Prep101 - free Writing Sample tutoring

[jwang7p]

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.

 

As human beings of this planet, our daily conducts are regulated by an invisible but effective force called ethics. When it comes to the scientific community, these ethics are often less clear-cut as benefits and detriments are subjectively judged depending on the community the person is from. Sometimes the scientific community know their own scientific progress the best and can weigh the benefits against the harm of certain questionable experiments . The truth is, the scientific community does have strict guidelines of when to end an experiment and will attempt to reduce the suffering of test subjects as much as possible by developing humane endpoints or using pilot studies to reduce the number of subjects used. This is especially true in animal testing where the community at large do not know scientists are not inhumanely testing on animals. The benefits of the research can have major impact down the road, such as developing the new targets for drug therapy by using animal models for human sicknesses. This would be more desirable than using humans as the test subjects for completely experimental drugs. The scientific community will not go out of their way to harm test subjects, thus they know when it is best to proceed or end experiments.

 

Sometimes, out of a scientist’s excitement for certain research findings, they become blinded to the unethical uses of subjects in their experiments. This could be due to unclear endpoints since the experimenter do not know what the outcome will be, thus the scientific community or the scientist him/herself cannot decide when to proceed with an experiment. A famous psychologist, Philip Zimbardo, executed the infamous prison experiment where students pretended to be prison guards and prisoners to see how role playing affects human psychology. It turns out the students were so into the roles they were in, the “prison guards” began abusing and hurting the “prisoners” without actually knowing they were just role playing. Zimbardo’s wife had to step in to stop this experiment since Zimbardo could not see this as unethical, but thought it was a scientific breakthrough. In this extreme situation, the scientific community will need to be aided by a member who is not scientifically inclined to stop such ethical abuse.

 

The question essentially becomes whether the beneficial effects outweigh the dangers of scientific experiments. These benefits sometimes best understood by the scientists themselves, since they use ethical guidelines and are governed by many bodies which regulate experimental testing. Only when the scientist themselves become blinded by their own illusory scientific progress, should they not be warranted the power to decide an experiment’s continuation. All in all, the scientific community and the public both are important in deciding the ethics of experiments.

[answerjl]

Hi Nadil,

 

these 2 essays are from a practice test. Thank you for the feedback!

 

Prompt#1: In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. Explain what you think this statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen. Discuss that you think determines whether or not the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

 

Political leaders are the voice or an entire population. A successful politician earns the right to represent the people of a democracy by

receiving votes and being elected into power. Elected leaders often use common values or characteristics to appeal to voters. For a politician to be elected, he or she should be able to relate to the average person. It is crucial that voters be able to relate to the politician because they want a politician who will stand up for their needs. If a politician ressembles the average citizen, it seems more likely that he or she will make decisions to benefit the general public. Current Ontario Premier Dalton Mcguinty is an example of a politician that ressembles the ordinary citizen.He portrays himself as a devoted husband and father who considers a priority. Ontario was in a time or order with its primary concerns at this time being healthcare and education. This emphasis on family helps Mcguinty relate to majority of voters in Ontario.Mcguinty was able to win two consecutive provincial elections to become Premier of Ontario. By relating to the ordinary citizens of Ontario, the majority of which are families, Mcguinty successfully gained power as Premier.

 

Although a politician can be successful by ressembling ordinary citizens, a politician can also be successful by portraying a different image. For instance,

US President Barrack Obama is not the average American. During the US Presidential election, he was seen as an inspiring, knowledgeable and powerful man. Citizens saw Obama as a saviour who would help the United States overcome economic, international threats. Obama became a celebrity above the average citizen. In this time to uncertainty in the United States, Obama was able to win the election and become President without ressembling the ordinary citizen, but rather by appearing as a saviour for the country.

 

It is often difficult to determine if a successful politician must ressemble the ordinary citizen in a democracy. However, the determining factor is the

circumstances in which an election takes place. Whether it is a time of order or a time of chaos will decide. Dalton Mcguinty became Premier by appealing to the average citizens in a time of order and peace in Ontario where there was no threat of war or economic disaster. On the contrary, voters saw Barrack Obama as a saviour who could rescue the United States from the threat of terror and economic downturn. In times of order, a politician should ressemble the ordinary citizen, while in times of chaos a politician should be an admired figure above the average person in order to be successful.

 

Prompt #2: Advancements in communication technology have reduced teht quality of human interaction.

Explain what you think this statement means. Describe a specific situation in which advancements in communication technology have not reduced the quality of human interaction. Discuss what you think determines whether or not advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction.

 

New technology in the realm of communication has allowed people to contact a friend with just the click of a button. This convenience and advanced technology often have negative social consequences. New technologies have caused people to communicate in ways that actually disconnect them from others. Social interactions have become less frequent and degraded partially as a result of technology. New communication methods often prevent people from meeting face-to-face and learning to socially interact.These interactions through technology often do not allow for the transmission of emotions or feelings. For instance, many high school students have easy access to the internet and use as the primary form of communication. Students rather chat with their classmates rather than arrange to meet in person. While they can easily interact in person, students choose to use the internet to communicate instead. This limits the ability to fully understand the conversation and convey emotions. In this case, communication through the internet is chosen over in-person interactions which reduce the quality of interaction between classmates.

 

Technology does not always reduce the quality of human interaction, it also has the ability to enhance it. Two people are not always able to speak

in person. For example, families may be separated by large distances which prevents them from meeting face-to-face. Through the internet, a wife in China can speak with her husband in children who live in Canada. Internet applications such as Skype allow the family to interact through a webcam. The woman can see the smiles and hear the laughter of her children. Conveying emotions is possible in this situation because of technology. In this situation where people are unable to communicate in person, technology has helped enhance the quality of human interaction.

 

Technology has the possibility to both reduce and enhance social interaction. The physical distance between two people determines whether or not technological advancements decrease or increase the quality of social interaction. Where students in high school can conveniently meet up with classmates in person, communication over the internet on social networking sites prevents the expression of emotion and degrades the quality of interaction. Technology such as Skype has enhanced human interaction by allowing people to communicate both see and hear each other. These people are separated by thousands of kilometres and would otherwise be unable to communicate effectively. Evidently, technology can reduce or enhance the communication between individuals depending on the distance that separates them.

[MoMed]

Hi Nadil, thanks in advance for your feedback.

 

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.

 

Scientific inquiry is a powerful force motivating scientists to discover astounding phenomenon in our universe. Discovering many of these laws of nature has undoubtedly, for better or for worse, changed humankind. For instance, it is not hard to imagine that modern society would hardly resemble the society we have today without the discovery of electricity. Regardless of how substantially altering these discoveries might be to our society, one must consider the impact scientific inquiry could have on human lives. The potential benefits of discovering certain scientific principles rarely supersedes the negative impact harming human lives will have on society in pursuit of such principles. Threatening human lives in order to make discoveries is not only ethically immoral, but will lead to a society whose people do not have freedom, and are imprisoned by the treats their lives are facing. To illustrate this point, consider an experiment in which extreme radiation is required in the process of making a discovery. Suppose that this radiation can affect individuals in close proximity (within a few building) of the test site, which is in a populated city. It can be seen that the human lives within close proximity of the test site will be adversely affected against their wills. The discovery of the experiment in this case does not supersede the ethical issues arising from threatening these people’s lives. These people, whether they know it or not, are stripped of their freedom to navigate around the area without putting themselves at risk.

 

In some instances however, treats to human life can be tolerated for scientific inquiry. Take for instance, clinical trials. Suppose there was a potential treatment capable of combating the HIV, standard regulations suggest that clinical trials must be held in order to ensure that the treatment was not dangerous. Therefore, there is still a chance the treatment is dangerous, and therefore anyone involved in the clinical trial is threatening his or her life. In this case, threats to human life may be tolerated because these individuals participating are fully informed of the risks involved and give full consent to be treated. They are not losing their freedom by being forced to have their lives threatened, on the contrary, they are being liberated by making the choice of whether the risks of the trails are not as large as the potential benefits of the treatment.

 

Therefore, when deciding when threatening lives should tolerated for scientific inquiry and discovery, one should examine whether or not those who are threatened are fully aware of it, and consent to it. When a person is being harmed without consent, that person is losing his or her freedom by not having a say in what risks they are or are not willing to take. Looking back at the individuals near the radiation test site, it can be seen that they did not consent to being harmed and are therefore losing their liberty. In cases where individuals consent to being harmed for scientific inquiry, they have decided whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits, such as the people in the HIV trial. By given the opportunity to make such a decision, they are liberated and may eventually benefit themselves and society as a whole.

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello lmcl,

 

Essay 1:

The introductory paragraph is well written and provides a good example; however, it lacks an actual supporting argument. You must specifically explain why the prompt is true (i.e. why are selective universities ¬more beneficial).

The second paragraph does a better job of presenting a refuting argument and provides a relevant substantiating example. It is important to note that in the second paragraph you must explain the circumstances of when the prompt is not true; however, you must not argue that one side of the argument is better than the other (i.e. you should not state that selective schools are actually detrimental to society). The same goes for the concluding paragraph: your resolution principle is rational, however, avoid stating that one is more beneficial than the other, but rather focus on when one is beneficial and when the other is beneficial.

