Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[anto12e]

Hi,

 

I think my essay may have gotten lost in all the posts, but here it is again. Thought I did pretty good on it since it was an easy prompt

 

 

In business, it takes money to make money.

 

Describe a specific situation in business where it might not take money to make money. Discuss what you think determines when it takes money to make money in business and when it does not.

 

 

 

In the world of business, a business is an organization that has the intention of optimizing its profits by providing a service or product and money often plays a huge role. Any business that starts from the ground-up requires an investment. This investment generally comes in the form of money because of its versatility nature. Money can be used to provide the necessary business supplies, hire employees and cover the costs of manufactoring or distribution. Only when the business is established or have found its niche, an area where the business excel, can the business expect to see a profit. This monetary profit could've not have been achieved without the original monetary investment. This process can be seen with Apple's Iphone franchise. Apple's decision to enter the telecommunication field at such a late period, where many companies such as Sony and Samsung have established, meant that Apple would face tough competition. As a result, Apple needed to find its niche in the market and felt that the only way it could accomplish this was to find money into its research and development team. Apple spent billions of dollars developing the Iphone's user friendly interface, including the touchscreen capabilities. When the Iphone was released into the market, it became a huge success that led to an enormous profit. It was clear for Apple that it took money to create a product that could be marketed and produce a profit.

 

 

However, the busines world does not solely require one to invest money in order to make money. Many business entrepeneurs who are successful make money because of their valuable skills. These skills that are so unique, makes them one of a kind that they can themself market to make money. In the entertainment business world, many wealthy actors start their career by polishing their acting skills. Take Johnny Depp as an example. When he first started in the early 90's, he didn't have any money whatsoever. What he did have was a skill not everyone else had, a natural ability to act. This valuable skill allowed him to secure motion picture roles such as Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Carribean. His compensation for this role was in the millions because he was the only actor who could accurately portray this character. In this case, Johnny Depp didnt' have any money to make money, he had a skill.

 

 

What determines whether it takes money to make money in a business and when it doesn't comes comes down to whether the business field of discussion. A business that invovles developing, distributing and marketing a product such as the Apple Iphone, doesn't solely depend on one person's skills. Instead, it requires an investment of money to cover the costs necessary to run the business. This original investment led to a development of a product that created an enourmous income. For a business such as in entertainment, skills plays a more important role in income than monetary investment. Johnny Depp, made his fortune by utilizing his acting skills and not by any money. Therefore, it is what the business emphasizes that determines whether money is needed or not to make money.

[shin]

Hey everyone, I just wanted to clarify that myself and the other Prep101 instructor do get paid for grading your essays. Of course it's free for all of you but we do get compensated for our time.

 

Hope that doesn't change anything for any of you.

 

Happy writing!

 

Sameer

 

Out of curiosity, why does Prep101 pay you for this service? What's in it for them? Sorry if I'm being overly cynical.

[the stranger]

In case anyone needs it, here is another prompt to try:

 

 

The more people rely on computers, the more people become alienated from one another.

 

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 computers might not alienate people from one another. Discuss what you think determines whether or not computers alienate people from one another.

 

Instructions:

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above.

 

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

 

Post your essay in this thread on the Forum and I will post comments and a score here

 

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the Forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

[sarup]

Thanks for doing this Sameer.

 

 

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.

 

Hobbes proposed that man and government are binded by a social contract. If man were to break a law, then he has broken the contract with the government, and vice versa. As a result, in most cases, if an individual breaks a certain law and the government were to break that same law, there should be no difference in the treatment of the citizen, versus the treatment of the government. Both the government or the citizen have broken the law, and that amounts to them having committed a crime. For example. take the serial killer Ted Bundy and the Nazi government. Both committed the crime of murder, even though Bundy killed women and the Nazi government killed Jewish people. In this case, both the indivdual and the government broke the same law, and both acts were judged to be crimes.

 

However, there are times when even if the same law is broken, the act should only be considred a crime if committed by an individual. This is often the case when the government is attempting to gain valuable intelligence or prevent someone from getting harmed. Take for example, the case of a terrorist cell in England. The English government authorized the use of wire tapping of the cell's house. The information that was gained was used to save the lives of numerous individuals. If an individual was to wiretap a house, it would be considered a crime. In this case the government's act should not be considered a crime as it performed the act of wiretapping with the intention of saving innocent lives.

 

What should eventually determine whether or not crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments, should be whether or not the act committed by the government was done in order to benefit the greater good. In the case of the Nazi goverment, their atrocious acts were not done for the greater good of its people, but out of hatred for a group of their society. As a result, their actions should be considered a crime. In the case of the wiretapping, the government did so in order to benefit the people. As a result, it should be the intention behind the act that determines if a crime commiteed by an individual should be considered a crime if done so by a government.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A good movie usually teaches a moral lesson.

Describe a specific situation in which a good movie might not teach a moral lesson. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the quality of a movie depends upon its ability to teach a moral lesson.

 

A movie is a powerful form of media that is often used to tell a story. Often times, the story told by the movie contains a deeper, meaningful lesson that the wirter would like to portray to his audience. In fact, many critics will often judge a movie by the depth of its plot; that is, the movies ability to show the audience it has lesson it wishes to teach. For example, many critics regard "Lion King" as one of the better movies made. The reason is because "The Lion King" does more than just entertains, it teaches. Many individuals have enjoyed the movie for its plot, and have also drawn moral lessons from the actions and experiences of the characters.

 

However, there are times when a good movie does not have to teach, but merely entertain. In these cases, the movie will often be one that seeks to thrill and excite its audience. For example, take the movie "Saw". Many would be hard pressed to find any moral lessons from the characters or the plot of the movie, which deals with a maniac getting individuals to kill themselves. Despite the lack of the moral lesson, "Saw" has proved to be one of the more succesful movie franchises, and many critics and audiences would regard it as a good movie.

 

What ultimately decides whether or not the quality of a movie depends upon its ability to teach a moral lesson is the genre of the movie. The genre of the the "Lion King" is a children's cartoon. The most successful children's cartoons are often the ones which entertain the young viewers, but also to teach them some basic moral principles. The genre of "Saw" on the other hand, is a horror movie. The most successful horror movies are meant to thrill and scare their audiences, not to teach moral lessons. As a result, it is the genre of the movie that determines whether or not the quality of the movie is dependant on the movies ability to teach morals.

[imagination07]

Hey Thanks a lot for doing this,

 

here are two essays that I've written (2nd and 3rd time trying), I've noticed a lot of rambling and repetition as I find out I never have time to proofread my work after I am done so this is all raw with the 30 min. time limit.

 

Creativity flourishes best in circumstances where freedom of speech is openly permitted.

