PastaInhaler Posted June 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 -clicked- Thank you again! The scientific pursuit of truth is flawed by economic and personal interests. 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 pursuit of truth is not flawed by economic and personal interests. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific truth is flawed by economic or personal interests. The world in the 20th and 21st centuries has experienced enormous scientific and technological advancements that allow society to function more effectively and accurately. The pursuit of scientific truth usually involves learning more about the ways in which society works and living systems interact with one another. Some interactions may be considered antagonistic' date=' as in the case of pathological diseases, while others may be synergistic. Some scientific discoveries are intended to advance society but may be accompanied by economic and personal interests. For example, the pursuit of truth regarding how certain pathological organisms alter the physiology of humans is instrumental in fighting disease. Since the 1980s, the scientific society has struggled to combat HIV/AIDS and to find a cure to eliminate this burdensome disease. Since there is a significant portion of the world living with this disease, patents on a viable cure may be attractive and worth a significant sum of monetary value. Since the cure would be in the hands of few, it would be considerably valuable to members of society. Consequently, some scientists may pursue the goal of such a discovery by economic and personal interests. However, there are instances when the scientific pursuit of truth may not be flawed by economic and personal interests. Some scientific discoveries are accompanied by open access to information, as well as free dissemination of knowledge. Being in the hands of most members of society, such truth may not be as economically valuable, yet socially significant. As a result, scientific pursuit that aims to increase and expand the knowledge domain of society altogether may not be flawed by economic and personal interests. For instance, a discovery that elucidates previous knowledge and does not produce a tangible outcome that influences the lives of living organisms may not have significant value to non-scientific members of society. As a result, research into understanding the workings of our world that does not directly impact other members of society may not be flawed by economic and personal interests. In conclusion, some scientific research is accompanied by economic and personal interests, as in the case of development of novel therapeutic treatments for burdensome illnesses. Such knowledge and information may remain in the hands of few, rather than openly in the hands of society. Consequently, knowledge that directly influences the lives of living organisms is considered valuable by both the scientific and non-scientific members of society. Therefore the scientific pursuit of truth in such instances may be flawed by economic and personal interests. Conversely, research that aims to expand on previous knowledge in order to gain clear insight on the way in which nature operates may be accessible to all members of society. Such a discovery has no direct influence on the way in which humans live their lives and thus, does not possess significant monetary value. As a result, discoveries that have a direct impact on humans may be flawed by economic and personal interests, while information that is aimed at expanding the knowledge domain of society altogether may not be flawed by such interests.[/quote'] Your welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. The essay shows some coherence, but may have issues with integration. The example in task#2 is very general and vague. It appears that task#2 may not be adequately addressed. You will need to find a concrete example for task#2 like you did in task#1. For paragraph#3, you can take out the sentence that deals with living organisms, and just stay on the theme of benefits to humans/humanity to keep the essay more focussed. You can use this idea to help come up with an example for task#2, such as studying the life cycle of fungi with no direct impact on humanity, no offense to those of you interested in mycology as a hobby. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangos Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 --clicked--- It is sometimes necessary to restrict individual freedom for the sake of social order. Since the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, individual freedom has been of utmost importance to all citizens in a society. As such, it is the responsibility of the government to uphold these rights. However, there have been times in history in which individual freedom has been curbed for the sake of social order. Social order can be described as the well being of society as a whole. If this social order is endangered in any way, drastic actions can be taken. This was seen in the October Crisis in 1970, most commonly known as the FLQ crisis. During this time, Quebec nationalists and FLQ members captured and held hostage government officials and endangered the public by detonating several bombs in mailboxes. These events raised fears amongst Canadians of a militant terrorist organization rising up against the Canadian government. As more Canadians were injured while simultaneously, social ordered spiraled out of control, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the current Prime Minister of Canada, enacted the War Measures Act. This act effectively curbed all individual freedom and civil liberties including the right to habeas corpus. The police were granted far reaching powers, allowing them to detain and arrest citizens without charge, who were suspected of collaborating with the FLQ. Furthermore, Canadian military were posted on the streets of Quebec to help enforce and assist the police. In the end, peace and order was restored with several FLQ members arrested. As can be seen in the October Crisis, in order for society to be protected and social order to be under control, individual freedom had to be curbed under the War Measures Act. However, as mentioned earlier, individual freedom, including freedom of speech, is a right all citizens of society treasure. When society is not endangered, it is the government’s job to uphold these human rights. This is why in democratic societies, peaceful protests are allowed. As long as these protests do not endanger the public, and serve only to convey the thoughts, opinions, and beliefs of individuals in the group to leaders in power, protests are legal. A prime example of this is the Gay and Lesbian protests that occurred around North America, including Canada. These groups sought to express their belief in equality amongst all individuals, whether they were homosexual or heterosexual. Ultimately, these protests, conducted under the banner of freedom of speech, led to the legalization of same sex marriage in Canada. Evidently, as long as organized events do not harm the society as a whole, individual freedom is upheld. What determines whether individual freedom is protected or curbed for the sake of social order depends solely on whether the acts committed endanger the society as a whole. In the October Crisis, FLQ members committed crimes that injured and even killed Canadians. As a result, Trudeau was forced to enact the War Measures Act to curb individual freedom in order to more quickly reconcile the situation and bring social order back to Quebec. In contrast, if acts such as peaceful protests conducted by the Gay and Lesbian Community, do not harm and endanger society, individual freedom is upheld by the government. This could be seen by the allowance of protests by citizens and the eventual legalization of same sex marriage in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scubagirl Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 Laws cannot change social values. -clicked- The laws of a nation generally reflect the overall belief system of the people—nations in which freedom and equality are supported tend to also enact laws to ensure that this freedom and equality are maintained. Social values, at their most fundamental level, are beliefs about what is right and wrong; these values are often accepted as the norm in a particular society because they are supported by a majority. Often, however, when laws and social values are not aligned, the beliefs of the majority prevail above the law. For this reason, legislation that does not reflect the beliefs of the people rarely holds. In the first half of the twentieth century, Prohibition was occurring in the United States. Alcohol and its sale were banned nationwide and those disobeying the law, when caught, were punished harshly. As a direct result of this, an underground market for the sale of alcohol became rampant across the country to the point where the majority of Americans continued to purchase and consume alcohol. Although the government attempted to put a stop to the use of alcohol, it failed miserably because the laws were unable to change the social values of society at the time. The social values of the Americans, which supported alcohol consumption, prevailed over the laws laid down by the government, and as a result alcohol is widely available in the United States today. Although social values are rarely shaken by government legislation, there are examples of laws put in place that have changed the face of American society permanently. When slavery was abolished in the late nineteenth century, it was met with fierce resistance, particularly from the Southern inhabitants of the United States, where slavery indeed existed as a fundamental social value. After years of being forced to obey this law, however, the Southerners began to see the error in their ways and the innate social values of the culture began to shift away from slavery and towards equality. Although this transition took years, and is indeed still occurring, the abolition of slavery can be deemed a success, as the majority of Americans today believe strongly in equality regardless of race. So what, then, determines the effectiveness a law will have in changing the social values of a society? The difference between the failure of Prohibition and the success of the abolition of slavery may lie in the direct welfare of the people and the right to freedom that all American citizens possess. Prohibition did not directly enhance the standard of living of Americans; in fact, it may be argued that it posed a threat to society with the increase in crime that was seen during this time period. In addition, alcohol use does not threaten the fundamental rights of the American people. The abolition of slavery, however, appeals to the humanitarian in everyone; according to the American constitution, each and every person has a right to be treated as equal. Without this legislation, African Americans were not exposed to the same standard of living as other Americans, and a direct threat to the safety of the slaves was evident. Essentially, social values can be changed by strong legislation, but only when these social values are in direct opposition of the safety, rights and freedoms of a group of people. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilirubin3 Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 -clicked- Thanks in advance! History is the record of humanity's wars. Throughout the course of human civilization the most prominent historical events have often consisted of direct physical violence between groups of people. Pivotal moments in history such as the unification of China, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, and the American Revolution were all achieved through war. The sheer scale of war, often tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers marching to battle against each other, is enough to explain its prominence in the major historical events of history. More importantly however, it was often the case that only through direct physical confrontation that significant political change could occur, as diplomacy can only go so far to satisfy the needs of two conflicting parties. The Opium Wars between the British and the Chinese in the mid-19th century are an example of where war has been the vessel of significant cultural, economic, and political change. Due to the Chinese Qing Dynasty’s policy of economic isolationism, which was based on a fear of foreign influence, major European powers such as the British Empire were denied an extremely lucrative source of trade. Confrontations between these two empires escalated, eventually resulting in the British Empire sending an expeditionary army that easily crushed the Chinese due to its vastly superior technology. Because of this war China was forced to cede Hong Kong to the British, open up trade to Europeans (Which included massive imports of highly-addicting opium), and thus began the Westernization of East Asia. The Opium Wars were arguably one of the most significant points of Chinese history, ending the isolationism of the Qing dynasty and opening up the country to European ideas and technology. It is clear that wars play a profound role in the shaping of human history. However there are undoubtedly major historical events that have had nothing to do with war, but of ideas. The Renaissance caused the resurgence of literature, art, and science not present in the medieval ages. The Enlightenment of the 18th century signaled a departure from the dominance of religion in society, and the beginning of a new era of scientific reason. The Industrial Revolution dramatically increased the average income and population around the world. The advent of new technology and the development of human rights are what continuously improve living conditions for humanity, enabling people to live longer and more fulfilling lives. Thus when one is considering the intellectual history of humanity, wars should not be used as a record, but the innovations in science and technology and the spread of rights and democracy. The American women’s suffrage movement in the early 20th century, for example, was a significant historical event that had nothing to do with wars but was nonetheless a turning point in history. Before this movement, the vast majority of women in the United States were unable to vote in one or more levels of elections. Consequently, in many ways they were second-class citizens compared to men. The success of this movement, due to the hard work of many men and women, resulted in democratic equality in all citizens of the United States, and was one of the greatest victories for human rights in American history. Whether or not history should be the record of humanity’s war depends on the type of history being considered. The geopolitical history of the world is clearly shaped by wars; wars shape the boundaries of nations, determine the type of government in a country, and affect the economic landscape of the world. However the history of thought describes the changes in humanity for the better from generation to generation, and consists of scientific research, technological innovation, and the improvement of human rights. Wars ultimately shape the political aspect of human history, yet science, technology, and democracy create the intellectual history of humanity which has had the greatest impact on the average citizen of this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheWheel Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 -Clicked- Thank you for all your feedback I decided to try something new with the conclusion by focusing on the definition of one of the ambiguous terms, see if it works a little better. ------------------------------------------------------------- The study of history is more an art than a science. Describe a specific situation in which the study of history might be more of a science than an art. Discuss what you think determines whether the study of history is more an art or a science. History is a subject that investigates past objects and events. In its investigation it resembles an art form. Art is a process that presents items in a way that evokes human emotions and influences their intellect. Science is a process that organizes knowledge as testable predictions. Those who study history have to make inferences and create context in order to fully understand past events. These assumptions cannot be tested or applied in the present day. However, they do provoke us to think about their effects and often contribute to changing our feelings and perspectives about certain events. For instance when studying World War II, historians have looked at the events from social, cultural and environmental points of view in order to create the full picture of the war. While providing facts on battles that occurred during the war, historians have also focused on illustrating the social injustices that occurred, such as the annihilation and systemic targeting of the Jews by the Nazis. The historical study of events during World War II have evoked strong feelings and provoked many discussions throughout the world. The history of these events could not be experimentally tested, thus the history of World War II is more of an art than a science. However, there are instances where the study of history is more of a science than an art. When analyzing the history of tools used by humans during different time periods it is important to approach the study of these objects through experimental investigation. For instance, in order to determine how humans first began farming 10,000 years ago, historians had to analyze basic sickles and trowels made of clay through carbon dating, a biological process that determines the age of the historical object. In order to comprehend the purpose of these tools, historians had to run controlled experiments using models (of these tools) in order to determine their application in farming. Understanding the role of tools in farming and other human endeavours in history cannot be determined through inferences alone. This study must be approached scientifically by repeated testing. When looking at artefacts the study of history becomes more of a science than an art. In order to determine whether the study of history is more an art or a science one must determine the precise definition of history. If history is the study of past events then the study of history is an art since it connects various factors through inferences and assumptions that cannot be tested or proven. However, they do promote humans to think and reflect on these events. On the other hand, if history is the study of relics and artefacts then it is important to determine the application of these objects through experimental investigation, and the study of history becomes a science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docmm Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 -clicked- This is the first essay I have written from TPR book and I ensured that I did it in the 30min time span. I am writing my MCAT mid August. Any feedback would be great. Politician’s should live by a stricter ethical code than other people. Politian’s are elected to represent communities on the municipal, state, and national level . In essence, a politician’s role revolves around implementing legislature that best supports the need, safety, and well-being of a particular region. In some cases, a politicians actions, both within their private and professional life, are heavily scrutinized and analyzed by the public. Behaviors that contradict what is accepted by the general public as consistent with an ethical code create a lot of backlash for these public figures. Since politicians are elected to represent a large population of people, it is fair to expect that these individuals should generally lead noble lives and set a good example for the citizens of the region they represent. In many cases, politicians should be expected to adhere to a stricter ethical code than other people, but there are instances were this is not always necessary, nor appropriate. There are times when politicians will need to break certain moral and ethical codes to serve their duty of supporting the need, safety, and well being of those that they represent. For example, the president of the United States of America Barak Obama has received major backlash for not revealing the death of Osama Bin Laden until months after the event. Many people would argue that by not releasing such pertinent information regarding the ongoing war on terrorism, the president has broken his ethical duty to be honest with the citizens of the United States. However, in this incident and with other withheld information surrounding the involvement of the US in the Middle-East, the president strayed away from following a very strict ethical code in favour of ensuring that certain information is kept from the public to ensure public safety and progress in international interventions. Thus, it can be seen that in the majority of cases politicians should be expected to abide by a stricter ethical code than the citizens of the country they represent. Politicians have been elected to represent the people and the laws of a particular region and should uphold the laws and ethical code they wish to instill in the public by actively living by it. There are however situations that may cause politician’s to practice ethically questionable behaviors such as withholding information from the public in favor of national security and for the long-term well-being of the regions they represent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slumdogMD Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 <clicked> New technologies often hide problems that are only revealed later. Describe a specific situation in which the benefits of a new technology might not hide later problems. Discuss what you think determines when the benefits of a new technology outweigh potential problems. New technologies often hide problems that are only revealed later. Describe a specific situation in which the benefits of a new technology might not hide later problems. Discuss what you think determines when the benefits of a new technology outweigh potential problems. Although it is ideed true that most new technologies hide problems that become clear later, this is not true for all technologies. The above prompt however, uses the word hide in a vague manor. In the context of technological innovations, hidden problems are problems that are not evident at the begining of use. Furthermore, the prompt is summerized to say that new technologies have problems that initally are not apparent, but after further use, are very clear. Coal power plants are an example of a technology that when initally used, did not produce major problems. These power plants provide a great amount of energy by the burning of coal, which is a fossil fuel formed by the laying of plant matter for centuries. In the begining, coal buring in power plants was not seen as a threat to the environment. Since low levels of CO2 emissions have little effect on the massive atmosphere, coal power plants hide the problem of C02 emissions in the atmosphere. However, after prolonged usage and decades of CO2 emissions, the large amount of CO2 emitted by coal power plants began to accumulate and the effects where much more hazardous. Analysts did not initally see coal power plants as dangerous to the environment because the problem of CO2 emissons only becomes evident at large levels. In this case, the coal power plants hide the problem of greenhouse gases and later reavealed it. However, in the case of CO2 scrubbers, problems were not hidden but rather they made problems more apparent. CO2 scrubbers are a new technology that is used to remove CO2 from the atomosphere. The inventors first presented the scubbers