Writer's Corner: Free Essay Grading by PastaInhaler

[hc6]

-clicked-

 

Compulsory education often inhibits a student's motivation to learn.

 

Compulsory education alludes to an education without choice, a plan meant to inspire learning in an individual but based on a generalized idea. It can be interpreted as the time required for education, such as the requirement of education up to highschool in many regions. It can also be interpreted as the type of education a student is required to receive, such as language courses, maths, or science courses. Either case, it can become counterproductive and turn the student away from learning, leaving them unprepared for later life. An example can be seen in many urban innercity neighborhoods across the United States where a generalized compulsory education is often given to inner city kids. In these families or social environments, an education is not often valued, and such compulsory education becomes frequently ignored. The result is a further devaluation of education, and ultimately the teenagers turn to a lifestyle of crime. In this situation, although a compulsory education is often the only option that seems economically possibly, it is not hard to see that an alternative individualized education would benefit these innercity kids.

 

However, for some families where education is already an ingrained value, an early compulsory education can provide a framework for the student's further education pursuits. One of the most wealthy men in the world, Bill Gates, came frome a highly educated and wealthy family. He was put through a private school where many aspects of education are rigid and unchanging. In this academic environment he developed skills which enabled him to revolutionize the world of computing. Although he did not graduate from Harvard when he attended, many of his professors would testify to his work ethics and problem solving skills, and such attributes were carried with him when he went on to cofound Microsoft.

 

It is easy to see that a compulsory education is not the best option for everyone. In places where education is lowly valued but desperately needed, a compulsory education can often create a hostile environment for the students, making further education more difficult. An alternative style of individualized education that encourages the student to learn on their own accord can be arguably better, however difficult to accomodate. On the other hand, when education is already highly valued, such type of education is not needed. A compulsory education which allows the students to create a solid foundation for their post-secondary education can be successful.

[Omar Raza]

-clicked-

 

Thanks in advance PastaInhaler!

 

Prompt: There are times when an individual’s private acts should become a public concern

 

Describe a specific situation in which an individual's private acts should not become a public concern. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the acts of an individual should become a public concern.

 

The importance placed on privacy is evident in today’s society. Teenagers always seem to be under the impression that their parents are intruding on their privacy. Although each and every individual has a right to privacy, there are times when how a person exercises their privacy should become the concern of the general public. Take for example the Bernier-Couillard controversy. Maxime Bernier was elected to be a member of parliament in January 2006 and became a cabinet member as the Minister of Public Affairs. Bernier started dating a woman by the name of Julie Couillard in 2007 and she caught the media’s attention when it was discovered that she had had past romantic links with a member of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang. A political scandal erupted when it was determined that Bernier had left sensitive NATO briefing notes at Couillard’s residence. Although Couillard later returned the papers, the nature of the documents as well as her past links to the Hells Angels posed a risk to natural security. Bernier’s high political status matched with his private life was enough to jeopardize the security of the public. Thus, because Bernier’s private life posed a risk to natural security, the public had a right to be concerned.

 

Although there are times when an individual’s privacy should become the concern of the public, this should not always be the case. Throughout history, celebrities have gained prominence but at the same time, have become victims of public scrutiny. Paparazzi photographers have been known to have a disregard for the privacy of celebrities mainly because of the candid photos that are taken and then sold. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, recently passed an anti-paparazzi law which is geared toward the protection of celebrities. The law states that it is illegal to sell unauthorized photos of celebrities in “private and familial activities”. The fact that celebrities are not involved in making decisions that could have a negative impact on society is thus a good reason why the public should not be concerned with the private lives of such individuals.

 

Determining whether or not the acts of an individual should become a public concern should be judged by whether they are public officials or private citizens. Public officials are people who hold positions in the government either through election or by appointment. Private citizens, on the other hand, are people who are not involved with the government and do not hold a public or official position. Maxime Bernier, who falls under the definition of a public official, made decisions which jeopardized national security and therefore raised concerns among the public. It is thus safe to say that the private acts of public officials should become a concern of the public. Celebrities however can be classified as private citizens and are constantly under watch by society for solely entertainment purposes. Private citizens therefore should not have to worry about their private acts becoming a concern of the public. All in all, the public should continue to be wary of the private lives of public officials but should not be concerned with the private lives of private citizens.

[bored]

-clicked-

and thanks

 

The object of education should be to teach skills, not values.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the object of education might be teaching values rather than skills. Discuss what you think determines when the object of education is to teach skills and when it is to teach values.

 

 

 

It is said that a North American education prepares kids for the ‘real world’. The education system of North American focuses on the idea that teaching kids life skills is more important than teaching kids technical skills that could be used in future. Education policy makers often focus on teaching students values of life and of doing the ‘right thing’. I remember while I was in elementary school, we often were thought what is right and what is wrong by our teachers. Our teachers, like policy makers believe that teaching us about what to value and what not to value will in turn make us better human beings and better citizens. We are often thought of teamwork, leadership, responsibility, commitments, and many other virtues that a good citizen should have. When our graduation requirement had 40 hours of mandatory volunteer work, this was all there to teach us of what to value. When they ask us to do 40 hours of volunteer work, they are asking us to show sympathy and learn sympathy. They are telling us that volunteerism is a good thing.

 

While learn about these virtues may make us a better citizen, it certainly will never help most of us earn a living. With these skills we also need technical skills so that we can apply them and earn a living. When we move from elementary school to high school and finally to college, we slowly move from an education that focuses on teaching us values to an education which focuses on teaching technical skills. While an engineer is in college, he is thought all the skills that he may need when he is working. It is true that an engineer takes classes on ethics which are placed to teach values, the focus of the education is on the technical skills that the engineer will need in the future. The same can be said about a doctor, a business graduate, a lawyer.

 

One can now begin to see a pattern. As the education system goes from a public system such as the elementary school to a private education such as colleges and universities, we as students start to earn education that will help us get a job. Policy makers care more about keeping a civil society while colleges and universities are teaching students to make money. It is likely that government policy makers have little or no hold over what the universities and colleges teach to their students, mainly because it is a private business. This is exactly students who immigrate to canada from a nation with privatized education sysetm are stronger in academics than our students, but weaker in other aspects that are determined by having a firm set of values, such as volunteerism. A student who has just emigrated sees no reason to volunteer.Thus the hold of the policy makers on the education system is what determines what students are learning. Thus the hold of the government on the education system is what dectates what students are learning.

[AlliMack7]

-Clicked-

 

Thanks for your previous feedback! My last essay was done outside a testing situation and took a little longer than half an hour. This essay was done during a practice test and as a result is sloppier grammar wise.

Any feedback would be appreciated nonetheless!

 

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

 

The field of pharmaceuticals and treatments is a physical representation of a large scale test of scientific concepts. Despite preclinical testing a drug or treatment is truly tested on the large scale of the open market. As a result may agencies have been put in place to ensure that in testing the science behind a drug or treatment, human life is never unneccessarily discarded. Therefore if a drug or treatment is among many designed to treat the same issue and it puts lives at risk it is a responsibility for an agency such as Health Canada to remove the item from the market in the face of risking human life. Furthermore, if the issue being treated by the product is non-terminal then removing the drug becomes more paramount. In 2005 the ADHD treatment drug Adderall XR was removed from the Canadian market after reports of healthy people suffering from strokes and heart problems. In this example the issue is ADHD a problem which, if left untreated, would not lead to death. Furthermore many other anti-ADHD drugs existed at the time, leading to the conclusion that the loss of human life was not justified in pursing the priciples behind Adderall.