 

Creativity is an integral attribute to any type of discussion between people. To first understand the value of creativity, one must first understand the value of varying opinions. Let us first define creativity as the presentation of many different opinions by people which have equal value. As well, freedom of speech can be regarded as people being able to present their ideas and opinions vocally in front of others who are part of the discussion. Typically, creativity does flourish best in circumstances where freedom of speech is openly permitted because different people have different opinions. In situations where brainstorming is crucial, people have different perspectives and opinions on how a situation should be run. A great example of this is an undergraduate group project that consists of about 5 - 7 people coming up with presentation ideas for an anatomy presentation. Topics such as how to present and what topics to include need creativity involved. In this case, freedom of speech where all group members contribute can provide many different ideas that can be used, and therefore creativity flourishes in this circumstance. In a group size such as this, most people feel more comfortable speaking their opinion as many studies have shown the majority of people have trouble with public speaking. Therefore, this is a prime example of when freedom of speech results in creativity as its best.

 

However, there may be some instances where freedom of speech is not the best route to obtaining creativity. In a group such as a middle school class of 30 coming up with a skit to be presented to the rest of the school, there are those who don't feel quite as comfortable sharing their opinion in front of so many people. In this way, creativity may be stifled by those who are not afraid of public speaking and present first to the rest of the class population. Although freedom of speech is openly permitted in this case, the small group of good public speakers may potentially influence the rest of the class and some opinions may never be presented. An idea of how creativity may flourish best in this case would not be to have freedom of speech openly permitted, but to have each student in the class write down their own ideas and opinions about how the skit should be presented. This gives a more equal opportunity for all varying opinions to presented where creativity is better shown. In this case, the medium of having to write down opinions instead of vocally presenting their opinions show that creativity flourish better than with freedom of speech.

 

So how does one know when freedom of speech should be openly permitted to encourage creativity flourishing at its best. The circumstances differ in a small group from a large group. In the small group as seen in the anatomy group example is that diverse opinions are important for creativity at its best, but most people feel more comfortable in a smaller group to present their opinions. In a larger group circumstance, many people may feel embarrassed to present their opinion in danger of others disagreeing with them as well as the problem of public speaking. In a large group, creativity may be better achieved through a medium such as the example of writing down ideas in the class skit example. One must remember, however that in either circumstance, different opinions should be equally valued, which is the heart of creativity.

 

The essential concern of a democracy must be the protection of human rights.

 

When one first thinks of human rights, food, shelter, and health care are usually the first three things attributed to it. These three things can be seen as needs for basic human survival. The basis of democracy relies on the idea of equality for every human being regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Therefore, the essential concern of democracy should be to protect human rights. An example of the protection of human rights is those who are out of work and on welfare. The purpose of welfare in a democratic society is to help those who are deficient in basic needs of survival. This eventually links to the idea of protection of human rights. People who are on welfare or unemployment insurance typically have little to no income to support their living needs and the idea of equality from democracy calls for those who are more fortunate to help these people. This is realized in the form of tax payer's money which eventually lends itself into the form of a welfare cheque. Most modern democratic nations and societies have some sort of regulation in helping those who are in need of help and this, therefore, is evidence that protection of human rights should be an essential concern of democracy.

 

However, times in which the protection of human rights may not be the essential concern of democracy is becoming more prevalent in the modern society. Ever since the time of 9/11, the attack on the twin towers in New York, security has been heightened at airports, and all other border securities. Some of these heightened security measures seen in many democratic nations across the globe may be a violation of human rights. A prime example of this is the recent ban on veil covering face wear in public in the country of France. France is a democratic nation but the lower courts has recently passed such a law which may be in violation of the protection of human rights. The French Council of State has indicated that this may be indeed a violation of the freedom of expression and religion against women wearing Burqas (a full face covering veil) practicing their religion. The reason behind this ban was security issues in identifying suspects involved in terrorism. Clearly, this example shows that security is of a higher concern than the protection of human rights in the French democracy.

 

So, when can one say that the essential concern of democracy must be the protection of human rights? For generations, it seems that for policies involving every day living should indeed be the essential concern as people should be entitled to their basic human rights. However, this line is blurred in modern times with the concern of security. Heightened security has seemingly been more and more of a concern for democracy than protection of some human rights as seen in the ban of face covering veil in France. From recent observations, there may be sufficient reason that this blurry line should be crossed when other rights of human beings are threatened. Therefore, general every day living typically relents itself to the protection of human rights, yet in times of when security is needed, some protection of those rights may have to be given up.

[alreadyadoctor]

after reading through this forum, I have a few random questions:

 

1. Who is Sameer?

2. Why is he correcting essays online?

 

Just asking....

[the stranger]

after reading through this forum, I have a few random questions:

 

1. Who is Sameer?

2. Why is he correcting essays online?

 

Just asking....

 

I'm an MCAT prep course instructor for Prep101. Prep101 is providing a free essay feedback service for the PreMed101 community to use as a resource in their MCAT preparation.

 

Hope that clears things up.

 

Sameer

[the stranger]

Out of curiosity, why does Prep101 pay you for this service? What's in it for them? Sorry if I'm being overly cynical.

 

Hey, Prep101 has decided to offer this service for free to the PreMed101 community, but compensates us for our time spent grading since it does take quite a while to get through all these essays. Prep101 has several other free study aids and resources available publicly as well.

 

Sameer

[S B]

Hi Sameer,

Thank you for grading my first essay. Here is a second one, I hope to have a improved somewhat. Thank you for doing this.

 

 

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

Describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen

 

A democracy is stated as a “government of the people, and for the people”, the people representing the ordinary citizens of the nation. It is a form of government where people choose their political representatives directly via elections or indirectly when their chosen candidate elects another official, normally at the federal level. When people directly choose their representatives, the chosen politician has a very high probablity of being one among the masses. For instance, in constituency in Scarborough which comprises highly of minority ethnic groups, majority being an asian community elected Raymond Cho as their councilor, who himself has asian ethnicity. This is quite clear in the sense that people would want to chose someone as their representative, who can closely associate with them and daily requirements and problems.

However, when the politician is chosen at a federal level, where people cannot directly vote for them the chances of resemblance with the ordinary citizen decrease. A striking example of this is the yesteryear president of India Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam, who did not only belong to minority religious group but also was a highly educated physicist. This stands in contrast to the largely uneducated or undereducated citizens of the nation. But Dr. Kalam’s term at the office was highly appreciated by all and was offered a extra term to serve, which he declined. He although did not resemble the ordinary citizen but was easily able to relate to them and think about reforms for benefiting them.

Therefore, if the politician bears a resemblance to the ordinary citizen or not depends on the process through which he is elected in a democracy. If an election is direct people will tend to elect a candidate who they think can close relate to their needs and the politician will likely bear a resemblance with the voters. If, however, the politician is elected indirectly the chances of resemblance with the voter decreases, and the candidate who can best act towards the benefit of the nation and its people is elected into power.

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer,

 

Here are two essays from my aamc practice, even if you could just give me quick feedback that would be wicked!