Score: 4/6

 

Essay 2:

The introduction is slightly lengthy and off topic, since it is not necessary for you to justify why ethics is important. Instead, you should focus more on explaining ¬why the scientific community should set its own standards. Your example is also not explained well, as it is not entirely clear how it is connected to the prompt. The second paragraph provides a relevant example to refute the prompt, however, you can further develop the argument in order to address why human testing requires intervention from outside the scientific community. Your resolution principle is rational and applicable to your examples.

Score: 3.5/6

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello Jwang7p,

 

You provide a well thought out explanation of the prompt and supporting argument and a well presented and relevant example. The introduction was somewhat lengthy. Furthermore, there were a few sentences which seemed unnecessary, as they did not add much to the argument (e.g. “This implies that the fortunate and hardworking…”).

Although you present a logical argument and relevant example in the second paragraph, the language becomes more simplistic and colloquial, which takes away from your argument. I would encourage you to write more formally in order to add complexity to your arguments. Furthermore, the slight incongruence between your argument and example (i.e. you first mention a great writer while your example focuses on a basketball player) also makes the paragraph more confusing.

Unfortunately, your concluding paragraph simply summarizes your two arguments and does not provide an actual resolution principle. Thus, you do not address the third task of the prompt.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (Distortion of one of the tasks; with an actual resolution principle your essay would probably score 5/6).

[Nadil]

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.

 

As human beings of this planet, our daily conducts are regulated by an invisible but effective force called ethics. When it comes to the scientific community, these ethics are often less clear-cut as benefits and detriments are subjectively judged depending on the community the person is from. Sometimes the scientific community know their own scientific progress the best and can weigh the benefits against the harm of certain questionable experiments . The truth is, the scientific community does have strict guidelines of when to end an experiment and will attempt to reduce the suffering of test subjects as much as possible by developing humane endpoints or using pilot studies to reduce the number of subjects used. This is especially true in animal testing where the community at large do not know scientists are not inhumanely testing on animals. The benefits of the research can have major impact down the road, such as developing the new targets for drug therapy by using animal models for human sicknesses. This would be more desirable than using humans as the test subjects for completely experimental drugs. The scientific community will not go out of their way to harm test subjects, thus they know when it is best to proceed or end experiments.

 

Sometimes, out of a scientist’s excitement for certain research findings, they become blinded to the unethical uses of subjects in their experiments. This could be due to unclear endpoints since the experimenter do not know what the outcome will be, thus the scientific community or the scientist him/herself cannot decide when to proceed with an experiment. A famous psychologist, Philip Zimbardo, executed the infamous prison experiment where students pretended to be prison guards and prisoners to see how role playing affects human psychology. It turns out the students were so into the roles they were in, the “prison guards” began abusing and hurting the “prisoners” without actually knowing they were just role playing. Zimbardo’s wife had to step in to stop this experiment since Zimbardo could not see this as unethical, but thought it was a scientific breakthrough. In this extreme situation, the scientific community will need to be aided by a member who is not scientifically inclined to stop such ethical abuse.

 

The question essentially becomes whether the beneficial effects outweigh the dangers of scientific experiments. These benefits sometimes best understood by the scientists themselves, since they use ethical guidelines and are governed by many bodies which regulate experimental testing. Only when the scientist themselves become blinded by their own illusory scientific progress, should they not be warranted the power to decide an experiment’s continuation. All in all, the scientific community and the public both are important in deciding the ethics of experiments.

 

Hello again Jwang7p,

You provide a good explanation of the prompt and supporting paragraph. Your example (i.e. animal testing) is relevant, however it could have been developed further and explained more clearly.

Your refuting argument in the second paragraph is also logical and the example is relevant. Unfortunately, you do not provide a valid resolution principle in the concluding principle, but rather a summary of your previous arguments. All research is guided by whether the benefits outweigh the risks, therefore, this is not a valid principle to distinguish when outside sources should guide scientific research and when they should not. In both your essays you seem to have most difficulty with the resolution principle. Remember that the resolution principle must be a unique idea (i.e. not previously discussed in your essay) which resolves the dichotomy between your two examples (i.e. outlines when one example is valid and when the other example is valid). Keep in mind also that a valid resolution principle is one of the essential tasks of the prompt, you cannot score a 4/6 without completing this task (along with a good supporting and refuting paragraph).

 

Score: 3.5/6 (Distortion of one of the tasks; with an actual resolution principle your essay would probably score 4.5/6).

[Nadil]

Hi Nadil,

 

these 2 essays are from a practice test. Thank you for the feedback!

 

Prompt#1: In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. Explain what you think this statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen. Discuss that you think determines whether or not the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

 

Political leaders are the voice or an entire population. A successful politician earns the right to represent the people of a democracy by

receiving votes and being elected into power. Elected leaders often use common values or characteristics to appeal to voters. For a politician to be elected, he or she should be able to relate to the average person. It is crucial that voters be able to relate to the politician because they want a politician who will stand up for their needs. If a politician ressembles the average citizen, it seems more likely that he or she will make decisions to benefit the general public. Current Ontario Premier Dalton Mcguinty is an example of a politician that ressembles the ordinary citizen.He portrays himself as a devoted husband and father who considers a priority. Ontario was in a time or order with its primary concerns at this time being healthcare and education. This emphasis on family helps Mcguinty relate to majority of voters in Ontario.Mcguinty was able to win two consecutive provincial elections to become Premier of Ontario. By relating to the ordinary citizens of Ontario, the majority of which are families, Mcguinty successfully gained power as Premier.

 

Although a politician can be successful by ressembling ordinary citizens, a politician can also be successful by portraying a different image. For instance,

US President Barrack Obama is not the average American. During the US Presidential election, he was seen as an inspiring, knowledgeable and powerful man. Citizens saw Obama as a saviour who would help the United States overcome economic, international threats. Obama became a celebrity above the average citizen. In this time to uncertainty in the United States, Obama was able to win the election and become President without ressembling the ordinary citizen, but rather by appearing as a saviour for the country.

 

It is often difficult to determine if a successful politician must ressemble the ordinary citizen in a democracy. However, the determining factor is the

circumstances in which an election takes place. Whether it is a time of order or a time of chaos will decide. Dalton Mcguinty became Premier by appealing to the average citizens in a time of order and peace in Ontario where there was no threat of war or economic disaster. On the contrary, voters saw Barrack Obama as a saviour who could rescue the United States from the threat of terror and economic downturn. In times of order, a politician should ressemble the ordinary citizen, while in times of chaos a politician should be an admired figure above the average person in order to be successful.

 

Prompt #2: Advancements in communication technology have reduced teht quality of human interaction.

Explain what you think this statement means. Describe a specific situation in which advancements in communication technology have not reduced the quality of human interaction. Discuss what you think determines whether or not advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction.

 

New technology in the realm of communication has allowed people to contact a friend with just the click of a button. This convenience and advanced technology often have negative social consequences. New technologies have caused people to communicate in ways that actually disconnect them from others. Social interactions have become less frequent and degraded partially as a result of technology. New communication methods often prevent people from meeting face-to-face and learning to socially interact.These interactions through technology often do not allow for the transmission of emotions or feelings. For instance, many high school students have easy access to the internet and use as the primary form of communication. Students rather chat with their classmates rather than arrange to meet in person. While they can easily interact in person, students choose to use the internet to communicate instead. This limits the ability to fully understand the conversation and convey emotions. In this case, communication through the internet is chosen over in-person interactions which reduce the quality of interaction between classmates.

 

Technology does not always reduce the quality of human interaction, it also has the ability to enhance it. Two people are not always able to speak

in person. For example, families may be separated by large distances which prevents them from meeting face-to-face. Through the internet, a wife in China can speak with her husband in children who live in Canada. Internet applications such as Skype allow the family to interact through a webcam. The woman can see the smiles and hear the laughter of her children. Conveying emotions is possible in this situation because of technology. In this situation where people are unable to communicate in person, technology has helped enhance the quality of human interaction.

 

Technology has the possibility to both reduce and enhance social interaction. The physical distance between two people determines whether or not technological advancements decrease or increase the quality of social interaction. Where students in high school can conveniently meet up with classmates in person, communication over the internet on social networking sites prevents the expression of emotion and degrades the quality of interaction. Technology such as Skype has enhanced human interaction by allowing people to communicate both see and hear each other. These people are separated by thousands of kilometres and would otherwise be unable to communicate effectively. Evidently, technology can reduce or enhance the communication between individuals depending on the distance that separates them.

 

Hello Answerjl,

Essay 1:

You provide a well thought out explanation of the prompt and supporting argument in the introductory paragraph. The brief example you provide is relevant but could be further developed with more specific detail in order to better substantiate your argument. In the second paragraph, you do not establish a clear refuting argument but instead jump right into an example. You must first outline why the prompt can sometimes not be true (i.e. a refuting argument) and then provide an example to substantiate this argument. Furthermore, the example you provide needs to be further developed. Specifically, you should explain why Obama is not like the average American (since some may say that he was able to related to average Americans both through his policies and his ethnicity). Your resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is interesting and applicable to your examples. There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors which make your essay difficult to understand at times, I would encourage you to write more clearly and carefully.