to international environmnetal organizations with all the down side of the machine. They documented its emissions, effects on the environment, and the sound level it makes. Furthermore, the invention was also presented with the amounts of CO2 it removed from the atomosphere per hour when placed near a coal power plant. This made a clear statement to the international organizations about the huge amounts of CO2 that are in the atmosphere and that are produced by coal power plants. In this case, the technology did not hide any problems. Wheather or not the new technolgy hides problems depends on the intentions of its invention. If the technology was intevented to help the environment, as in the case of CO2 srubbers, the the technology does not hide anything. If the technology was intevented for profits and ecomomics, as in the case of coal power plants, then it does hide problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacemaker Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 -Clicked- Punishment should fit the crime. Describe a specific situation in which punishment should not fit the crime. Discuss what you think determines whether or not punishment should fit the crime. Laws are designed to impose restrictions on ones’ actions in order to protect the safety and rights of other individuals. Crimes are considered to be actions that are against the law. As such, individuals are punished for committing such actions. Moreover, punishment for crimes is a form of negative punishment from a psychological perspective. The ideal goal of punishment is to deter an individual from repeating the crime again as well as to deter others from committing such a crime. Crimes can take various different forms and are committed on various different levels. For instance, shoplifting and murder are both forms of crime but the former is a small crime with a smaller potential for harm to others whereas, the latter is a large crime that hold significant potential for harm to others. Due to such variations in the form and scale of a crime, many believe that punishment should fit the crime. For example, Colonel Russell Williams held a high ranking position in the Canadian army. He was recently convicted for several counts of breakins into private property, theft of personal belongings, sexual assualt to various women and murder. He is an adult who also held a high ranking position in the army, thereby having the capacity to make appropriate decisions. Therefore, his punishment should fit the crime he has committed. In fact, he was recently convicted of all charges and was courtmarshalled from his position in the army, and has been placed behind bars for life. On the other hand, it is not always necessary for the punishment to fit the crime. This is especially true if the crime has been committed by a child, under the age of 18. In the western society, individuals under the age of 18 are not considered to be mature enough to be able to make appropriate decisions. Therefore, the Youth Justice Act and the Restorative Justice System in Canada often uses alternative measures of punishment for youth who have committed a crime, regardless of the nature and degree of the crime committed. Such youth are allowed to live within a social setting of a community, attend school and alternative forms of punishment including community service hours are often used. In this case, youth under the age of 18 are not considered to have the capacity to be able to make appropriate decisions. Thus, these youth are afforded the opportunity of a second chance to learn from their mistakes and to reintegrate back into society. In conclusion, punishment for a crime is necessary to deter the individual from repeating the crime as well as to deter others from attempting to commit such a crime. For a punishment to be fair, it should fit the crime. This is especially true for adults since they hold the ability to make appropriate decisions and should be held accountable for their actions. This was seen in the case of Colonel Russell Williams who was charged and convicted for breakins into private property, theft of personal belongings, sexual assault and murder of numerous women. He has been punished for his actions since he has been court-marshaled from his position in the army and has been placed behind bars for life, without parole. In this case, Colonel Williams is an adult who held a high status position in the Canadian army which illustrates that he had the capacity to make appropriate decisions. Therefore, his punishment should fit the crime as was seen in his conviction. In contrast, it is not necessary for the punishment to fit the crime if that crime is committed by a child, under the age of 18. Children do not have the capacity to make appropriate decisions and they should not be held accountable for their actions. The Youth Justice Act and the Restorative Justice System in Canada provides youth under the age of 18 who have committed a crime with a second chance. As such, their punishment does not necessarily need to fit the crime they have commited, but rather provide them with the opportunity of a second chance to improve and reintegrate back into the community. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacemaker Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 -Clicked- Governments have the duty to impose social responsibilities on businesses. Describe a specific situation in which government should not impose social responsibility on a business. Discuss what you think determines when governments should impose social responsibilities on businesses and when they should not. Governments have been put into place to ensure the safety, well-being and best interests of a majority of individuals in society. Moreover, businesses are operated with a goal of maximizing profits. However, businesses also hold many social responsibilities including ensuring welfare of the citizens in the community in which it serves. Therefore, since government holds an authoritative power, it is the government’s duty to impose social responsibilities on business. The government should impose social responsibilities on large scale businesses that have a profound presence within the community and also holds the potential to make a significant contribution to society. For example, Tim Hortons is a large scale business in Canada that specializes in fast food. It has a branch on every major corner in Canada. Moreover, it also makes billions of dollars in profits annually. Thus, it holds a significant potential to affect society and it is the government’s duty to impose social responsibilities on such a business. Some examples of social responsibilities include meeting appropriate health and safety standards and to also play a major role in comminity programs. As a result, Tim Hortons sponsors and funds kids camps during the summer and kids ice hockey during the winters. It also strives to provide good quality food and beverages that meet the health and safety standards as stated by the Food Inspection Agency in Canada. On the other hand, governments should not impose social responsibilities on small scale businesses. These businesses include those that do not have a profound presence within a given region and make small amounts of profits. Thus, they do not hold a significant potential of influencing the community. One such example is that of Rabba Foods which is a small scale grocery store with a few branches in selected parts of Ontario. This company makes a modest amount in profit and thus, does not hold the potenial to greatly affect the community at large. In fact, many Canadians are not even aware of such a business due to its relative small scale. In conclusion, governments hold social, economic and political ties with many businesses. As such, it is the duty of the government to impose social responsibilities on the businesses, on the behalf of the citizens. This is especially true in the case of large scale businesses that hold great presence and potential to affect society. This was clearly seen in the example of Tim Hortons that has a profound presence in Canada and makes billions of dollars annually. Thus, it is the government’s responsibility to impose social responsibilities on this large scale business to ensure that ceratin safety and health standards are met and that community programs are also funded. On the other hand, government should not impose social responsibilities on small scale businesses that do not have a profound presence in a given region and does not have significant monetary tunrovers. This was clearly seen in the example of Rabba Foods which is a small scale grocery chain in some parts of Ontario. It has a few franchise branches and makes a modest amount in profit. Thus, it does not hold a significant potential to affect the community at large. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey's Anatomy Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 -clicked- Thanks PastaInhaler! Citizens who enjoy a country’s benefits during peacetime have a responsibility to support their nation in times of war. 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 citizens might justifiably not support their nation in time of war. Discuss what you think determines whether or not citizens should support their nation in time of war. Citizens of a democracy often enjoy a nation's benefits during peacetime. These include security and welfare in the interest of country's citizenry as a whole. As a common adage suggests, "A relationship involves give and take." In this context, the mutual relationship between citizens and the government should not only involve receiving benefits, but also providing support. It is often the responsibility of the constituents to support their nation in wartime. A war that is intended to provide security or protect of individuals' human rights who are living in poor and helpless situations deserves the support of citizenry in their country. For instance, one of the reasons for the War in Afghanistan is to protect the citizens of the nation from the harsh living conditions under the Taliban. The human rights of many individuals are violated. Consequently, citizens of a privileged and powerful nation have a duty to support their nation in order to improve living conditions in another country. The support of citizenry towards the government to engage in war in order to protect others from harm reflects performing our responsibility. As a result, citizens who enjoy a country's benefits during peacetime, such as security and protection of rights and freedoms, have a responsibility to support their nation in a war intended to protect others internationally. Although citizens have a duty to support their nation in certain times of war, there are instances when citizens might justifiably not support their nation in wartime. The onset of war is often characterized by disturbance of peace and tranquility. When the harmony among some citizens of a nation is disrupted, the other citizens do not have a responsibility to support their nation. For instance, during the American Civil War, conflict between certain groups spread throughout the country, endangering citizens who may or may not choose or want to be involved. Supporting the nation during this time meant that the citizens were putting themselves in danger and jeopardizing their welfare. As a result, they do not have a responsibility to support their nation in this context, as they would be further propagating the negative effects of war and conflict. Supporting the nation in wartime would mean greater disorder and movement away from peace and harmony. During peacetime, citizens of a nation enjoy many benefits that are often neglected during wartime, such as security and protection of human rights. When a nation intends to interfere in an international conflict in order to preclude violation of rights and freedoms of individuals, citizens of the country have a responsibility to offer their support. Their support, in this circumstance, would improve the quality of life of many suffering individuals. Conversely, when a civil war erupts within a nation, citizens do not have a duty to support their nation, as this would risk their own welfare and security. As a result, citizens who enjoy a country's benefits during peacetime have a responsibility to support their nations in times of war intended to protect and support the vulnerable and defenseless. On the contrary, citizens do not have a duty to support their nation in times of civil war that threatens the security and welfare of the citizens themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey's Anatomy Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 -clicked- Thanks again In business, competition is superior to cooperation. 