madison007 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Thanks for your feedback In politics, the simple solution to a problem is often the most popular solution. Describe a specific situation in which a simple solution might not be the most popular solution to a problem. Discuss what you think determines when the simple solution to a problem will be the most popular solution and when it will not. In a democratic government, politicians must be conscious of the members of their society in order to stay in office. When solving problems, politicians strive to follow the “path of least resistance”: fix the problem without losing the support of their citizens. After the events of September 11th, many families were suffering the loss of loved ones as well as a vengeance towards Osama Bin Ladin and the rest of the al Quaeda. George W. Bush, serving as the president of the United States, took remedial action. His answer to this crisis involved sending troops to Afghanistan in order to find Bin Ladin and obtain revenge. Bush had the support of millions of distressed Americans, making this solution both simple and most popular among his citizens. However, the easy solution is not always the most popular, when it comes to politics. Politicians are responsible for representing many different kinds of people with different values and beliefs. In Ontario, a province which typically regards the act of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman, many homosexuals were expressing their intent to become married. In 2005, premier Dalton McGuinty legalized same sex marriage in Ontario, to the dismay of many citizens who hold traditional beliefs. Although the gay community is an integral part of our society, it is still largely considered a minority in relation to the heterosexual community. McGuinty resolved the conflict of gay marriage by legalization in Ontario, although this may not have been the most popular opinion among the majority of his citizens. In order to be effective, politicians must be willing to “think outside the box.” This means discovering innovative methods of problem solving, occasionally without the support of most of their citizens. Politicans can choose solutions which are agreed upon by the majority of society, when the idea is relatively traditional. Americans have been key players in many wars, and often use military conflict as a method of solving problems. In the case of September 11th, war is a popular answer because it is synchronous with the views of most Americans. Although simple, in the case of legalizing gay marriage, this decision was not highly popular, because marriage is traditionally viewed as being between sexes rather than within sexes. Politicans must understand that a non-traditional solution may not be most popular, even though it may be the simplest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarup Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 In today's global economy, businesses should focus on cooperation rather than on competition. Because of improved technology in communication and transporttation, numerous businesses are linked together. As a result, choices made by one business can negatively affect several others. This can no doubt have negative consequences on the businesses, and may lead increased unemployment, lower revenue, and decreased spending from the businesses. As a result, businesses, even rivals, should try and work in cooperation to prevent such scenarios from occuring. All of these will harm the consumer. Take for example, the NHL. In this case, an owner of a team can consider his team a business (seeing as they generate a revenue and a profit), where other teams are considered rivals. Despite this, cooperation is seen between teams. The owners understand that if some teams were to struggle financially, this would no doubt affect them adversley. As a result, NHL owners cooperate by sharing some profits to help small market teams financially, as well as limiting the amount a team can spend. This allows small market teams to hold on to their better players. As a result, the consumer is positively affected. However, there are times where competition between businesses is good. This is most often the case when financially stable businesses compete to create a better, improved product. Take for example, the case of Boeing and Airbus. Both companies are stable aeronautic firms. However, both companies compete against each other in hopes that airlines will buy their planes. This has benefitted consumers by leading to better technology in the form of safer, faster planes. What should ultimately determine when cooperation or competition is whether competition would result in a benefit to to the consumer. In the case of the NHL, competition would result in a smaller number of teams or a larger number of very bad teams. In the case of Boeing and Airbus, competition resulted in more benefits to the consumer. Cooperation and competition should be carefully considred so that the consumer is not harmed in any way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hi, this is from a practice exam. Thanks for the help. Education makes everyone equal. Explain what you think this statment means. Describe a specific situation in which education does not make everyone equal.Discuss what you think determines whether or not education makes everyone equal. Education is often seen as the key to the future success of individuals. When two people are equal, they have the same opportunities for work, healthcare, security and other rights. Formal schooling and training is often able to provide equality to all people in a society. Education seeks to level the playing field for individuals and give each the knowledge needed to succeed. In Canada for instance, education is provided up until the end of high school at now extra cost. This education teaches individuals important practical and life skills that will be useful once they graduate. The school system is designed to teach to all students the same curriculum, providing equal opportunities for students across Canada. In this case, students receive the same education and are viewed as equal in society where none has an advantage over the other. Despite education providing equality in Canada, it is also possible that education will fail to provide equality among all individuals in society. For example, in developping nations in Africa, education is not sufficient to make women and men equal in society. Even if both men and women are able to attend school, they are not equal in the eyes of the government and in traditional views. Women do not have equal opportunities for employment, healthcare and justice. Despite receiving an education, women are often physically abused while the perpetrator goes unpunished. In this situation where women and men are treated unfairly under the law and not given basic rights and freedoms, education has not brought upon equality. Education can create equality in certain situations while failing to do so in other cases. The ability of education to make individuals equal depends on whether or not the individuals have equal rights and freedoms under the law. In Canada, all individuals are guaranteed certain opportunities under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This allows education to bring equality among citizens. In situations where not all people are given the same rights such as developping nations in Africa, education is unable to make everyone equal. Women able to attend school do not have equal rights to justice as men. Evidently, education can bring equality when equal rights exist but cannot when rights are not defended. Hello answerjl, The introductory paragraph provides a good explanation of the prompt and a relevant example. However, in order to strengthen the argument, you should provide a more concrete reason for ¬why the prompt is true (i.e. apart from giving people the “tools to succeed”, which is vague). You provide an interesting example in the second paragraph which does refute the prompt, however, you must also provide an argument against the prompt, which your example will then substantiate (i.e. an example does not substitute for an argument, you must provide both). Your resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is logical and nicely applies to your examples. The writing style was at times casual the transition between paragraphs was dull and did not provide a smooth flow to your essay. Score: 4/6 (Adequately address the 3 tasks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hi Nadil,Thanks for the feedback! Test date coming up soon... In politics, the simple solution to a problem is often the most popular solution. Describe a specific situation in which a simple solution might not be the most popular solution to a problem. Discuss what you think determines when the simple solution to a problem will be the most popular solution and when it will not. The power of a simple solution is acknowledged in the axiom known as Ockham’s Razor: the simplest solution is likely the best. In addition, it may be true that the simplest solution is the most well-received by the public. Issues resolved in the political arena relate to taxes, transportation, access to amenities and factors in determining one’s quality of life. Certainly simplicity was an aspect in the popularity of resolution of the City of Toronto’s garbage disposal issue; despite a population of over three million, the city did not have a long-term plan on where to haul its trash. City councillors voted nearly unanimously to send waste to Detroit where it would be processed eventually over proposals to initiate a landfill or a local waste management project. In this outcome, garbage was literally pushed away, proving to be a simple and popular end to the problem. However, a simple solution is not necessarily the most popular one. During a weak economic period in the early 1990’s, the provincial government of Ontario sought to sell a major highway route to the private sector in order to balance its budget. With this ostensibly simple arrangement, the Province of Ontario would gain a large sum of money in transferring maintenance and management of the highway to another group. However, highway drivers would now have to pay a toll rate to use the road, an uncommon occurrence in Canada’s public road system. Members of the public decried the act as unfair and still consider the solution a way for the government to ‘pass the buck’ to an unaccountable independent group. Determining, then, whether or not the simplest solution to a problem will be the most popular solution depends on if the burden of the solution is passed onto the public. If, in the case of the 407 toll route highway, citizens will have to pay for services that were previously free, it is likely that a different solution will be favoured. In the case of the Toronto garbage disposal issue, where citizens can benefit from the solution with no new problems associated, the simplest solution will be popular. Simple solutions are marked by their potential to reduce responsibility at the political level and will be well-received when they do the same for constituents. Hello Lisozyme, Although you provide a good explanation of the meaning of the prompt and a relevant example, you do not provide an argument for why the prompt is generally true. It is necessary to provide a supporting argument and then substantiate it by an example. The same problem arises in the second paragraph: you provide a relevant and well presented example; however, you must first also provide an argument refuting the prompt (i.e. why the prompt can sometimes not be true). Your resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is logical and nicely applies to your examples. The writing style is also strong, clear and concise. Score: 4/6 (With some actual arguments, I would say your essay could score around 5.5). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 The scientific community, by itself, should determine ethical standards for scientific research. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the scientific community should not determine ethical standards for scientific research by itself. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the scientific community should determine ethical standards for scientific research by itself. Scientific research has been around for decades seeking for new methods to improve people’s lives. Therefore it has the obligation to preserve every individual’s right before conducting an experiment. By itself, the scientific community should determine what kind of experiment violates human rights and avoid those experiments that conflict with current ethical standards. Nowadays, scientific research without considering individual rights and ethics are prone to scrutiny and criticism by the public, and may be driven to forced closure by public demands. Scientific research should highly consider ethical consequences before partition an experiment since science should only serve the people and humanity should not be enslaved by it. For example, psychology researches nowadays are required to meet the ethical standards of the country in order to receive proper funding. Therefore this ensures that psychology researchers always consider ethical standards before conducting an experiment. However, in the old days when there are less laws governing scientific research, the scientific community should have no rights in determine the ethical standards for scientific research if the research indeed takes away the right of an individual. In this case, the scientific community should consult the public before conducting a controversial experiment. During the Little Albert experiment, researchers wanted to see if a person can be conditioned to be afraid of something by pairing the stimuli with a loud noise. A white fuzzy, rat was placed beside Albert and a loud noise was made to scare Albert. Later, Albert became afraid of all white, fuzzy stuff. This example showed that the scientific community by itself could not properly determine what is ethical and what is not, it apparently violates Albert’s right and lead to life-long damage to Little Albert. In conclusion, scientific research should determine the ethical standards of a research by itself when strict rules and orders are instituted to make sure that only ethical experiments are allowed to be conducted. But when there are no strict rules and orders governing scientific experiment, the scientific community cares nothing about ethical standards and certainly should not be able to determine ethical standards regarding a scientific research by itself. As a result, it is the rules and orders that limit the experiment and place individual rights as a priority when it comes to scientific research. Hi Jab4eva, Although you provide an interesting explanation of the prompt, your introductory paragraph does not actually address why the scientific community should govern itself, as opposed to being governed by outside sources. Furthermore, your example is brief and does not provide a situation of when the research community provided its own ethical standards. Your refuting argument seems logical, however, the example of little Albert is an example of when the scientific community should have been consulted by other sources for ethical standards, whereas a strong example is a situation where ethical standards were actually provided by outside sources to the scientific community. Your resolution principle does not actually address the instructions in the prompt, since it does not tackle when a scientific community should govern itself: if ethical standards are already set to govern the scientific research (like in the first premise of your resolution principle), then the scientific community is not actually governing itself. There were also several errors in sentence structure and grammar and the language was often colloquial. There were also some controversial statements which you should avoid (e.g. the scientific community does not care about ethical standards, humanity should not be “enslaved by science” Score: 3/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 I wrote these as extra practice and was hoping that I could get some feedback on them too. Thanks a bunch! Education comes not from books but practical experience Modern society provides us with a multitude of options every single day. The choices we make can either affect us for a short period of time or become a life-altering decision, and such an option with a life-altering decision is that of deciding our career paths. Individuals prepare for their careers by educating themselves about the field they are about to enter. For individuals pursuing a career in a trade, their education becomes highly dependent on the skills they obtain to excel in their career, or their practical experience. A pastry chef, for example, receives his education from perfecting the art of baking and cooking through constant practice of the skill sets he must develop. The experience he gains from consistently engaging in hands-on activities not only helps him excel at his educational institution, but also ensures that he may suceed upon entering the working world. It is clear that pastry chefs and other individuals pursuing careers in trade receive their education from practical experience. However, not all forms of education come from practical experience. For students pursuing university degrees in academic fields, such as humanities or science, books become an integral part of the educational process. Such fields are built upon centuries of work and documentation that are recorded in books. As a result, an academic student's education is based primarily on the reading and absorption of relevant material from such literature. It is from these literary sources that students gain the ability to not only learn from the experiences of others, but also expand upon and contribute new information to these fields upon graduation. One can see that for academic students, education comes from books rather than practical experience. It is difficult to determine whether education comes from practical experience or books. A criterion that one may use to determine the source of an individual's education is by identifying the career he is chooing to pursue. For students engaged in a trade based education, their education derives from practical exerpience that allows them to develop the skills that are necessary for them to excel at their job, such as baking a cake for a pastry chef. For students pursuing a career in academia, books are an integral form of education, as it provides students with a foundation upon which they are able to learn and expand upon past academics' studies and discoveries. 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 Man has always questioned the world around him, plagued with the desire to know more and understand the nature of his surroundings. From the vastness of space that is our universe to the microscopic cells that we are composed of, we have always asked 'why?' and 'how?' and used many methods in pursuit of the answers to those questions. However, sometimes our desire to answer the very questions that plague us result in the execution of unacceptable actions that put the lives of other humans at risk, possibly resulting in death. During World War II, Nazi scientists experimented extensively on prisoners, mainly twins, in concentration camps in the hopes of obtaining more knowledge about the human body. While such experiments did contribute information to our current knowledge about the human anatomy, the torturous methods in which this knowledge was gained was horrendous and unacceptable, as many lives were lost and permenantly traumatized as a result. These actions are a prime example of intolerable experimentation in the pursuit of scientific discovery. However, there are certain circumstances in which human life is acceptably put at risk in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Pharmaceutical companies need to go through a number of drug trials before having their product approved and put on the market for consumer use. One of these drug trials involves experimentation on humans to study the effects of the drugs on the human body. However, these trials are only used after the drug has undergone extensive screening and after its affects have been observed in various animals. As such, pharmaceuticals are only allowed to test their products on human subjects once it has been adequately determined that human lives will not be put at significant risk. It is often disputed whether there are scientific questions so important that human lives can be put at risk to determine their answers. While it is unfavorable to experiment on humans in the pursuit of any scientific discovery, it is generally accepted to do so if everything possible has been done to minimize the threat of the experiment on human life. Nazi experimentation on humans during World War II was unacceptable because very little was done to ensure the safety of the subjects, as can be seen from the tremendous amount of deaths from such experiments. However, in the case of drug trials, every conceivable risk to the human test subjects are minimized before administration of the drug being tested allowing for the method's continued use in modern society. Hello Shir312, Essay 1 The introduction is a little off-track and not directly related to the prompt (which makes the beginning of the essay somewhat confusing). However, your supporting argument is rational and your example is relevant. The refuting paragraph is also logical and the resolution principle nicely applies to your examples. The writing style was at times simplistic and I would encourage you to increase the complexity of your ideas by adding more concrete details to both your argument and your examples. Score: 4/6 (Addresses all 3 tasks) Essay 2 Your introduction is interesting and relevant to the prompt. However, you do not provide a supporting argument (i.e. why can we not tolerate threats to human life in order to discover), which is critical in order to fulfill the first task of the prompt. The example in the second paragraph is also relevant, however, like in the first paragraph, you must first provide an argument to refute the prompt. The resolution principle is rational, however not the most straightforward (e.g. could have mentioned that human experimentation is accepted if the benefits of such experiments will be shared with the participants, since in drug trials the participants are often patients). Score: 3.5/6 (Need to provide supporting and refuting arguments). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Thanks for your feedback In politics, the simple solution to a problem is often the most popular solution. Describe a specific situation in which a simple solution might not be the most popular solution to a problem. Discuss what you think determines when the simple solution to a problem will be the most popular solution and when it will not. In a democratic government, politicians must be conscious of the members of their society in order to stay in office. When solving problems, politicians strive to follow the “path of least resistance”: fix the problem without losing the support of their citizens. After the events of September 11th, many families were suffering the loss of loved ones as well as a vengeance towards Osama Bin Ladin and the rest of the al Quaeda. George W. Bush, serving as the president of the United States, took remedial action. His answer to this crisis involved sending troops to Afghanistan in order to find Bin Ladin and obtain revenge. Bush had the support of millions of distressed Americans, making this solution both simple and most popular among his citizens. However, the easy solution is not always the most popular, when it comes to politics. Politicians are responsible for representing many different kinds of people with different values and beliefs. In Ontario, a province which typically regards the act of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman, many homosexuals were expressing their intent to become married. In 2005, premier Dalton McGuinty legalized same sex marriage in Ontario, to the dismay of many citizens who hold traditional beliefs. Although the gay community is an integral part of our society, it is still largely considered a minority in relation to the heterosexual community. McGuinty resolved the conflict of gay marriage by legalization in Ontario, although this may not have been the most popular opinion among the majority of his citizens. In order to be effective, politicians must be willing to “think outside the box.” This means discovering innovative methods of problem solving, occasionally without the support of most of their citizens. Politicans can choose solutions which are agreed upon by the majority of society, when the idea is relatively traditional. Americans have been key players in many wars, and often use military conflict as a method of solving problems. In the case of September 11th, war is a popular answer because it is synchronous with the views of most Americans. Although simple, in the case of legalizing gay marriage, this decision was not highly popular, because marriage is traditionally viewed as being between sexes rather than within sexes. Politicans must understand that a non-traditional solution may not be most popular, even though it may be the simplest. Hi Madison007, The explanation of the prompt and supporting argument is logical and clearly presented. However, your example is questionable (and slightly controversial), since it is still debatable whether sending troops to Afghanistan was the most popular solution. The refuting argument in the second paragraph is unfinished, since you started by stating that politicians represent all types of people, however you did not address how this would refute the prompt (i.e. could state that, therefore it is sometimes difficult to please the interest of all people). Nonetheless, the example is relevant and well presented. Your resolution principle seems controversial, stating the war is a “tradition” of Americans. Many nations have been part in several wars (e.g. Britain, France), and to say that the American tradition is to use war to solve conflicts seems prejudiced. Score: 4/6 (It is actually difficult to say how much the controversial ideas would affect your score, since it is also based on the subjectivity of the AAMC graders). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 In today's global economy, businesses should focus on cooperation rather than on competition. Because of improved technology in communication and transporttation, numerous businesses are linked together. As a result, choices made by one business can negatively affect several others. This can no doubt have negative consequences on the businesses, and may lead increased unemployment, lower revenue, and decreased spending from the businesses. As a result, businesses, even rivals, should try and work in cooperation to prevent such scenarios from occuring. All of these will harm the consumer. Take for example, the NHL. In this case, an owner of a team can consider his team a business (seeing as they generate a revenue and a profit), where other teams are considered rivals. Despite this, cooperation is seen between teams. The owners understand that if some teams were to struggle financially, this would no doubt affect them adversley. As a result, NHL owners cooperate by sharing some profits to help small market teams financially, as well as limiting the amount a team can spend. This allows small market teams to hold on to their better players. As a result, the consumer is positively affected. However, there are times where competition between businesses is good. This is most often the case when financially stable businesses compete to create a better, improved product. Take for example, the case of Boeing and Airbus. Both companies are stable aeronautic firms. However, both companies compete against each other in hopes that airlines will buy their planes. This has benefitted consumers by leading to better technology in the form of safer, faster planes. What should ultimately determine when cooperation or competition is whether competition would result in a benefit to to the consumer. In the case of the NHL, competition would result in a smaller number of teams or a larger number of very bad teams. In the case of Boeing and Airbus, competition resulted in more benefits to the consumer. Cooperation and competition should be carefully considred so that the consumer is not harmed in any way Hello Sarup, The supporting paragraph is somewhat vague, as you do not make it evident how improved technology leads to businesses affecting one another in the ways you mentioned. Also, your example does not seem to be related to your argument about improved technology. Therefore, the example does not support your argument. The second paragraph presents a rational and well presented argument which is substantiated by a relevant example. I would advise you to include more detail in order to make the example stronger (e.g. what improved products have resulted from the competition). The resolution principle is applicable to your examples; however, it does not seem logically sound. Is it not reasonably possible that competition between NHL teams can result in a greater effort between teams to acquire talented players, resulting in stronger teams and more exciting games (i.e. benefit to the consumer). Score: 3.5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hello everyone, Here is the newest prompt: 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hey sorry this is kind of an old post but I have been working on other subjects a lot recently. Thanks for the help. Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns. The state of the environment, is a powerful influence on the way in which society deals on a day to day basis. The state of the environment, which is the driving force behind life on earth is very important to keep safe for the sake of the future. On that note, when environmental concerns occur very quickly and without warning it is imperative that these concerns are dealt with first and foremost above all other concerns, and money must be no issue in the solving of these issues, which is not only a local problem but can very quickly escalate to a global issue. The recent explosion of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, which has been leaking oil for the better part of the last couple months has become a crisis, with far spreading consequences. It is the example of the BP oil spill that shows how environmental concerns should take precedence over economic concerns. The risk to aquatic life in the Gulf is very much in danger as well as local resorts being hurt, by the poisoning of te water in the Gulf. The clean up of the oil spill will cost millions of dollars but must be done immediately to lower the risk of a possible catastrophe on the near by marshes, that are home to many species of aquatic life. The world may be suffering an economic recession but it is acute environmental issues like this that spark immediate action from governments to solve the problem. The environment is home to all of earth's life forms, and is of great importance to the continuing survival of life on earth. However there are exceptions to the rule in which economic concerns are a more immediate concern than that of the environment. Many changes in the environment are slow and may take many years to occur, while the economy can crash over night. In this case the economic concerns of a nation must take priority over those of the environment. An established example of this is the age old argument of global warming. Global warming is a very slow moving process and has been occuring for many years now. Since global warming poses no immediate threat to change the world we live in, it is easily cast aside to deal with more pressing matters of the economy in recession. Global warming is an environmental issue that can be dealt with in the future when it is of greater importance to the survival of life on earth. Right now it is of great importance for the nations of the world to recover from the recession that struck many nations in the past year. Environmental concerns and economic concerns are two issues that need great attention to resolve. So, how then does one decide, which is of greater importance at any given time? It is easy to see that when an environmental concern is of immediate danger to life then it must be dealt with in such a manner. The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a very large environmental concern, and threatens to eliminate life in the Gulf. However when the environment is in not immediate threat, then it can be put aside while the world deals with it's economic concerns. The global warming issue has not been dealt with in great haste as it is a slow process taking many years before it will pose a danger to life on earth, therefore more pressing and present issues can take priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities. Education allows people to better their life from an intellectual, as well as an economic point of view. University is the next step from high school into achieving many career opportunities. Many universities have different standards expected from students for entrance into their university. Some schools need just a high school diploma, while others have really high standards for acceptance into a university such as high SAT scores (United States). A highly selective university offers students a competitive environment in which to excell to their full potential. This competitive environment will aid them in their journey to an exciting and fulfilling career. The selectivity of these universites can be beneficial to society as these schools tend to have some of the brightest and most capable minds in the world. Schools such MIT and Harvard are indicative of this benefit on society, between these two schools a lot of scientific research has been done and many new discoveries and advancements have been uncovered by the students have professors of these highly selective schools. It is these student's creative and intelligent minds that have allowed these schools to become world renowned, and have offered