Score: 4/6

 

Essay 2:

You provide a good explanation of the prompt and supporting argument. However, the introductory paragraph is repetitive (you express the same idea many times), and instead you could further develop on your argument and example with more detail (i.e. Why can’t students effectively express emotions through the internet? What specific programs/chats are you referring to? Etc.) The second paragraph presents a well developed refuting argument and relevant example. Furthermore, your resolution principle is logical and applicable to your examples.

Score: 4.5/6

[medhopeful64]

Hi Nadil, thanks for taking a look at my essay. I have to catch up with the others too. I had trouble with this one (it probably shows lol).

 

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..

_________________________________________________________

 

The university experience is one that many students find to be life-changing, stimulating, and challenging. Universities help students enrich their imaginations, stimulate their intellectual capacities, and broaden their horizons. As such, the university environment in which a student studies and lives for a few years will probably have a great impact on their education and life experiences. Thus, many students tend to gravitate towards the ones that have the best reputation for education - the ones that produce the most influential, successful leaders and inovators of tomorrow. It is not surprising then, why these universities scrutinize applicantions and screen for the "best"- are most likely the ones with greatest potential - applicants. Such highly selective universities often develop a reputation over time, feeding from the cycle of successful graduates. It is often because of these highly selective universities that the graduates produced tend to be more beneficial to society than less selective universities. Take for example, Harvard and Yale universities, the top two and most highly selective universities in the world. Graduates from these universities have won more Nobel prizes (and Pulitzer prizes) than any other university. Among such graduates are Al Gore, a highly influential politician whose activist work on global warming attracted world-wide attention to this new pandemic. His work prompted further research into global warming and what one can do to stop it. Another example of a successful graduate is Ronald Hoffmann. He made significant contributions to the field of organic chemistry, developing methods such as the extended Huckel method and developing rules for elucidating reach mechanism (the Woodward-Hoffmann rules). Both of these graduates received the Nobel Prize, an award only given to a select few who make siginifcant contributions to society. Perhaps it is the homogenous atmosphere of Harvard and Yale - of like-minded, high achieving indiduals - that allowed them to succeed and develop to their fullest potential.

 

 

However, highly selective universities are not always more beneficial to society. University of Toronto has made major beneficial contributions to society, despite not being a highly selective university (as in the range of Harvard or Yale). Among the many contributions includes the discovery of insulin in 1921, one of the most significant events in the history of medicine. The university also discovered the stem cell, forming the basis for bone marrow transplantation and all subsequent research on adult and embryonic stem cells. U of T went on to using the first artificial pacemaker in open heart surgery, isolated the genes that cause cystic fibrosis, Alzhemier's disease, among numerous other diseases, and built the first practical electron microscope. Thus, despite being much less selective than Harvard and Yale, it is evident that U of T has made just as significant - if not more- contributions to society than highly selective universities like Harvard have. In this case, a highly selective university would not necessarily be more beneficial to society than less selective universities.

 

 

Many universities, not just the highly selective ones, contribute to society, whether that be in producing notable graduates who are global-warming activists to discovering insulin. The factor that determines whether or not highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective ones is the potential/resources of that particular faculty or school. If the highly selective university has better resources and offers a more nurturing environment in which a young scientist can expand, discover, and develop his or her ideas (and most likely, it is), then it is the highly selective university that will prosper and produce significant contributions to society. But, if a less selective university has just as enough potential (adequate resources, opportunities for students), then it will flourish too, and benefit society.

 

Disclaimer: I do not go to U of T

[sarup]

Thanks again for doing this!

 

Democracy necessarily implies the suppression of some individual interests for the good of society as a whole.

Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might place individual interests ahead of the good of the whole society.

Discuss what you think determines when the good of society should take precedence over the interests of individuals.

 

 

For democracy to work, it is a given that some suppression of individual interests occurs. The basis for democracy is to form a government such that the ideas and wants of society are adequately represented. It is assumed that the wants and ideas of the majority is better for society as a whole. However, it is only in very rare situations that ideas and wants of the people in a society are unianimous. In other words, there will always be a small group of individuals that are left out. As a result, for democracy to function as a viable form of government, some individual interests must be disregarded, and government policy should reflect the wishes of the majority. For example, in Calgary, a growth in population has led many to demand an expansion in the LRT public transit system. However, in order for this exapansion to occur, people must be moved and their homes demolished. Quite naturally, the individuals that are forced to move are opposed to the exapansion. The local government disregarded the individual interests and continued on with the exapansion of the LRT.

 

However, there are times when the individual interest should be taken over the majority. This is the case when the supression of individual interests may

put pressure on the individual's own personal beliefs. For example, in BC, a law was passed that required everyone under 18 to wear a helmet when riding their bicycle. This law was enacted after numerous incidences of brain damage occuring when a rider of a bicycle was not wearing a hlmet and fell or lost control of the bike. Clearly, this law was enacted with the good of society in mind. However, certain individuals of the Sikh faith complained, saying that it was impossible for them to wear a helmet over their turban, which holds an important religious meaning. In this, the government should make an exemption for certain individuals.

 

What should ultimately decide whether the good of society should take precedence over the interests of individuals is if the law made for the good of society infringes on an individuals religious convictions. In the case of the LRT expansion, which was done for the good of society, did not infringe on the religious beliefs of any individual. However, in the case of the bike helmet law, the religous beliefs of certain individuals were effected.

[anto12e]

Crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a crime committed by an individual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government. Discuss what you think determines whether or not crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments

 

 

 

 

 

A crime is a wrongful act performed by an entity. This entity is indistinguishable in terms of the law. A person who performs the crime is just as punishable by law as a similar crime committed by an organization or government. This is the definition of a true judicial system. A system where the act itself is the determinant of a crime and not the entity. Therefore crimes that are committed by inviduals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. For example, if an individual tortures another individual during a time of war to uncover sensitive information, his act is considered a crime based on the rules outlined by the Geneva Convetions. This act of torturing is also considered a crime if a government performs it. Most notably done by the United States of America recently during in Iraq. Numerous reports by local officials and soldieres revealed that the USA military used torture as a means of uncovering sensitive information from local citizens. As a result, those military officials who were responsible for the tortures where put to trial. The act of torture itself, regardless of the entity who performed it, was considered a crime by the eyes of the Law.

 

 

 

However, sometimes a crime that is committed by an individual might not be perceived as the same when it is performed by a government. This is especially true when the reason to perform the crime is supported by the people that the government represents. When USA announced war on Iraq, it was obvious that there would be cases of death due to the warfare. However, these deaths were not considered a crime because they were supported by the Americans. The Americans who were devastated by the attack on the World Trade Center ( which was linked to terroist group in Iraq) wanted payback in the form of an invasion. They supported the government and felt that anything that was conducted, including crime, was necessary. On the other hand, if an individual were to commit a murder base solely on his own support his act would be considered a crime. In a case like this it shows that a crime committed by an invidual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government.

 

Whether a crime committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments is determined by the issues surrounding the act. When an act is performed, there are many factors that must take into control. If a global treaty exists that clearly outlined what was considered a crime, then a government or an individual who performed it is acting wrongfully. If the act

 

 

 

 

 

Highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which highly selective universities would not be more beneficial to society. Discuss what you think determines whether or not highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities.

 

 

 

A university is an educational instutition that is designed to further develop inviduals so that they are able to contribute to society in meaningful ways. This would benefit society by increasing the economy and the workforce. However the costs to maintain a university is substantial and is often subsidized by the community. The community often sees this subsidization as an investment because the students who graduate have the potential to be able to contribute back into society. This potential that a student has is often correlated with their academic successes or their community involvement. Therefore a university that is highly selective of its students are more beneficial to society than those who are less selective because it selects students who have a higher potential from those who do not. For example, University of Toronto, is argubably one of the most prestigious university in Canada. It therefore is highly selective of who it wants to admit to the instution. Students are often selected by their academic successes and community involvement. As a result the university is able to develop individuals are are seen to be successful. This selection criteria has led to many reknown graduates who are able to benefit society such as the prime minister Stephen Harper. In this case, the investment that the community has provided to the university has produced a graduate who has clearly provided benefits to a society. If however, the university was less selective, candidates who the community "invested" in may not contribute to society and thus affect society in a non-beneficial way.

 

However, sometimes a university that is highly selective may foster an atmosphere of competition that can create graduates who damage society. Again, the University of Toronto has numerous programs that are highly selective of its students, such as the Law program. This has led to students who are forced to compete with each other for admission to the program. The students develop a sense of competition where they may only help themself rather than others, the society, thus damaging society. They may also cheat on tests and assignments so that they could obtain higher marks. These attitudes may lead the path to lower morals in their job. Thus, it would lower the potential these graduate would be able to contribute to society. In this case, a highly selective university is detrimental to society than a less selective university.

 

Whether or not highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities depend on the degree of selectivity. A university that is extremely selective in its students can create an atmosphere that negatively affects its students. The students may be pushed to do unquestionable acts in order to gain acceptance. These acts may hinder their educational development in such a way that they are unable to contribute to society in meaingful ways. A university that is selective, yet isn't impossible, is able to select students who are greater potential to contribute to society.