 

 

Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

 

As we grow and develop throughout our lives, knowledge and education are quintessential in becoming a mature and informed citizen who can contribute to society. However, despite our current schooling systems reliance upon them, knowledge cannot be acquired from books and from reading historical articles, rather, the best knowledge results from practical and personal experience. Texts and words limit the possibilities of education, as there is no opportunity for the expansion of an idea, but rather the capacity of what is taught is limited to what is written on the page, and these ideas remain static for decades at a time. By learning through practical experience, an individual can gain a much greater understanding of a concept. For example, an individual attempting to train and enter the profession of welding is required to spend time apprenticing and practicing their skills on trial products. This pre-professional practical experience allows for trial-and-error of the student, and allows them to make mistakes but then correct them before being introduced into the workforce. If this same aspiring welder had attempted to learn all of his technical skills through reading a manual or instruction guide, he may still acquire considerable knowledge about welding theory, but he will have no personal context of how to apply these skills. As a result, when he first enters the workforce, the welder will be unfamiliar with the actual processes and is likely to make serious mistakes on a customer’s property. In addition, by actively practicing a skill set, the welder is able to obtain the most up-to-date knowledge about techniques, rather than information in a textbook, which may be outdated.

This being said, there are many times when it is impossible to learn from practical experience, and it is in these scenarios when we must rely on textbooks for knowledge, as they are our only resource. A prime example is the study of historical events which have occurred in the distant past. For these events, there is no way to recreate or to personally experience the events, for they have already occurred. When attempting to gain knowledge about a past event in history, we must then turn to textbooks and accurate descriptions to provide us with a complete set of knowledge. These situations exemplify the importance of accurate historical documentation, as if future generations are to learn about the current affairs from the present, their only source of information will be the books and texts that we leave behind.

The fundamental factors for deciding whether or not knowledge about a topic is best acquired from practical experience or books is both the type of knowledge, and also whether or not the topic in question is most relevant to the present or the past. If a topic is current or the knowledge itself requires a hands-on application, students can receive the highest caliber of education through practical and personal experience. However, if a topic is purely historical and it is impossible to relive or experience the desired knowledge, then we must turn to textbooks, as even though they are not preferred, they are our sole source of knowledge for past events.

 

 

 

Hi brendo,

Overall your essay is good – you present coherent arguments and your essay flows from one idea to the next. You adequately address the tasks and your resolution is good. Just a few points:

- Avoid using overly categorical language in task 1 ; remember that you only have to refute your own statements in task 2, so it is better to use more neutral language in task 1

- Use more specific examples of actual situations to improve your score

- Be sure to relate your criteria directly back to your examples in task 3 to increase unity

Score: 4.5 /6

[the stranger]

 

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.

 

Throughout the course of human history, medical breakthroughs have been essential in the survival of our species and the increasing ability for humans to maintain optimal health. Like most types of scientific breakthrough, medical advances must be made through research and clinical trials to determine the effects of a medical treatment, both intended and adverse. While the success and sole goal of the scientific community is to discover new ideas, there are ethical regulations required to ensure that researchers remain within moral bounds when conducting a research study. Most importantly, it is fundamental that researchers do not sacrifice human health and safety in order to make new discoveries. There is simply no way to justify intentionally harming current lives in order to possibly save one in the future, as this rational is entirely flawed. During the Holocaust, many Nazi doctors conducted human experimentation such as studies on twins and on how humans responded to extreme environmental manipulation. While these studies contributed to large advance in the fields of human anatomy and physiology, the pain and torture that was forced upon unwilling test subjects is horrifying. These types of sacrifices made ‘in the name of science’ simply cannot be tolerated, as while some knowledge gained, an even larger amount of morality is lost.

This being said, there are some occasions and scientific studies where human life is threatened or ended and medical knowledge is gained while still maintaining morality. For example, when new pharmacological drugs and medications are being developed and researched, it is required for them to all go through a stage of clinical trials. Patients are volunteers who are informed of the risks and know going in that taking the medication could have adverse health effects. In these trials, it is not uncommon for a patient to be harmed or even die; however, the main difference from the Nazi’s experiments is that the patients in the controlled study are informed of the risks and willingly take the drug. There is no forceful action and nothing is imposed upon an unwilling test subject. The patients who may unfortunately perish from a medication’s clinical trials are still able to offer astounding information to researchers, who can then learn about previously unknown adverse effects of the medications, but no patients were intentionally or forcefully harmed in the process.

The fundamental factor for deciding whether or not human death is acceptable in a scientific study is whether or not informed consent was offered to the patients, and whether or not the patient willingly undertook the test knowing the risks. If these criteria are met, then even though human death is unfortunate, it still remains morally justified and can contribute to scientific breakthroughs. However, if patients are not informed and hazardous treatments are forcefully imposed, then morality is compromised, and the nature of the study should not be tolerated.

 

My comments for this essay are nearly identical to the last one: Good overall flow and structure, good treatment of the tasks and a good resolution. Your example in task 1 was good but again, a more specific example is needed in task 2. Once again, avoid using such forceful language in task 1, only to have to completely refute your own statements a few sentences later in task 2.

Score: 4.5/6

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer,

 

this is from a practice test, thanks for the help.

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses.

Explain what you think this statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a business succeeds without taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. Discuss what you think determines whether or not businesses take advantage of consumers' weakness in order to succeed.

 

It is often said that the world of business is an unforgiving one driven by the goal of profits. A business' success is its ability to survive and make profits. Consumers' weaknesses refer to a tendency to believe advertisements and a desire for the latest products.Often, companies are able to continually profit and thrive by using marketing ploys to attract consumers. Companies use methods to use the fallibility of consumers to sell the product. Businesses usually only require that consumers are convinced that they have to buy the product through marketing. For example, Apple inc has used several television commercials to promote its Mac desktop computer.

These advertisements convinced consumers that the Mac computers were more user-friendly and innovative than PC computers. Once consumers believed this, they began to purchase Apple products and the company profited greatly. Apple inc established itself and profited by taking advantage of consumers' belief in advertising.

 

Although, businesses often succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses, this is not the case with every business. A company can

be profitable and survive without using marketing ploys or latest trends. For instance, Loblaws grocery stores has expanded all across Canada and have developped a good reputation for quality food. Loblaws provides its products to consumers without using overt television advertisements. Instead,

the company has been successful by offering quality food to consumers. It does not take advantage of consumers' weaknesses to be profitable Evidently, a business can profit without utilizing the weaknesses of consumers.

 

It is not initially clear in which cases a business succeeds by taking advantage of consumers. Whether or not success requires playing on consumers' weaknesses is dependent on whether the business provides consumers with a want or a basic need. Apple provides technological

devices that are not a basic need, but are desired luxury items. In this case, Apple is successful by using marketing to take advantage of consumer weaknesses. On the contrary, Loblaws provides food which is a basic need for life. It has been successful without the use of over the top marketing as consumers will continue to purchase food. The role of the business in providing basic needs or wants determines whether or not success is obtained by taking advantage of the weaknesses on consumers.

 

Hi answerji,

Your resolution principle was excellent – right on the money. Your task 2 was also good. However, your treatment of task 1 left a little to be desired as your explanation of “weaknesses” was not completely clear. Make sure you adequately define ambiguous terms in the prompt for maximal clarity of your arguments.

Score: 4.5-5/6 <- your resolution and final paragraph really make your essay successful, but it wouldn’t surprise me if you lost a little bit for your first paragraph so be careful with this

 

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

[the stranger]

I just started practicing the writing sample this week. Any feedback would be appreciated.

 

Prompt #1

"Employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the

workplace."