 

On the other hand there are situations in which is is justified for the loss of human life in the pursuit of principles behind drugs or procedures. In a situation where the procedure or drug is used to treat an issue which is terminal on its own, those participating often volunteer knowing the risks. Furthermore if the treatment or drug is the only new option available then many feel their lives are worth sacrificing for hope in finding a cure. Arguably if those who are at risk are themselves willing to sacrifice their lives then it is justified to do so in finding the principles behind new treatments. Recently many sufferers of multiple sclerosis underwent surgery to insert steints into the jugular veins in the neck. This new treatment was based off a brand new theory and those suffering from terminal MS felt that it was worth risking their lives to find out if the treatment works. Consequently, because those involved were terminal, willing and the treatment was the only new treatment for MS, the loss of life is justified in pursuing the truth.

 

There are a number of factors which contribute to whether the loss of life is justified in pursuit of knowledge behind treatments or drugs. If those involved face an issue which is non-life threatening such as ADHD and are not willing to give up their own lives the loss of life is not warranted, especially if other treatments are available. On the other hand if a treatment or drug faces a terminal illness, and those affected are willing to give up their lives, then it becomes justified to learn in the face of loss of life - as has occurred with the vein steint MS trials. Furthermore if the treatment is the only new option to face a terminal disease such as MS the sacrifice of those lost is further justified in the long run. Thus whether human loss is justified depends on if the problem is terminal, whether the participants are willing to risk their lives, and if there are other options available. All in all it takes an extraordinary situation to allow knowledge to come before human life - situations which are rare amongst the world of today.

 

Thanks once again!

[mangos]

--clicked--

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

 

Throughout history, societies have strived to discover new ways to improve their standard and quality of life in various ways, whether it be in the form of the invention of new technologies for medical or military purposes, or even new ways of doing the same thing. Humanity has an innate characteristic of curiosity in attempts to gain more knoweldge, and it is this curiosity that has led to our desire to discover. However, over the years, this curiosity has driven humanity to the extreme of endangering human life in attempts to make discoveries. A perfect illustration of this is the desire to discover by the Germans during the Nazi regeime led by Adolf Hitler. During WWII, Adolf Hitler confined many Jews those not part of the Aryian race to concentration camps. Within these camps, several experiments were performed on human life in order to discover new ways to improve their military warfare, their medical procedures, and even their solider's performance. As a result of his curiosity to discover, prisoners were subject to harsh treatments which often led to disfigurement and even death. Experiments such as trying to sew bodies together, dismemberments of limbs, and and subjection to poison gas vaults are only a few examples of the extreme procedures that occurred in these concentration camps, all under the banner for new discoveries. At the end of the war, those involved with these experimentations were tried in the Nuremburg Trials and punished. As a result of the attrocities that occured, the Nuremburg Laws were developed illustrating the code of medical ethics that must be followed in present day experimentations, thus effectively protecting human life during acts of discovery. As can be seen, this is an example in which the desire to discover is not as important than the protection of human life.

 

However, despite the high value placed on human life over the desire to discover, there are cases in which human loss is acceptable during the journey of new discoveries. A prime example of this is the NASA space exploration program. The desire to discover space and the moon has become the main ambition of several nations. Ever since the first landing of a human on the moon, space exploration has continued to advance and progress with more space shuttles carrying astronauts to perfrom different tasks in space. However, this program does not continue without its set of dangerous, life threatening consequences. Just prior to the launch of the Challenger shuttle for another round of space exploration, a malfunction in the shuttles rocket system led to explosion of the shuttle and instantaneous death of all atsronauts aboard. This turned out to be one of the most tragic experiences the NASA space exploration program had ever experienced. However, despite this tragic loss of human life, space exploration has continued to progress and prosper. Evidently, in some cases, the pursuit of new discoveries at the expense of human life may be tolerated.

 

It is evident that human curiosity has driven us in the desire to discover. However, this desire has sometimes led to threat of human life and thus the journey of discovery must be halted, or in other cases, tolerated and allowed to continue. What determines whether this journey to discovery, although bring harm to human life, is tolerated or not depends on the main goal of the discoverer. In the case of Adolf HItlers desire to find new military and medical breakthroughs, his goal was to experiment on human prisoners within his concentration camps through ways that would knowingly lead to pain and death. Thus, this form of discovery abhorred and those involved in these gruesome experimenations were punished. Furthermore, the new set of laws, the Nuremburg Laws, were put into place to protect human life during experimentations. However, in the example of the NASA space exploration program, the main goal was to discover the benefits that space and the moon could bring to society on Earth. Despite the tragic loss of human life in the Challenger expedition, this loss is a result of a fatal mechanical error in the shuttle. The goal was not to put human life in endanger, but rather, this tragic event occurred unknowingly. As a result, space exploration is still endorsed and continues to progress.

[mangos]

--clicked--

 

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.

 

It is known that humans are subject to their innert characteristic of curiosity, thus giving rise to the occupation of a researcher. A researcher is one who primary goals are to develop or find something new that may bring benefits to society. Since the beginning of man-kind, it is only through research that as led to the consistent advancement of society to this day. Similarily, only through research nowadays will lead to the advancement of our society. However, as a researcher, strict rules must be abided in order to ensure the safety of all inviduals and the ethics of the research being conducted. As a result, in order of uphold these rules, a researcher is subject to being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined. A great example of this are the researchers involved in the journey to find a cure for AIDS. AIDS is a viral disease that, if contracted, would result in immunodeficiency, and eventually death. The world has never seen this virus before and as a result, provides a huge road block in finding a cure for it. Due to the extreme danger that AIDS possesses, researchers much be thorough in their research about the function and origin of AIDS in order to better understand how it works in hopes of finding a way to counter its effects. In addition, researches must also be painstaking and endure the long hours of research that must be put into their challenge to find a cure. Finally, they must be disciplined in all aspects of their research, especially when trying to find volunteers to test for a possible cure. Strict rules must be adhered to when using a living human being as part of an experiment as the consequences of contracting AIDS are lethal. As can be seen, when research involves lethal consequences, much attention must be spent on adhering to the strict research rules and these can only be upheld if the researcher is thorough, painstaking and disciplined.

 

However, the field of research is vast and filled with many unexpected results. The high variability in research lead to the ability of some researchers, depending on their type of research, to suspend the qualities of thoroughness, being painstaking, and being disciplined, in order to follow a hunch. A hunch is defined as something that cannot be confirmed scientifically, with proof, but is rather something the researcher feels strongly for, similar to a gut feeling, and decides to act on that feeling. A great illustration of a case like this is Galileo when he confirmed the relationship between the sun and the moon and the other various planets of the solar system. During his time, Galileo did not have as advanced technology as we do nowadays. Therefore, he based his understanding of the solar system solely on the limited resources available, such as a weak telescope, and conclusions of other researches during his time. At this time, many challenged his proposal of the solar system as it was based on a hunch and he did not have clear scientific proof to support his theory due to limited technological advancements. However, several years later, when technology finally caught up, it was scientifically proven that Galileo’s hypothesis, based on a hunch, was in fact correct. In this case, Galileo had to suspend the usual characteristics of being a researcher so that he could follow a hunch because his research would not directly affect human life and he had limited resources to allow him to be fully thorough.