[sarup]

Thanks for doing this!

 

The good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the good of a society might not depend upon the defense of individual rights. Discuss what you think determines when

the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights.

 

The continued protection of individual rights should be the basis and focus of any government. Individual rights refers to the freedom to express any

political, religious, and scientific idea without fear of persecution. It also refers to an individuals right to privacy. Without these basic rights, any society will eventually become a government run dictatorship. In these societies, individuals often live in fear, which many people will agree is anything but food for a society. As a reuslt, more often than not, individual rights must be protected in order for the betterment of society. For example take the country Burma. Burma has been run by a military dicatorship since the 1960's. Individual's who fail to accpet the military government are persecuted and eventually placed in jail. This is clearly a case where individual rights are not protected. The result is a society wrought with fear and corruption, as shown by UN reports.

 

However, there are times where individuals rights should be exploited. This is especially the case when ignoring these rights could help the government to

prevent a major catastrophe from happening. For example, in England, the English security force wire tapped a house containing individuals whom they suspected of conspiring terrorist attacks. In this case, individual rights to privacy were clearly ignored. However, by doing so, the english government prevented a serious attack which may have led to hundreds of lives being taken. In this case, the good of society rested ondefense of individual rights being ignored.

 

What should eventually determine when the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights is when the defense of individual rights may prevent a severe catasptrophe. In the case of Burma, ignoring individual rights did not prevent a catastrophe. However, in the case of the english security force, ignoring individual rights did prevent a severe catastrpohe, which many people would say helped for the good of society. Therefore, it should be the potential for a terrible event that determines when the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights.

[medhopeful64]

Hey Nadil, thanks for going over my essay. um, I accidentally did my antithesis first (the counter example), then the thesis example, but it flowed better if I just left it like that/didn't have time. Would I get marks taken off if it's not in the thesis-antithesis-synthesis (resolve) order exactly?

 

Prompt: 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 progressed infinitely over time. New discoveries have been made, new, creative solutions to problems have been found, and new problems that never existed in the past have surfaced. As the realm of scientific research has expanded, scientists are now delving into murkier waters, where some things are still unknown. The implications of research now often need to deal with moral and ethical dilemas, many of which cannot, or should not, be dealth with by the scientific community on its own. Often, the government or members of the public want or need to have a say in determining the ethical standards for scientific research. Take GMOs (Genetically modified organisms), for example. Genetically modified organisms are organisms whose genetic material have been altered using genetic engineering techniques. They are used in medical research, production of drugs, agriculture, and even for anaesthic uses (ie, the "Glofish"). It's usage in agriculture is the main and most controversial topic. Scientists working for Monsanto, a US company that grows GMO crops, have experimented with many crops, doing things such as producing food crops that are resistant to commerical herbicides or harsh environments, improving product shelf life, or increasing nutritional value. This has sparked controversy because many people see the production of GMO as meddling with biology or interfering with natural selection and evolution. The safety of consuming GMO has also been questioned with concerns that GMOs could introduce new allergens into foods, or contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance. Others are simply concerned about the limitations of modern science to fully understand all of the potential negative implications of genetic manipulation. As such, the governments of countries worldwide have stepped in to set limits on both the production and imports of genetically modified foods. Consumers and environmental groups, too, have stepped in the fight, often via local campaigns. Thus, in this case, the ethical standards of the growth and usage of GMOs should be determined by groups other than just the scientific community.

 

On the other hand, not everyone outside the scientific community needs to be involved in the determination of ethical standards of scientific research. Often times, the scientific community can, and should, resolve and set ethical standards on its own. Take the American Psychological Association for example. This professional group is very knowledgeable and sensitive to any ethical implications that may result, and as such have strict rules, codes, and policies relating to research ethics for scientists to follow. They do not need the public to help them set the ethical standards (who lack the proper education and information to made a good decision anyways). Psychological experiments on animals (who suffered minimal or no pain) have made enormous contributions to society and on human nature. Ivan Pavlov, for example did his famous experiment on classical conditioning using his dog, and Edward Thorndike used mice to study and learn about operant conditioning. With this, he (and Pavlov), developed a fundamental theory of learning that is still used in many aspects today. Aversion Therapy, a treatment for alcoholic addiction, is based on what we know about learning. Thus, in this case, the scientific community (the American Psychological Association) should, by itself, determine ethical standards for its scientific research. There is absolutely no need for outside groups to govern the rules here.

 

Modern scientific research is rapidly advancing, often with the result of introducing new ethical implications. Often members of the public and the government need to step in to help the scientific community set the ethical standards for scientific research. Outside groups should be consulted impact humans in a negative way (as with the GMOs). When the research in question will not impact humans in a negative way (rather, they help shed light on the human condition), then the scientific community should determine the ethical standards for its research on its own.

[SolitaireAddikt]

Prompt: Wealthy people cannot offer fair representation to the people

 

Throughout history humanity has experimented with a variety of forms of self governance. However, one theme common between many, if not all, of these forms of governance has been that power has been concentrated in the hands of a select few. This select few was almost invariably wealthy, while the vast majority of their subjects lived in squalor. Due to the stark contrast between their social position and means in comparison to that of the general populace, it can safely be said that these rulers would have been out of touch with their subjects, and as such wealthy people cannot offer fair representation to the people. One particularly famous example is that of Marie Antoinette and King Louis the 16th of France. The reign of this King and Queen was a period of political upheaval in France. France, at that time, was overcrowded, poor and starving. However, nestled in their positions of wealth and prestige the King and Queen were sheltered from this reality and were ineffective at helping to alleviate the suffering experienced by their subjects. As such, they were unable to represent their people adequately, ultimately leading to societal upheaval and a revolution which saw both King and Queen fall victim to the guillotine.

 

However, just because a person has wealth does not always mean that they will be ineffective at representing their people. One example of this would be the current president of the United States, Barack Obama. Barack Obama was born to a teenaged mother and spent his formative years under the care of his middle class grandparents. He managed to pay his way through university and ultimately Harvard Law School. In between his time at in undergrad and his time at Harvard he worked as a community organiser where he got to see the lives of the poor first hand. Barack eventually went on to become a Senator and published two books about his life. Both books went on to become bestsellers, earning him a small personal fortune of around 4 million dollars. Now a wealthy man, Barack went on to run for the presidency of the United States. Barack ran on a platform of change- the general populace of the United States was tired of the ways of the Bush Administration and Barack vowed to change this. Barack went on to win the presidency and administer the desires of the people who elected him. Although his presidency has not been perfect, he has set into motion many of his campaign promises and thus fulfilling the desires of the people. In this way, as a wealthy man, Barack Obama has been capable of fairly representing the American people.

 

Being in a position of wealth can isolate one from the general populace and make one less effective at governing, like in the case of Marie Antoinette and King Louis of France; on the other hand, as in the example of Barack Obama, having wealth does not necessarily preclude one from understanding the needs of the people. Thus, it can be said that being wealthy can prevent a person from fairly representing the people if that person’s wealth has allowed them to live in isolated from the rest of society and unable to understand the needs and wants of the average person; on the other hand, if this wealthy person has gained life experience amongst the common folk, his or her wealth does not preclude him from representing them fairly. In the case of Marie Antoinette and King Louis, their wealth enabled them to live charmed lives, away from the concerns of the common folk, thus making them ineffective rulers. In the case of Barack Obama, he obtained his wealth on his own, and had gained much life experience from his middle class background and his work in the inner city. In this way, wealth is a hinderance to one’s ability to understand the common person so long as the person with the wealth uses it to isolate themselves from the common people.

[SolitaireAddikt]

Prompt: In a Free Society, Laws must be subject to change

 

A free society is a society in which no person is subject to unjust restrictions. However, cultural attitudes on what justifies ‘unjust’ tend to shift as time goes by. As such, in order for a society to remain ‘free’, its laws must be subject to change. This is true for instance, in the case of gay marriage. For centuries marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. This typically was for financial purposes- a woman was seen as property, and a marriage was simply the transfer of property from a father to another man. However, as time went by women became liberated, and marriage morphed from a business transaction and into the union of two people who loved each other. However, the archaic principle that only a man and a woman could be married remained. This archaic idea prevented gay couples from being able to marry each other, thus unjustly denying them of priveledges and heterosexual couples currently enjoy. In Canada, in 2004, this situation was rectified by changing the marriage laws, so that they could include gay and lesbian couples. In this way, the gays and lesbians were freed of the unjust restrictions on their ability to wed each other and make their family units whole, and Canada proved to the world that it was a free society where in that its people were not subject to unfair restrictions.

 

On the other hand there are some laws that simply cannot be changed. One such law would be laws concerning polygamy. Polygamy is a practice wherein one man is married to two or more ‘wives’. Polygamy is practiced in an isolated Latter Day Saints community called Bountiful in British Columbia, Canada. One could say that polygamy is not the business of the government, and although some of the women in Bountiful may have entered into these polygamist relationships of their own free will, there is evidence that some of these women were married off to men while they were below the age of consent, and putting into question whether or not they really had a ‘choice’ in the matter. Additionally, the system of polygamy devalues women by treating them as chattel, something that a man may accumulate for his own personal gain. Since polygamy tends to victimise young women who cannot possibly consent to their marriages and devalues women in general, it is a practice that is wrong and should continue to be banned by the government, despite the fact that it is ostensibly a ‘private’ matter.