 

I think the statement means that employees are entitled to the basic right to privacy in their personal matters. All individuals are granted the right to a certain level of privacy in society. As an employee of a business, this standard of privacy must not be violated; just because an employer has given the person a job does not justify them in exposing their private personal matters. For example, in the late 1990's in Toronto, Ontario, an employee at the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) was fired from their job on the grounds of inappropriate behavior in the workplace. It was later found that the manager of this branch of RBC had done some deep investigating of this employees personal history via information found in the banks databases, along with numerous calls to family members and friends of the former employee from a blocked telephone number. The manager found out that the employee had been involved in some commercial drug use and trafficking earlier during her teenage years, which was the main reason that the employee was fired. The courts ruled that the employer infringed upon the privacy of her employee, lost her position as manager of the RBC branch, and the fired employee was given a multi-million dollar settlement. Thus, the legal system supports the notion that employees have a right to privacy just as they would outside of the workplace, because the manager invaded her employees privacy in the workplace and was punished accordingly.

 

However, in certain circumstances, employees should not be entitled to the same level of privacy as they would get outside the workplace. For example, members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are able to access in-depth information about nearly every citizen and business in the United States. In addition, they are granted a high level of power in order to exploit the information that they have access to in order to secure criminals and threats to society. Because these employees are granted a depth and breadth of information about citizens that place them in powerful positions, the privacy of these employees is significantly lessened. The government must be able to keep track of the FBI employees and their personal matters to ensure the security of the nation. If an FBI agent were to use the information databases and power for evil, he or she could cause serious damage to the citizens of the United States. Therefore, the government is justified in regulating the privacy of its FBI employees.

 

The relevance of the statement is based on whether or not the employees are privy to private information that would threaten the security of the members of society. If an employee is only able to access general information about the customers of a business, as with the bank teller, then the employee deserves the same level of privacy that they would have outside of the workplace. If the employee has access to private information, and the use of this information could threaten a society's security, then their privacy must be regulated as a safety precaution.

 

Hello theblackmamba,

Your first example is excellent, your second example is good. Your resolution principle is good as well but you should relate your criteria back to your examples directly to increase clarity. As well try to add variety to your word choice as there are instances where you use the same word several times. Avoid using personal statements like “I think the statement means...”

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

[the stranger]

Here is another attempt at an essay, thanks again Sameer!!

 

Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news.

 

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 objectivity should not be the primary goal in reporting the news. Discuss what you think determines whether or not objectivity should be the primary goal.

 

---------

 

When people want to find out what is happening in the world, from occurences in their own community to the larger international community, many turn to watching televised news broadcasts. Because the news reported reaches such a wide audience, not only the content but the method by which the news is reported is of great importance to viewers. Objectivity should usually be of primary importance for a news reporter. Objectivity refers to presenting all points of view relating to a specific news story without interjecting personal feelings or prejudices. Presenting all points of view relating to a news story without bias gives viewers all the facts needed in order to make informed decisions regarding societal concerns. For instance, when the inhabitants of the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, needed to make the decision on whether or not the city should host the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, the story was covered from all angles by the media, from how much the games would cost taxpayers to how much the tourism industry could profit from the worldwide exposure the city would receive. By being clearly informed of all of the pros and cons of hosting an event as large as the Olympics, the citizens of Vancouver were able to make their own informed choices on whether or not they supported hosting the Olympics Winter Games.

 

Although objectivity is of great importance when reporting the news, it may not always be of primary concern. Consider, for example, the catastrophic earthquake that occured in Haiti in January of 2010. Of primary importance when reporting such a news story should be gathering all the facts in an accurate manner, and not so much being objective about the facts gathered. In this case reporters should be primarily concerned about reporting accurate details about the event as soon as it occured, such a the extent of injuries and the damage caused, in order for people to be accurately informed about the event.

 

Determining whether the primary goal of reporting a news story should be objectivity is an important matter. The determining factor should be whether the story involves a matter upon which the public needs to make a decision. As a news agency is often the primary source from which the public obtains the information necessary to make informed choices about societal concerns, such as the decision to host the Olympic Games, the primary goal when reporting such a story should be to clearly present all view points relating to the story without interjecting personal feelings or prejudices to allow society to make their own choice. If the news involves a specific event where facts need to be reported, such as following the 2010 Haiti Earthquake, then the primary goal in reporting should be to ensure all the facts presented are accurate. Therefore, in determining whether objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news the reporter needs to consider whether the story may affect the public's choice on a matter.

 

Hi medschoolhopeful10,

I’m not sure if your definition of “objectivity” is completely valid – you state that objectivity is presenting all view points, and distinguish this from present accurate facts. However, objectivity can also be defined as simply presenting the facts and not “view points” or opinions. Moreover, going with your definition, presenting accurate facts would still not be “subjective” because they media is still reporting ideas other than their own. Make sure your definitions are in line with your arguments to ensure clarity.

Score: 3/6 <- although you technically addressed the three tasks, your second task doesn’t refute the statement since in the presenting of facts in a crisis, a news company is still being objective even by your definition. Thus you haven’t adequately refuted the statement

 

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

[the stranger]

Hey, I just wanted to put this up if you could mark it. I feel like I have gotten the hang of it but I just wanted to see how I am coming along as I feel like I got a pattern down.

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all people.

 

Describe a situation in which wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all people. Describe what determines whether or not a wealthy politician can offer fair representation to all people.

 

Arthur Spooner, a British politician, once called wealth, “The death of representation in politics.” Many agree with him, claiming that wealthy politicians cannot provide respectable representation to their constituents. Because a rich politician can finance their own campaign, there is little need to meet with constituents to raise political funds. Fund raising is a way for politicians to listen to and meet the demands of all constituents. For instance, Linda McMahon, a senator from Connecticut, was able to freely finance her 2010 election campaign without the need for individual donations from her constituents. After the election, she was lambasted by political pundits for not speaking on issues that, according to the polls, were most important to Connecticut voters. Thus, rich politicians, like Linda McMahon, do not need to attend necessary fund raising meetings with their constituents and accordingly, are unable to represent their constituents fairly.

 

However, even though wealthy politicians are well enough to avoid fund raising, there have been instances where a political figure has represented his constituents fairly. For example, in 2006, Belinda Stronach, a wealthy businesswoman in the auto industry, decided to contest to become her constituency’s member of parliament in Canada. Although she was rich enough to raise her political funds without having to resort to attending donation meetings, there were laws in Canada that prevented her from donating beyond $1600 to her campaign. Because the donation limit was not enough to sufficiently contest for political office, she resorted to attending a number of fund raising meetings with her supporters. Later, she was commended by CBC broadcaster Don Newman for speaking on most of the issues that concerned her voting area. In other words, Belinda Stronach was forced by the limits of the law to meet with her constituents in order to raise donations. As a result, a wealthy politician might be able to offer fair representation to his or her constituents because certain laws might prevent from financing their own campaign.

