Prep101 - free Writing Sample tutoring

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello SolitaireAddikt,

 

Your arguments are logical and your examples are relevant. However, you should develop your ideas further by providing more specific information in order to demonstrate higher complexity of thought. Furthermore, you should also provide a refuting argument in your second argument before discussing your example. Your resolution principle is rational and nicely ties in to your examples.

 

Score: 4/6

[Nadil]

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!

 

Hello again,

 

Your supporting argument is well thought out and your example substantiates your points. In the second paragraph you do not provide an actual refuting argument (i.e. why the prompt is sometimes not true), before providing your example. Furthermore, although the example is somewhat relevant it is also somewhat controversial and also based on speculation. A more concrete example along those lines would be laws which specifically forbid the marriage of youth under the legal age limit.

 

Score: 4/6

[mm88]

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.

==================================================

 

The 21st century is marked by numerous human scientific achievements and the many ways in which our lives have been bettered by them. As we delve deeper into the mysteries of the universe and natural, we are often met by perplexing and often difficult situations that new knowledge and technologies may present us. These problems are not limited to questions regarding use of the new technology or application of the knowledge alone, but also the associated underlying issues in ethics and morality as we further study a field. Who should address and further - who should be RESPONSIBLE to address the ethics and moral dilemmas of science as they arise?

Some have suggested that scientific community alone should determine the ethical standards for work and research. One would agree with such a view on the premises that the scientific community are the source of new revelations and discoveries; they would be most knowledgeable in the area and thereby have a better basis than others to make an informed decision. However, knowledge and informed decision making may not always correlate with an ethical end result.

 

An example of such tragedy is the Tuskegee syphilis trails, which had been conducted by American scientists for a greater part of the 20th century on African American sufferers of the disease. The purpose of the trials were to test the effects of various proposed cures for the disease, while at the same time raising attention to the care of African Americans. When penicillin had come into frequent use in the 1940s to treat syphilis, the scientists on the project maintained the use of experimental medicine on the afflicted individuals while preventing them from seeking other medical help rather than giving them a cure. This resulted in many preventable deaths and birth defects due to congenital syphilis and remains as a tragic reminder of an instance where the scientific community chose scientific pursuit over the wellbeing of citizens.

 

In examining the aforementioned example of whether the scientific community has failed to provide an ethical standard for research, one would reasonably suggest that any right to make such standards be revoked from the scientific community. However, one cannot completely exclude the ethics for science from those that study it. Therefore, it is necessary for guidelines to be set in developing ethical guidelines for scientific research. The simplest way of doing so is through government regulation, whereby scientific research involving living organisms and the environment are audited by government agencies to ensure compliance with human rights and environmental laws. Science need not be hindered by the laws of what is ethically “right” and “wrong” but it need not run rampant and cause unnecessary destruction solely for the pursuit of knowledge.

========================================================

 

ran out of time on this one so the last task was not addressed with appropriate length. Conclusion was also rushed... only one sentence... haha. Thanks a lot!

[sarup]

Trial by jury ensures a fair verdict

"You have been found guilty by a jury made up of your peers" is a comment commonly used by numerous judges as they announce their sentence upon a convicted criminal. The jury system is used in most countries to help ensure that any verdict pronounced on an individual is done so after a unanimous desicion has been reached by a group of that individuals peers. By doing so, it allows any judgement pronounced to reflect that the evidence presented was inteprated in the same manner (that it lead to either the guilty, or non guilty decision), by more than one person. This, usually allows any verdict the jury reaches to be considered fair. For example, take the case of Ted Bundy. The case against Bundy relied mostly on circumstatial evidence. Although he was found guilty, it can be considered a fair verdict as the decision was agreed upon by twelve individuals.

 

 

However, there are times when even a trial by jury will not ensure a fair verdict. This is often the case when the jury members are strongly influenced to announce a pre-determined verdict, regardless of the evidence. For example, take the case of the gang leader Lucky Luciano. When faced with his first criminal trial, Luciano bribed or threatened many potential jurors, insisting that they pronounce him not guilty. As a result, without even considering the facts presented (which strongly pointed to Luciano's guilt), the jury pronounced a verdict of not guilty.

 

What ulitmately decides whether a trial by jury ensures a fair verdict is whether the jury is influenced by some outward factor. In the case of Ted Bundy, although the evidence was circumstantial, twelve jury memebrs who were unifluenced by any other outward factors agreed upon his sentence. In the case of Luciano, the jurors were already biased from the beginning and any verdict they pronounced could not be deemed fair.

[bangel]

Hi, thanks for doing this, I'm writing on Friday so any last-minute pointers would be really helpful!