 

As can be seen from the above examples, researchers are encouraged to be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined in order to uphold the rules geared at the safety and ethics of a research. However, there are also cases in which a researcher is able to abandon these characteristics and follow a hunch. What determines whether the former or latter should take precedence depends solely on the type of the research and tools available to conduct that research. In the case of researchers in search of a cure for AIDS, they are expected to have the characteristics mentioned above in order to provide and ethical and safe environment to conduct the research. Since AIDS is a lethal virus, and present day technology allows researchers to manipulate the virus and test it on human beings, their research must be conducted by being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined. However, in the case of Galileo and his research for how the solar system worked, it did not directly affect human lives and Galileo only had primitive technology to research space. As a result of his type of research, Galileo was able to abandon the characteristics of being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, to pursue his hunch and predict how the solar system worked. As technology advanced, it was proven that his theory was correct, despite many challenges proposed against his theory during his time.

[Kovah]

-clicked-

Thank you!

 

Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

 

In an effort to better themselves, people often take courses at a community college or attend university. Such formal education teaches facts and specialized skills that equip a person for particular jobs and limited situations. However, education can be thought of as something much more than simply learning facts. This kind of education develops a person and changes who they are. This kind of education is learned through practical experience and not from books. For example, Terry Fox is a Canadian hero known for his battle with cancer and his run across Canada which raised millions of dollars for cancer research. Terry was just a young man when we was diagnosed with cancer and needed to have one of his legs amputated. When asked in an interview where he found the perserverance to keep on running even though he had a prosthetic leg, Terry responded that his battle with cancer had taught him a great deal about determination and the value of every effort. He had known these values before his struggle because they were promoted and valued in the society which surrounded him, but this kind of passive education did not make those values a part of him. It was the practical experience of hardship which taught Terry how to persevere.

 

Yet it can be said that many products of education do not easily come from experiences. Last year, as a first year student at a new university, I attended my first microbiology laboratory session. Lectures had only just begun and I was not at all familiar with the staining techniques of bacteria. It was not until I had review the relevant chapters of the textbook and attended lecture for a few weeks, that I learned to be proficient in the lab. The practical experience of the lab was of little use to me until I had first understood the basic facts and skills that are necessary to succeed. In this case books and lectures were the more successful of method of education.

 

What determines whether education is better achieved by books or by practical experience depends on what is intended by the educator. If an educator desires for their students to learn about facts and ideas, it is best to use the methods of formal education which employ textbooks and lectures. If however, an educator intends to teach their students to value different facts and ideas, it is best to give them practical experience. This kind of an education goes beyond formal education by changing who the student is and how they think.

[Tangy]

-Clicked-

 

Thank you PastaInhaler for your help!

 

Prompt: Any business must be concerned with the environmental impact of its actions.

 

Nowadays, people are becoming more aware of the environmental damages we are causing to our planet. This includes companies polluting the air with chemicals that slowly destroy our ozone layer. The challenge now for many business companies, especially those that produce output at the expense of nonrenewable energy sources, such as oil, is to become more efficient with more renewable, environmental friendly energy use. In fact, some countries like South Africa are already establishing power plants that will use more renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind, and less of nonrenewable energy such as coal. They are predicting that one power plant will provide the energy to run three other power plants and the amount of carbon dioxide release will be reduced significantly compared to current levels. Clearly, the concern for the environment is increasing because of clear impact that business have on the environment. Environmentalist observe an increasing trend of global temperatures and floods, aspects that have become more evident in America and Canada this summer with the heat waves and Pakistan's flood in 2010. If business companies, especially those that care more for their annual profits, do not take into consideration the environmental impact, then our nonrenewable sources of energy will soon be deplete. In addition, the pollution emitted in the process of harvesting energy will cause harm to our ozone layer, thereby increasing global temperatures. This in turn has an effect on ecosystems, since the increase in temperature usually has an effect on forests. To illustrate, there has been an increasing number of forest fires in this decade because of the temperature compared to previous decades. As a result, it is important for any business to take notice of their impact on the environment. Eventually, our nonrenewable sources of energy will run out, and unfortunately, that may not be the only problem, because along with it will be the disastrous effect on the environment.

 

Owing to the broad field of business, there are other companies which should justifiably be not concerned about the environmental impact of their action. Such business include tax firms and sport business, such as FIFA. They are inherently businesses, and unlike companies such as Exxon Mobile, they do not produce a lot of carbon dioxide in harvesting nonrenewable energy. In other words, such businesses do not produce massive amount of chemical pollutants that effect the environment to begin with. In such cases, why should the company be concerned with the environmental impact of their action, if there are none?

 

As a result, whether a business company should take into consideration the environmental impact of their firm depends on the nature of their work. If a company is heavily involved in using energy, especially nonrenewable energy such as Exxon Mobil, then they should take into consideration the environmental effects of their work. In fact, they should look for alternative ways to harvest energy with minimal hazardous effect son the environment. However, if the company's business does not effect the environment, then it is justifiable if the company were not concerned for the environmental impacts of their action.

[Tangy]

-Clicked-

 

A politician must sometimes adopt an unfavorable position for the good of the country.

 

Elected by the public, politicians are held accountable for their actions and are expected to listen to the citizens of the country. Barack Obama, the president of the US is a politician who was elected in 2008 to bring about change to the economy of the country as well as to bring back the troops that serve in Afghanistan and Iran. Sometimes, a politician may take an unfavorable position, one where the a great number of the citizens are firmly against, for the good of the country. Naturally, the good of the country can be in many terms, including the safety of the citizens or increasing the economy of the country. To illustrate, although President Obama did end the war in Iraq and called troops back, he sent extra platoons to Afghanistan. Families of the newly traveling troops and the troops already in Afghanistan were against this Agenda. As a result, President Obama was in an unfavorable position with the citizens of the US. However, only after killing Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, do we finally understand that his agenda was for the good of the country. In this case, to ensure the safety of the citizens in US from future plots against the US. In fact, the US troops were able to decipher Osama Bin Laden's journal and look into his computer to find out that future plans were made to attack the US. Clearly then, even though it was an unfavorable position for President Obama, it was indeed for the good of the country. It will help the US to adjust in such ways to prevent future plans by Al-Qaeda.

 

 

When the good of the country is changed from safety to economics, then sometimes a politician should heed the advice of the citizens, instead of pursuing an unfavorable agenda. Not only will the politician be recognized for listening to the citizens, but also the citizens may not hold the politician accountable for the poor economy of the country. Instead, one would expect the citizens to acknowledge the attempt of the politician and blame the economy instead of the politician per se. For example, in the present debt deficit, President Obama, in attempt to reach a compromise with the Republicans, has put forth an increase of income tax for the middle class. This is an unfavorable position to be in because the majority of citizens in the US are either of the middle class or the low class. There are only a "wealthy few," just as President Obama mentioned in his speech about the debt on 25th of July 2011. It would make more sense for the President to adhere to the citizens' needs and instead increase tax on the wealthy. The president, however, seems unable to do this because the Republicans have said from the beginning of the debate that they would not agree with such an increase in taxation. Nonetheless, it is wiser for the President to follow the citizens' needs because a politician is elected by the people. If the people recognize that the politician not only is not listening to their call, but instead, making it more difficult for them to live, the chances of the politician to be re-elected would be lower.