 

Although it can be difficult to assess whether or not a rich politician is able to ably represent his or her politician, a good guideline is if laws permit one to finance his or her own election contestation. In the case of Linda McMahon, Connecticut and U.S. laws allowed her to avoid meeting with her constituents in order to raise political funds. On the other hand, Belinda Stronach was forced to attend fund raising rallies because Canadian laws limited her ability to donate to her own campaign. Since campaign meetings allow a politician to meet with his or her voters, he is in a better position to know their concerns. Therefore, if one wanted to prevent a wealthy politician from neglecting his or her voters, they would support laws that limited donations one can make to his or her own campaign.

 

Hey ssd,

This was a successful essay overall – you hit all three tasks, you had good specific examples, your resolution was good and you related back to your examples. However I would say that you could have explored a more broad social dilemma presented by the prompt (i.e. beyond simply not attending fundraising meetings, but concerning social class distinctions etc). Still, your essay was good.

Score: 5.5/6

[the stranger]

Thank you!

 

"In politics, the end rarely justifies the means."

 

A common lesson told by those more experienced in life is that “it is not the end result that is important, but it is the journey that you take”. These people are referring to one’s legacy after they have perished. They emphasize that once you are no longer living, people will remember you for the actions you took. However, quite often in politics, politicians are concerned with achieving their or their country’s goals at what seems like any cost. Meeting their objectives or in other words “the end” is frequently accomplished at the cost of innocent deaths or suppression of civilian rights. Despite the importance of the goal, the method used to accomplish it is usually not morally justified. This was the case in World War Two and the treatment of the Japanese Canadians in Canada. The government had adopted the War Measures Act to give officials more power in terms of arrests and detainments. They had claimed that the Japanese Canadians were a threat to Canada’s safety and had them placed in internment camps. Many of the people detained were Canadian born or had lived in Canada most of their lives. Although the country remained free from “Japanese Spies”, this end result definitely does not justify the injustice towards Japanese Canadians.

 

However, in some cases, the ends may justify the means even if the actions taken are immoral. This may be if the repercussions of not reaching the end are greater than the repercussions of the actions themselves. Although it is a controversial topic, many believe that the dropping of the atomic bomb was justified because it ended world war two. Even though it led to many deaths in Japan, many argue it prevented many more deaths that would have occurred if the war had progressed.

 

In politics, the end justifies the means if the consequences of not reaching the end are greater than the consequences of the actions taken. While the steps taken by politicians to achieve their goals may be immoral, they may be necessary. This was the case in World War Two: the US had the ability to stop the war and end millions of potential civilian deaths of all countries even though the use of the atomic bomb would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. However, if the actions taken do not prevent greater consequences, they are not justified. Such was the case with the treatment of the Japanese Canadians during the Second World War. The government issued an apology about fifty years later stating that they were mistreated. There are far too many actions taken in politics without the consequences considered. It is important to analyze whether the action is necessary to achieve a particular goal and whether or not it is morally justified.

 

Hi PreMeder11,

Good essay overall. Your treatment of the three tasks was adequate, however you could have used a less controversial example for task 2 – it is still difficult to convince someone that the atomic bomb was “justified” simply because it ended the war. You could have chosen a more clear cut example for task 2 to really hit home with your point.

Score: 5/6

[the stranger]

Yo Sameer,

 

Thanks for your help thus far. You make the login name "the stranger" proud. You are the dude. Here is my response to prompt 3:

 

Prompt #3 was

"In politics, the end rarely justifies the means."

 

Just as Martin Luther King said, "If everybody lives by 'an eye for an eye' it will leave the whole world blind." If people live through negative actions in order to achieve an anticipated greater good, the long term result will be negative. In politics, when those in charge of the goverment are attempting to reach a better state for the community, the path they choose hardly ever justifies the outcome. The ends can be defined as the anticipated greater good, while the means are defined as the path chosen to reach the ends. An example of this can be seen with the United States involvement in the Middle East. Following 9/11, United States President George W. Bush, decided to call a "War on Terror" with the attempt to rid Iran of "weapons of mass destruction" and to capture tyrant leader "Sudaam Huisan." The ends of this war was to assure the United States that Iran had no nuclear warheads, and to bring democracy to Iran. However, the approach cost thousands of lives, both American and Iranian, through means of gunfire, explosions, and roadside bombs. As can be seen with this example, although the United States feel safer knowing there isn't nuclear warheads in Iran, and Iran has been freed of a tyrant leader, the path chosen to reach this point does not justify the results.

 

Although often in politics, the ends ralely justify the mean, this isn't always the case. An example is the decision Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made to help Canada recover from the recession. In 2008, Harper implemented new tax cuts which saw most notably, a cut of 100 million dollar to research grants in Canada. As a result of these cuts, Canada has recovered faster from the recession than any other developed country in the world. Had Canada not proposed these tax cuts, the country might have seen a much longer, and more draining recession. As can be seen with this example, sometimes the ends do justify the means in politics.

 

Initially it is difficult to determine when, and when not, the ends justify the means in politics; however, a key determinant is whether or not human lives are sacrificed. During the "War on Terror," many lives were unjustifiably lost in order to result in the ends of a tyrant dictator free country of Iran. However, to reach the ends of a recession free country, Canada justifiably (because there was no loss of human life) cut many research dollars. In sum; as the saying goes, "tough times call for tough measures" can only be applied to politics when there is no loss of human life.

 

Hey poopeater,

This was a good essay as your treatment of the task was straightforward and easy to follow. Your essay was well structured and your examples were good in general however, the war was in Iraq, not Iran. Make sure you use accurate facts . Your resolution principle was excellent.

Score: 5/6 <- not sure how the Iran thing will affect your score, but otherwise this was good

[the stranger]

When reporting the news of the world, should the reporter merely state the facts, or should they put their own imput into it? Objectivity is defiend as the facts of something, without the feelings of those presenting it. The news, which presents information to the viewers, should only present the information of whats being presented, and not give their feelings or opinion on the topic at hand. An example of this can be seen with ex-CBC reporter Steven Mahon. The 1960's saw one of Canada's most historic criminal cases. Steven Truscott, a boy who was convicted of rape and murder, was being sentenced to hang. However, the case very biased, and Truscott was not given a fair trial, which lead to it being regarded as one of the most controversial cases of all time. CBC reporter Steven Mahon was conducting an interview with Truscott's mother, when he shed a tear while sympathising for her. This resulted in an uproar from viewers and led to the firing of Mahon. Mahon should have merely acted as an interviewer, and not show any emotion, thus contucting the interview objectively. As can be seen with this example, the primary goal of the news should be to report the news objectively.

 

Although the primary goal of the news should be to present the news objectively, this shouldn't always be the case. The recent Hatian earthquake has resulted in thousands of deaths and destroyed even more homes of the Hatian people. When travelling to view the tragedy, The Hour's reporter "George Stombolopolous" witnessed parentless children, stranded mothers, and even viewed deceased men, women, and children scattered along the land. When reflecting upon his journey, he broke down in front of the camera, letting out cries while shedding tears. George presented the news, while showing his emotions (subjectively), without the viewers having any dissapproval of his actions. The results of the Haitian earthquake has caused an absolute catastrophe, and presenting the news objectively, bearing facts and figures, was not what viewers where looking for.

