PastaInhaler Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Thanks again for marking the essays (clicked). That ripple thing is nifty, great idea on your part. Cheers The object of education should be to teach skills, not values. Education is often lauded as a means to a job or career, through the development of a specific skillset unique to the field. A highly specialized diploma program requiring a specialized skillset, such as a college plumbing certification would not be overly concerned with the plumber’s disposition and core values – the crux of the matter would be his ability to fix leaking or malfunctioning pipes. His core beliefs do not require amendment or alteration, because the career he chose requires him, above all, to wield his skills efficiently and knowledgeably in pursuit of leaks and hazardous plumbing. His beliefs are almost irrelevant to the job he must perform, and the education he receives must then reflect that. However, an education system focusing solely on skills does not cast a wide enough net to be considered an adage. In a field such as social work, where compassion and the desire to help your fellow human being is the currency of success, skills, though teachable, will matter little if the individual’s heart is not in the right place. Learning in such a context should seek to cultivate and impart these positive values, so that the right beliefs are in place for such a person to practice social work. The skills taught will only take properly if the right values are there to anchor them. These principles serve as the basis for a career founded on altruism and good nature, and a learning process reflecting and acknowledging this simple truth will see more success. What is so different about these two situations, then, that they should each require distinct processes of education? The differentiating factor is the purpose or desired societal impact of the student. The plumber’s end goal is to fix household and industrial leakages in pipes – this job requires meticulous skill over a system of values, and so the objective of his education will reflect that. A social worker must be able to empathize with her patients in a desire to improve their lot – to even stand a chance at such empathy, she must have a value system that aligns with such a goal. As a result, her education should focus on imparting specific values, rather than a specific skillset, on her, so that she may be successful in her chosen vocation. Education can then be considered mutable – depending on the ends in sight, it should seek to focus on objectives specifically tailored to the situation at hand. You're welcome. I'm glad you like the ripple.org idea. Helping them get more traffic and helping them help those in need of clean drinking water and food is worthwhile, and it's so easy to help. Thank-you for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of some clarity, and complexity of thought. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 -Clicked- In politics, money equals power. Politics refers to social relations between nations as well as relations between the governing authority and the citizens. In order for an individual or party to become successful in politics, it is highly important that they possess great power. In this case, power refers to having the rights to make decisions and to influence a great number of other individuals. As such, it is commonly believed that in the field of politics, money equals power. A more specific example is that of the G20 summit held in Toronto in 2010. During this summit, leaders from the 20 wealthiest nations were invited to discuss the issue of the recent recession. Some of the nations included Canada and the United States. These countries hold the greatest amouns of monetary wealth in comparisons to others around the world. At the same time, due to the monetary wealth, they are able to possess great amounts of power on a global scale. As such, these countries are known to be the most influential nations in the world. Therefore, this illustrates that great political, economic and social powers lie in the hands of the nations that have the greatest amounts of money, further equilibrating money with power. In contrast, it is not always necessary to view money as being equal to power. Many politicians and countries have been able to become successful despite of not having a huge sum of money. For example, Mahatma Gandhi played a major role in the uprising of politics in India. He was able to succeed due to his great leadership skills and strong moral values that included the route of non-violence towards attaining freedom and independance for India. Moreover, at the time of the British Rule in India, India was not considered as a major country in the world nor did it possess great sums of money. However, the country as a whole was able to protest against the British Empire and achieve freedom. Thus, when faced with a national crisis, other factors such as great determination on the part of the masses and strong moral values and leadership skills of the leaders can equal power despite of an absence of significant amounts of money. In conclusion, in the field of politics, power plays a major role as it determines the decision making capacities of various politicians and political parties. Thus, money can be equated to power when dealing with situations on a global scale. For example, the recent G20 summits in Toronto included meetings between the leaders of the 20 wealthiest nations around the world to dicuss the issues underlying the recent global recession. In this case, plans to recover from such recssions and other major decisions related to trade as well as sociopolitical ties between nations were discussed only by the leaders of the wealthiest nations. As such, when dealing with a crisis or concern on a global scale, money equals power and the wealthiest nations are granted the rights to making decisions. It is also important to note that such decisions inevitably effect a huge population of individuals around the world that also resides in poorer nations. On the other hand, when dealing with a national situation or crisis, other factors such as motivation, determination, leadership skills and moral values may be better indicators of power rather than money. This was illustrated in the example of India where the nation as a whole was able to aquire freedom and independance from the British Empire with the help of guidance and direction from great leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi. It is important to note that in the 1940’s, India was not a major country nor did it have significant wealth. Despite of such conditions, it was able to emerge as being one with great powers in the fight against the British Empire. Thanks! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Responds to the tasks in a superior manner. Ideas are substantially developed. Evidence of clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Good examples. A small issue regarding organization. A point that you addressed was how Canada and the United States had global influence in addressing the global recession. The essay would be more organized if you discussed this point early on in the essay instead of saving it for the end. This will allow you to remain more focussed in task#3 on clarifying conditions the prompt is true and under which circumstances it is false. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQR/ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 -clicked- Here's another one. Thanks a bunch! A nation's main concern should be to protect its international business interests. We live in an increasingly small global environment. In today’s era of fast communications, every country in the world can expect to experience a unique interconnectedness with its peers. Therefore, national economic decisions cannot be made solely on a closed internal system. A country must attempt to further its international business interests because that is the only way it can gain power on a global scale. It is, after all, the richest countries in the world that tend to make the most decisions - the G20 summit comes to mind here. Countries that seek to become forerunners in the international economy and heavyweights when it comes to international policy must allow their business sector to operate internationally. The competition with other companies that are foremost in their fields in the world serves as one of the most effective ways to keep an industry lean and clean. China knows this, and having its business compete on a global scale has been one of the government’s for a long time. Currently, the Chinese government controls 39 companies that are on the Forbes 500 list. Maintaining the status of these businesses and pushing other Chinese enterprises to join their fellows has been documented to be a deliberate policy of the Chinese government. China understands that in order to join other developed countries and become a global power, it must succeed economically on an international scale. Thus, one of the country’s priorities is to protect its international businesses. However, becoming a leading world power is not necessarily the first goal in mind of some other countries. While we may all believe and hope that sometime down the road every country in the world can make its claim to economic success, there are some that are simply not ready to bid for such high goals. For example, the temporary government that has replaced Mubarak’s in Egypt is currently more concerned with keeping the country away from ruin, maintaining the banks and the stock market, and trying to pick up the pieces of the revolution. They are frantically trying to piece together a short term plan to stabilize the country. Perhaps sometime in the future after immediate concerns are dealt with Egypt might turn once again outwards and hope to achieve its place on the global market, but for now the governments’ hands are full dealing with purely domestic liabilities. In such a situation, it is understandable if their primary concerns center more on establishing a minimum wage and raising taxes than creating and maintain international businesses. While some countries may be extremely concerned with carefully fostering their economic climate and maintaining industries that are powerful enough to operate in an international climate, others may be solely concerned for the interim with domestic matters. Whether or not the global economy is a priority for a country depends on their current goals. If problems are rampant within the country, then the government should focus more on fixing its internal issues before turning its eyes outwards. The Egyptian government, for instance, is doing just that. However, if there are no large domestic issues to address, then a country should attempt to expand its horizons and enter into the international sphere. That is the most reasonable next step. Countries that are ready for this step, such as China, must carefully plan and watch over its enterprises in order to ensure their success. In the end, a government’s domestic situation and long term goals determine which areas it should focus on. Governments should always want what’s best for their citizenship. What that is, however, varies depending on the country. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. You're welcome. Adequate control of language. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Ideas are somewhat developed. Ideas are presented in a coherent manner. A small organizational issue that can be easily corrected would be to mention China first in the final paragraph before mentioning Egypt as this will match the structure of your essay. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 -- clicked -- In education, the newest way is not always the best way. Education is an area that deserves avid attention. The abilities of the next generation, and therefore, the future, depends on receiving an excellent education. However, it is generally agreed that we have not yet arrived at an optimal formula for guaranteeing the best possible education for our children. This area is still considered to be 'in progress' - that is, we are constantly trying out new improvements and hoping that they will be beneficial. For example, the Ontario school board has recently decided to completely eliminate calculus from its high school curriculum because universities in Ontario have complained about the uneveness in quality of education throughout the province. However, what the school board should have considered before making such a monumental decision is that universities - even provincial ones - are integrating centers. Students attending a single university come from a diverse mix of hometowns ranging across the country and even the world. Thus, eliminating calculus from the program in Ontario will put the residents of that province at a distinct disadvantage when compared to other students who come from areas that have not decided to make this move. Furthermore, while Ontario universities all currently offer an introductory calculus course that is generally mandatory for all B.Sc. students, its quality is questionable. Some students, those from the States in particular, have AP courses in calculus under their belts and consider these courses far too easy. Others have never been exposed to the subject and can be completely overwhelmed. The teaching of calculus should have been left to high schools, where a teacher could provide more personalized and patient attention than a professor could ever hope to offer. Thus, in this situation, a bold new move made by the Ontario school board has in fact degraded the quality of education that is received by its students. However, new innovations are not always guaranteed to be detrimental. For example, in New York City there is a trend catching on of opening Charter Schools. These schools are publicly funded by privately run. They generally share space with pre-established public schools, but are considered separate. These Charter Schools are innovative in the sense that they are establishing new curriculums and methods of teaching that are more individualized because they do not have to cater to an entire state's worth of students. The Charter Schools have generally been successful; children who attend