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 cooperation might be superior to competition. Discuss what you think determines when competition is superior to cooperation in business and when it s inferior. People have explored the concept of competition versus cooperation for many years. The business world possesses many avenues, including those that are devoted to achieve technological progress, while others explore the realm of scientific progress. In some instances, competition is superior to cooperation in that it leads to better or more effective outcomes that benefit others. Competition in the technological and entertainment world often drives creativity, resulting in innovative ideas that contribute a novel idea to society. For instance, businesses in the gaming and entertainment industry often compete for designing new marketable and attractive products to consumers. As there is competition, different businesses continuously strive to make better and more appealing products. In 2010, Microsoft introduced a new gaming and entertainment system for the XBOX 360 console called Kinect. This invention builds on the traditional approach to playing video games to integrate physical activity and exercise, not only promoting physical wellness but also creating a realistic gaming experience. Upon this popular invention, other businesses are now challenged to produce even more marketable and engaging products. Consequently, competition in this context encourages creativity for advancing society technologically. While competition in business is often superior to cooperation, there are instances when the contrary is true. Cooperation might be superior to competition when businesses or institutions share a common goal. For instance, billions of dollars are spent into research and development of treatments and a potential cure for the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Sharing of information and knowledge would lead to more effective results, avoid repeating mistakes, and minimize wasting limited resources. The common goal of improving the quality of life of individuals suffering from this debilitating ailment suggests that cooperation may in fact be superior to competition. Cooperation, or striving for collective progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS, may be superior to competing for success. As a result, when businesses or companies share a common goal to meet an urgent need in society, cooperation may be superior to competition. Businesses are often faced with the question of the superiority of cooperation versus competition. In some circumstances, such as when companies compete for inventing products that serve to satisfy the wants of consumers, competition may be superior. It would lead to creativity and invention of an array of products. Cooperation in this context would suggest that there is reduced incentive to continuously invent novel products that attract consumers, in order for the business to thrive. Conversely, when businesses and institutions share a common goal of improving the quality of lives of individuals who are in dire need, cooperation may be superior to competition. This would minimize wasting of limited resources and achieving results faster by sharing knowledge with one another. As a result, businesses that aim to fulfill the wants of consumers might benefit from competition, while those that hope to achieve a common goal would benefit from cooperation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 --clicked-- Great leaders are born, not made. Throughout history, several leaders have emerged who have revolutionized the world and made it the way it is now. These leaders either bring benefits or harm to humanity, but it can be safely argued that there are two types of leaders- leaders that are born, and leaders that are made. Leaders that are born have innate leadership qualities that cannot or were not developed through external means such as education. A great example of a natural born leader is George Washington. Washington only received formal education up until the age of 15. However, despite what he admits as a “defective education,” Washington had innate leadership qualities that allowed him to be arguably one of the best leaders the world has had. He became the first president of the United States and still remains the only president ever to have 100% of the electoral vote. As Commander in Chief, Washington led America to its victory against Britain in the American Revolutionary War and even aided in the development of the Constitution of the United States. As can be seen, as the leader of the United States, Washington achieved great success. This success, however, is attributed to his innate leadership qualities as opposed to his education. In contrast, there are leaders that are made and not born. Instead, these individuals develop leadership qualities through the education they receive. This education acts to equip them with the necessary tools to become a leader. A great example of a leader that is made is Martin Luther King. King, underwent extensive educational training to mold him into the leader he was. In addition to his primary education, King received training from the University of Pensylavannia, Boston, as well as the prestigious Harvard University. This examplorary education laid the foundation for him to become one of the most well spoken, influential leaders. As can be seen, King’s success as a leader is not attributed to his innate leadership qualities, but rather, through the training he acquired, molding him into leader that would change the world’s view on racial segregation. As discussed above, there are two types of leaders- those that are born with innate leadership qualities and those that gain leadership qualities through training via education. What determines whether leaders are born or made depend on the society in which they were raised. Washington was raised in a society in which schooling wasn’t as prominent and available as King’s era and thus, was primarily conducted privately at home. However, at the age of 15, upon the death of his father, who was also his teacher, Washington’s education ended. As such, Washington’s ability to be such a strong leader for the United States did not develop from educational training, but was instead, innate. On the opposite spectrum of the scale, King was raised in a society dominated by a high value placed upon education. As a result, King was encouraged and blessed to be able to attend several prestigious schools, training him to become an influential leader. However, it can be said that whether leaders are born or made, the ultimate goal of a leader is to create change. This can clearly be seen in George Washington and Martin Luther King. thanks You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. The essay shows coherence and clarity of thought. The examples are sufficient, but remember to include Jr. at the end of Martin Luther King, as in Martin Luther King Jr. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangy Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 -Clicked!- Hello PastaInhaler! I hope everything is well with you. I completed an MCAT today and would like your critique of my written samples. I appreciate your help! Prompt 1: Most advertising is designed to prevent consumers from making rational choices. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe what you think determines whether or not advertising prevents consumers from making rational choices. Nowadays, fitness is an important part of our society. It influences how we feel about ourselves. If one is physically fit, then the individual is often emotionally stable. Conversely, if the individual is overweight, then he or she is often emotionally unstable - unhappy about the way they look. Some business companies use this to their advantage, advertising their fitness prorgam to primarily profit off of the consumers. For example, Beach Body is a company that advertises fitness programs on the Television, including Insanity, that lure the consumer into buying their product. Some of their mechanisms include telling the consumer how hard it is for them to find time to exercise in the gym, and how easy it is for them to lose weight by buying their product. In fact, they promise that the consumer will lose weight in a smaller amount of time compared to natural way of going to the gym and working out under the supervision of a professional trainer - the rational choice. Lured by the amount of weight that the consumer can expect to lose in as little time as 10 minutes per day for 10 weeks, compared to the usual 1 hour in the gym, the consumer sometimes makes the rash choice of buying the product, even though it is the irrational choice. However, there are advertisements on the Television as well, particularly targeted towards the youth, to participate in activities with no mention of a particular program that they can enroll in. These advertisments are mainly made by the government trying to increase the participation of youth in physical activities to halt the increasing numbers of child obesity cases. For instance, participaction, which is made by the government, advertises the importance for youth to participate in activities. A common advertisment seen on the Television is one where a group of children are trying to reach the Ice Cream truck, but they were slow runners and they got tired easily. At the end of the advertisment a message is illustrated on the screen that advocates for the well being of youth. Evidently, there are instances of advertisements that might help consumers - those who watch TV and are the target of the advertisement - to make more rational choices towards their well being. It is especially the case when the advertisement does not promote a particular product for the consumer to purchase. Therefore, whether a company is advertising their own product or a government that is advertising for the well being of its citizenry, the advertisments will have different focuses. The former will focus primarily on making profit and the latter will focus on increasing the life expactency of its citizens. It would follow, therefore, that if an advertisement is made by a business company compared to a non for profit organization, then the advertisement will be designed to blind the consumer from methods that are more rational and instead, highlight their own product to make profit. The opposite is true - if a non for profit organization is advertising, then the content of the advertisement will tend to motivate a consumer to make the rational choice towards their own well being. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Prompt 2: No country should interfere with the internal politics of another country Describe a specific situation in which a country might justifiably interfere with the internal politics of another country. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a country should interfere with another country's internal politics. Compared to historical times, nowadays there are more independent nations than colonies. Countries fought to become politically independent from an empire in order to become able to govern themselves, instead of working for the good of one political body. As a result of their political independence, most countries often do not expect nor want outside interference with the country's politics, such as voting. For instance, the United States of America (USA) is known today for its major role in international affairs. It is now involved in a war in Afghanistan, a civil war in Libya and recently finished a war in Iraq. Most of the USA citizens report that the USA should not interfer with the politics of other countries because they have their own citizens and they are indepedent. Therefore, it is expected that they should be able to govern themselves. That is why the USA citizens want the troops in Afghanistan to pull out, because USA has been involved in the war for at least a decade in order to help Afghanistan become a more developed and democractic nation. Since Afghanistan has not changed much compared to the beginning of the war, and the USA debt has been increasing, crippling the USA economy, the USA citizens feel that no country should interfer with the internal politics of another country. However, when the media reports the rise in numbers of innocent men, women, and children dying because of a civil war, it becomes more justifiable for a country to interfere with another's internal politics. This is one of the reasons why the United Nations has been established, and it is to ensure that inhumane activities, like the holocaust and darfur genocide, should not occur and if they do, prevented as soon as possible. A case in point would be the Libyan civil war. Initially, USA was hesitant to get involved, and remained outside of the country's conflict. However, as the death toll of innoncent civilians have been reported in the media, journalists being attacked, a woman raped, and citizens of many nations protesting for their nation to be involved, many countries, including the USA, sought to help out the rebels against the Ghaddafi government's tyranny reigme. As a result, it is not a fixed law that a country can never interfer with another's internal politics. In fact, the United Nations was made to ensure that if inhumane activities were taking place, then by law, interference is allowed. In conclusion, a few guidelines can be made as to when a country is justified in its involvement in the internal politics of another country and when it should not. Firstly, if there are no civil conflicts or inhumane activities taking place in a country, then there is no justification as to why a different country should interfere. The opposite is true. If there are genocides taking place or mass racial discrimination, then other countries are more justified in their action to interfer with the country's politics and stop the inhumane activities and promote peace. This is exemplified by the USA involvement in the Libyian civial war. Secondly, if the citizens themselves protest seeking international involvement, then their call should be heard by the international arena and answered. Otherwise, a country interfering with another country's politics without a legitimate justifiable reason as mentioned should not be involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangy Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 -Clicked!- again for my second prompt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 --clicked---In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective. Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to be objective in the recording of history. Discuss what you think determines when objectivity in the recording of history is possible and when it is not. When recording history, we aim to give the unfiltered truth of what has occurred. By giving the most accurate description of what has happened, without any of our analysis, we are not being objective in our accounts of history. History is indeed synonymous with the truth, and the truth is not objective - it has no inherent biases when recording. Thus, when the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective. One example in history was during 1600 B.C., where the the Chuktulu had recorded the history of a war between two neigbouring tribes. The Chuktulu had declared itself to be a neutral party when war had begun between the Quatunua and the Chronluki tribes in what is now modern day Mexico. Through various pictures displayed in the caves of the Chuktulu, the people of this tribe were able to give an accurate account of the war, without giving any inherent biases. Many people of this tribe did not have any family nor friends in both of the tribes at War, and so they were able to give an accurate rendition of the outcome of the war. As a result, their depictions of the war as history are considered unobjective as they merely described the events which ensued, and did no base their perspectives on either one of the tribes at war. There are instances; however, when the recording of history remains objective. Often times when a country gives an account of an event, there are some inherent biases or opinions which affect the way the history is told. For many citizens in a country, these stories or accounts of history are a source of national pride, which help depict patriotism and dedication to their country. For instance, during the war of 1500 between the Persians and the Spartans, it has been recognize that the war had lead to a stalemate, with equal casualties lost on each side. Both nations in the end, had to withdraw their forces from the battle. Yet, generation after generation, the Persians tell the story of how this was a great triumphant victory for the Persians over the Spartans. This example demonstrates that sometimes it is possible to be objective when giving an account of history. What determines whether or not the recording of history is objective or not, depends on who is recording and giving the perspective. In the instance of the tribe of Chuktulu, who remained neutral during the great war of 1600 B.C., there were no alterior motives at play when presenting and recording the history of two neighbouring tribes. However, during the war of 1500's between the Persian's and Spartans, the Persians depict this war to be a triumphant victory because this is a story which they are proud of, and can show patriotism and or pride of their country. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. The essay has issues with coherence and integration. The examples that you provided are reversed. The conclusions that you draw from each example also do not match your arguments. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 -Clicked-(Thanks again) Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers’ weakness. Just like the natural world, the world of business is governed by Darwinian processes. Businesses can be seen as predators and the consumer as prey. Only the best adapted predators will succeed. In this way, businesses ensure their survival by targeting consumer weakness. This view of business describes a zero-sum relationship. In this zero-sum relationship, the business profits while the consumer is harmed. A classic example of a predatory business would be Phillip Morris, of the tobacco industry. This company sells cigarettes and other tobacco products. It is widely know that tobacco products cause numerous serious health issues and are highly addictive. Phillip Morris is a very profitable company that owes it's success to a terrible consumer weakness, tobacco addiction. Indeed, Phillip Morris and tobacco companies in general profiteer by targeting and utilizing consumer weaknesses. Fortunately, the world of business is not only built upon zero-sum relationships. Not all business relationships flourish at the expense of the consumer. In fact, some businesses are based upon encouraging a customer's strength. A relationship in which both parties benefit can be described as a non-zero relationship. For example, Hazelden Press is a publishing company that specializing in printing addiction recovery and meditation books. These products are very cheaply priced and readily available. Hazelden is a very successful company that produces and distributes a large volume of material. Hazelden Press has succeeded because it utilizes and enhances consumers' strengths rather than weaknesses. Clearly, businesses can flourish by taking advantage of consumers weaknesses; however, a successful business can also be based upon consumer strengths. Indeed, it is apparent that the nature of the product that the business deals in determines whether or not the business operates by taking advantage of consumer weakness. Tobacco products are harmful and addictive. Due to the harmful nature of this product, businesses that deal in this product, such as Phillip Morris, succeed through taking advantage of consumer weakness. Conversely, recovery literature is a helpful product and businesses that deal in this product, such as Hazelden Press, find success without taking advantage of the customer. Survival of the fittest dictates that only the most successful companies will last. Companies can find success through zero-sum tactics such as targeting customer weakness. Alternatively, businesses survive by utilizing non-zero business models that foster consumer's strengths. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of clarity, and complexity of thought. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQ/RST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 -clicked- Wealthy politicans cannot offer fair representation to all the people. As a general historical trend, the best political leaders are the ones who represent the people in the truest way possible: by sharing their hardships, suffering in their pains, and rejoicing in their triumphs. It is important for a politician to be able to understand the situation his people face because from this understanding he can offer fair representation to the people by making decisions the people themselves would make, which is the defining factor of an effective democratic leader. From this generalization, it can be argued that politicians who are wealthy may have difficulty representing the majority of their people because the majority are, unfortunately, not wealthy. Without an innate understanding of the needs of a large number of his or her constituents, it is likely that the leader will fail in their political endeavors. It is for this reason that each citizen’s vote, regardless of his or her income, is given the same weight at the polls, so as to eliminate the chances of this happening. Politicians who are less wealthy, like the majority, often have more support from their people and are, as a result more effective leaders because they are able to offer fair representation to their people. For example, during the Russian Revolution of the early twentieth century, an ordinary citizen of little wealth or political standing rose to power in one of the most popular leaderships the country has seen to date. Vladimir Lenin was beloved by the oppressed Russians because he too was oppressed and he felt the hardships that his fellow citizens also faced. The Russian Royal family, the Romanovs, did not survive the revolution because of their complete removal from the suffering of their people. There are exceptions to this rule, however, especially in the United States, where money and education come hand in hand, and uneducated political representatives are few and far in between. The former President of the United States, George Bush is a great example of a person of wealth leading a nation successfully and with the support of the majority. George Bush was born into a wealthy family and attended an Ivy League school, unlike the majority of Americans. Despite his wealth, George Bush was able to lead fairly and represent the majority of Americans, perhaps because he was highly educated. What, then, determines if a nation is better led by a poor, but courageous comrade or a wealthy American aristocrat? Both the time period and the leader’s level of education come into play. In the modern world, political leaders are expected to be educated at the highest level in order to afford their people the best decision making and fairest representation. Unfortunately, in most nations, education does not come without a price. This creates a paradox of sorts in that today’s leaders come mostly from at least a minimal amount of wealth, which is not representative of the majority. Education, however, enables these wealthy politicians to make informed decisions for both the wealthy and the poor, and so a compromise can be struck between these two opposing ideologies, resulting in a fair representation for all. Thanks You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. Issues with coherence, organization, and integration. There is an issue with your examples. The first example is in conflict with the prompt, or does not respond to the prompt, yet you try to use it to illustrate the prompt. You must use a wealthy politician as an example, not one who is "less wealthy." The second example with, I presume, George W. Bush (not Sr.) is not explained well enough and seems to have a logical issue. You argue that most people are not wealthy nor educated, yet because George W. is educated, he relates to the majority of Americans. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 --clicked--- thanks, I really appreciate someone marking these essays Persons who have political power should exercise that power to benefit others, not themselves. Describe a specific situation in which it might be justifiable to exercise political power for personal benefit. Discuss what you think determines when it is appropriate to exercise political power for personal benefit. "With great power, comes great responsibility." In today's modern society, great leaders are marked by their ability to act altruistically - and make decisions which benefit majority of the population. As such, their political power - their ability to influence governmental policy and laws should reflect the interest of the people, that the individual is serving, and should not be for personal gains. For example, Stephen Harper, a Prime Minister of Canada serving from 1990-1998 was heralded as "one of the greats" by the people - as he made sweeping changes to the government policy, which represent the will of many Canadian citizens. Using his political power, Harper was able to act in a way in which many Canadians benefited, as he made reforms in the education system, and was able to implement a foreign policy which removed domestic companies from direct competition with foreign companies. During his time in office, many people recognized him as a great leader, because he served as a selfless leader, who acted in a manner which best served the Canadian citizens at the time. There are instances; however, where it may be justifiable to use political power in a non-altruistic manner, which serves our personal interest. Being in a position of power may allow an individual to achieve personal goals that may not be otherwise attainable. For instance, Mary Fledgings, a mother of two was the mayor of Barrie during 1992-1994. She decided to run as the Mayor for Barrie because she wanted to make changes in the town policy, which would put in jail those who were guilty of drunk driving accidents. As her son had been a victim in a drunk driving accident, she felt compelled to rise to power in her town, and use her personal experience and power to make changes in the town legislation such that the perpetrators who had killed her son would be punished, and served time in jail. The perpertrators served as an example of what could happened and help to prevent further accidents of drunk driving from occuring. Although others directly benefited as a result of her policies, it should be noted that the use of her political power was motivated by personal reasons. Thus, in excercising her political power to make changes in the town policy of Barrie, she demonstrates an instance where it is justifiable to excercise political power to confer a personal benefit. Therefore whehter or not it is appropriate to excercise political power for personal benefit depends on the consequences of the action, and how it ultimately benefits others in society. Stephen Harper's use of power, on the other hand demonstrates the responsible use of power, which best served the interest of others in society. As seen in the case of Mary Fledgings, although the political power bestowed upon her was used for personal benefit - to seek retribution from those who had killed her son in a drunk driving accident. Her changes in legislation also helped others in society in the process, by reducing the number of drunk driving accidents. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Responds to the tasks in a superior manner. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan19 Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 --clicked-- In politics, loyalty always shifts. Describe a specific situation in politics where loyalty might not shift. Discuss what you think determines when political loyalty will shift and when it will not. In a democratic society, the loyalty of citizens of a nation to political candidates constantly shifts. With new political candidates on the rise, new ideas are continually to being expressed, and as a result individuals tend to support candidates which are currently popular. Candidates who are elected by the public may lose the public favor when they are unable to deliver the goals guaranteed by the individual prior to election into office. Additionally, if political candidates are unable to improve current conditions in the country, this may disfavoured by the public. Thus, in politics the loyalty to the candidates by the public always shifts. One example which demonstrates the rapid shift of the public perception's of a political candidate is the current candidacy of Barack Obama, serving as the President of the United States of America. Prior to the election, the United States economy was encountering it's biggest economic recession in history, and the morale of American citizens were at an all time low. The Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, arrived on the scene, and delivered hope to the American people. His political campaign centered around the notion "Yes, we can" and promised the American people that he could deliver and pull American out of the economic depression they were encountering. He proposed a long term economic policy aimed to do so, and made a list of promises that would be done, upon being elected into office, such as getting rid of the prison, Guantonomo Bay. Since his debut into office; however, the public favour of President Obama has declined. It has been two years since his election into office, and the US economy is more stagnant than ever. Furthermore, the economy policy, as proposed by Obama is failing, as the monetary injections have put further strain on the American economy. Promises by Barack Obama have not been fulfilled, as the presence of the Guantonomo Bay still exists. As a result, public favour of Obama had declined steadily since his election into office, plummeting from 60% to 35% of the total American population. Obama was unable to deliver in his goals and promises of bringing the nation of America out of the economic crises endured, and as a result political loyalty changed. There are instances; however, when the loyalty of the public does not shift. When political candidates are successful in improving conditions for the citizens of a nation, and deliver in their promised goals, they do not lose the favour of the public. One example of this is Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who served time in office from 1992-2000. In running for Prime Minister, Harper promised Canadians that the quality of life in Canada would be tremendously improved. Throughout the time in office, he was able to pass several legislature policies and laws, all of which made the lives of Canadians better. He enacted in education reforms, made appropriate changes to the health care which would better provide for families, and made changes in Canada's foreign policy such that domestic firms no longer had to directly compete with foreign firms. Many Canadians acknowledge that he did a solid job in the time in his office, and public favour of him as Prime Minister was maintained at 70% of the total population of Canada. Thus, when a political candidate is able to improve the conditions of a nation, and deliver on the goals promised prior to being elected, public loyalty is not lost. Therefore, in politics, public loyalty towards a political candidate changes depends on whether or not that individual elected into office is able to make changes which benefit the citizens of a nation. As seen in the case of President Obama, he was unable to improve the stagnant economic conditions of the United States of America, or deliver in any of the promises he made prior to his election into office. As a result of such, he lost much of the public vote since his election into office, and public loyalty shifted against him. On the other hand, if a political candidate is able to improve the conditions of a nation, as seen in the case of Stephen Harper, loyalty does not shift. Through successful reforms during his time in office, Harper retained a steady level of public favour. lol sorry i use stephen harper all the time, he is like my go to example for everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 --clicked--- It is sometimes necessary to restrict individual freedom for the sake of social order. Since the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, individual freedom has been of utmost importance to all citizens in a society. As such, it is the responsibility of the government to uphold these rights. However, there have been times in history in which individual freedom has been curbed for the sake of social order. Social order can be described as the well being of society as a whole. If this social order is endangered in any way, drastic actions can be taken. This was seen in the October Crisis in 1970, most commonly known as the FLQ crisis. During this time, Quebec nationalists and FLQ members captured and held hostage government officials and endangered the public by detonating several bombs in mailboxes. These events raised fears amongst Canadians of a militant terrorist organization rising up against the Canadian government. As more Canadians were injured while simultaneously, social ordered spiraled out of control, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the current Prime Minister of Canada, enacted the War Measures Act. This act effectively curbed all individual freedom and civil liberties including the right to habeas corpus. The police were granted far reaching powers, allowing them to detain and arrest citizens without charge, who were suspected of collaborating with the FLQ. Furthermore, Canadian military were posted on the streets of Quebec to help enforce and assist the police. In the end, peace and order was restored with several FLQ members arrested. As can be seen in the October Crisis, in order for society to be protected and social order to be under control, individual freedom had to be curbed under the War Measures Act. However, as mentioned earlier, individual freedom, including freedom of speech, is a right all citizens of society treasure. When society is not endangered, it is the government’s job to uphold these human rights. This is why in democratic societies, peaceful protests are allowed. As long as these protests do not endanger the public, and serve only to convey the thoughts, opinions, and beliefs of individuals in the group to leaders in power, protests are legal. A prime example of this is the Gay and Lesbian protests that occurred around North America, including Canada. These groups sought to express their belief in equality amongst all individuals, whether they were homosexual or heterosexual. Ultimately, these protests, conducted under the banner of freedom of speech, led to the legalization of same sex marriage in Canada. Evidently, as long as organized events do not harm the society as a whole, individual freedom is upheld. What determines whether individual freedom is protected or curbed for the sake of social order depends solely on whether the acts committed endanger the society as a whole. In the October Crisis, FLQ members committed crimes that injured and even killed Canadians. As a result, Trudeau was forced to enact the War Measures Act to curb individual freedom in order to more quickly reconcile the situation and bring social order back to Quebec. In contrast, if acts such as peaceful protests conducted by the Gay and Lesbian Community, do not harm and endanger society, individual freedom is upheld by the government. This could be seen by the allowance of protests by citizens and the eventual legalization of same sex marriage in Canada. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of clarity, and complexity of thought. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Remember to spell out what FLQ stands for, even if it is in French. If you decide not to do so, then immediately after you bring up FLQ, mention what they are and what they are fighting for. Also, remember to explain anything that is in another language, i.e. the Latin phrase that you included. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQ/RST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ameltingbanana Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 Hi there, clicked. Thanks again very much for taking a look: Voters should not be concerned about a political candidate’s personal life. Any politician running for public office faces a challenge: He or she must be open and transparent with the voters of the riding in order to gain their trust and honesty, but at the same time there may be aspects of their lives they would prefer to keep under wraps. Consider a Western politician, running for office with no history of wrongdoing or suspicious behaviour. Should the public be concerned about banal things such as what television shows he prefers and if his favourite pastime is something like riding a motorbike? Such investigations are unwarranted intrusions into the privacy of an individual and can be detrimental to his campaign by turning away swing voters who focus on these issues that are ultimately irrelevant to his political prowess. However, there are times when intrusion is warranted. Consider the case of Anthony Weiner, an American politician who recently had explicit pictures of himself leaked to the Internet. Further examination revealed details of salacious text messages to other women, and the fact that he lied and was the one who posted the images. Such behaviour is, to say the least, unbecoming of a married man or a politician.. A look into the private life may help the public understand why these actions were committed, whether, in this case, due to an unsavoury disposition of character or perhaps something forgivable like stress and overwork. In this case, the scrutiny would help out the individual and the public: the former by offering him a chance to redeem his image, and the latter by offering them a chance to correct a misperception. The factor that differentiates these two scenarios then, is their record of action as accountable to the voters. Intrusion should be a responsive measure, not a preemptive one. Operating under the premise of innocent until proven guilty, an individual with no history or indication of malicious deeds should not have their privacy shattered. He or she has done no wrong or set off any alarm bells, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. But if one has demonstrated a history of misdeeds and suspicious behaviour, the public has the right to know the background of the deed, to better judge him. By abusing the trust that the voters have placed in him, the politician in this case has to answer to his constituents. A candidate's personal life is undoubtedly as precious to them as to any other person, but politicians run on a system of public accountability and honesty. The notion of privacy is forfeited when the public's trust is misappropriated or lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan19 Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 --clicked-- For a politician, honesty is the surest route to failure. Describe a specific situation in which a politician's honesty might not lead to failure. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a politician's honesty will lead to failure. I decided to go with a different format, 4 paragraphs instead of 3 In a democractic government, power has been given to the people - they have the freedom to elect whom they feel would best serve their interest in the government. As such, public perception of a political candidate is very important, as the citizens of a nation can decide ultimately who is elected into office. In politics, honesty - telling the truth - is often seen as a weakness. Often times, when a political candidate is honest, the individual publicly acknowledges that he or she has made a mistake, and this can be construed by the citizens of the nation as a failure. As a result, this will lead to the candidates failure - he or she will lose public loyalty, and support of the individual as a political candidate will fall. Thus, a political candidate's honesty often leads to his or her downfall. One example which demonstrates how honesty leads to failure is exemplified by George Lapierre, during his time served as the mayor of Quebec during 1992. When Lapierre was first elected into office, he promised the citizens of Quebec that at the end of his term in office, he would make strides in the government which would recognize the French culture as unique, and seek to seperate Quebec seperate from the country of Canada. As the end of his term neared; however, Lapierre was unable to fulfill many of the promises he set forth to do prior to being elected, and many of the Quebec residents were sorely dissapointed with the candidate they had elected into the government. Lapierre had made a statement in how he willingly acknowledged that he failed the French people, admitting that he had not been true to his promises, but that he learned from his mistakes, and would better represent the French people next time in office. However, this honesty was seen by the Quebec people as a sign of weakness, and failure of such a political candidate. The public believed that Lapierre's wilingness to acknowledge his failures in politics represented a candidate that they could not support, and would not continue to vote for him. As a result, during the next election for the mayor in Quebec, Lapierre had lost the majority of the public vote in Quebec. This instance serves as an example where the honesty of a political candidate lead to his ultimate failure as a political candidate. There are instances; however, in which the honesty of a political may not lead to his or her downfall. For example, when Simon Giuelles was running for Mayor in British Columbia during 1997, many of his political enemies had dug up dirt on him and had submitted it to the press. He recieved much ciriticism as it was discovered that he had been in jail during his teen years. In a public conference, Giuelles had willingly admitted that he had been in jail. He had described the hardship he had faced as a trouble teen, having no sense of direction, yet he was able to convince the public that through such experiences he had learned from it, and had developed many qualities through it such as perserverence and integrity. As a result of such, many of the voters in the province of British Columbia were sympathetic with his story, and they believed that this experience demonstrated the potential of Giuelles being a strong political candidate. Giuelles was honest with his past, and he was able to use such an experience in his past a source of strength, to foster a better public image among the people. In doing so, he was overwhelmingly elected into office in 1998. Thus, a political candidate's honesty will lead to failure or not is determined whether or not his or her honesty has to do with the mistakes or failings during the time they have served in office. Lapierre was honest with the mistakes that he had made during his time in office with the Quebec people, and as a result, the people saw this as a sign of weakness, and an inability to represent the Quebec people. In this instance, Lapierre utlimately failed as a result. On the other hand, Guielles was honest with his upbringing, and how he was a troubled youth and spent time in jail. This honesty was not during his time in office, and from this experience people saw this as one which represent how this individual had developed. As a result, Giuelles was able to use this to his favour, and succeeded politically by gaining the votes of the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asta Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 -clicked- Thanks so much Pasta! Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interacation. Technology is advancing at a rapid rate, and this pervades most aspects of human life. Technology can be defined as a tool, developed by people. Human beings are highly social creatures, and the area of communication has been greatly affected technological advancements. Communication technology can refer to many things, from the very basic pen and paper to the highly advanced cellular phone and computing devices and software that are prevalent today. Sadly, as communication technology advances, the quality of human interaction as facilitated by this technology decreases. Text messaging has become a common method of communication. Text messaging has led to 'txt tlk', which is a grammatically imprecise use of language. In order to use the least number of characters, vowels are often dropped and sometimes digits are used in their place. To an individual who is not well versed in 'txt tlk', the messages can be incomprehensible. To compound matters, the text message also reduces the quality of communication because fine aspects such as tone cannot be conveyed. When used to convey every day information, as a primary source of communication, the quality of communication suffers greatly. Indeed, these advances in technology have led to a decrease in the quality of human interaction. However, in some situations, communication has been enhanced by utilizing advances in communication technology. For example, internet social media services, such as facebook and Twitter have been integral in the facilitation of communication between individuals in the repressive countries fighting for democracy. The recent successful protests and revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia were made possible by social media, which allowed the protestors to communicate with each other and with the outside world. Indeed, social media has given a voice to the oppressed in Syria, because members of the public can post pictures and video to social media of government abuses. By using social media, these citizens can prove government abuse even when the government denies this abuse. Clearly, by giving voices to oppressed and by allowing protestors to communicate with each other, these advancements in communication technology have improved the quality of human interactions. In some situations, advanced communication technology has decreased the quality of social interaction, while in other situations, this same technology has greatly enhanced the quality of human communication. It is the situation which determines whether communication technology enhances or inhibits the quality of communication. Generally, when