society with many new technologies. This being said highly selective universities may be beneficial to society in some aspects such as science, but non-selective universities are also beneficial because they offer a different type of education. The students at non-selective schools learn the same things as those at highly selective schools, maybe not as many of the difficult concepts. Many career paths followed by students do not need the student to be so in depth in many subjects. Non-selective universities allow for the majority of the population to obtain their preferred education and career. Without these non-selective universities, there would be many students out of high school that have no where to go because they may be not intelligent enough to get into highly selective schools. University of Manitoba is a non-selective school. U of M has 28,000 students, where would these students go if there were no non-selective schools? The presence of non-selective universities like U of M provide a post secondary education to the majority of society. Selective universities tend to select the elite students, while non-selective universities will take everyone else. So how do both these types of schools offer benefits to society? Selective universities such as Harvard and MIT provide society with very intelligent graduates that have shown in history to move society forward with their research and advancements in fields such as science and technology. While non-selective universities provide a greater portion of the society with an education. Schools like the U of M provide an education for the majority of students and benefit society by educating people and offering society a vast amount of capable people. When looking for a few elite students for a research grant, then highly selective universities are more beneficial however when looking for generally educated people to work in any field then non-selective schools offer a large amount of students to choose from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarup Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hi Nadil, Here are two I rote for a practice test (the second prompt gave me a lot of trouble). Groups that attempt to influence government policy are only interested in benefiting themselves. Explain what the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a group attempting to influence government policy might be interested in benefitting others. Discuss what you think determines when groups attempting to influence government policy do so for their own benefit and when they do so for the benefit of others. It has often been said that individuals must take care of themselves. This addage also holds true for large groups, whether they are businesses, industry representatives, or charities. As a result, Whenever a group attempts to influence or create a change in the law, they are most likely looking out for their own interests. For example, in the 1970's, numerous research showed that smoking during pregnancy led to premature labour and health problems in the infant. To combat this, the United States government required cigarette companies to print a warning on their packaging which alerted a pregnant mother to the hazards of smoking. Fearing a loss in profits, the tobacco industry attempted to influence the government by lobbying for the warning label to be removed. Although the warning label would have benefitted numerous people, the tobacco companies tried to prevent such a law from taking place. This is clear example that groups that attempt to influence the government have their own goals in mind. However, there are groups that attempt to influence government to create laws for the benefit of the people. What tends to distinguish these groups from others is that these groups often have cause that effects the population for the better. For example, recently, the Heart and Stroke foundation pressed for resteraunts, such as McDonalds, to have their nutritional information availible, in the resteraunt, in such a manner that the public can clearly see them. In this case, having the nutritional information availible would allow the public to make healthier choices when they are ordering their food. It may also force the resteraunt to offer healthier alternatives, now that the public can see the nutrional information of the menu. In this case, the lobbying done by the Heart and Stroke foundation was not done to benefit themselves, but to help the public. What eventually determines whether groups influence government policy for their own benefit or for the benefit of others seems to stem from the goal of the group. In the case of the tobacco companies, their goal is to maintain a high profit. High profits, benefits the company and not many others. As a result, any lobbying done by them, such as when they attempted to stop the government from forcing them to print warning labels, will focus on this goal. In the case of the Heart and Stroke foundation, the end goal is to result in healthier population. As a result, any lobbying that they do, such as getting a resteraunt to post nutritional information, will be done in the hopes that the end result will benefit the people. As a result, it is the goal of the company that determines whether a group attempting to influence government policy do so for their own benefit and when they do so for the benefit of others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- A just legal system is one that will risk freeing a guilty person before convicting an innocent one. Describe a specific situation in which a just legal system might risk convicting an innocent person before freeing a guilty one. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a just legal system should risk freeing a guilty person before convicting an innocent one. What often determines the reputability of any government is the legal system. In most sound democartic governments, especially North American governments, the legal system is based on the value that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. As a result, in any criminal case when the evidince is controversial and the guilt of the defendant is in doubt, the legal system should, barring extenuating circumstances, err in such a way that the defendant is considered innocent. For example, take the legal system of North Korea, which very few individuals consider just. Recently, two American reporters entered North Korea. They were arrested and charged. Although the North Korean government had very little proof that the reporters were doing anything illegal, they were still convicted. Even though North Korea reluctantly freed and admitted the innocence of the reporters, it was quite clear that in case, the legal system was anything but just, and two innocent individuals were wrongly convicted. However, there are times when the legal system should risk convicting an innnocent person. This is especially the case when the individual either has been convicted before and has been deemed a threat to society, or is widely known to engage in criminal activity. In the 1930's, Al Capone was a the known leader of the most dangerous gang in Chicago.Despite the public knowledge of his crimes (which ranged from murder to petty theft), and his prior criminal record, he was deemed innoncent by the legal system as the circumstantial evidence against him, was not enough to prove his guilt. In this case, if the legal system had erred on the side of guilt, then numerous lives would have been saved and many horrific incidents (such as the Valentines day massacare), may never have occured. What should ultimately determine whether or not a just legal system should risk freeing a guilty person before convicting an innocent one, should be the history of the defendant. In the case of the two reporters, they had no prior criminal record, nor was it known that they enganged in criminal activities. As a result, the legal system should have erred on the side of innocence for the defendants. This however, was not the case for Capone, and by releasing him, the legal system failed to do justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeti187 Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Nadil thanks again The scientific community, by itself, should determine ethical standards for scientific research. In the last hundred years, the advancement of science has been nothing short of amazing. The inherent desire of man to understand the natural world has lead to many scientific achievements. Discoveries such as the nuclear phenomenon, quantum physics, vaccination, and evolution have greatly changed the human civilization. For example, the advancement of modern medicine have increased life expectancy by 2 to 3 fold. It is evident that man should continue to do research and expand his knowledge for the benefit of humanity. There is however, a difficulty in current scientific research. In certain cases, some scientific advancements require delicate ethical choices. Such choices should only be engaged by the sicetific comunity. This is because the complexity of modern science requires a great deal knowledge, and people who wish to impose limitations on such studies should have a full working knowledge. COnsider, the debate about vaccinations in the UNited States. Some US citizens falsely believe that the mercury in vaccines can result in childhood autism. This is despite the fact there is no scientific evidence proves such claims. One can logically deduce that with regards to science only the scientific community should control its future. Despite of this, there are cases where the scientific community should never determine the ethical standards for scientific research. This sentiment is shared by virtually anyone who considers the Nazi experimentations. The invasive psychological experiments performed by Nazi violated all human moral priniciples. Clearly, in such a case the scientific community should not be allowed to make ethical decisions. Basic moral principle dictates that value of human life should be higher than that of science. In order to truly understand when the scientific community should determine the standards for research, one must consider basic human rights. All humans are entitled to their right to life and this should always be considered with regards to scientific research. Under no circumstances should any scientific research violate basic human rights. As in the case of Nazi germany, the experiments violated human rights and hence are immoral. If however, there is no human rights violation than the scientific community may determine its own future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_star Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Thanks very much Nadil, this is my first time posting. Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns. The views and ideas of environmentalist and economists are generally in conflict. Economics deals with the way society uses resources and how it is distributed. However, the model it uses fails to take into account that the environment has a limit on the resources available. Environmentalists study the effects we have on the environment and solutions that need to be taken in order to preserve the Earth as we know it. They sometimes do not take into account economical feasibility when dealing with environmental problems and its solution. Environmentalists would say environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns. This statement holds true with environmental problems such as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2010 one of the oil company BP's oil rigs blew and started to vast amounts of oil. Such a spill poses significant threats to the environment: it kills aquatic life and pollutes the shores that it washes up on. It is obvious that the oil spill needs to be dealt with in a quick manner. One can argue that such a problem would take presedence over the current recession in the United States when compared; even the government stepped in to assist. Therefore, in this situation an environmental concern should be highly prioritized over an economic concern. However, there are times where economics concerns should come before environmental. This is the case with global warming as the result of green house gas emissions like carbon dioxide. Out of all our carbon dioxide emissions, modern day automobiles can account for a good portion of it. An environmentalist would propose that we place a ban on oil usage and gas powered cars. Although, this is not very economically feasible. A rapid change would deteriorate the economy as there is a lack of infrastructure like electric recharging stations for electric cars. Economical concern is required since if the economy were to fail, then the integration of environmentally friendly veicles would be that much more difficult. Chevrolet is just launching a full functioning electric car called the Chevrolet Volt, though it has a hefty starting price of $41,000. The ramifications of such a price will probably be low sales especially in the recession that the United States faces. As one may see, the recession needs to be dealt with first in order to bring these new non-gas powered cars to consumers. Otherwise they will continue to purchase the gas cars that are cheaper such as the Honda Civic. Thus, the economical concern of the situation needs to find a resolution before tackling the problem of global warming. How then might one be able to determine when an environmental concern takes precendence over an economical one, or vice-versa? In the case with BP oil spill, the environmental concern was a problem of the short term that required immediate attention. If allowed the leak for longer periods of time, the economy would have suffered further damage than just the recession. Whereas when comparing the recession to the problem of global warming, one can see that global warming is more of a long-term problem relative to the recession. As such, if the economy is allowed to suffer the environment would suffer in the long run due to poor integration of environmental solutions. Hence, one can see that an environmental concern should be of higher priority when it is more of a short-term problem and the economy should take priority when the environmental concern is more of a long-term problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Hey sorry this is kind of an old post but I have been working on other subjects a lot recently. Thanks for the help. Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns. The state of the environment, is a powerful influence on the way in which society deals on a day to day basis. The state of the environment, which is the driving force behind life on earth is very important to keep safe for the sake of the future. On that note, when environmental concerns occur very quickly and without warning it is imperative that these concerns are dealt with first and foremost above all other concerns, and money must be no issue in the solving of these issues, which is not only a local problem but can very quickly escalate to a global issue. The recent explosion of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, which has been leaking oil for the better part of the last couple months has become a crisis, with far spreading consequences. It is the example of the BP oil spill that shows how environmental concerns should take precedence over economic concerns. The risk to aquatic life in the Gulf is very much in danger as well as local resorts being hurt, by the poisoning of te water in the Gulf. The clean up of the oil spill will cost millions of dollars but must be done immediately to lower the risk of a possible catastrophe on the near by marshes, that are home to many species of aquatic life. The world may be suffering an economic recession but it is acute environmental issues like this that spark immediate action from governments to solve the problem. The environment is home to all of earth's life forms, and is of great importance to the continuing survival of life on earth. However there are exceptions to the rule in which economic concerns are a more immediate concern than that of the environment. Many changes in the environment are slow and may take many years to occur, while the economy can crash over night. In this case the economic concerns of a nation must take priority over those of the environment. An established example of this is the age old argument of global warming. Global warming is a very slow moving process and has been occuring for many years now. Since global warming poses no immediate threat to change the world we live in, it is easily cast aside to deal with more pressing matters of the economy in recession. Global warming is an environmental issue that can be dealt with in the future when it is of greater importance to the survival of life on earth. Right now it is of great importance for the nations of the world to recover from the recession that struck many nations in the past year. Environmental concerns and economic concerns are two issues that need great attention to resolve. So, how then does one decide, which is of greater importance at any given time? It is easy to see that when an environmental concern is of immediate danger to life then it must be dealt with in such a manner. The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a very large environmental concern, and threatens to eliminate life in the Gulf. However when the environment is in not immediate threat, then it can be put aside while the world deals with it's economic concerns. The global warming issue has not been dealt with in great haste as it is a slow process taking many years before it will pose a danger to life on earth, therefore more pressing and present issues can take priority. Hello fab, The introductory argument provides an explanation of the prompt and a supporting argument substantiated by a relevant example. However, the supporting argument seems somewhat vague and repetitive. You should provide a better presented and more concrete explanation of why environment concerns should take precedence over economical concerns (i.e. importance of the environment, impact of environmental concerns, permanency of environmental concerns, etc.). The same problems arise in the second paragraph as well: although the argument and example are relevant, they are presented somewhat vaguely. You must add more specific detail in order to better develop your arguments/examples. Your resolution principle is logical and applicable to your examples. Be careful with tone as well, as in the second example you seem biased toward one side of the argument over the other based on your word choice (e.g. “it is easily cast aside”). You must present both side of the argument equally. Finally, there were a few spelling and grammar mistakes, and the language seemed somewhat casual at times. I would encourage you to write more carefully and formally. Score: 4.5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities. Education allows people to better their life from an intellectual, as well as an economic point of view. University is the next step from high school into achieving many career opportunities. Many universities have different standards expected from students for entrance into their university. Some schools need just a high school diploma, while others have really high standards for acceptance into a university such as high SAT scores (United States). A highly selective university offers students a competitive environment in which to excell to their full potential. This competitive environment will aid them in their journey to an exciting and fulfilling career. The selectivity of these universites can be beneficial to society as these schools tend to have some of the brightest and most capable minds in the world. Schools such MIT and Harvard are indicative of this benefit on society, between these two schools a lot of scientific research has been done and many new discoveries and advancements have been uncovered by the students have professors of these highly selective schools. It is these student's creative and intelligent minds that have allowed these schools to become world renowned, and have offered society with many new technologies. This being said highly selective universities may be beneficial to society in some aspects such as science, but non-selective universities are also beneficial because they offer a different type of education. The students at non-selective schools learn the same things as those at highly selective schools, maybe not as many of the difficult concepts. Many career paths followed by students do not need the student to be so in depth in many subjects. Non-selective universities allow for the majority of the population to obtain their preferred education and career. Without these non-selective universities, there would be many students out of high school that have no where to go because they may be not intelligent enough to get into highly selective schools. University of Manitoba is a non-selective school. U of M has 28,000 students, where would these students go if there were no non-selective schools? The presence of non-selective universities like U of M provide a post secondary education to the majority of society. Selective universities tend to select the elite students, while non-selective universities will take everyone else. So how do both these types of schools offer benefits to society? Selective universities such as Harvard and MIT provide society with very intelligent graduates that have shown in history to move society forward with their research and advancements in fields such as science and technology. While non-selective universities provide a greater portion of the society with an education. Schools like the U of M provide an education for the majority of students and benefit society by educating people and offering society a vast amount of capable people. When looking for a few elite students for a research grant, then highly selective universities are more beneficial however when looking for generally educated people to work in any field then non-selective schools offer a large amount of students to choose from. Hello again fab, You provide a well thought out explanation of the prompt and supporting argument, and a relevant example. The example was somewhat brief and vague, and could have been further developed with more specific details (i.e. perhaps could have given some examples of specific important inventions or prominent researcher’s/world leaders who attended Harvard, e.g. JFK, Obama). The argument in the second paragraph is logical, however, it is not as well presented as the first, as it seems colloquial (i.e. “where would these people go”) and also somewhat inaccurate (i.e. it is inaccurate to think that students do not learn the “difficult” concepts at less selective schools). Instead of asking where these students would go, which is very informal and weakens