 

Initially it is difficult to determine when, and when not, objectivity should be the primary goal of the news; however, a key determinant is whether or not the topic is controversial or not. The case of Steven Truscott was extremely controversial, with the country split on whether or not he was guilty. For this reason, Steve Mahon should have focused solely on presenting the interview objectively. The results of the Haitian earthquake was seen collectively of a horrific disaster, and for this reason it was fine that George Stombolopolous did not present the news in an objective manner.

 

Again, I liked your resolution and your examples were specific and well thought out. I would only say to be careful with sentence structure and make sure you’re going back over to look for mechanical errors.

Score: 5/6

[the stranger]

Prompt #1: "Employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace."

 

 

Privacy, or the right to keep certain things secret, is an essential component of trust. People generally work better in environments where they feel trusted and are allowed the freedom to contibrute productively without revealing the means of how a decision was made. As long as an employee finishes the tasks they are assigned they should be allowed to use any method and a reasonable amount of time to accomplish this. Take, for example, two software programmers that are working on a new program. One works without distraction for 8 hours and creates the same end result as thge other, who only worked for four and played a video game for four. If these employees were not guaranteed their right to privacy, the one who played games would likely be penalized for his actions. However, the end result was the same so this would not be a fair result. Perhaps the video games were a key component to the creativity process for the second employee, therefore a lack of privacy in this case could decrease productivity.

 

However, unlike freedom of speech and religion, privacy is not a universal human right. Because employees represent their company there is a certain responsibility that is implicit in their actions. Therefore, the company has an additional role to protect their own interests that does not apply to the employee outside the workplace. Certain errors may result in a damaged reputaion - which may be exponentially more significant for a company than for an individual. For example if the above employee had been looking at "inappropriate online content" instead of playing video games, the company may have suffered legal and publicity damages for accessing illegal content on their servers. Additionally, since the goal of a company is to increase productivity, they also have an interest in knowing the methods their employees use to come to an end result. Perhaps by observing the video game player's success, they would adopt a company policy that allowed creative breaks in the development process. Google and Facebook,two of the most successful sites on the internet have both adopted a similar policy resulting in the creation of "Gmail" and the Newsfeed feature (two key deveopments in the success of their companies).

 

In general, people work better in environments where they are allowed to choose their own means to an end, as long as it results in a successful product. For this reason, companies should approach an "innocent until proven guilty" privacy policy. Employees should be trusted to pursue legal activities that do not affect their productivity without being judged. Certain restrictions, consequences and deadlines should be given so that expectations are clear. If an employee fails to meet a project goal or is caught on a site that compromises the company, then a less lenient privacy policy should be agreed upon until the employee proves themselves again. Through clear communication and trust in their employees, corporations would most likely notice an increase in their overall productivity.

 

Thanks so much Sameer!!!!!! You da' bomb!

 

Hey aquadon,

You need to provide specific examples in order to receive higher scores. Hypothetical situations will not push you anywhere past a 4.5 despite excellent writing. You have to give specific examples for your essay to be convincing. Your resolution principle must also be clearly stated – when is the prompt true, when is it not true. If you don’t clearly state your criteria the grader may consider your task 3 inadequate. Also be sure to only talk about one general argument or idea per paragraph (i.e. your paragraph 2 introduces a new idea about productivity right at the end - this hinders unity and coherency)

Score: 4/6

[the stranger]

Sameer,

 

You're doing an amazing job. I hope no one is faulting you for taking a bit longer to read through the essays. Thanks again for doing this. Here is another essay i wrote. Please feel free to get to it when you have time.

 

Thanks so much.

 

"The best education teaches students to question authority"

 

Our society has become dependent on learning from those who have already learned. It is no longer possible for individuals to discover, on their own, in isolation as much knowledge as they could with some sort of formal education. Education refers to a passing down of knowledge, specifically in a formal environment such as schooling or on the job training. With so much knowledge out there, it is important for educators to understand the best and most effective ways of teaching students. In some instances, education is best used to teach students to question authority, where authority is established ideas or people. This questioning of authority teaches students how to think critically and to learn what is being taught as well as explore their own ideas. This type of free thought is crucial, not only for passing down of ideas to students, but for students to develop new ideas so that new ideas may eventually be passed down to another generation of students. This type of education is especially important in Universities, where students are learning to think on their own. For example, the students who protested authority at Tianamen Square on that fateful day in communist China questioned authority. Although many of them paid the ultimate price, they taught their nation a new way of thinking. After that day, the government understands their people better and more and more freedoms have been granted. The government is embarrassed and would rather forget that tragic episode in their history. However, Chinese people still remember and the government approaches situations and the liberties they grant the people of China with a much greater respect due to that incident. The main reason why such an important event occured in China, was because the students at Tianamen Square learned to question authority.

 

However, it is not always the case that teaching students to question authority is the best way to educate. In many trades, and specific jobs there are optimal ways of performing duties that need not be changed or improved upon. This is especially true of students who are new to their respective trades and have not yet learned the proper techniques in performing their jobs. For example, framing a house as a carpenter does not require much artistry. Instead, it requires the carpenter to follow brueprints and saftey protocol, thus ensuring the house follows saftey codes and the carpenter keeps him or herself safe while building the house. In a recent event in downtown Vancouver, a demolition company violated several safety codes while demolition a derilict building. In doing so a large construction vehicle knocked over the side of the building into traffic in the downtown core. Luckily, no citizens were harmed, but had proper protocol been followed and had the authority of the proper procedures not been questioned, such dangers would have been avoided altogether. It would have served the foreman of that demolitions project well to learn to follow and not question authority.

 

In conclusion, it was shown that there are instances when it is in the best interest of both society and the students to learn to question authority but also instances when it is best for students to learn to follow preexisting protocols and authority. Students, especially those in the university setting, who need to learn critical thinking and to develop new thoughts are served best when taught to question authority. However, students who are being trained in specific trades that require no artistry or development of new thoughts or techniques are served best when taught not to question authority. This criteria not only serves the students well but also helps to keep society as a whole from harms way.

 

Hello shin,

Your first example and task is excellent – well thought out and specific. However your second task lacks a bit. I’m not convinced that studying a trade is the best example of when a student should not question authority. Moreover, your example about the building may or not have been caused by the foreman “questioning authority”, perhaps he was just incompetent. This is why its always better to use a specific, clear example without conjecture. Your resolution principle was ok but with a weak task 2, it is difficult to resolve this argument.

Score: 4/6

[the stranger]

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.

 

Describe a specific situation in which progress might simplify more than it complicates.

 

As humans, there is a continuous need for progress; once something has been created there seems to be a need to create something even greater. Technological progress often complicates a situation rather than creating a simpler way of obtaining results. This is true for situations where a current and effective system is in place but technology is used to try and create a faster more efficient way to produce the same results. For example, since the introduction of the internet, it has become more widely prevalent in the world of business. In order for someone to apply to work at almost any company, they no longer need to go into the store, hand in a resume, speak to a manager or arrange a time for an interview. Now, because of the internet, a person only needs to log on to the computer, submit some information about themselves and check their profile to get a response from a manager. Although at first glance this may seem simpler, it only extends the process of acquiring an interview. The person must log on again, hoping to see if there is a response from the company, may have to call and see if the request was submitted, and may even have to go back into the store to inquire only to be told that it's all done online. At the end of the day, nothing has been accomplished. The conventional system that has been used successfully for decades has been replaced by a more technologically advanced system that although may seem to simplify the process of applying for a job, it often results in nothing but wasted time and effort.