 

Thus, in a free society, laws must be subject to change. However, not all laws can be changed. Laws that can be changed are ones that adhere to archaic values and restrict the freedom of groups of people. One such law was the marriage laws, in which only a man and a woman could marry each other. This law was archaic, and Canada, as a just society, rightly struck it down. However, some laws should not be changed in a free society; any law that involves the safety, be it physical, mental, or emotional of the citizens of the nation should not be subject to change. The laws concerning polygamy are laws that involve the safety of people- particularly young girls who may be coerced in the marriages that they are not physically, mentally or emotionally ready for. In this way, in a free society laws that restrict people’s liberty unjustly should be mutable, while laws that protect that safety of the citizenry should be immutable.

 

 

Thanks in advance!

[ragnal]

Thanks a lot for doing this Here are my essays.

 

In politics, the simple solution to a problem is often the most popular solution.

 

In any democratic society, the electorate assigns candidates that will work in the best intersts and for the well-being of the nation. This is especially true when the nation has to face a problem, since it is upto the governing bodies to seek a solution to the problems at hand. The types of problems that nations face are highly diverse ranging from envrionmental to social to security issues and remedies to these problems are just as far ranging and may consequently be accepted or condemned by the pople. Thus, when politicians make decisions as to how to solve a problem afflicting the people he/she represents it is vital that the remedy not only resolves the problem but that it is favoured and accpeted by the citizens. Many would argue that the most widely accepted solution to any problem is the simplest one. A simple solution is often one that is decided using common sense, involves the least amount of planning, is easy to invoke and is readily accessible. People may often prefer the simplest solution to a problem, because it is the one that is most understandable to lay people and produces fast effective results, as demonstrated by how the municipal government of Brampton, Ontario targetted the Giant Hogweed problem. The Giant Hogweed is a dangerous weed that causes effects such as blindess, blisters and burns. The city of Brampton has decided to target this issue by destroying this weed everywhere it turned up as oppossed to simply targetting ares with public access. Ecologists have claimed that this approach taken by the city of Brampton is highly proactive and more effective than simply waiting around and planning how to deal with this problem, which would make the issue worse. The city has receives praises from its citizens for targetting this problem in a simple manner.

 

Conversly, certain solutions to existing problems in a nation are not deemed popular with the people. This is often the case when simple solutions are not sufficent in targetting the problem and is prevlent in problems of a larger magnitude. For instance, the government of Pakistan has been widely criticized for the weak response in targetting the recent monsoon floods that have affected certain parts of the country. The floods are the worst the country has seen in several years; it has affected 14 million people, and people claim that this number will increase. The people affected have expressed anger and dissappointed in how the issue was handled by the government and claim that the government is not providing sufficient resources such as shelter, food and medicines to the afflicted. Moreover, the President of Pakistan was criticized for leaving the country to attend a meeting in Britain instead of attending to the issues in his country. Although, the government has deployed rescue workers to the areas affected, people claim that current government action is largely insufficent. It is evident, that in this circumstance a simple solution will not suffice and the government needs to come up with a solution that is more coordinated and of a larger degree to help the millions that are impacted.

 

Various factors determine whether a simple solution will be widely accepted by the people. First, is the magnitude of the problem in terms of the number of people affected. Problems that affect a large number of people, as in the millions affected by the floods in Pakistan require, much more than a simple solution because a lot more planning, coordination and resources are required to provide releif to a large number of people. However, a smaller scale problem such as the giant hogweed directly affects only the very few people who encounter the dangerous weed and a simple solution is often popular. Second, the type of government responsible for finding a solution affects how popular a simple solution will be. The federal government is often expected to provide more than a simple solution since it has more power, however, a simple, effective solution by a local municipality tends to be popular. A final determining factor is whether the dangers imposed problem can be avoided. If the harms are avoidable, then simple solutions are favourable, however, unavoidable problems such as a flood imposes direct harm to people and a more complex solution is necessary in order to gain favour with the people. All in all, the simplicity of a solution to a problem depends on the inherent nature of the issue itself and the government elected to seek remedies.

 

Highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities.

 

The impact of education on society was best stated by Nelson Mandela who once said, "education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." This is very true in contemporary society, where education is institutionalized and held in high regard and is widely sough after. Post secondary education is deemed as more important in the 21st century than in earlier times, primarily because of the higher degree of qualifications required by individuals these days in order to attain a higher social standing. The province of Ontario declared that there has been a 46% increase in Ontario University applications this year since 2000. The larger number of individuals seeking a university education these days has caused some universities to become highly selective in the candidates they enrol and many argue that the competitive nature of admission to these institiutions confers greater benefits to society than less selective universities. This is best exemplified by the wide range of universities present in Ontario, offerring a variety of programs, some more competitive to get into than others. For instance, the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western's Ontario's offers a highly renowed business administration program that is known for its competitive nature. In comparison to analogous programs at other Ontario universities, this university employs a tough screening process to select its candidates and admission requirements include a 90%+ average and extensive involvement in extracurricualar and leadership activities. The highly selective admission process ensures that only highly qualified and well-rounded individuals enrol in the program which is beneficial to society because many of the graduates are known to hold executive level positions at large scale businesses. This in turn confers economic advantage to our society and leads to societal progress and development. Thus, it is evident that highly selective universities such as Western may be more beneficial to society than less selectives ones because they produce higher quality graduates who confer more benefits to society than graduates from other universities.

 

In certain circumstances, however, a highly selective university may not necessairly provide more social benefits that one that is less compeitive. In fact, many argue that a university that is competitive in nature may do more harm to society than provide benefits. Such may be the case with medical schools in Canada, which is known to be highly selective in enrolling candidates into the program. Some medical schools tend to be more competitive than others, such as McMaster's Micheal DeGroote School of Medicine which undertakes a stringent screening process and offers limited number of seats into the program. Candidates require a high grade point average, a high verbal reasoning score on the MCAT, extensive community involvement and an interview. Moreover, the sheer volume of applicants raises the bar for each of these required criteria. However, many argue that the competitive nature of the medical application process is the reason for the situation the shortage of physicians in Canada, which may diminish the health and well-being of individuals. Thus, the selective nature for admission into the McMaster medical program offers no greater advantage to Canadian society compared to less compeitive medical schools, and may in fact hinder the the health and well-beng of society.

 

Whether a highly selective university is advantageous depends on several factors. One factor is whether there is a shortage of professionals in the field. If a university program trains individuals for a career in which there is shortage of professionals such as physicians, then, the compeitive nature of a program fails to provide greater benefits to society. However, a field such as business which has several professionals, can afford to be highly compeitive, because this would confer additional benefits to society by providing a better quality gradutes that may affect society in a positive manner. Thus, whether a highly selective university is more or less advantageous to society depends on the university program itself and the needs of the society.

[darknebula]

Hi Nadil, I would really appreciate some feedback on my essay since my MCAT is fast approaching. Thanks a lot!

 

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

 

Advancements in technology have given mankind the gift, or the nuisance, as some might argue, called computer. Advocates of the computer's technological miracles might argue that it has transformed this world into a "global village". Thoughts of a village should evoke feelings of warmth and love blossoming among a close-knit community where people know & help each other. But a keen observer will notice that the village the computer has produced is not quite the same. Computers have spread like a plague into peoples' homes and offices in the past few decades. Their widespread use has come at a cost to modern societies. Computer users tend to spend more time staring at a computer screen than at the faces of their loved ones. The more time people devote to computers, whether for justified reasons or not, the more they cut down on quality time with family and friends. Moreoever, many people have found a source of entertainment in the computer.Thanks to Youtube, the the living room TV is no longer needed as much. Youtube has stolen the time one might have spent watching TV with his/her loved ones. Computer has minimized opporunties for interactions with other people in social settings. It engrosses its users into a world of its own where they tend to be unconscious of their surroundings. Enter a students' lounge or a cafeteria at a university in off-peak hours and you will likely not see a very social scene. People with laptops on their laps, typing away constantly with their eyes glued to their screens will seldom take the opportunity to introduce themsleves or talk about the wheather or about thier upcoming exams. They are also very likely to feel bothered by your attempt to initate a conversation with them. It can hence be arugued that increased reliance on computers may produce behaviours that are not very conducive to harbouring social interactions among people and thus people can become alienated from one another.

 

But to claim that computers always alienate people from one another would be questionable. Despite reducing physical and verbal communication with others, computers do offer oppurtunities for virtual interactions. For instance, social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have had dramatic

effects on peoples' social lives. Such sites have provided a way to stay in touch with family and friends, whether nearby or far away, very effectively. Knwoing how a freind is feeling or what he is doing or where he is going on his vacation is just a click away. Chatting services with video call and webcam features have made connecting and communicating with other people feel almost real. Email has provided a fast and efficient alterntive to paper mail. Not only can one cherish existing relationships with people, he also has numerous oppurtunites to create new ones through the internet. Therefore, it is reasonale to argue that computers might promote social interaction rather than eliminating it in some situations.