 

As a result, depending on the good of the country in question, whether the safety of the public or the economy, a politician may sometimes adopt an unfavorable position. If the former is in question, then as citizens we may not foresee the future outcome of the politician's agenda right away, as exemplified by the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Hence, it is more justified that a politician should adopt the unfavorable position. However, if the economy is in question, then a politician should more often not adopt the unfavorable position, and heed the advice of the citizens. This way the citizens would at least be happy that the politician is listening to their needs, even if he or she was not successful in fixing the economy during his or her term.

 

Thank you once again PastaInhaler!

[Grey's Anatomy]

-clicked-

 

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.

 

 

Research plays a significant role in the scientific field for the discovery of truth and ways in which we can confront some of society's biggest challenges. Researchers must often be thorough and methodical when testing their hypotheses. Researchers and scientists generally require a basis on which they propose hypotheses, particularly when human lives are at stake. For example, when experimenting with drugs to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic, researchers must follow strict guidelines and scruples to minimize the risk endured by humans. An innovative idea in the field of research and science may be ground-breaking but scientists must have some empirical evidence on which to base their hypotheses. This stems from the absolute necessity to protect and value human lives, rather than to treat them as guinea pigs.

 

Conversely, although researchers must be thorough and scrupulous, there are certain circumstances in which they may justifiably pursue a hunch. Particularly, the testing of hypotheses on experimental models without endangering the lives of humans may justifiably be carried out based on a hunch or instinct. For instance, microbiologists are often interested in understanding how certain strains of bacteria react to antibiotics in order to assess their efficacy on treating bacterial infections. A well-known example is the testing of penicillin to asssess its effectiveness against serious illnesses such as syphilis and infections caused by streptococci. In this context, a researcher would be justified in following a hunch in hopes of making scientific progress and expanding our understanding, without harming humans.

 

In conclusion, it is important to consider under which conditions should researchers be thorough and disciplined, and when they are justified in pursuing their hunch. Since the human life holds significant value, researchers must follow precise guidelines and principles when human experimentation is involved. This is evident by the example of testing novel HIV/AIDS treatments on humans only on the basis of previous evidence from experiments conducted on models. On the other hand, researchers are not necessarily limited by the same restrictions when experimentation cannot cause any harm to humans. This is exemplified in the study of antiobiotics against bacteria. Thus, researchers must be thorough, painstaking and disciplined when conducting in vivo experiments on humans, whereas they may resonably follow a hunch when intending to enhance our understanding and knowledge through in vitro experimentation.

 

Thanks very much!

[Neuro_07]

-clicked-

 

Prompt: A country needs enemies, real or imagined, in order to maintain its identity

 

 

It is rightly said that an enemy is as important as a friend. Presence of an enemy always keeps you on your toes and motivates you to improve and increase in strength. Identity of nation is not held in its geographical spread or its economy, but its identity is stored within the people. A group is recognised only when its members are together and call themselves part of the group in unification. History of mankind holds many accounts when people have come together to give their nation an identity. A the beginning of the 20th century many countries of South Asia and Africa were ruled by the British Empire. All these countries were under their rule of the same empire and hence, were hardly different from one another in their identities. They got their identities when the natives came together to topple the British Empire and end their reign. India and South Africa got their identities on the international scene only after their people were unified by the presence of an enemy. However, to realize the importance of an enemy in maintaining a nation’s identity one need not look back that far into the history. Recent 9/11 terrorist attack in United States brought an unprecedented wave of patriotism in the country, and the consequent invasion of Afghanistan and killing Osama Bin Laden were attempts to re-establish America’s identity. In summary, the enemies, real or imagined, play an important role in keeping a country united and maintaining its identity.

 

However, it would be naive to consider that enemies are the primary driving force in sustaining a nation’s identity. A nation’s culture, practices, morals, art, technology and religion are some very important factors that collectively develop a nation’s identity. It is important for the people of a country to keep their traditions alive in order to keep their identity alive. Indians are well known for their hospitality. In India it said that, “Guest is equivalent to the God”. Hence, the Indians believe that if they please their guests, they will attain the goal of pleasing their God. This tradition has been the essence of India since hundreds of years and hasn’t changed till date. So, a nation should thrive to be rooted to its values in order to maintain its identity.

 

As alluded earlier a country’s identity is similar to a flavour, which is a result of combination of many ingredients. Whether existence of enemies is important to maintain a country’s indentify depends on how the country wants to be perceived at the international level. A country like United States that prefers to represent itself as a superpower, needs enemies that it can fight to demonstrate its power. On the other hand, countries like Canada and New Zealand want to portray themselves as peaceful nations and thus, don’t need enemies to maintain their identity. In fact, they rely on many other factors such as culture, landscapes, government leaders, and support to United Nations to maintain their identity.

[Neuro_07]

-clicked-

 

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

 

Science, the pursuit of knowledge, continues to grow at an ever increasing rate. Every day, the frontiers of knowledge are expanded and the boundaries of what we know are challenged.” The curiosity to know more about a particular topic and the urge to increase its potential utility are the primary forces that drive a scientist to discover new things. Furthermore, the anticipation of honour and good monetary rewards gives the scientific discovery an impetus. But, it is important for the scientists to realize that no discovery justifies jeopardizing the life of humans. There has been increasing demand of cosmetic drugs and procedures that can impart people with desirable physical features. This has stimulated the research to discover novel and more effective methods that can enhance the looks artificially. However, many such methods have deleterious effects on the health of the individuals that use these facilities. For instance, silicon embedded in fake breasts has been shown to have many side effects, including potential to cause cancer, and thus, many women have to get them removed after certain age. Hence, it is important for scientists to not get lured by the people’s demands and monetary profits, and pursue scientific discovery that does not risk the human life.

 

Nevertheless, in certain cases, it is important for the sake of betterment of human life itself to go ahead with a discovery, even if it may be potentially harmful to humans. After witnessing the dreadful effects of the Tsunami-struck nuclear power plant’s failure in Japan, none of the countries have stopped their plans to expand nuclear energy. The radiation that pervaded the residential neighbourhoods can even cause cancer, and increase the chances of abnormal progeny. The benefits of a nuclear power plant in today’s energy-hungry world are so great that it is hard for the nations to discard it. Hence, in some cases it is inevitable to reject a technology in spite of it being a threat to mankind. However, the risks can be minimized by investing in further scientific inquiry to develop more stable reactors and more efficient coolers for nuclear plants, and establishing the new plants in areas that are less prone to earthquakes.

 

Scientific discovery is very important for the progress of humans. When the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life is determined by the benefits that the discovery serves and the degree of the risk that accompanies the discovery. If the discovery has very few or no real benefits to offer, then it is futile to risk the human life. The cosmetic drugs and treatments mainly fulfill the unreasonable wants of the society rather than essential needs. They are not inevitable for the progress of the nation. On the other hand, if a discovery, such as a nuclear plant, offers huge benefits, it can be accepted if the degree of risk associated with it can be reduced by further developing the technology.

[Neuro_07]

Thanks a lot for your service PastaInhaler. It is my first time posting an essay for grading. I am pleased to know that there are people like you in this world.

[hc6]

-clicked-

 

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

 

A democratic society's backbone is the support of its constituents. Without that, a democracy is degraded and becomes a facade for often imperialistic goals of those in power. To maintain the support of its constituents, a democracy's foremost priority is the protection of human rights. Human rights refer to many things, such as the freedom of speech, the right to own property, the right to a fair trial. If at any instances these rights are revoked without reason, the democratic motto is tarnished. A good example is the recent Casey Anthony trial. Many people were outraged over the results of this trial, and the evidence is supportive of the fact that someone in the Anthony household had committed a grave offense. Despite the overwhelming public opinion, the court cannot convict Ms. Anthony without evidence proving guilt beyond a shadow of doubt, because it would be a violation of her basic rights. In this case, perhaps "justice" was not served in that the rightful killer is not behind bars, and may never will be, the framework of the democratic society demanded that the rights of the individual had to be upheld.