these schools tend to do better when tested compared to their public school peers. In this case, a new innovation has indeed led to a better quality of education because it provides more personalized care. Charter Schools, while still in their fledgling states, have substantial promise in the field of education in the future. The deciding factor that determines whether or not a new innovation can benefit a student's education is very simple. It is generally almost universally agreed upon that any child will benefit from more time and attention. This is even more true when we are discussing the child's education - children who are in smaller classes, whose teachers may provide them with more care, generally do better. Thus, when a new innovation seeks to give each student more time and to make their educational experience more individualized, as is the case in Charter Schools that attempt to use different curriculums than their public school counterparts, the standard of education is raised. However, when an innovation forces students to learn under conditions that provide no personalized care or attention, such as pushing the education of calculus into university lecture halls that are for the most part extremely depersonalized, then educational quality is decreased. Any innovation should therefore seek first and foremost to give its students more individual care, because doing this is the only way to make progress towards creating a better education for our children. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Ideas are somewhat developed. Ideas are presented in a coherent manner. A small organizational issue that can be easily corrected would be to mention the Calculus example first in the final paragraph before mentioning the Charter schools as this will match the structure of your essay. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 --clicked-- Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. An organization conducting business is an entity composed of workers working towards a similar goal. This goal usually involves making profit. How does entity achieve their goal? It does so usually by utilizing a consumer’s weakness. The tobacco industry for example is composed of many companies that all sell one thing. Their selling of cigarettes is how these companies survive and make profits. A cigarette contains compounds that are very addictive to the user. As soon as the user takes one, he or she needs another and another, and the user ends up spending $18 every day to buy cigarettes. The tobacco companies realize this very well that smoking is a weakness and they can make money off the users, and thus they sell these drugs legally. The profit earned by these organizations is done so on a short term. As soon as the resources are depleted, so are those companies. And therefore, the model of taking advantage of the consumer’s weakness is not followed by modern organizations. Economists have come up with theories that explain how companies like International Business Machines (IBM) survive. IBM was once a company that started by selling type writers, they later moved on to making and selling computers and have disbanded it recently. They now provide networking solutions to other businesses. How and why does a company like IBM survive even though their resources are gone, whereas a tobacco company will be gone as soon as government laws are changed to the resources are depleted? IBM and other long last profit making companies believe in and use Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). A company can only survives in society because of the people in that society, so therefore the company is in dept to the society. CSR states that a company is responsible for the society in which it succeeds. Throughout history, IBM has been conducting programs for the society. These programs include donating money to research and innovation, or providing their equipment to be used by societies, or even giving money to charity organizations. By doing this, IBM keeps the society, the stakeholders and the shareholders happy. This keeps IBM shares up and they company out of bankruptcy. Like IBM, there are many companies that use CSR to stay active for many years, as opposed to tobacco companies which will just die out as soon as the resources are gone. An organization can therefore succeed in two ways. One is by taking advantage of consumer weakness and than going bankrupt as soon as resources are scares, or they can use CSR to their advantage and induce shareholders to invest even more into the company. This way the company has enough money when it needs it the most and it can easily change its product. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Some issues with clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Some problems with integration. There were some issues related to the reasoning and explanation in the second paragraph of the essay, particularly as it pertains to your definition and usage of the term "resource." Task#3 was not adequately addressed, and you will need to more clearly: "Discuss what you think determines whether or not businesses take advantage of consumers' weaknesses in order to succeed." I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
in_hindsight Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 -clicked- Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns. Describe a specific situation in which environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority. Maintenance and protection of the environment has always been a primary value of many nations. This is commonly reflected not only in the political agenda of a nation but also in the explicit attitudes of its citizens. The environment impacts its inhabitants in several ways both directly and indirectly. For instance, a polluted environment can affect an individual’s health as well as their income if they depend on natural resources to sustain their livelihood. In addition, the environment can not only affect a single individual, but an entire population of individuals. It is for this reason, many nations put environmental concerns ahead of economic ones. For example, the recent earthquakes in Japan caused a nuclear meltdown of several nuclear reactors located in Fukushima. As a result, surrounding livestock and crops became contaminated with radiation. The government decided that it would be best to dispose of these resources than the sell them because it would endanger the lives of those consuming them. While the earthquake also severely affected the Japanese economy, the primary concern of the government was to take care of the eradiated environment to ensure the safety and health of its citizens. Conversely, there are situations during which economic concerns may take priority over environmental ones. These situations typically occur when an environmental concern has no immediate effect on the health and safety of the public. For example, in the late 1990s, nations around the globe agreed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. GHGs are known to degrade the ozone layer which can lead to increased rates of skin cancer—a disease that takes years to