 

One might then ask what determines whether computers promote or inhibit social interactions? The answer is not very simple. It depends on the specific situation, preferances, and intent of the user. A self-employed single man with no family members or friends living in a studio apartment will likely find that Facebook is great to fulfill his social needs. He can find a whole new community throught the internet and get to know all sorts of people and stay connected with them. Children of a busy businessman or software engineer on the other hand might feel that computer is stealing their quality time with their father. Parents of a teenager might feel that their son loves his Facebook friends more than them. Regardgless of the situation however, the intent of the user can play a great role. If one decides to create a balance between family/freinds and computer time, he will likely not get alienated from anyone. If he however values computer gaming or internet browsing more than people, he will be more prone to social alienation.

[Nadil]

Hi Nadil, thanks in advance for your feedback.

 

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.

 

Scientific inquiry is a powerful force motivating scientists to discover astounding phenomenon in our universe. Discovering many of these laws of nature has undoubtedly, for better or for worse, changed humankind. For instance, it is not hard to imagine that modern society would hardly resemble the society we have today without the discovery of electricity. Regardless of how substantially altering these discoveries might be to our society, one must consider the impact scientific inquiry could have on human lives. The potential benefits of discovering certain scientific principles rarely supersedes the negative impact harming human lives will have on society in pursuit of such principles. Threatening human lives in order to make discoveries is not only ethically immoral, but will lead to a society whose people do not have freedom, and are imprisoned by the treats their lives are facing. To illustrate this point, consider an experiment in which extreme radiation is required in the process of making a discovery. Suppose that this radiation can affect individuals in close proximity (within a few building) of the test site, which is in a populated city. It can be seen that the human lives within close proximity of the test site will be adversely affected against their wills. The discovery of the experiment in this case does not supersede the ethical issues arising from threatening these people’s lives. These people, whether they know it or not, are stripped of their freedom to navigate around the area without putting themselves at risk.

 

In some instances however, treats to human life can be tolerated for scientific inquiry. Take for instance, clinical trials. Suppose there was a potential treatment capable of combating the HIV, standard regulations suggest that clinical trials must be held in order to ensure that the treatment was not dangerous. Therefore, there is still a chance the treatment is dangerous, and therefore anyone involved in the clinical trial is threatening his or her life. In this case, threats to human life may be tolerated because these individuals participating are fully informed of the risks involved and give full consent to be treated. They are not losing their freedom by being forced to have their lives threatened, on the contrary, they are being liberated by making the choice of whether the risks of the trails are not as large as the potential benefits of the treatment.

 

Therefore, when deciding when threatening lives should tolerated for scientific inquiry and discovery, one should examine whether or not those who are threatened are fully aware of it, and consent to it. When a person is being harmed without consent, that person is losing his or her freedom by not having a say in what risks they are or are not willing to take. Looking back at the individuals near the radiation test site, it can be seen that they did not consent to being harmed and are therefore losing their liberty. In cases where individuals consent to being harmed for scientific inquiry, they have decided whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits, such as the people in the HIV trial. By given the opportunity to make such a decision, they are liberated and may eventually benefit themselves and society as a whole.

 

Hello MoMed,

 

You provide a good explanation of the prompt; however, your argument to support the prompt is not entirely obvious and relies on your hypothetical example to give it clarity. Furthermore, although your example is relevant, you should provide a concrete example instead of a hypothetical situation. In the second paragraph you provide a good example (although still somewhat hypothetical), but you must still also provide a refuting argument first (i.e. explain why the prompt is not always true) and then provide an example to support this argument. Your resolution principle is logical and nicely ties into your two examples. There were a few errors in sentence structure and spelling.

 

Score: 4/6

[Nadil]

Hi Nadil, thanks for taking a look at my essay. I have to catch up with the others too. I had trouble with this one (it probably shows lol).

 

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..

_________________________________________________________

 

The university experience is one that many students find to be life-changing, stimulating, and challenging. Universities help students enrich their imaginations, stimulate their intellectual capacities, and broaden their horizons. As such, the university environment in which a student studies and lives for a few years will probably have a great impact on their education and life experiences. Thus, many students tend to gravitate towards the ones that have the best reputation for education - the ones that produce the most influential, successful leaders and inovators of tomorrow. It is not surprising then, why these universities scrutinize applicantions and screen for the "best"- are most likely the ones with greatest potential - applicants. Such highly selective universities often develop a reputation over time, feeding from the cycle of successful graduates. It is often because of these highly selective universities that the graduates produced tend to be more beneficial to society than less selective universities. Take for example, Harvard and Yale universities, the top two and most highly selective universities in the world. Graduates from these universities have won more Nobel prizes (and Pulitzer prizes) than any other university. Among such graduates are Al Gore, a highly influential politician whose activist work on global warming attracted world-wide attention to this new pandemic. His work prompted further research into global warming and what one can do to stop it. Another example of a successful graduate is Ronald Hoffmann. He made significant contributions to the field of organic chemistry, developing methods such as the extended Huckel method and developing rules for elucidating reach mechanism (the Woodward-Hoffmann rules). Both of these graduates received the Nobel Prize, an award only given to a select few who make siginifcant contributions to society. Perhaps it is the homogenous atmosphere of Harvard and Yale - of like-minded, high achieving indiduals - that allowed them to succeed and develop to their fullest potential.

 

 

However, highly selective universities are not always more beneficial to society. University of Toronto has made major beneficial contributions to society, despite not being a highly selective university (as in the range of Harvard or Yale). Among the many contributions includes the discovery of insulin in 1921, one of the most significant events in the history of medicine. The university also discovered the stem cell, forming the basis for bone marrow transplantation and all subsequent research on adult and embryonic stem cells. U of T went on to using the first artificial pacemaker in open heart surgery, isolated the genes that cause cystic fibrosis, Alzhemier's disease, among numerous other diseases, and built the first practical electron microscope. Thus, despite being much less selective than Harvard and Yale, it is evident that U of T has made just as significant - if not more- contributions to society than highly selective universities like Harvard have. In this case, a highly selective university would not necessarily be more beneficial to society than less selective universities.

 

 

Many universities, not just the highly selective ones, contribute to society, whether that be in producing notable graduates who are global-warming activists to discovering insulin. The factor that determines whether or not highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective ones is the potential/resources of that particular faculty or school. If the highly selective university has better resources and offers a more nurturing environment in which a young scientist can expand, discover, and develop his or her ideas (and most likely, it is), then it is the highly selective university that will prosper and produce significant contributions to society. But, if a less selective university has just as enough potential (adequate resources, opportunities for students), then it will flourish too, and benefit society.

 

Disclaimer: I do not go to U of T

 

Hello Medhopeful64,

 

Your introduction is slightly lengthy and repetitive. Furthermore, your supporting argument is somewhat logical but you do not clearly express your ideas. Your sentences should be clear and simple and you should focus on developing just one idea. You provide relevant and very well developed arguments for both your supporting and refuting arguments. However, you must also provide a valid refuting argument in the second paragraph before you provide an example (i.e. first explain why the prompt is not always true and then substantiate it with your refuting example). Also, you should avoid saying that one side of the argument is better than the other (i.e. UofT made more contributions to society than Harvard), since you want to present both sides equally and do not want to seem biased. Your resolution principle is also logical and relevant to your examples.

 

Score: 5/6

[Nadil]

Thanks again for doing this!

 

Democracy necessarily implies the suppression of some individual interests for the good of society as a whole.

Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might place individual interests ahead of the good of the whole society.

Discuss what you think determines when the good of society should take precedence over the interests of individuals.

 

 

For democracy to work, it is a given that some suppression of individual interests occurs. The basis for democracy is to form a government such that the ideas and wants of society are adequately represented. It is assumed that the wants and ideas of the majority is better for society as a whole. However, it is only in very rare situations that ideas and wants of the people in a society are unianimous. In other words, there will always be a small group of individuals that are left out. As a result, for democracy to function as a viable form of government, some individual interests must be disregarded, and government policy should reflect the wishes of the majority. For example, in Calgary, a growth in population has led many to demand an expansion in the LRT public transit system. However, in order for this exapansion to occur, people must be moved and their homes demolished. Quite naturally, the individuals that are forced to move are opposed to the exapansion. The local government disregarded the individual interests and continued on with the exapansion of the LRT.

 

However, there are times when the individual interest should be taken over the majority. This is the case when the supression of individual interests may

put pressure on the individual's own personal beliefs. For example, in BC, a law was passed that required everyone under 18 to wear a helmet when riding their bicycle. This law was enacted after numerous incidences of brain damage occuring when a rider of a bicycle was not wearing a hlmet and fell or lost control of the bike. Clearly, this law was enacted with the good of society in mind. However, certain individuals of the Sikh faith complained, saying that it was impossible for them to wear a helmet over their turban, which holds an important religious meaning. In this, the government should make an exemption for certain individuals.

 

What should ultimately decide whether the good of society should take precedence over the interests of individuals is if the law made for the good of society infringes on an individuals religious convictions. In the case of the LRT expansion, which was done for the good of society, did not infringe on the religious beliefs of any individual. However, in the case of the bike helmet law, the religous beliefs of certain individuals were effected.