 

There are times, however, where a democratic society will revoke the rights of individuals because the exercising of those rights will endanger others. Recently Bradley Mannings was arrested and is currently tried in Virginia for the leak of US Diplomatic Cables. There are some argue that the government should not censor the press and Mannings and Wikileaks have the freedom of press. However, within those documents contained sensitive information which if leaked, would endanger the lives of deployed American Soldiers. There were such documents containing the specification of jamming devices which disarms remote triggered landmines, and it is easy to see how the publication of such documents would endanger the lives of many. In such cases, the right of speech and freedom of press must be taken away from the individuals who possess such knowledge.

 

Although in most instances the main concern of a democratic society is to uphold the protection of human rights, there are instances when those rights can be taken away. During times when exercising those rights does not put others in dangers, preservation of those rights is essential for preserving social structure and democracy. When exercising those rights put lives of others at risk, there should be no hesitation in removing those rights as the right to live supersedes any other.

 

 

thanks a lot!

[Neuro_07]

-clicked-

 

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

 

In a democracy the politicians are elected by the majority vote and hold an official position as the representative of the people who voted for him. A successful politician is firstly able to win majority of the votes by connecting with the people, and secondly, is able to satisfy majority of the voters during his tenure in the office. A politician’s success is more often based on public opinion than on any absolute measures. Hence, criteria for a politician’s success vary from one democratic country to another because the public opinions vary. In the world’s largest democracy, India, most of the successful politicians resemble ordinary citizens. Their current prime minster, Dr. Manmohan Singh, is one of the most successful PMs of the country. He has been already been elected twice, and is the most likely to be re-elected in 2013. His success is mostly attributed to his ability to connect with people in the country’s core. He dresses, speaks and conducts less like the head of the government, and more like a common man. One can see similar qualities in Canada’s current prime minster, Stephen Harper. He was recently elected as the PM third time in a row, and this time he won with an unprecedented majority. He is perceived as a calm and composed person and conducts himself as any other person working in an office in downtown. Therefore, in a democracy, the success of a politician often depends on how well an ordinary citizen can relate with him.

 

However, there are many instances when a successful politician is someone who is perceived as unordinary and powerful. A powerful look is often associated with a successful leader. If one looks at the presidents of United States, one can feel the powerful personality. For instance, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the personality of current president of US, Barack Obama. The way he speaks in public, it is difficult not to think of him as an apt president for a country that is a superpower at the international level. Hence, a successful politician is often someone who the public perceives as a strong and powerful leader.

 

As alluded before, type of successful politicians can vary from one democratic country to another because of differences in people and their expectations. A country’s global image is an important determinant in the image of a successful politician. Countries like India and Canada are more of neutral countries on the international scene and hence, don’t indulge themselves in any or many conflicts. Hence, Indians and Canadians are more in favour of politicians who are very polite and very ordinary in their personality. On the other hand, citizens of a superpower like US expect their politicians to be powerful enough to convey the country’s image through their own conduct. In summary, in democracies around the world, the expectations of people are different and consequently, the image of a successful politician is spread across the spectrum.

 

Thanks a LOT PastaInhaler!!

[PastaInhaler]

--clicked

 

 

To obey an unjust law is to approve of it.

 

Laws are rules and regulations implemented by the government in order to ensure the well being of the society- to protect and uphold the safety and rights of its citizens. However, there are situations in which a government may impose unjust laws-laws that contradict the efforts to enhance the safety and rights of its citizens. To obey these unjust laws, without open critique, is equivalent to the approval of it. This could be seen in the times prior to the Women’s Right Moverment in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this time, women were accepted by the general public to be inferior to men and thus, did not benefit from the same legal rights as men did. They were perceived to not have enough knowledge in politics as men did and thus, were not allowed to vote. Despite the obvious inequality within society between men and women, no one, prior to the suffragettes during the Women’s Right Movement, openly critiqued the law preventing women from voting because it was generally accepted and approved by the majority of the public.

 

However, although silence may imply approval of an unjust law, there are cases where citizens of a society are forced to comply despite their disapproval. The atrocities that occurred during the Holocaust are an excellent illustration of this. During the reign of the Nazi Regime in Germany, Hitler imposed the Nuremburg Laws. These laws required German citizens to aid in the extermination of Jews. The Jews had no choice but to witness the loss of their legal rights and property as they were sent to the concentration camps. Many citizens, German and especially Jews, opposed the Nuremburg Laws, but failure to comply resulted in immediate death. Open critique was impossible for fear of losing their life or harming the lives of their family members. As a result, both parties were forced to obey the unjust laws despite their dissapporval.

 

By examining these two examples, it is evident that justification to disobey an unjust law depends entirely on the consequence that follows. Sometimes, disobedience does not result in severe consequences such as death and othertimes, compliance is mandatory in order to live. For example, after witnessing the general approval of inequality between men and women in society, suffrogettes such as Nellie McClung of the Woman’s Right Movement began openly criquing the law that prevented women from voting alongside men. This act of disobedience and disapproval of the unjust law resulted in opposition throughout her journey as a women activist, but however, did not lead to the threat of death. In contrast, the unjust Nuremburg Laws imposed by Hitler that stripped the Jews of all their rights and property, could not be disobeyed, but instead, must be adhered to. Disobedience resulted in immediate death for both German and Jewish citizens, so as a result, disapproval to the law was not an option.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Adequate control of language.

Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought.

 

Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments.

 

The introduction of a new idea, that regarding Nellie McClung in the final paragraph, detracts from your purpose for that paragraph. It also takes the idea from your first example in a different direction. This will affect coherence and integration. It is best to stick to the original argument you made, since that argument is relevant to the prompt and the task for the essay.

 

I feel this essay will be scored a:

JKLMNOP/QRST

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked-

 

To be successful in business, it is important to appear socially acceptable.

 

One of the keys to success in business is the maintenance of a good public image. It is important that consumers think positively of a company, because it will ultimately make that consumer more likely to purchase that company. The public image of a business includes many aspects. For example, for a company that produces paper products such as Staples or Royale, consumers may consider whether the company uses recycled materials to reduce its environmental impact. In the cosmetic industry, consumers may consider whether the products were produced in an ethically acceptable manner. The Body Shop produces body care products without the use of animal testing. Research shows that when businesses act in a way that corresponds to the moral views of its customers, the customers are more likely to support that business. Thus, a business that appears socially acceptable in order will be more successful.

 

However, there are some exceptions to this rule. Some businesses, even though they do not appear socially acceptable, are still able to flourish. Such is the case for casinos. Many people are opposed to the concept of gambling. Indeed, some even deem it sinful that a business makes its profit from the loss of others. People who have a gambling addiction fall deep into debt, and this may indirectly cause other problems such as family conflict and suicide. And yet, even though this business is the source of much tragedy, it is probably one of the most profitable. Entire cities like Las Vegas and Monaco can thrive due to the presence of casinos and the income it produces. As can be seen, though a business may be socially unacceptable, it can still be successful.