 

Although technological progress often complicates a situation, there are times when it allows for a simpler avenue for accomplishing a goal. For example, in the field of medical technology, prior to the use of MRI machines, X-rays, microscopic video cameras and other similar technologies, diagnosing a patient was a difficult task to do. There were often basic tests that could be done, and the rest was up to the doctor to observe only was what visible to the eye. Now, with the availability of greater technology, a doctor is able to see inside a patient and see things that are invisible to the eye. All this information is then used to diagnose a patient, and could not have been accomplished without the use of these machines. In this case, the advancement of technology simplifies the process of diagnosing a patient and also allows for accurate treatment following the diagnosis.

 

The debate of whether progress complicates a situation or simplifies it, is a difficult one to resolve. However, it is dependent on whether or not a system is already in place that is effective in reaching the desired goal. For example, in the case of online resume submissions, there has been a system in place for decades that was effective in making a connection between employers and potential employees. With the advancement of technology in this area, the process of connecting employers and potential employees is difficult, prolonged and uncertain. However, in the field of medical technology, the advancements that have been made are able to help doctors make proper diagnosis of patients, and simplifies the process of doing so accurately. In sum, whether or not progress complicates or simplifies a situation depends on the system that was in place prior to the technological advance.

Laws cannot change social values.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a law might change a social value.

 

In the formation of a society, every group of individuals has their own identity within the society. The implementation of laws cannot change the role that these groups of people hold in a society or how other individuals in the society view these groups. For example, the Arizona immigration law allows for increased investigation in persons who are suspected of being illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were looked down upon, and were always accused of taking up jobs that should be available to proper American citizens. This became a huge issue with the poor economy and the low availability of jobs to the population. Prior to the influence of this law, the view of illegal immigrants or those who were suspected to be illegal immigrants were the same as they were after the law. What the law does do, is allows for further action against them. In this situation, the law was implemented based a current view of a group of people, and if anything only strengthened the view of these people in the society but did not change it.

 

Although in some cases, such as the Arizona immigration law, laws do not change social values, there are some situation in which they can influence the way in which a group of people are judged. For example, with the implementation of the Patriot Act following the September 11th attacks, there was a shift in the judgment of Indian or East Asian looking people. Although this law allowed for greater searching of suspicious people, which was necessary after the attacks, it also formed some stereotypes that may have not been present before. Although people wearing non-American styled clothing, or those who wore turbans or head scarves were often victims or lagging glares or stares, it was not always assumed that they were dangerous persons. However, following the Patriot Act, there was an increase in the assumption that all people who fit a certain stereotype were bombers or terrorists or dangerous people. In this situation, although people wearing turbans and head scarves may have been looked at oddly or stared at, there was not always the assumption that they were suspicious prior to the implementation of the Patriot Act.

 

The debate of whether or not laws change social values is a difficult one to resolve. However, it depends on whether the law was based on a view that was already present prior to the law's implementation. In the example of the Arizona immigration law, it is based on the view that the illegal immigrants are intruding on the American citizens and their right to resources and jobs and was put in place to help change the situation. In contrast, the Patriot Act influences the view of people who may look unfamiliar to the general American population and stereotypes them as suspicious and dangerous. Although they may have stuck out prior to the implementation of this law, the Patriot Act allows for the assumption that these people are dangerous and should be treated differently. In sum, whether or not a law can change social values depends on what the law is based on; present views of a group of people or an event that necessitates the implementation of a law.

 

Your arguments are sound however you should try to use specific examples of actual situations rather than general descriptions of a hypothetical situation. Your resolution principle is also somewhat narrow because you don’t account for situations in which the previous system is effective but still has room for improvement. Also, who is to decide what systems are “effective” and which aren’t? Try to be more broad and encompassing with your resolution principle.

Score: 4.5/6

 

 

I’m not sure if your arguments are in line with what the prompt is asking. You’ve talked about how some people’s social values can be justified by changes in the law, but you haven’t discussed how people’s social values can be changed by a change in the law – despite a law like the Patriot Act ostensibly justifying some people’s negative views of “non-American looking” people, I don’t think you can argue that people who didn’t previously hold a negative view suddenly changed their values completely and began mistrusting fellow Americans. Make sure you fully address the prompt’s question to avoid losing marks unnecessarily.

Score: 3/6

[jl08]

Hey this is great that you are doing this! Here is my response to Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction.

 

I write next week and any feedback is appreciated!

 

 

 

Technology is rapidly changing in today's day and age. New discoveries are constanlty being made, especially in the area of improving communication, as different corporations race to be the first to develop a brand new gadget. Overall advances in communication technology has had a positive impact on society as it has immensly reduced the burden of work on individuals. However, although technology does make certain tasks a lot easier to accomplish, the cost of this efficiency is the quality of social contact.

 

Communication technology has benefitted the workplace considerably. With the development of the internet, phones have been replaced by email as questions can be answered in minutes without having to see or hear the person on the recieving end. Meetings can be carried out in the ease of one's own office in the form of a conference call or a live web meeting. Communicating has become instant, and has allowed businesses to save significant amounts of money, and most importantly in todays, whirlwind society, time. Although an online meeting may allow one to see who they are talking to via a web camera, it is not the same as meeting someone in person and interacting with them right beside them. Clearly the degree of human interaction has been scaled back. Developing communication technology has severly impacted the degree to which businesses allow their employees to direclty interact with eachother. As everyone strives towards greater efficiency, direct human contact is being neglected.

 

Although advances in communication technology in the workplace may have an overall negative impact on direct human contact, these advances have in other cases increased interaction among individuals. Take for example individuals who have had to move away from home for either personal or political reasons. Advances over the years have allowed these individuals to communicate with loved ones back home more easier than ever. In some third world countries the telephone is now considered extremely important and every household has one. Now instead of waiting for months for a letter to reach home, a telephone call can be made and one can connect with others instantly. Along with the further developement of the internet, soon more and more people around the world will be able to participate in online phone calls, where they could use web cameras to see eachother face to face. The development of the interenet and new advances in technology here illustrate positive effects. In the past this type of interaction would have never been possible, but now the quality of communication has significantly increased, allowing one to directly communicate with someone who may be on the other side of the world.

 

Clearly advancements in communication technology have had a profound impact on the way people interact in todays day and age. Depending on the situation, it has had either a negative or a positive impact on the quality of these interactions. Overall the determining factor of how social interactions have been impacted depends on the overall purpose of communication. Developing new communication technologies has benefited personal communication as now more than ever individuals from around the world can interact with eachother to stay updated in eachothers lives. However on the other hand, communication technologies in the workplace serve a completely different purpose. Here communication advancements serve a purpose to increase workplace productivity and efficiency, and ultamitely reduce the quality of human interaction.

[jflear]

Pride weakens powerful nations.

Describe a specific situation in which pride would not weaken a powerful nation. Discuss what you think determines whether or not pride weakens powerful nations.

