Hepatitis B and cancer, and even if they were to be treated for cancer, they would most likely die due to liver failure from Hepatitis B. Dr. Banner administed a clincal trial which sought to use ribavirin to cure such patients, and he got mixed results: some patients got better, while some reported that the treatment catalyzed their death. Thus, the scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, and seeks to do so in a manner which prevents any harm to humans when the ultimate goal is to provide enlightenment to the scientific community. If the research first describes novel theories or revelations, then experiments can be performed on analogous organisms, other than humans, and conclusions can be drawn. However, if the goal of scientific inquiry is to save a terminally ill's persons life using experimental treatment, then ideology of persevation of human life can be ignored in an attempt to describe a treatment which may better serve as scientific discovery for mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.