 

Hello Sarup,

 

You provide a good explanation of the prompt and supporting argument and a relevant example. Nonetheless, a stronger example would be considered to be one at a more national or international level. Your refuting argument is also logical. However, a stronger argument is one in which the example directly supports your argument (i.e. a situation in which the individual rights surpassed those of society, not one in which individual rights ¬should have surpassed those of the majority). Your resolution principle is straightforward and relevant to your examples. The writing style in the essay is clear but somewhat basic. I would encourage you to increase the complexity in your writing by varying the sentence structure in order to increase your score.

 

Score: 4.5/6

[jordan19]

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all of the people

<P>Politicians of upper class cannot succesfully represent the thoughts of the people when he or she is conservative of traditional methods of policy and is unwilling to compromise despite problems with a lower class stature. Wealthy politicians cannot serve the public agenda when he or she comes from a higher class status, and cannot see from the perspective of another class stature, thus he or she may be oblivious to the problems experience by social classes other than their own. For example, in 1967, the Austrian government had just appointed Franz Ferdinac, a noble from the Red Political party, to become the Prime Minister. During this time period, majority of the population was poor and was going through harsh times, which had been brought on by a recent drought causing a lower production of crops. Austria had been in debt shortly after the recent civil war, and in order to raise funds, Ferdinac relied on the methods previously used by his predecessors: to raise taxes - rather than developing an alternative method to raise money. Coming from a wealthy family, Ferdinac did not see the perspectives of lower class families, and felt that the public could handle an increase taxation. The taxation had brought on a plethora of poor living conditions among the public, and in response to Ferdinac's conservative solution, they staged a rebelling, in which Ferdinac was subsequently capture, and executed.</P>

 

<P>There are instances; however, where politicians of a high social status can prove to successfully serve to represent the public interest. Those who are more open minded to reforms in government policy may be more qualified than the average citizen to deal with public problems due to a higher education and economic ties. For example, Ash Stevens, a democrat from a rich Venician family was elected into power in Italy in 1542. Due to the lack of a true law enforcement in Italy, there had been many counts of entire villages being pillaged by criminals who unmercifully stole from the rural, agriculture areas. Stevens diverged from the conservatives ways of those before him, and rather than spreading the Italian army diffusely throughout Italy, he developed an alternative way to combat the problem. With his ties to many wealthy investors, he was able to set up a government program all across Italy which put into service a number of civilians who had been taught and trained how to deal with violence, and enforce the laws of Italy. The appointed civilians would foster a career known as "Policemen" and as a result, in creating more job opportunities for the poor, and lowering crimes in Italy, many civilians were content, and were free to live their lives without the impending fear of criminals to rob them of their fortunes. </P>

 

[P]Thus, a wealthy politician does not serve the agenda of the public opinion depending on whether or not this individual is open minded to political reforms. If the wealthy politician is conservative then he or she may be oblivious to alternative changes to government policy that may otherwise prove to be beneficial solutions to the people. However, if the wealthy politician is open minded, this individual may be more resourceful in finding alternative solutions to problems, which diverge from the current political structure.</P>

 

Lol this probably sucks

[Iluvsoccer]

First off - I struggled with this as I couldn't think of an example to support the argument. Anywho - here goes! THANKS in advance!

 

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

 

Keeping personal information away from public scrutiny is considered one of the fundamental rights of an individual. The right to privacy is what drives individuals living in a respectable neighbourhood to put up fences and hedges to keep the 'keen' neighbours out. In a society, this act is acceptable and goes unchallenged. By the same token, individuals should be able to guard their privacy in their workplace as well. This may be crucial either for their own safety or personal ideals. For example, police officers who work undercover in order to uncover illegal drug operations, work under great personal security threat. Individuals working in such high risk areas require a full right to protecting their private information such as their name, address, family information etc. If such information is not kept private from other co-workers who are not aware of the operation, then the information will become public, leading to a life threatening situation for the officer. Therefore, individuals should have as much privacy at their workplace as they do outside their workplace.

On the other hand, there are situations when a person's right to privacy at their workplace is infringed upon with the right reasons. A number of call centers, for example, record conversations of the call representative to ensure quality control and evaluate the caller's performance when handling calls. Even though this an infringement to privacy, it is required as per the company's protocol and does not necessarily cause direct harm to the call representative. It also ensures that the employee does not make irresponsible use of the phones for making personal calls or for leaking confidential information to individuals not related to the company. Thus, at workplaces that have specific policies in place to ensure quality control or to meet other protocols, a person's right to privacy can be violated.

Overall, a person's right to privacy at a workplace only extends as far as to ensure one's personal security and well being. If a person working at a company is unable to protect his/her personal information, which leads to a threat to his/her life, then the company is guilty of breaching his/her right to privacy. However, if a person working at a company is aware of its policies, which infringe upon his/her privacy but do not threaten his well being, then the workplace is not required to ensure the employee's privacy. The determining factor is whether the infringement of privacy leads to a threat to the person's well being. In the case of companies that screen employee calls, the steps are taken to ensure employee is abiding by the company's policies and rules. However, police agencies where leakage of an undercover police officer’s private information can lead to a risk of his security, then such workplaces are guilty of violating the employees privacy rights.

[Iluvsoccer]

THANKS in advance!

 

Statement: Politicians should never compromise their principles

 

A politician campaigning for his ideals is a person who must always adhere to his principles and beliefs in order to attain complete support of the public. A political leader who fails to portray this quality of maintaining his/her beliefs is deemed weak and not dependable enough to be elected a potential leader of the society. Barack Obama, who was elected to the first Black President of the United States, won his popularity through his assertive approach and campaign of his principles. For example, despite the unpopularity of the Universal Healthcare Plan that Obama intends to put in place in America, he continues to uphold his ideals that he put forth in front of the American public during his election campaign. This assertive and determined attitude to stick to his principles has been received with a lot of enthusiasm in the World, which has made him one of the most powerful leaders.

However, a politician also needs to adapt and compromise in situations which might challenge one's own ideals and principles. It is often necessary is such situations to respond with a solution that would be best suited and not one that fits within one's own ideals. For example, the issue of homosexuality in India is 'taboo' and has been for decades. However, due to the large population of homosexuals rallying for equal rights and recognition, the political leaders had to make a compromise. Earlier this year, homosexuals were given the right to 'common law relationships' and legal rights, which are generally a requirement for heterosexual couples. This was a huge step for the Indian democracy as homosexuals are not publically accepted and yet, a law is now in place protect the rights of those who are. Therefore, even though the majority of Hindu politicians would have been against this issue, a compromise was made in favour of making the society a much better place for the homosexual population. Hence, a politician also needs to be flexible with his ideals to contend with unforeseen situations such as these.

Overall, a political leader needs to represent himself as a person of ideals and someone who has a clear view of his/her principles. However, at the same time the politician needs to be vary of situations that may challenge his/her ideals and make decisions that are best suited for the society. Politicians like Obama who know what they want to accomplish and adhere to their ideals, do so with determination and confidence. This approach is well received by the public and it enables the politician to be a strong and supported leader. However, a politician also needs to be flexible with respect to his own ideals and principles in situations that demand 'thinking outside the box'. In countries like India where the predominant Hindu population is conservative on matters such as homosexuality, the politicians stepped beyond the socio-religious boundries and made the right decisions. By legalizing common law homosexual relationships, the politicians recognized the large homosexual population of India and did what was best for the society.

[Nadil]

Crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a crime committed by an individual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government. Discuss what you think determines whether or not crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments

 

 

 

 

 

A crime is a wrongful act performed by an entity. This entity is indistinguishable in terms of the law. A person who performs the crime is just as punishable by law as a similar crime committed by an organization or government. This is the definition of a true judicial system. A system where the act itself is the determinant of a crime and not the entity. Therefore crimes that are committed by inviduals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. For example, if an individual tortures another individual during a time of war to uncover sensitive information, his act is considered a crime based on the rules outlined by the Geneva Convetions. This act of torturing is also considered a crime if a government performs it. Most notably done by the United States of America recently during in Iraq. Numerous reports by local officials and soldieres revealed that the USA military used torture as a means of uncovering sensitive information from local citizens. As a result, those military officials who were responsible for the tortures where put to trial. The act of torture itself, regardless of the entity who performed it, was considered a crime by the eyes of the Law.

 

 

 

However, sometimes a crime that is committed by an individual might not be perceived as the same when it is performed by a government. This is especially true when the reason to perform the crime is supported by the people that the government represents. When USA announced war on Iraq, it was obvious that there would be cases of death due to the warfare. However, these deaths were not considered a crime because they were supported by the Americans. The Americans who were devastated by the attack on the World Trade Center ( which was linked to terroist group in Iraq) wanted payback in the form of an invasion. They supported the government and felt that anything that was conducted, including crime, was necessary. On the other hand, if an individual were to commit a murder base solely on his own support his act would be considered a crime. In a case like this it shows that a crime committed by an invidual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government.

 

Whether a crime committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments is determined by the issues surrounding the act. When an act is performed, there are many factors that must take into control. If a global treaty exists that clearly outlined what was considered a crime, then a government or an individual who performed it is acting wrongfully. If the act

 

 

 

 

 

Highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which highly selective universities would not be more beneficial to society. Discuss what you think determines whether or not highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities.