 

In the Roman Catholic faith, pride is cited as one of the seven deadly sins. Too much pride in an individual is believed to represent an undesirable quality, and will ultimately lead to the downfall of that individual. Likewise, just as it can weaken on a individual basis, pride can also weaken powerful nations. For example, the United States is unequivocally one of the most powerful nations in the world, and is also considered to be one of the most proud. Americans are very rightfully proud of their country, and their constitution which outlines the rights and freedoms of it's citizens. However, although most aspects of the constitution strengthen the country and the principles on which it stands, there are certain aspects which may in fact weaken the nation. In particular, the "right to bear arms" is one of these constitutional freedoms which can ultimately cause harm to the country. This right gives way to a great deal of issues for the US including greater incidence of gun violence, crime and gang activity. These are very serious issues which take away from other aspects of the country which should be focused on including the economy, education and healthcare. Thus, because of the pride that accompanies the constitution including it's "right to bear arms", the issues that go along with this right have caused harm and suffering in other members of society, and have weakened the country overall.

 

Although pride is generally considered to be a negative quality, there are situations where pride does not weaken a nation, and may in fact even strengthen it. A good illustration of this fact is the referendum in Quebec in the 1990's. The people of Quebec were concerned that their needs were not being addressed by the government of Canada, which led to a referendum asking the province a simple question; whether Quebec should remain a part of Canada, or whether it should separate to become it's own nation. The results of the vote showed that 49% believed that Quebec should separate, and thus, because of this Quebec remained a province of Canada. In this case, the pride that 51% of Quebeckers felt for Canada was enough to keep the country together. This was an extremely important piece of history for Canada, because the diversity that Quebec offers for the country is valued by many other Canadians. In this case, pride did not cause any harm or suffering, but contributed to strengthening Canada by keeping the country together.

 

Where in some cases national pride can elicit feelings of unity and respect for one's country, it can also have detrimental effects. Pride is a quality which is generally looked upon with disgust, and therefore often weakens nations which possess too much of this quality. On the other hand, some national pride can provide a sense of unity and togetherness which will ultimately strengthen a nation. Perhaps a determining factor is whether or not the pride results in the harm of others. In the case of the US constitution, although many americans are very proud of this document and the freedom that it implicates, some aspects of it, most notably the right to bear arms, have caused many problems for the nation due to the violence and the harm that it has caused to members of the country. Therefore because the pride ultimately leads to the harm of others, it has weakened the nation. In the case of Quebec, the pride that was felt by a slight majority of the people of Quebec determined that Canada remain whole and that Quebec not separate as a distinct nation. This pride manifested itself as a sense of national unity, rather than causing harm to others, and thus has strengthened the country.

[shin]

Thanks for the quick response on my last one. Here's another I just wrote. I'm loving the feedback and trying to improve with more practice and hopefully better examples. Thanks again!

 

"In a truly free and open society, censorship can never be justified"

 

Democratic societies pride themselves on the liberties granted to their citizens. It is a source of great national pride in these societies. One that is taught and engrained into young children and teaches them to grow up into citizens who appreciate, and love their country. Censorship is a form of with holding information. When information is witheld from citizens, for instance, by the government, citizens no longer feel free and liberated. In these instances the society feels more stifled, as if their libereties have been stripped. In a truly free and open society, censorship is rarely justified. An instance of when citizens (as well as the press) felt our liberties were being stripped away was during the G20 summit in Toronto in the summer of 2010. During this summit there were many protests occuring many of them peaceful but some protests were not so peaceful. As a precautionary measure riot police stood by in the protest areas. However, the manner in which the riot police acted was overly authoritarian. Included in these overly authoritarian actions were a complete disrespect of members of the press. Members of the press were treated the same as the protestors and many were arrested for no apparent reason at all. These press members were hindered from reporting on about the G20 protests at that time and in essence were being censored by the police in the protest areas. Many stories have been printed since that time, but the censorship of recording equipment and camera equipment used by press members truly took away from their freedom as well as from the freedom of society to hear these stories in their uncensored format.

 

However, it is not always the case that in a truly free and open society, can censorship never be justified. Even in a free and open society, citizens may choose to not want to expose their children to certain media. For instance, the rules on the radio prohibit any profanity prior to 9pm. However, after 9pm this censorship no longer holds and language on the radio after 9pm is more relaxed from rules. This rule serves to protect children from listening to vulgar language. It also serves to aid parents in raising children in an environment where they would be constantly worried to expose their children to radio. Because of this, parents can be free to take their children to public places like malls and grocery stores where the radio is frequently played.

 

Thus we can see that in some instances censorship of the press and media are justified. However, in many cases for a society to feel free and open, it is not. It is the case for censorship to be justified when the majority of the citizens agree that certain material is inappropriate for the general public especially younger audiences. However, it is never justified when individuals choose to withhold information from others for their own benefit. When this occurs liberties are censorship causes liberties to be stripped from citizens. However, in the case where the majority of citizens agree to censor certain programs and media citizens are empowered.

[medschoolhopeful10]

Hi Sameer,

 

Thank you for your feedback on my last essay. I was having trouble being clear in my supporting and refuting paragraphs so that's what I tried to work on in this essay (the prompt is from a practice mcat). Your comments are greatly appreciated!

 

-----

 

Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens.

 

In a functioning society, governments can often play a key role in representing the interests of citizens. In many cases it can be beneficial to citizens that their government take an active role in setting up legislation and policies in order to regulate the manner in which some companies providing necessary services to citizens conduct business. Such regulation is especially needed in cases where a company is the sole provider of a specific service, in order to ensure that citizens who need the service are not taken advantage of when it comes to pricing. Consider, for example, the power company BC Hydro. BC Hydro is the sole provider of electricity in the province of British Columbia, and as such maintains a monopoly over providing this service. Although BC Hydro is a business, it is regulated by and must report to the BC provincial government. As a result, the government can regulate aspects such as the cost of electricity, preventing the company from potentially demanding high prices for its services as it is the sole provider of electricity. In this case, the BC government has the responsibility to BC's citizens to regulate the manner in which BC Hydro conducts business.

 

Although in the case of BC Hydro it should be the government's responsibility to regulate the company, it is not always necessary for the government to regulate a company that provides a necessary service. One can look at Loblaws as an example. Loblaws is a large grocery store chain that has made itself a highly successful company by providing food to consumers, which can be considered a necessary service. In comparison to BC Hydro, Loblaws is not the only company to provide its service to consumers, as there are multiple other such grocery retailers. The competition that exists between these multiple companies enables fairer pricing for consumers than may have existed had only one company provided the service. This makes it unnecessary for the government to impose regulations on a company like Loblaws.

 

It is not immediately clear under which circumstances governments have the responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. However a key determinant is whether the company in question has a monopoly over the essential service it offers. In the case of BC Hydro, it is the only company to provide electrical services to the BC population, therefore the government should have the responsibility to impose regulations upon the way the company conducts business. In the case of a necessary service where there exist multiple companies providing the service, as in the case of grocery services provided by Loblaws, it becomes unnecessary for the government to impose regulations on these companies as competition between the companies can prevent the service from becoming excessively costly to consumers.