your example/argument, you can state that many people would not be able to attain the level of education necessary to achieve a mid-level job. Furthermore, although you provide a specific example, you should justify why U of M is considered a non-competitive school. The resolution principle is somewhat logical but weak and does not easily apply to your examples. Score: 4/6 (Addresses the 3 tasks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Hi Nadil, Here are two I rote for a practice test (the second prompt gave me a lot of trouble). Groups that attempt to influence government policy are only interested in benefiting themselves. Explain what the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a group attempting to influence government policy might be interested in benefitting others. Discuss what you think determines when groups attempting to influence government policy do so for their own benefit and when they do so for the benefit of others. It has often been said that individuals must take care of themselves. This addage also holds true for large groups, whether they are businesses, industry representatives, or charities. As a result, Whenever a group attempts to influence or create a change in the law, they are most likely looking out for their own interests. For example, in the 1970's, numerous research showed that smoking during pregnancy led to premature labour and health problems in the infant. To combat this, the United States government required cigarette companies to print a warning on their packaging which alerted a pregnant mother to the hazards of smoking. Fearing a loss in profits, the tobacco industry attempted to influence the government by lobbying for the warning label to be removed. Although the warning label would have benefitted numerous people, the tobacco companies tried to prevent such a law from taking place. This is clear example that groups that attempt to influence the government have their own goals in mind. However, there are groups that attempt to influence government to create laws for the benefit of the people. What tends to distinguish these groups from others is that these groups often have cause that effects the population for the better. For example, recently, the Heart and Stroke foundation pressed for resteraunts, such as McDonalds, to have their nutritional information availible, in the resteraunt, in such a manner that the public can clearly see them. In this case, having the nutritional information availible would allow the public to make healthier choices when they are ordering their food. It may also force the resteraunt to offer healthier alternatives, now that the public can see the nutrional information of the menu. In this case, the lobbying done by the Heart and Stroke foundation was not done to benefit themselves, but to help the public. What eventually determines whether groups influence government policy for their own benefit or for the benefit of others seems to stem from the goal of the group. In the case of the tobacco companies, their goal is to maintain a high profit. High profits, benefits the company and not many others. As a result, any lobbying done by them, such as when they attempted to stop the government from forcing them to print warning labels, will focus on this goal. In the case of the Heart and Stroke foundation, the end goal is to result in healthier population. As a result, any lobbying that they do, such as getting a resteraunt to post nutritional information, will be done in the hopes that the end result will benefit the people. As a result, it is the goal of the company that determines whether a group attempting to influence government policy do so for their own benefit and when they do so for the benefit of others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- A just legal system is one that will risk freeing a guilty person before convicting an innocent one. Describe a specific situation in which a just legal system might risk convicting an innocent person before freeing a guilty one. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a just legal system should risk freeing a guilty person before convicting an innocent one. What often determines the reputability of any government is the legal system. In most sound democartic governments, especially North American governments, the legal system is based on the value that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. As a result, in any criminal case when the evidince is controversial and the guilt of the defendant is in doubt, the legal system should, barring extenuating circumstances, err in such a way that the defendant is considered innocent. For example, take the legal system of North Korea, which very few individuals consider just. Recently, two American reporters entered North Korea. They were arrested and charged. Although the North Korean government had very little proof that the reporters were doing anything illegal, they were still convicted. Even though North Korea reluctantly freed and admitted the innocence of the reporters, it was quite clear that in case, the legal system was anything but just, and two innocent individuals were wrongly convicted. However, there are times when the legal system should risk convicting an innnocent person. This is especially the case when the individual either has been convicted before and has been deemed a threat to society, or is widely known to engage in criminal activity. In the 1930's, Al Capone was a the known leader of the most dangerous gang in Chicago.Despite the public knowledge of his crimes (which ranged from murder to petty theft), and his prior criminal record, he was deemed innoncent by the legal system as the circumstantial evidence against him, was not enough to prove his guilt. In this case, if the legal system had erred on the side of guilt, then numerous lives would have been saved and many horrific incidents (such as the Valentines day massacare), may never have occured. What should ultimately determine whether or not a just legal system should risk freeing a guilty person before convicting an innocent one, should be the history of the defendant. In the case of the two reporters, they had no prior criminal record, nor was it known that they enganged in criminal activities. As a result, the legal system should have erred on the side of innocence for the defendants. This however, was not the case for Capone, and by releasing him, the legal system failed to do justice. Hello Sarup, Essay 1 – The supporting argument was logical, however, it could have been further developed. The example was relevant and well presented. The same applies to the refuting argument: logical but could be better developed. The resolution principle was somewhat vague (i.e. a more specific resolution principle could have been whether the lobbyist is a for profit or non-profit group). Score: 4.5/6 Essay2 – You provide a good explanation of the prompt and well-thought out supporting and refuting arguments. Furthermore, the refuting principle is also logical. However, what were problematic were the examples. A strong example will directly support the argument. Therefore, the example must be an actual situation where the argument was true, not a situation where your argument should have been true. For instance, the first example should have been a situation where someone was actually let free because of lack of evidence (e.g. O.J. Simpson), whereas the second example the situation should have been someone who was actually sentenced based on little evidence. There were also a few spelling and grammar mistakes. However, overall, a good essay. Score: 4.5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anto12e Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Hi, Thanks for the help lately!..I did another prompt and I think i did pretty good..probably because the prompt was easy? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anto12e Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 I included this test while doing a full length practice.Just a question though. For prompts like this where concrete examples are somewhat hard to think about, how would you make up for lost points using hypothetical examples? Just be very detailed when you elaborate on them? Also, would it make my essay stronger if wrote how task 2 can sometimes be better than task 1 and in this case, how it actually does the exact opposite of alienation? I indicated what I meant in the essay by bolding/underlining 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. Computers have advanced greatly ever since their debut into society. Their progression have allowed the creation of computer programs that provide instantaneous information feedbacks. Programs such as Skype or MSN have provided the capability for an efficient communication between people, even when they are not physically infront of each other. As people rely on these computer programs because of their efficiency, more people have become alienated from one another. They can feel alienated because that chemistry that existed between two people due to frequent physical interactions may be replaced with the awkwardness that comes from the unfamiliarity of each other's presence. For example, Facebook, a social utility program, has become increasingly relied upon for social interactions. It provides an instantaneous messaging, e-mail, friend updates and photo sharing feature at one convient location, infront of the computer. As a result, people feel less of a need to physically socialize with someone in order to remain "connected" with their friends. Those dinners and coffee runs with a friend will start to dwindle as people can connect with the friend with simply a touch of a mouse. This lost of physical interaction leads to a sense of alienation from one another because of the reliance of computers as a more efficent medium for socialization However, the increase reliance on computers may not absolutely ailenate people from one another. The computer's efficency may play a benificial role that might not alienate people from one another. For instance, people who travel are often separated from their friends geographically. As a result, the only mean of socializing would be through a computer. This socialization keeps one another connected, since they are able to inform each other of their wheareabouts and other important news. If they didn't rely on computers, their whereabouts and such would be unknown to each other and this itself may create alienation from one another. What determines whether the increase reliance on computers will cause more people to become alienated from on another depends on the means of communication available in specific occasions. If two friends are physically close to each other to have a dinner or a coffee run, the reliance on computers can cause alienation. This is because these physical interactions dwindle as a result. If two friends are physically separated from each other, the reliance on computer may become the only option and so in this case may not cause alienation, but rather promote a sense of connection. Therefore when options for communication are available besides the reliance of computers, they will often cause alienation due to the awkwardness that can instill between two friends who are unfamiliar with each other's physical presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2010 Nadil thanks again The scientific community, by itself, should determine ethical standards for scientific