 

 

 

A university is an educational instutition that is designed to further develop inviduals so that they are able to contribute to society in meaningful ways. This would benefit society by increasing the economy and the workforce. However the costs to maintain a university is substantial and is often subsidized by the community. The community often sees this subsidization as an investment because the students who graduate have the potential to be able to contribute back into society. This potential that a student has is often correlated with their academic successes or their community involvement. Therefore a university that is highly selective of its students are more beneficial to society than those who are less selective because it selects students who have a higher potential from those who do not. For example, University of Toronto, is argubably one of the most prestigious university in Canada. It therefore is highly selective of who it wants to admit to the instution. Students are often selected by their academic successes and community involvement. As a result the university is able to develop individuals are are seen to be successful. This selection criteria has led to many reknown graduates who are able to benefit society such as the prime minister Stephen Harper. In this case, the investment that the community has provided to the university has produced a graduate who has clearly provided benefits to a society. If however, the university was less selective, candidates who the community "invested" in may not contribute to society and thus affect society in a non-beneficial way.

 

However, sometimes a university that is highly selective may foster an atmosphere of competition that can create graduates who damage society. Again, the University of Toronto has numerous programs that are highly selective of its students, such as the Law program. This has led to students who are forced to compete with each other for admission to the program. The students develop a sense of competition where they may only help themself rather than others, the society, thus damaging society. They may also cheat on tests and assignments so that they could obtain higher marks. These attitudes may lead the path to lower morals in their job. Thus, it would lower the potential these graduate would be able to contribute to society. In this case, a highly selective university is detrimental to society than a less selective university.

 

Whether or not highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities depend on the degree of selectivity. A university that is extremely selective in its students can create an atmosphere that negatively affects its students. The students may be pushed to do unquestionable acts in order to gain acceptance. These acts may hinder their educational development in such a way that they are unable to contribute to society in meaingful ways. A university that is selective, yet isn't impossible, is able to select students who are greater potential to contribute to society.

 

Hello Anto12e,

 

Essay 1:

Your explanation of the prompt seems repetitive (i.e. you are repeating the prompt almost verbatim at times) and you need to go more in depth. Furthermore, your example is very controversial and not entirely substantiated. Also, your refuting argument is not logical, since based on your argument, if many people support the killing of one person then this should not be considered a crime (for example many people want Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, dead but this would still be considered a crime). The example is again highly controversial and not entirely accurate: the war on Iraq was not entirely supported by the American population and the war was a matter of national defense and not of revenge. Your essay cut off at the end so I am not sure what your concluding paragraph is.

Score: 3.5/6 (But hard to say without the concluding paragraph)

Essay 2:

You provide a good explanation of the prompt and supporting argument along with a relevant example. However, your refuting argument and example in the second paragraph is not entirely accurate: it is not rational to think that competition leads to selfishness and immoral behavior or that this type of behavior occurs more at highly selective schools versus less selective. The same goes for your resolution principle, which does not seem logical or well developed (i.e. selective schools are good but extremely selective schools are bad? what is extremely selective?). I would encourage you to plan out your ideas in order to ensure they are logical and choosing accurate examples.

Score: 3.5/6

[Nadil]

Thanks for doing this!

 

The good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the good of a society might not depend upon the defense of individual rights. Discuss what you think determines when

the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights.

 

The continued protection of individual rights should be the basis and focus of any government. Individual rights refers to the freedom to express any

political, religious, and scientific idea without fear of persecution. It also refers to an individuals right to privacy. Without these basic rights, any society will eventually become a government run dictatorship. In these societies, individuals often live in fear, which many people will agree is anything but food for a society. As a reuslt, more often than not, individual rights must be protected in order for the betterment of society. For example take the country Burma. Burma has been run by a military dicatorship since the 1960's. Individual's who fail to accpet the military government are persecuted and eventually placed in jail. This is clearly a case where individual rights are not protected. The result is a society wrought with fear and corruption, as shown by UN reports.

 

However, there are times where individuals rights should be exploited. This is especially the case when ignoring these rights could help the government to

prevent a major catastrophe from happening. For example, in England, the English security force wire tapped a house containing individuals whom they suspected of conspiring terrorist attacks. In this case, individual rights to privacy were clearly ignored. However, by doing so, the english government prevented a serious attack which may have led to hundreds of lives being taken. In this case, the good of society rested ondefense of individual rights being ignored.

 

What should eventually determine when the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights is when the defense of individual rights may prevent a severe catasptrophe. In the case of Burma, ignoring individual rights did not prevent a catastrophe. However, in the case of the english security force, ignoring individual rights did prevent a severe catastrpohe, which many people would say helped for the good of society. Therefore, it should be the potential for a terrible event that determines when the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights.

 

Hello sarup,

 

You provide a good explanation of the prompt and supporting argument. Your example is relevant, however, a better example is one which directly supports your argument (i.e. an example in which individual rights were actually protected for the good of society, an example would be the Civil Rights Movement in the US). The example in the second paragraph is also relevant; however, you must first provide a refuting argument (i.e. explain why the prompt is sometimes not true) and then substantiate it with an example. Your resolution principle does not adequately resolve the dichotomy between your two examples. In Burma the government is not protecting human rights, therefore this problem cannot be prevented by ignoring human rights. Thus, your resolution principle is not applicable. Furthermore, one would safely say that in Burma, the human rights violations are a catastrophe. I would recommend you spend more time planning out your resolution principle.

Score: 3.5/6 (Distortion of one of the tasks, i.e. the resolution principle).

[Nadil]

Hey Nadil, thanks for going over my essay. um, I accidentally did my antithesis first (the counter example), then the thesis example, but it flowed better if I just left it like that/didn't have time. Would I get marks taken off if it's not in the thesis-antithesis-synthesis (resolve) order exactly?

 

Prompt: 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 progressed infinitely over time. New discoveries have been made, new, creative solutions to problems have been found, and new problems that never existed in the past have surfaced. As the realm of scientific research has expanded, scientists are now delving into murkier waters, where some things are still unknown. The implications of research now often need to deal with moral and ethical dilemas, many of which cannot, or should not, be dealth with by the scientific community on its own. Often, the government or members of the public want or need to have a say in determining the ethical standards for scientific research. Take GMOs (Genetically modified organisms), for example. Genetically modified organisms are organisms whose genetic material have been altered using genetic engineering techniques. They are used in medical research, production of drugs, agriculture, and even for anaesthic uses (ie, the "Glofish"). It's usage in agriculture is the main and most controversial topic. Scientists working for Monsanto, a US company that grows GMO crops, have experimented with many crops, doing things such as producing food crops that are resistant to commerical herbicides or harsh environments, improving product shelf life, or increasing nutritional value. This has sparked controversy because many people see the production of GMO as meddling with biology or interfering with natural selection and evolution. The safety of consuming GMO has also been questioned with concerns that GMOs could introduce new allergens into foods, or contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance. Others are simply concerned about the limitations of modern science to fully understand all of the potential negative implications of genetic manipulation. As such, the governments of countries worldwide have stepped in to set limits on both the production and imports of genetically modified foods. Consumers and environmental groups, too, have stepped in the fight, often via local campaigns. Thus, in this case, the ethical standards of the growth and usage of GMOs should be determined by groups other than just the scientific community.

 

On the other hand, not everyone outside the scientific community needs to be involved in the determination of ethical standards of scientific research. Often times, the scientific community can, and should, resolve and set ethical standards on its own. Take the American Psychological Association for example. This professional group is very knowledgeable and sensitive to any ethical implications that may result, and as such have strict rules, codes, and policies relating to research ethics for scientists to follow. They do not need the public to help them set the ethical standards (who lack the proper education and information to made a good decision anyways). Psychological experiments on animals (who suffered minimal or no pain) have made enormous contributions to society and on human nature. Ivan Pavlov, for example did his famous experiment on classical conditioning using his dog, and Edward Thorndike used mice to study and learn about operant conditioning. With this, he (and Pavlov), developed a fundamental theory of learning that is still used in many aspects today. Aversion Therapy, a treatment for alcoholic addiction, is based on what we know about learning. Thus, in this case, the scientific community (the American Psychological Association) should, by itself, determine ethical standards for its scientific research. There is absolutely no need for outside groups to govern the rules here.

 

Modern scientific research is rapidly advancing, often with the result of introducing new ethical implications. Often members of the public and the government need to step in to help the scientific community set the ethical standards for scientific research. Outside groups should be consulted impact humans in a negative way (as with the GMOs). When the research in question will not impact humans in a negative way (rather, they help shed light on the human condition), then the scientific community should determine the ethical standards for its research on its own.

 

Hello again medhopeful64,

 

Switching up the order in your essay is fine, as long as you still address all 3 tasks, which you do. You provide relevant examples and present them well. However, both your supporting and refuting arguments need to be developed further. For instance, highlight specifically why some issues should not be dealt with only by the scientific community and why some issues should. Your examples should not be used to develop your argument, but only to substantiate your argument. Your resolution principle is also somewhat weak since it is not very evident how GMO’s harm humans.

 

Score: 4.5/6