 

Thus, while it is important to maintain a positive public image, it is not the sole factor in determining a business’s success. Indeed, what is more important is the mindset of the business’s audience. Some audiences care if a business is morally acceptable, whereas some don’t. In the case of the paper and cosmetics companies, the target consumer group is conscious of the impact on the environment. They care if the business is acting according to acceptable moral standards. However, for casinos, the audience it caters to only cares about being lucky and winning money. It doesn’t care if the business is environmentally or morally conscious. Thus, the casino business is able to flourish regardless of its public image.

 

Thank you so much!

 

You're welcome.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Adequate control of language.

Ideas presented in a coherent manner.

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Some Issues with depth of thought.

 

You will need to revise the examples in paragraph#1. It is best if you take one specific example and expand on it as you did in paragraph#2. That way, you can explore a particular example in greater depth, and it makes the essay more balanced.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNO/PQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked-

 

Developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to the underdeveloped nations of the world.

 

When we see fellow beings in need of help, it is our duty to lend a hand whenever possible. This extends from examples on the local scale, such as giving up our seat on the bus, helping somebody get up after they’ve fallen, or performer CPR on a heart attack victim. On the national scale, it is important that we maintain this altruistic behavior, in that developed nations should provide aid to the underdeveloped ones. For example, developed countries have provided foreign aid to African countries to help them rebuild their governments, economies and social infrastructures. During the Haiti earthquake in 2010, massive relief efforts were made from developed nations all over the world, helping Haiti to recover from its tragedy. Through altruistic actions such as these, developed nations have helped to improve the lives of people in underdeveloped ones, narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, and altogether make the world into a better place.

 

However, though it is important to help underdeveloped countries, sometimes it is not possible. Developed countries can be plagued with their own problems. Perhaps they are in the midst of an economic slump, or ridden with poverty, or have very high unemployment rates. Though they may have all the good intentions to help the needy, they can’t because they have to deal with their own problems first. After all, one can only help others if one is able to. This is evident in the United States today. Facing a debt crisis, where the nation’s debt is in the trillions, this nation is nowhere in shape to provide any sort of monetary aid to other countries. It has to invest in its own people first, to provide jobs and help its own economy. Only then will the US have the means to help other underdeveloped countries.

 

Thus, while it is true that developed countries should provide aid to underdeveloped ones, there can be exceptions. Whether or not they are obligated depends on if they have the ability to. In other words, help should be given whenever possible, but not when in doing so it causes harm to itself. In the case of foreign aid directed towards African countries, or relief efforts during the Haiti earthquake, these altruistic actions were altogether beneficial. The recipient countries were able to improve the lives of their citizens. However, sometimes a country’s first priority is to help its own citizens first. Such is the case with the United States. In the midst of an economic slump, with many of its own citizens unemployed, it is more important that the US invest in trying to improve the lives of its own citizens before helping others.

 

Thank you. =]

 

You're welcome.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Adequate control of language.

Ideas are somewhat undeveloped.

Some issues with integration.

 

For the first paragraph, it is best of you provided less examples, and focussed on explaining the rationale of why you think developed countries should provide assistance to underdeveloped countries. Why should we help those in need? Is it human nature to do so? Are we afterall a part of one race, one global family, and this need to help others is an innate one? Is it a part of what defines us as belonging to a developed nation, as we are developed not only in our ability to acquire resources, but to share them equally (morally developed)?

 

As well, the second paragraph seems to have two major ideas that contrast each other. You will have to take a different approach in how you construct that paragraph and how you express your ideas. It is difficult to discern your rationale for justifiably not aiding an undeveloped nation. The United States still donated money to help the victims in Haiti despite being in debt. You will need to take a different approach to this task. Is it justifiable not to help a nation if the resources that are donated will be misused or misappropriated in some way? Perhaps, if the underdeveloped nation deliberately refuses aid in explicit terms, that developed nations can justifiably refuse to give aid?

 

Giving aid entails causing harm to the self in some way, a sacrifice. This is the nature of altruism. The rule which you provided for task#3 is not very strong as the reasoning underlying it is conflicted. If you are able to modify your essay a bit more according to the suggestions, you will be able to come up with a stronger rule for when to help and when not to. (will aid be properly used or will it be clearly misused?)

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLM/NOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked- Thanks so much!

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.

 

Describe a specific situation in which progress might simplify more than it complicates. Discuss what you think determines whether progress complicates or simplifies.

 

Much of human history has strived toward progress. Each year, technology is advanced and new ways of living are touted, all promising to make life simpler. While progress does make many aspects of our lives easier and less time consuming, it also has the tendency to make many more parts of our lives more complex and difficult to comprehend. Take for example the creation of smartphones. These phones were created so that one could talk, receive email, send text messages, and browse the internet while being mobile. With these phones, one could communicate with others from virtually anywhere at any time. However, this new form of technology has also become a menace for employees who find themselves working constantly. While they are able to complete their jobs more efficiently, the standard 40 hour work week has disappeared, leading to often stressful and tiring work environments.

 

However, there are forms of progress that have succeeded in making life simpler without any further complications. The delivery of mosquito nets to impoverished communities around the world has resulted in a reduction in the prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases, namely malaria. Because of this decline in malaria, the overall population becomes healthier, leading to an increased productivity in the community. The burden of these sicknesses within the community is lessened, and their lives become simpler.

 

What then defines whether progress simplifies or complicates? One criterion is how many people progress reaches. If a new innovation reaches a lot of people, it is more likely that improvements would be made to it and new forms of it would emerge much more quickly than if it was less widespread. For example, because the smartphone is so prevalent within American society, new versions utilizing new technology are coming out several times a year. If a new innovation only reaches a select few, however, fewer people are less likely to ask how it could be improved, and the impact on the general population is lessened. A second criterion is how complex the new innovation is. Innovations in a medical or company setting, such as the smartphone, are much more complex than other forms of innovation. The complexity of the technology itself is likely to cause more complications than basic necessities, such as the mosquito net, because there is more potential for improvement.

 

Overall, progress in the form of far-reaching, complex technology does tend to complicate as well as simplify our lives. However, progress in the form of simple and select technology that is used to improve the quality comes with less complication due to its nature of causing simple but profound improvements within society.

 

You're welcome.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Adequate control of language.

Ideas are somewhat undeveloped.

Problems with clarity and depth.

 

You will need to clarify what you think "progress" means, as well as "complicates" and "simplifies."

The reason why this is necessary is because your examples and your arguments will depend on the definitions of these terms. It will show the grader that you know what these mean, and it will give the grader a chance to assess if you have logically satisfied these definitions with your arguments. At the outset, it is not evident that you have properly satisfied these definitions with your examples.

 

You must go into further detail regarding how smartphones simplify some aspect of life, and how its associated connotations are enough to complicate aspects of life much more. Moreover, you should explain how smartphones complicate one's lifestyle by encroaching on other aspects of life? Does smartphone usage mean that work comes home with a worker, or that it complicates relationships within families? You will sometimes need to explain the obvious because it will give the AAMC grader a chance to give you a checkmark for integration and depth of thought.

 

Furthermore, you are to explain how mosquito nets are somewhat complicated, but are able to simplify more than they complicate. Specifically, you have to demonstrate logically, that advancements in netting technology makes things easier and simpler than previous netting technologies. Were older nets complicated and hard to use? Were they hard to hang? Do they rip easily because of the cheap material used -unwanted and large holes and tears would complicate things? Do newer developments in presoaking nets in chemicals make it simpler to use? Are the newer nets equipped with special hanging apparatuses that make installation simpler? Is there a better opening system that makes it easier and simpler to enter and exit the net in at night or in the morning? These ideas encompass a theme that you will need to fully explore to garner a high score.