research. In the last hundred years, the advancement of science has been nothing short of amazing. The inherent desire of man to understand the natural world has lead to many scientific achievements. Discoveries such as the nuclear phenomenon, quantum physics, vaccination, and evolution have greatly changed the human civilization. For example, the advancement of modern medicine have increased life expectancy by 2 to 3 fold. It is evident that man should continue to do research and expand his knowledge for the benefit of humanity. There is however, a difficulty in current scientific research. In certain cases, some scientific advancements require delicate ethical choices. Such choices should only be engaged by the sicetific comunity. This is because the complexity of modern science requires a great deal knowledge, and people who wish to impose limitations on such studies should have a full working knowledge. COnsider, the debate about vaccinations in the UNited States. Some US citizens falsely believe that the mercury in vaccines can result in childhood autism. This is despite the fact there is no scientific evidence proves such claims. One can logically deduce that with regards to science only the scientific community should control its future. Despite of this, there are cases where the scientific community should never determine the ethical standards for scientific research. This sentiment is shared by virtually anyone who considers the Nazi experimentations. The invasive psychological experiments performed by Nazi violated all human moral priniciples. Clearly, in such a case the scientific community should not be allowed to make ethical decisions. Basic moral principle dictates that value of human life should be higher than that of science. In order to truly understand when the scientific community should determine the standards for research, one must consider basic human rights. All humans are entitled to their right to life and this should always be considered with regards to scientific research. Under no circumstances should any scientific research violate basic human rights. As in the case of Nazi germany, the experiments violated human rights and hence are immoral. If however, there is no human rights violation than the scientific community may determine its own future. Hello yeti187, The supporting argument in the introductory paragraph is logical, however your introduction is quite lengthy (your argument only begins in the second half of the paragraph). Your introduction should be concise (not more than one sentence), while the majority of the first paragraph should be devoted to explaining your argument and example. Furthermore, you must moderate your arguments in order not to contradict yourself in your essay (i.e. you state ethical choices should only be made by the scientific community, but in the second paragraph you state the scientific community should never determine certain standards). The example you provide is not directly related to research ethics and consequently does not strongly substantiate your argument. In the second paragraph you provide a relevant example, however, you do not provide a refuting argument in order to clearly outline when the prompt does not apply (an example cannot substitute an argument, you must have both). As well, you should further develop your example (e.g. make it clear that the Nazi experiments investigated human thresholds wherein many people lost their lives in horrific ways). There are a few mistakes in grammar and sentence structure, and I would encourage you to write more formally. Score: 4/6 (Adequately addresses the 3 tasks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2010 Thanks very much Nadil, this is my first time posting. Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns. The views and ideas of environmentalist and economists are generally in conflict. Economics deals with the way society uses resources and how it is distributed. However, the model it uses fails to take into account that the environment has a limit on the resources available. Environmentalists study the effects we have on the environment and solutions that need to be taken in order to preserve the Earth as we know it. They sometimes do not take into account economical feasibility when dealing with environmental problems and its solution. Environmentalists would say environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns. This statement holds true with environmental problems such as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2010 one of the oil company BP's oil rigs blew and started to vast amounts of oil. Such a spill poses significant threats to the environment: it kills aquatic life and pollutes the shores that it washes up on. It is obvious that the oil spill needs to be dealt with in a quick manner. One can argue that such a problem would take presedence over the current recession in the United States when compared; even the government stepped in to assist. Therefore, in this situation an environmental concern should be highly prioritized over an economic concern. However, there are times where economics concerns should come before environmental. This is the case with global warming as the result of green house gas emissions like carbon dioxide. Out of all our carbon dioxide emissions, modern day automobiles can account for a good portion of it. An environmentalist would propose that we place a ban on oil usage and gas powered cars. Although, this is not very economically feasible. A rapid change would deteriorate the economy as there is a lack of infrastructure like electric recharging stations for electric cars. Economical concern is required since if the economy were to fail, then the integration of environmentally friendly veicles would be that much more difficult. Chevrolet is just launching a full functioning electric car called the Chevrolet Volt, though it has a hefty starting price of $41,000. The ramifications of such a price will probably be low sales especially in the recession that the United States faces. As one may see, the recession needs to be dealt with first in order to bring these new non-gas powered cars to consumers. Otherwise they will continue to purchase the gas cars that are cheaper such as the Honda Civic. Thus, the economical concern of the situation needs to find a resolution before tackling the problem of global warming. How then might one be able to determine when an environmental concern takes precendence over an economical one, or vice-versa? In the case with BP oil spill, the environmental concern was a problem of the short term that required immediate attention. If allowed the leak for longer periods of time, the economy would have suffered further damage than just the recession. Whereas when comparing the recession to the problem of global warming, one can see that global warming is more of a long-term problem relative to the recession. As such, if the economy is allowed to suffer the environment would suffer in the long run due to poor integration of environmental solutions. Hence, one can see that an environmental concern should be of higher priority when it is more of a short-term problem and the economy should take priority when the environmental concern is more of a long-term problem. Hello All_star, You provide an interesting introduction and a relevant example, however, your introductory paragraph lacks an actual argument outlining ¬why the prompt is true (i.e. you must explain why the environment should take priority over economic concerns in most situations). In the second paragraph, your refuting argument is logical and substantiated by your example. Furthermore, your resolution principle is rational and applicable to your examples. Score: 4.5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2010 Hi, Thanks for the help lately!..I did another prompt and I think i did pretty good..probably because the prompt was easy? 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. Hello Anto12e, The introduction provides a clear explanation of the prompt and logical supporting argument. The example is also relevant and substantiates your argument. However, although the second argument is logical, it does not fit with your initial explanation of the prompt: you initially defined a business as an organization. An actor is not an organization. Once you define the prompt, that definition must remain consistent throughout the essay. A better example which also fits your definition could be an organization which provides a unique service (e.g. Facebook). Finally, the resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is vague and does not concretely resolve the dichotomy between your two examples. Instead, your resolution principle seems to be a summary of your examples rather than a unique principle. There are several spelling, grammar and sentence structure mistakes, such that it is sometimes difficult to understand the message. You must write more carefully and be sure to express your ideas clearly. Score: 3.5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadil Posted August 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2010 I included this test while doing a full length practice.Just a question though. For prompts like this where concrete examples are somewhat hard to think about, how would you make up for lost points using hypothetical examples? Just be very detailed when you elaborate on them? Also, would it make my essay stronger if wrote how task 2 can sometimes be better than task 1 and in this case, how it actually does the exact opposite of alienation? I indicated what I meant in the essay by bolding/underlining 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. Computers have advanced greatly ever since their debut into society. Their progression have allowed the creation of computer programs that provide instantaneous information feedbacks. Programs such as Skype or MSN have provided the capability for an efficient communication between people, even when they are not physically infront of each other. As people rely on these computer programs because of their efficiency, more people have become alienated from one another. They can feel alienated because that chemistry that existed between two people due to frequent physical interactions may be replaced with the awkwardness that comes from the unfamiliarity of each other's presence. For example, Facebook, a social utility program, has become increasingly relied upon for social interactions. It provides an instantaneous messaging, e-mail, friend updates and photo sharing feature at one convient location, infront of the computer. As a result, people feel less of a need to physically socialize with someone in order to remain "connected" with their friends. Those dinners and coffee runs with a friend will start to dwindle as people can connect with the friend with simply a touch of a mouse. This lost of physical interaction leads to a sense of alienation from one another because of the reliance of computers as a more efficent medium for socialization However, the increase reliance on computers may not absolutely ailenate people from one another. The computer's efficency may play a benificial role that might not alienate people from one another. For instance, people who travel are often separated from their friends geographically. As a result, the only mean of socializing would be through a computer. This socialization keeps one another connected, since they are able to