 

An understanding of the past is necessary for solving problems of the present.

 

Is history doomed to repeat itself? This is a question that is often presented as a discussion-opener, whether it be in history class during discussion of the world wars, or in a counselling session about the likelihood of an abused child growing up to beat his own sun. This question has relevance in many different circumstances because we recognize that what happens in the past has significant sway over the events of the present and the future. Many of the great world conflicts present today can be traced back through history; often these conflicts have roots in centuries past. Without an understanding of these roots in the past, how can one possibly hope to try and solve the problem in the present? The Rwandan genocide of the 1990's is a perfect example of this type of long-rooted conflict. Though there has long been strife between the Tutsis and the Hutus, it was the massive genoicide of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis in the 1990’s that brought this conflict to international attention and aid. But this is not a type of problem that one can simply intervene in and fix. The problems between the Tutsis and the Hutus began hundreds of years ago upon the colonization of the country by Europeans. The Europeans divided the people of Rwanda into two distinct groups based on physical appearance, forcing them to wear identity tags at all times to show which group they belonged. They treated one group as more superior than the other, and this belief of superiority has poisoned the country and the people over the years to the point that mass murdering became commonplace. Without the knowledge of the past, without the understanding of where this division came from, it is impossible to try and bridge the gap between these peoples. Armed with this knowledge, on the other hand, the world has a whole is that much more prepared to insert themselves into the affairs as diplomatically as possible and try to solve the problem. It is this respect and understanding of the past roots of these conflicts that can - hopefully - eventually lead to their resolution.

 

On the other hand, however, not all of the problems of the present are long, drawn-out conflicts with such deep roots. In our society today we are faced with many problems that are new, with no parallels in the past. For these types of problems, it is not a knowledge of the past that can help us, but instead innovative and new thinking. One of the most terrible epidemics of our times is the HIV virus, responsible for millions of AIDS-related deaths in our society today. Forty years ago, HIV and AIDS were unknown to us. Over the years, it has become a horrific part of our reality. While there have been epidemics in the past, HIV is unlike anything we have ever seen. No past knowledge of how to deal with pathogens can help us solve the mystery of HIV because it operates outside of our accumulated knowledge from the past. Looking to the past will not give us answers. It is only through new scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, through new ways of thinking that are outside the box and outside of what we have experienced before, that will hopefully eventually lead us to a cure.

 

The past, then, has its place and its importance. To discount the lessons learned from the past would be to discount all that has been sacrificed; to not learn from the lives given in war so that humanity could learn a lesson, to not let the same mistake happen again. The past has much to offer us. It contains the roots of many present-day conflicts, an understanding of which is integral to ever coming to a resolution, such as in Rwanda. The past has lessons, from which we must learn if we ever wish to hope for societal improvement across the generations. There is much we can learn from the past, and understanding of what has transpired in history could not be more important. However, our present will also one day be the past, and it is here in our present that roots for new problems are created. New problems, problems without parallel such as AIDS, are not helped by looking to the past - in fact, this can hinder progress, hinder innovative thinking that could lead to solutions. So while looking to the past is undeniably important when present-day problems have past parallels, we must also recognize that we must look to our own present in solving problems that are new and without parallel in the past.

 

 

Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please voters, not what is best for the country

 

The usual definition of a politician is "public servant" - one who serves the public, one who stands up for the public, one who makes heard the voice and will of the public. This is especially true in democratic countries such as Canada, in which each political candidate in the House of Commons is meant to voice the majority will of the people in their riding. As such, these politicians are often not concerned with the greater picture of the entire country of Canada. Their job - and the reason democracies can function - is to ensure that their specific people are represented in the government. They must vote in the House of Commons as their riding expects and trusts them to do. This doesn't always necessarily correlate with what the majority of the country would love - however, it is not their place to do what is best for the country. It is the role of the entire government as a whole to do what is best for the country, and this can only happen with each politician accurately transmitting the will of their people. Thus, many riding politicians base their decisions on what they believe or know would please their votes. This can be clearly seen in the issue of Quebec separation. As a whole, the majority of Canada believes that Quebec separating would be a detrimental affair for the country, in both economic and social senses. Yet, the politicians of the Bloc Quebecois continue to push for this separation, because it is what pleases their people.

 

However, this logic focuses on so-called "small-scale", riding politicians, those who are expected to base their decisions on what would please the majority of their voters. Not all politicians in office, though, can operate this way, especially those who are in positions of higher power. In some situations, these "higher-ups" are required to make decisions for the good of the country that are, generally, unpopular. An example of this type of unpopular decision is that of Trudeau enacting the War Measures Act during the October Crisis of 1970 with the FLQ. Many people felt that this stripped away integral human rights of freedom for a relatively small crisis. However, in the end, the threat was defeated and the country was made safe again. These types of drastic decisions are often made because they will benefit the country as a whole.