 

As well, the rationale for when progress complicates or simplifies will need to be explained better.

It seems that you feel how far-reaching a technology is will affect its potential for improvement. While that may be, it doesn't address the conflict between the two examples you raised in the essay. You will need to take a stronger, more logical approach to reconciling the two contrasting examples.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMN/OPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-Clicked-

 

Hello, hello, hello! I hope you're all doing well Thanks again PastaInhaler for your awesome work! Much appreciated

 

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.

 

 

Laws are an important part of our society. They are guidelines that maintain orderliness, and also allow us to voice our rights. If a member of society decides to break a law purposely for their own gain, then the individual is regarded as a criminal. For example, there are laws against drinking and driving that drivers must abide by for the safety of others on the road. If an individual drinks a lot of alcohol in a party, and selfishly driving on the road without regard for the safety of others, then the individual is a criminal for breaking the law. Police work to arrest such individuals to maintain the safety of the road. It should not matter if the individual is a teen driver or a politician in parliament. The same offense is committed by either party should they decide to drink and drive. The law is broken regardless of who is behind the wheels. Laws are made for everyone, and accordingly, it is expected that they should be followed by all members of society.

 

However, there are cases where laws could justifiably be broken by governments. For instance, there are laws protecting the privacy of citizens. If an individual steals information from a company for their own gains, whether to sell for profit to another company or to blackmail said company, then the individual has committed a felony for breaching the privacy of the company. Conversely, if the government is trying to gain intellectual information from a group for the safety of the public, then it is justifiable that the government is not committing a crime. Indeed it is breaching the privacy of the company, but it is doing so for the protection of society at large after suspicious acts done by said company. For instance, in Norway, it has been documented that some Intelligence Officials in Norway have used fake names in chat rooms to gain information about potential terrorist groups. The use of fake names in chat rooms, if committed by a member of society, might be regarded as a crime if done to seduce particular members of the chat room - for the individual's own gains. However, the Norway Intelligence Officials are using such methods to gain potential information that will help them to prevent any future attacks on their country, and therefore, protecting the civilians of Norway. In this case, it is justifiable that the government has tried to access information, more so than committed a crime.

 

Laws are integral for our society's functioning. They vary from the laws that protect us while driving on the road, to laws that allow us the right to voice our opinion. Laws ensure the orderliness of our society. When someone decides to break the law for their own gain, such as for profit or simply disregarding the safety of others, then the individual is regarded as a criminal. Even if a government official broke the law, then he or she is still considered a criminal, because the law was broken for personal gain. However, it is justified when a law is broken by government for the safety of the public. In this case, it would not be considered a crime, because by not following this particular law for justifiable reasons, the government is saving the lives of its citizenry. As a result, it is usually clear whether a crime committed should be considered a crime when committed by governments. In the end, laws are meant to protect the citizenry from harm and ensure the maintenance of an orderly society.

 

You're welcome. I'm well, glad you appreciate my work.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Adequate control of language.

Some issues with clarity of thought, organization, and integration.

 

You may wish to write about governments at the beginning of the essay. In particular, write about what makes a government different from an individual, and what makes a government, a government. You should also mention something about how government employees should be made accountable for certain crimes in the first paragraph as well, prior to introducing your example of drinking and driving.

 

As well, you may need to have a different opening for your second paragraph. The way it stands now, the paragraph is logically inconsistent with the rest of the parts. You will need to show how the Norwegian Intelligence Officials have broken laws by infiltrating companies in order to make your argument work.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[Tangy]

^ Understood! Thank you so much PastaInhaler and I honestly honestly appreciate all the help that you are providing to not just me, but all of us. Right now, I for one am super tired and thinking of sleep, yet you are still working hard to edit our writing samples. I sincerely wish you the best in your future endeavors as a medical doctor!

[PastaInhaler]

-Clicked-

 

Justice is best served by truth.

 

Describe a specific situation in which justice might not be served by truth. Discuss what you think determines whether or not truth serves justice.

 

Courts are commonly viewed by the public as the places where justice is often served. In this case, justice is being able to correctly discern whether a defendant has committed a crime or not, and what the punishment should be. If the individual is wrongly convicted by the judge, then justice is not served, and usually, this is followed by public riots outside the court. Truth - hard evidence - is an integral part for establishing justice in the court. Sometimes there are no hard evidence against the defendant, and therefore, the judge and jury have to consider the motives of the individual, their criminal record, et cetra, to come to a decision. However, when there is truth against the defendant, then it is the best way to serve justice, because it is concrete proof for the case. For example, a court case where an individual is charged for rape and murder, might wrongly convict a defendant who is the ex-boyfriend of the victim based on motives, especially when DNA testing of the semen later finds that a different criminal committed the felony. In this case, the evidence brought forth by DNA testing, is concrete and is truthful in the sense that it is verified scientifically with very low probability of being wrong. Without the DNA testing results, the ex-boyfriend would have been wrongly convicted and justice would not have been served. With the truth in the hand, justice is served.

 

Unfortunately, sometimes the truth might be tainted in favour of the true criminal. In other words, a criminal might taint the evidence to make it seem as though a different person might have committed the crime. In this case, if the court solely based their decision on the evidence found on the crime scene without considering the whole picture of the crime, including potential motives by the defendant, then justice might not be served. That is to say, justice might not be served by truth. For example, in Judge Judy, a televised show where Judge Judy acts to serve justice in court, a defendant tried to taint the truth in order to win the case. The case was in regards to a lease contract between the defendant and the prosecutor. The defendant tried to white out a statement in the lease, while the prosecutor had the genuine lease with her. Fortunately for the prosecutor, the defendant did not manage to white out the statement properly, and thus, there was evidence of attempting to taint the truth. In this case, had it not been for the faulty use of whiting out on the side of the defendant, Judge Judy might have had a harder time discerning the truth of the lease. In fact, if the prosecutor did not have a copy of the contract and the defendant ingeniously removed the statement, then justice might not have been served. The truth has been tainted by the criminal, and hence, it should not be used to serve justice.

 

Sometimes it is a difficult task for a Judge to serve justice by correctly convicting the criminal and freeing the innocent when truth is not available. In fact, it is possible that a Judge can wrongly convict an innocent person. Thus, it is commonly believed that concrete evidence is the best way to serve Justice, because it cannot be denied. This is exemplified by the use of DNA testing in rape and murder cases to shine light on whom the criminal might have been. DNA testing is quite unlikely to be tainted with, and therefore, it has high credibility for use as truth in court. Once DNA testing shows that the defendant is in fact the criminal in the case, then the case is usually settled, and the defendant is found guilty. However, when evidence is tainted by the criminal to remove them from the crime scene, as exemplified by the attempt of a defendant to white out truth from a lease contract, then it should not be used to serve justice. If used without knowledge that it has been tainted by the criminal, then justice will not be served. All in all, courts are sensitive areas with experienced Judges who are familiar with attempts to taint evidence. Thus, it is predominately the case that justice is best served by using hard evidence - truth.

 

Note: I think that my second task might not have been strongly supported by the trivial example. Do you also feel that this is the case? It was hard to come up with a concrete example and I did not want to suggest another hypothetical example. Looking forward to your feedback

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Adequate control of language.