inform each other of their wheareabouts and other important news. If they didn't rely on computers, their whereabouts and such would be unknown to each other and this itself may create alienation from one another. What determines whether the increase reliance on computers will cause more people to become alienated from on another depends on the means of communication available in specific occasions. If two friends are physically close to each other to have a dinner or a coffee run, the reliance on computers can cause alienation. This is because these physical interactions dwindle as a result. If two friends are physically separated from each other, the reliance on computer may become the only option and so in this case may not cause alienation, but rather promote a sense of connection. Therefore when options for communication are available besides the reliance of computers, they will often cause alienation due to the awkwardness that can instill between two friends who are unfamiliar with each other's physical presence. Hello again Anto12e, To answer your first question, you are right, adding specific facts will make hypothetical prompts seem more concrete. For example, “if a student studies sciences, they need to know certain facts” versus “Certain subjects in science, such as organic chemistry, require the student learn specific facts, such as chemical reactions”. To answer your second question, one of the central tasks of the writing sample is to assess your ability to present a balanced account of both sides of an argument. Therefore, you should never favor one side over another by stating one is better. In terms of your essay, you provide a logical explanation of the prompt and your example is relevant. Although the transition to the second paragraph is repetitive, your refuting argument is well thought out. The example could be developed further by providing more detail, since it is not clear how computers specifically help people (i.e. phones, letters or postcards can also be used to socialize during travel). You can mention how programs such as Skype allow people across the world to socialize face to face over video-chat. I would not include the underlined part, since you must present both sides equally, not make one argument seem better than the other. Your resolution principle is rational and applicable to your examples. Score: 4.5/6 (Addresses the 3 tasks with some complexity and depth of thought) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmcl Posted August 7, 2010 Report Share Posted August 7, 2010 Hi Nadil, Thanks so much for doing this and I think I've made the same mistakes as some of the others, so sorry in advance! 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. Many young people heading into their final year of high school are faced with the difficult decision of choosing a suitable university to attend. While there are many institutions to select from, there are some universities that have very strenuous requirements for their applicants. One such university is Harvard University, an Ivy League school in the United States. Harvard's application process requires personal essays, lists of extra-curricular activities, and even one-on-one interviews. Ivy League schools have a reputation of admitting the best and brightest applicants and, therefore, Harvard must be highly selective in selecting their applicants. Year after year, Ivy League schools such as Harvard produce distinguished undergraduates and graduate students in the fields of Law, Business, and Medicine especially. It seems as though Harvard's selection of their applicants produces graduates who are beneficial to society. While Harvard admits only the best applicants, highly selective schools are not always beneficial to society because they tend to admit those applicants that may be more affluent or have the money to spend on extra-curricular activities. It would be extremely hard for a teenager growing up in a poorer family to fulfill the necessary extra-curricular requirements for sports or music lessons, because the family could not pay for them. Therefore, less selective universities allow a broader number of people to access education. The University of British Columbia, for example, admits applicants solely based on their academic performance and disregards the applicant's extra-curricular activities. UBC consistently graduates many people who are suitable for the job market despite their less strict admission requirements. Thus, highly selective schools like Harvard can be detrimental to society, because they prevent some applicants from obtaining education due to economic and social reasons out of their control. Whether or not highly selective universities are beneficial to society depends less on how selective the university is, and more on how well the universities prepare their students to perform well in their future careers. If a selective university such as Harvard produces a high number of graduates who are able to compete and obtain jobs, then the university will be ultimately more beneficial to society. However, if the selective university fails to prepare their students to obtain jobs, then the university can be less beneficial to society than a university like UBC that has less strict admission requirements. The scientific community, by itself, should determine ethical standards for scientific research. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the scientific community should not determine ethical standards for scientific research by itself. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the scientific community should determine ethical standards for scientific research by itself. In scientific research, the need to determine ethical standards is of great necessity. Ethical standards, principles and guidelines that ensure that dignity of life is respected, are necessary so that research is conducted without harming humans or other living things. Who decides the ethical standards that should be followed is another question. Often, it is solely the scientific experts and researchers that determine how research should be carried out so it is ethically sound. Indeed, private foundations such as the Heart and Stroke Foundation (HSF) allocate funding to those researchers who demonstrate, among other things, that their research will follow ethical guidelines or standards. It is important to note that the HSF will not fund research for testing on human beings, unless the government is also cooperating. This is done to ensure that ethical guidelines are followed. Thus, for the majority of the research it funds, the HSF determines ethical guidelines without the help of those outside the scientific community. When the scientific process involves human testing, as in the case of phase II and III clinical trials, ethical standards are decided by the government. In North America, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the testing of drugs and pharmaceuticals to ensure that they are safe for public use. The FDA is a sector of the government which establishes strict ethical guidelines that clinical trials must follow in order for approval of the product. If the research is not done ethically, the FDA will not allow approval of the drug, because it may harm humans. Therefore, when scientific research presents a potential for human harm, the national government, and not the scientific community, decides the ethical standards for the research process. The scientific community should only determine ethical standards for its research if humans will not be harmed or affected in the process. The Heart and Stroke Foundation in Canada provides funding for scientific research without the government, if humans are not involved. If humans are involved, there is the possibility of humans being harmed. When this happens, as is the case for clinical trials, there is the need for a government-run program to determine the ethical guidelines to be followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwang7p Posted August 7, 2010 Report Share Posted August 7, 2010 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. Amongst the most prestigious universities in the world are also some of the most selective. Our society today usually takes for granted that such schools are high quality compared to non-selective schools. That we sometimes equate selective as first class, and the rest are just ordinary. However, in order to determine whether a school deserves such prestige, we can examine how these two types of student- selection benefits society. Most often, the most selective of schools has a large pool of applicants, but only a few of the best will be accepted. This implies that the fortunate and hardworking individuals that do succeed are already quite capable and realize their own potentials. Such selectiveness encourages a whole pool of applicants to strive to become “better” in terms of academics and extracurricular activities, thus translating into motivated individuals. Harvard, which is one of the most selective schools in the world, chooses applicants based on their ability to become outstanding citizens of their community and school. Barack Obama, who went to Harvard, worked hard in his earlier years to help the community and develop a passion that the university thought was worthy. This selectivity can essentially motivate those who wish to attend to become first class citizens, thus eliminating a tendency towards laziness if there was no selective competition. Unfortunately, being too selective sometimes impedes one’s ability to realize their full potential. How can someone who could be a great writer realize they could because selective schools will only accept those who are already well accomplished individuals in their younger life? The University of Victoria is an example of a not so selective school, where courses are not very intense, and the students are not in the fierce competition of stumbling over each other to get the top; however, Steve Nash, who is a graduate of this school, is one of the most influential people in sports and community today. Without the University of Victoria, he could not have realized his potential in the NBA and not go on to represent many philanthropic organizations and garner the support of people to help kids with mental illnesses or disabilities. These non-selective schools is a spawning ground for great individual by giving them the chance where the selective schools will only turn their heads towards other applicants. When comparing between selective and non-selective universities and how they benefit society, they both have their pros and cons. Selective schools, such as Harvard, encourages those to embrace important roles in their schools and communities in order to be a worthy applicants, and in turn creating a strong individual that can benefit society. However, not all can become such spectacular individuals, so the non-selective universities allows a broad range of people with varying talents to build up from where they left off. Eventually, the same beneficial effects for society that the graduates of these schools produce can be realized equally. Both types of institutions complement each other, whereas the selective institutions train well equipped students, and non-selective institutions train the ones who haven’t realized their potentials. One is not complete without the other, and thus the society is complete with both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.