 

The basis of political decisions, then, seem to centre around the position of the politician in question, and what role that politician is meant to play in the political world. Truly run-of-the-mill political servants - the ones meant to represent (and thus, please) voters - should be basing their decisions in such a manner. That is their role in society and their job in the government, and this is what allows for multiple voices to be heard, not just one overpowering voice stating what is best for the country. This overpowering voice, though, does have its place. For those politicians in greater power - and thus, having a greater responsibility to a greater public - their decisions are on a grander scale, and should be concerned with the good of the country, and not what would please individuals. This balance is an important one to consider in the world of politicians and in the running of governments, and finding the correct balancing point is the key to successful countries.

[future_doc]

bangel, slight comment, in Canada, unless there is a free vote, each member of a party "must" vote not his onscience, rather the party line. For those in the majority party, it means that, like it or not, the riding or not agreeing, the member of Parliament must vote as directed by the leader of the party, who may be the leader of govt..

 

Generally speaking, the role of the majority party is firstly, to remain inpower, secondly, to gain sufficient votes in the next general election to be voted back in and lastly, to do what is good for the citizens.

[sgt.pepper]

A business that creates a great product is sure to succeed.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a business that creates a great product might not succeed. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a business that creates a great product is sure to succeed.

 

 

Businesses are always trying to research and develop the next great product that will generate income for the company and shareholders. But does a great product guarantee a successful product that stands the test of time? A product is given the title "great", when it brings to the table something novel, exciting, something that enriches the lives of the consumer. However, even though a product maybe called great based on its specific attributes, the success of that product is determined by the profits it creates out on the market.

 

Sleek, fast, useful, are all the words that comes to mind when one sees are uses an Apple iPod. The iPod has been the next step in the evolution of multimedia players, which started in 1920 with the record player. People's needs have been stagnant, with respect to multimedia players, because they have always commanded and expected good quality music combined with portability. The ipod is a great device because it has improved sound quality, compared to its predecessors, but now with its revolutionary flash drive technology, all that can be packed into a small, sleek casing. The iPod is a success in everybody's mind not only because it has great technology, but because the technology caters to people's wants and needs. Without a niche in the market, the iPod would be not much more than another gadget.

 

A secure spot in the market place, one of the main goals of invention. Every company wants to create the next big thing that everyone wants to have in their hands. However, sometimes companies are disconnected with the needs and desires of their costumers that they create a product with many great features, but also a product that has no place in the market. The F-22 raptor jet fighter is a person example of a great product that has not yet been successful because not enough countries can afford to pay 150 million for a jet fighter, when they can buy 2 or 3, almost as advanced, jet fighters that can get the job done. The F-22 is called "the most advanced stealth fighter in the world", but it is also the most expensive fighter on the market. Countries have opted for the less expensive, yet still advance F-35 to fly their missions and it has negatively impacted the success of the F-22. In 2009, the production of the F-22 had ceased, and a great product retired, without garnering any success.

 

When, then, is a great product a sure thing for success? Success is guaranteed when the product satisfies the needs of its potential costumers. The apple iPod combined exceptional sound quality with portability, two attributes that the consumers wanted. Their was a vacant spot in the market that the iPod filled, resulting in Apple's stock rising. Contrary to the ultra-portable media player needing to be filled, the market for a stealthy jet fighter was overcrowded with great stealthy planes, but also less expensive ones than the F-22. This ultimately lead to the demise of the F-22 and its lack of success. In all, a great product may be determined in the research facility but the success is dependent on the market.

[sarup]

Wealth is generally amassed at other people’s expense.

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 wealth is not generally amassed at other people’s expense. Discuss what you think determines

whether wealth is generally amassed at other people’s expense.

 

 

In order for anyone to accumulate wealth, the balance sheet of their business must show that revenue exceeds expenses. Because of this concept, most buisness owners must limit their expenses without harming their revenue. One of the easier ways to do this is to outsource labour to developing countries. Often times, by doing so, the buisness will pay a lower rate to the labourers than they would if the labour was performed by workers in their own country. This concept of outsourcing has led many individuals to create successful businesses and gain large amounts of wealth. However, the business owners are doing so at the expense of labourers in the developing country by paying a lower wage. For example, take the large sport giant Nike. In order to conserve costs, Nike has exported many of factories to Indonesia. These factories are often cited for their cramped working conditions and low pay. However, the Nike company itself has become very profitable and wealthy, partly because of this exploitation.