 

Some issues with coherence and integration.

 

There were issues with the second example. The second example does not satisfy the requirements of task#2. For task#2, you will have to find an example that shows that somehow justice might not be served by truth. Basically, this means that somehow the truth causes there not to be justice. Your example shows that truth means there will be justice, that because the truth of tampering was revealed, that the bad person was punished (and justice was served).

 

Task#3 was unclear as a result of the treatment of task#2.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLM/NOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

^ Understood! Thank you so much PastaInhaler and I honestly honestly appreciate all the help that you are providing to not just me, but all of us. Right now, I for one am super tired and thinking of sleep, yet you are still working hard to edit our writing samples. I sincerely wish you the best in your future endeavors as a medical doctor!

 

You're welcome. Thank-you for the kind words. Glad to be able to help you and others.

[PastaInhaler]

-Clicked-

Thank you!

 

In politics, one's friends and one's enemies are often the same.

Describe a specific political situation in which one's friends and one's enemies might not be the same. Discuss what you think determines whether or not one's friends in politics are also one's enemies.

 

Politics is a complex system of government that makes collective decision on behalf of different members of society in order to govern the nation. In politics, allies are made in order to reach a goal that both parties can benefit from. Political enemies are those who compete with one another over opposing views on governing issues. It is said that in politics, allies can easily become foes depending on the situation. This is usually determined by whether or not they stand to benefit from forming an alliance with one person or an alliance with someone who opposes that person. For instance, in 2008 the Canadian government has experienced a major shift in politics due to an alliance between three parties. In order to defeat the Conservative government’s budget, the National Democratic Party, the Liberals, and the Bloc Quebecois moved to form a coalition government. Although, unsuccessful in their endeavour to overtake the leadership role, their alliance remained strong and forced the Conservative government to alter their budget motion in 2009. However, during the Canadian federal election in 2011, these former allies fiercely competed against one another in order to secure the most seats in the parliament. This was especially noticeable in the media campaigns, which did not focus on their strengths but on their opponents’ weaknesses. As a result, in this political landscape, friends quickly became enemies.

 

However, there are situations in which one’s friends and one’s enemies might not be the same. An example of this is the political relationship between Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, and Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba. Since becoming a leader in 1999, Hugo Chavez has moved towards the nationalization platform that resembled that of Cuba. Moreover, his governing practices have alienated the United States in a similar fashion as Cuba. As a result, the two leaders have become close allies and trading partners for the past two decades. The two economies have become very dependent on one another. Cuba is known to have the second highest number of medical doctors in the world per person. The Cubans send their doctors to work in Venezuela while in return Venezuela sells them oil from their reserves at a bargain price. In this situation the two allies have supported one another even when faced with fierce opposition and attacks from the public. As a result, one’s friends in politics can remain friends.

 

In order to determine whether or not one's friends in politics are also one's enemies, one must look at the relationship of the allies. In the case of the New Democratic Party, The Liberals, and the Bloc Quebecois, their relationship was based on overthrowing the Conservative government’s budget. Once they have achieved that goal they had no need to stay in the coalition, as their political platforms were very different. However, in the case of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, both their countries’ economies are so intertwined with one another that they have no choice but to remain allies and support one another. Overall, friends are made in politics in order to reach a common goal. If that goal is reached, then friends can easily become enemies when they oppose each other on another issue.

 

You're welcome.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Adequate control of language.

Some issues with integration and focus.

 

There was some slight misinterpretation of the prompt. You will have to show how in politics, a friend and enemy are the same person/group. It is not a matter of how friends can quickly become enemies, but how a person can be both things at once. You've sort of touched on it in your first example, but you have to stay focussed with that idea.

 

The second example was good, but could be strengthened if you threw an enemy into the equation who was not Chavez or Castro.

 

The rationale in task#3 will have to be changed a little bit, since it isn't very logically valid, and can seem somewhat circular (the relationship depends on the relationship). But, this will be easier once you correct the explanation in the first example.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[mangos]

--clicked--

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer's weakness

 

A business can be described as anything, whether just a street vendor or the Apple store, who provides a service to the consumers in hopes to make a profit from them, for themselves. Thus, it is evident that the goals of a majority of business is to make a profit which usually determines the success of that particular business. In many cases, the only way a business can be successful and make a profit is to take advantage of their consumer's- specifically, consumer weakness. This weakness can include the innert characteristics of humans such as their curiosity, or to the self induced addictions such a alcohol, gambling, or greed. Thus, with this knowledge, businesses often steer their services to capitalize on these consumer weaknesses. A prime illustration of this concept is the emergence and thriving success of tobacco companies. Tobacco companies provide cigarettes, proven to have the the addictive substance of nicotine within it, to its consumers. Knowing that their product is highly addictive,due to the effects of nicotine, tobacco companies realize that they only have to sell a couple to its consumers before they are hooked to their product. As a result, the determination to constantly fulfill their nicotine addiction, has become the consumer's weakness. Tobacco companies then exploit this weakness by providing even more cigarettes to their infected consumers. As more and more consumers become addicted to nicotine, tobacco companies capitalize on their weakness, resulting in higher sales of cigarettes and consequently, greater profits. As can be seen, this example clearly illustrates how businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer's weakness.

 

However, although many businesses gauge their success based on the profits they make by taking advantage of consumer weaknesses, there are cases in which businesses do not take advantage of consumer weakenesses, but yet, still succeed.

This case is exemplified when one evaluates the business protocol of non-profit organizations such as Make-a- Wish- Foundation (MWF). This organization is a non-profit organization, relying solely on consumer donations, to provide services to those who are unable, for whatever reason, pursue their dream and goals. First off, because it is a non-profit organization, it does not generate profits by taking advantage of consumer weaknesses but on the contrary, relies on consumers to provide them with the funds to continue to run their business. Without these consumers who freely donate, under no obligation, MWF would not be as great of a success as it is today. Just recently, MWF foundation in Edmonton, Alberta has fulfilled the greatest desire in this young girl's heart, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer, to meet the Duke and Dutchess of Cambrige, William and Catherine. Furthermore, it has also allowed a young quadrapalegic boy, who was an avid lover of cars, to attend the Indy and meet the racers. These two accounts are concrete examples of the success that the business, MWF, is able to achieve; not through capitalizing on consumer weaknesses, but rather, depending on them to fund their endeavours to make people's life better in times of hardship.

 

As can be seen, there are two types of businesses- those that take advantage of consumer's weaknesses in order to gain profit and be successful, or those that do not measure they're success on profits but rather, the services they provide, made only possible by the free donations from consumers. What determines whether or not business take advantage of consumer's weaknesses in order to succeed depends primarily on the main goal of that business. If the businesses' main goal is to make a profit to measure its success, it must take advantage of consumer's weakness, capitalize on it, and rely on them to continually purchase their products as a result of their weakness. This can be seen in the case of tobacco companies who take advantage of the consumer's weakness, their addiction to nicotine, to purchase more of their product so they can make a profit. Conversely, businesses' whose main goal is not to make a profit, but rather, measure their success by their altruistic actions, do not take advantage of consumer's weaknesses. The Make-a-Wish Foundation clearly exmplifies this situation by relying on freely donated money from consumers to provide services that allow individuals to experince something they've always dreamed of, a reality. Instead of taking advantage of consumer weakness, they rely on them to ensure that MWF is a success.