the situation is mundane, and people are using lazy 'txt tlk' simply to discuss unimportant matters, technological advances have decreased the quality of human interactions. When advanced communication technologies such as social media are used to allow protestors to communicate, or to give voice to the oppressed, this technology enhances the quality of human interaction. The situation determines whether communication technology enhances or detracts to the quality of human interactions. In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. In a modern democratic society, any citizen who meets certain eligibility criteria (such as age) can be a politician. Indeed, politicians are members of the societies that they serve. Politicians are granted power by the public that elects them. A politician that is well liked will general receive more votes, and the pubic often adores politicians who resemble ordinary people. The provincial Saskatchewan New Democratic Party is led by Dwain Lingenfelter. Mr. Lingenfelter has had a long and successful political career and is well liked by most citizens of Saskatchewan. His public image and his private life are very similar. Mr. Lingenfelter is a man with a strong sense of family values, who works hard and speaks his mind. Indeed, Mr. Lingenfelter portrays himself politically as an ordinary man who understands the needs of the province because he is a citizen, just like the rest of the public. Dwain Lingenfelter is a highly successful politician who strongly resembles the ordinary citizen in both public and private life. However, sometimes the most successful politicians do not bear much resembelance to an ordinary citizen. For example, Stephen Harper, the leader of Canada has often been advised to present an infallible public image. His political advisers even prohibited Stephen Harper from publicly sharing his piano playing hobby because it would make him look too 'human'. Stephen Harper's image was carefully crafted to show no human weakness. Evidently, the public respected the image that Mr. Harper created, and granted him power through the democratic electoral process. While some might contend that this image has made Stephen Harper appear too emotionally cold, the tactic has clearly been highly successful because Stephen Harper's Conservative Party has recently won a majority federal government. Indeed, some of the most successful politicians do not bear much resemblance to everyday citizens. In some situations politicians can find success through sharing their ordinary aspects, while in other cases, politicians are successful when they present an image that does not resemble an ordinary person. Whether presenting as an ordinary citizen will lead to success or not can be determined by the level of office that the politician is seeking. Dwain Lingenfelter is the leader of a provincial level party, and he has found success by resembling an ordinary citizen. In contrast, Stephen Harper is the leader of a federal party and his success can be at least partially attributed to his infallible public image, which does not have much in common with the typical Canadian. Indeed, there are likely additional factors which play into political success, such as how charismatic the leader is and various external social variables. That said, the level of office that is being sought greatly determines whether the politicians success will be enhanced or inhibited if the politician resembles an ordinary citizen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 Laws cannot change social values. -clicked- The laws of a nation generally reflect the overall belief system of the people—nations in which freedom and equality are supported tend to also enact laws to ensure that this freedom and equality are maintained. Social values, at their most fundamental level, are beliefs about what is right and wrong; these values are often accepted as the norm in a particular society because they are supported by a majority. Often, however, when laws and social values are not aligned, the beliefs of the majority prevail above the law. For this reason, legislation that does not reflect the beliefs of the people rarely holds. In the first half of the twentieth century, Prohibition was occurring in the United States. Alcohol and its sale were banned nationwide and those disobeying the law, when caught, were punished harshly. As a direct result of this, an underground market for the sale of alcohol became rampant across the country to the point where the majority of Americans continued to purchase and consume alcohol. Although the government attempted to put a stop to the use of alcohol, it failed miserably because the laws were unable to change the social values of society at the time. The social values of the Americans, which supported alcohol consumption, prevailed over the laws laid down by the government, and as a result alcohol is widely available in the United States today. Although social values are rarely shaken by government legislation, there are examples of laws put in place that have changed the face of American society permanently. When slavery was abolished in the late nineteenth century, it was met with fierce resistance, particularly from the Southern inhabitants of the United States, where slavery indeed existed as a fundamental social value. After years of being forced to obey this law, however, the Southerners began to see the error in their ways and the innate social values of the culture began to shift away from slavery and towards equality. Although this transition took years, and is indeed still occurring, the abolition of slavery can be deemed a success, as the majority of Americans today believe strongly in equality regardless of race. So what, then, determines the effectiveness a law will have in changing the social values of a society? The difference between the failure of Prohibition and the success of the abolition of slavery may lie in the direct welfare of the people and the right to freedom that all American citizens possess. Prohibition did not directly enhance the standard of living of Americans; in fact, it may be argued that it posed a threat to society with the increase in crime that was seen during this time period. In addition, alcohol use does not threaten the fundamental rights of the American people. The abolition of slavery, however, appeals to the humanitarian in everyone; according to the American constitution, each and every person has a right to be treated as equal. Without this legislation, African Americans were not exposed to the same standard of living as other Americans, and a direct threat to the safety of the slaves was evident. Essentially, social values can be changed by strong legislation, but only when these social values are in direct opposition of the safety, rights and freedoms of a group of people. Thanks You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of some clarity of thought and coherence. Task#1 was not adequately addressed. You will have to be more explicit about how laws are unable to change social values. For the example that you had in paragraph #2, you will need to elaborate more on the example, and how the law could not change the social values. What was so special about the social values that even the laws could not change them? You may need to consider the context (post-war), flappers, "roaring 20's" and the emerging culture and beliefs at that time. These are important themes that should be explored in a high-scoring essay since they provide the reason that explains why the laws had little effect in changing social values. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 -clicked- Thanks in advance! History is the record of humanity's wars. Throughout the course of human civilization the most prominent historical events have often consisted of direct physical violence between groups of people. Pivotal moments in history such as the unification of China, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, and the American Revolution were all achieved through war. The sheer scale of war, often tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers marching to battle against each other, is enough to explain its prominence in the major historical events of history. More importantly however, it was often the case that only through direct physical confrontation that significant political change could occur, as diplomacy can only go so far to satisfy the needs of two conflicting parties. The Opium Wars between the British and the Chinese in the mid-19th century are an example of where war has been the vessel of significant cultural, economic, and political change. Due to the Chinese Qing Dynasty’s policy of economic isolationism, which was based on a fear of foreign influence, major European powers such as the British Empire were denied an extremely lucrative source of trade. Confrontations between these two empires escalated, eventually resulting in the British Empire sending an expeditionary army that easily crushed the Chinese due to its vastly superior technology. Because of this war China was forced to cede Hong Kong to the British, open up trade to Europeans (Which included massive imports of highly-addicting opium), and thus began the Westernization of East Asia. The Opium Wars were arguably one of the most significant points of Chinese history, ending the isolationism of the Qing dynasty and opening up the country to European ideas and technology. It is clear that wars play a profound role in the shaping of human history. However there are undoubtedly major historical events that have had nothing to do with war, but of ideas. The Renaissance caused the resurgence of literature, art, and science not present in the medieval ages. The Enlightenment of the 18th century signaled a departure from the dominance of religion in society, and the beginning of a new era of scientific reason. The Industrial Revolution dramatically increased the average income and population around the world. The advent of new technology and the development of human rights are what continuously improve living conditions for humanity, enabling people to live longer and more fulfilling lives. Thus when one is considering the intellectual history of humanity, wars should not be used as a record, but the innovations in science and technology and the spread of rights and democracy. The American women’s suffrage movement in the early 20th century, for example, was a significant historical event that had nothing to do with wars but was nonetheless a turning point in history. Before this movement, the vast majority of women in the United States were unable to vote in one or more levels of elections. Consequently, in many ways they were second-class citizens compared to men. The success of this movement, due to the hard work of many men and women, resulted in democratic equality in all citizens of the United States, and was one of the greatest victories for human rights in American history. Whether or not history should be the record of humanity’s war depends on the type of history being considered. The geopolitical history of the world is clearly shaped by wars; wars shape the boundaries of nations, determine the type of government in a country, and affect the economic landscape of the world. However the history of thought describes the changes in humanity for the better from generation to generation, and consists of scientific research, technological innovation, and the improvement of human rights. Wars ultimately shape the political aspect of human history, yet science, technology, and democracy create the intellectual history of humanity which has had the greatest impact on the average citizen of this world. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity, and depth of thought. Ideas presented coherently. Ideas are well developed. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQ/RST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.