 

However, there are times when wealth is not amassed at the expense of others. This is often the case when a company makes a concentrated effort to provide fair wages or prices to its labourers, regardless of outsourcing. For example, there exist many profitable fair trade store chains. In these chains, all the products that are made, are done so by labourers who are paid fairly for their efforts. In this case, the owners of the store, though they are amassing wealth, are doing so without exploiting their workers.

 

What ultimately determines whether wealth is generally amassed at other people’s expense is whether the company makes an effort to reward their labourers fairly. In the case of Nike, the business made a decision to try and amass wealth at the expense of the labourers. However, as shown by the numerous fair trade store chains, wealth can be made with having to exploit workers in other countries. As a result, wealth can be amassed wihtout exploiting others.

[juliusc]

The main priority of all elected politicians is to appeal and appease the majority of people in the district or area that they have been elected to represent. The problem arises when politicians priority of importance is skewed due to their personal experience. Wealthy politicians may not understand the priority of average citizen, who are not wealthy, and therefore their representation may become obscured. The republican party of America, as well as the conservative party of Canada to some degree, historically represented the affluent citizens. A politician of these parties would prefer to reduce taxes, eliminate social assistance and give incentives to corporations all in the hope of increasing wealth. But if this politician represented an area with the majority being in the lower classes it would have major ramification. A removal of social assistance and welfare may cause a major increase in homelessness and even crime due to the fact that a lot of low class citizens depend on such programs to meet the minimum standards of living.

 

Alternatively, wealthy politicians are wealthy for a reason and have been elected for the same reason. They are successful. To become wealthy, one requires intelligence, creativity, boldness and above all the capacity to recognize and seize opportunity. All of these traits are the qualities we seek in our leaders. Tommy Douglas, a wealthy Canadian politician, give rise to the Canadian universal health care that we so cherish today. This single act alone makes Tommy Douglas one of the greatest politicians Canada has ever had to offer and it was this exact act that has recently made Tommy the most revered Canadian in Canadian history. A wealthy politician has experience in success and success is indicative of leadership.

 

The defining characteristic between a wealthy politician who offers a fair representation and a politician who offers an unfair representation is socioeconomic background. A politician who has come from money lacks the experience that the majority of citizens have when in comes to finance in comparison to a politician who has come from a humble background and has made himself/herself wealthy. A wealthy politician who has come from wealth most likely had every advantage in life and sees money has something that comes naturally while a self made wealthy politician had to go through turmoil and disadvantages to attain his wealth only through tenacity of character.

 

Thanks in advance

[darknebula]

Hi Nadil, I would be grateful for any feedback you can provide me on this prompt. Thanks!

 

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

 

Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life.

_________________________________________________________________

 

Scientific curiosity defines a scientist. Without the raging quest to know what lies beyond the known, a scientist can not be complete. It i s this very desire to explore the realm of the unknown that drives scientific investigation. An action without motivation is meaningless and the same applies to scientific discovery. The desire of discovery has taken man to the moon, to space, to the hidden underground secrets of the earth, to the deepest oceans. But just as there is, or at least should be, a limit to everything, there is a limit to the frontiers of science. If scientific discovery must cross beyond this limit, its importance becomes questionable. This limit brings with it, the threat to human life - be it to the scientist or to the community as a whole. Many would perhaps agree that the development of nuclear weapons was certainly not worth the sheer threat it has brought to the very existance of mankind. Sure it may have added a treasure of information to a physicist's knowledge bank but the risk of a nuclear war the world faces now is certainly not worth it.

 

But to make it a strict criterion that that every single scientific discovery must not be accompanied by a threat to human life would be a little unrealistic. There are situations where taking a risk is inevitable for the greater good of mankind and in such situations, a threat to human life can certainly be worth it. If there was ever another deadly viral outbreak that threatened to wipe mankind off the face of the planet, it would be very logical to accept the risk to human volunteers who would be willing to undergo tests for a potential cure. Similarly, astronauts may tolerate a threat to their life by going out in the space to discover if there is a comet lurking out there that may hit the earth and cause another mass extinction.

 

One then wonders when is the pursuit of scientific discovery more important than an accompanying risk to human life. The answer is apparently obvious. If the outcome of the scientific discovery will benefit humanity as a whole and outweigh the threat to human life, then it is definitely important to pursue it. If however its outcome threatens human life even further, its pursuit is very questionable. In the case of development of nuclear weapons, humanity certainly did not benefit but instead faces an even greater threat. So by any standards, that discovery was surely not beneficial so it should not have been pursued. But if attempts of discovering a new cure to a deadly disease even at the cost of threat to the lives of a few individuals will save millions others from it, then this discovery will certainly be of importance.