show symptoms. All participating nations except the United States supported this protocol. The American government said that reason for not supporting the protocol was that it would be too costly and would threaten future economic vitality. This is because ratification of the protocol required that new regulatory boards would have to be established to overlook the activities of all American corporations. In addition, imposing sanctions on corporations would hinder their productivity. Thus, economic concerns were of primary concerns to the American government because they were more of an imminent threat. Therefore, the degree to which an environmental concern affects the immediate health/safety of the public determines whether environmental issues take precedence over economic ones. Following the earthquake in Japan, millions of lives could have been threatened if the government did not act readily to limit nuclear fallout and to prevent the consumption contaminated livestock and crops. Millions of dollars had to be spent to ensure such measures were implemented. Thus, due to the immediacy of the nuclear threat on the lives of Japanese citizens, environmental concerns were given priority over economic ones. However, in the case of the Kyoto Protocol, the threat of ozone degradation on human health was not immediate. Therefore, the American government decided to put economic concerns ahead of environmental ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 -clicked- Thank you so much for your hard work and kindness! Developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to the underdeveloped nations of the world. It is out of respect for human life and the individual rights to food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, and peace that developed nations find their duty to provide aid to the underdeveloped nations of the world. The G8 summit is a yearly meeting in which the eight most developed countries in the world meet to discuss what strategies should be taken to effectively administer aid to underdeveloped countries. Realistically, the desirable amount of aid cannot be provided to each and every country so actions must be prioritized according to the costs and the benefits. The UN incorporates the support of many countries to provide military action in the form of UN peacekeeping missions. Each developed country is expected to provide a reasonable amount of aid to the best of their ability because of a moral standard that is expected of all the governments of the world: respect of individual rights. There are times when it is difficult, if not impossible, to provide the necessary amount of aid to a country in need. Such situations usually involve a country that has a split opinion on whether or not to accept aid. In North Korea most of the population us under fed and many people are dying of starvation, but because the nation as a whole has refused international aid it is very difficult for other countries to perform their duty. Recently the African country of Libya entered a civil war. It is believed that most of the population would like the rebels to succeed and that only a few minority groups remain loyal to Colonel Gahdafi: the dictator of Libya. The UN and individual nations had a difficult time deciding how to provide peace for the citizens of Libya because they also have a respect for the autonomy of a nation and its government. The most that could be done was to support the rebel majority as much as possible, while still remaining outside of Libyan borders. In these circumstances, developed nations did not have an obligation to provide the aid that they desired to give. The principle of foreign aid is must find a balance between respect for governmental autonomy and the individual rights of each citizen. Developed nations must provide aid to the underdeveloped world to the best of their ability as long as such aid is desired. If a nation as a whole, or its leader alone, refuses to accept aid, it is difficult and unnecessary for foreign aid to be provided. It would be inappropriate and unhelpful if the UN sent peacekeeping troops marching into North Korea to distribute food and clean drinking water, yet it is a tragedy that so many of its citizens are needlessly suffering. In such situations the best we can do is negotiate and maintain a balance of respect for the government and its citizens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangos Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 --clicked--- formal schooling often proves to be the most important part of learning. Education is the process of passing down knowledge from one person to another. It comes in various ways such as formal schooling- the process of actually attending an educational institution such as high school or college, or through practical experience. It has been argued that formal schooling is the most important part of learning as it provides the basic background knowledge of various subjects to the students. As a result, many countries, such as Canada, have incorporated mandatory subjects that must be taken during a student’s high school education into its educational curriculum. It is this basic process of learning- learning from books, studying, and taking exams, that encompasses formal schooling, making it the most important part of learning. For example, one who desires to become a mathematician must undergo rigorous years of study via formal schooling. One must enroll in college and study from math books and take several math exams to become a mathematician. Thus, formal schooling provides the best option and proves to be the most important part of learning. However, formal schooling is not always the most important part of learning. In contrast, education through the means of practical experience may prove more useful. Practical experience can be described as learning not through the study of books and attending an educational institution, but rather, through actually practicing what one has learnt out in the field. A prime example of this is the Co-op program offered to engineers at various universities in Canada.This co-op program is not considered formal education as it is not mandatory but is rather left up to the student to decide whether to partake in it or not. Instead, it is considered to be a form of education via practical experience. Through this program, students are able to go out into the field as engineers and work a term with an engineering firm- gaining practical experience in their field of study. Rather than study from books and taking exams, these students are able to put to use what they have learned in previous years and use it in a practical way in accordance with their field. It has been proven that those students who partake in a the co-op program have a distinct advantage over those who opt out of it as they acquire a learning experience that proves to be more useful than just formal education. Whether formal schooling or practical experience proves to be the most important part of learning depends on the goal of the student. If the student’s goal is a profession in which applying what they have learned to practical life is not as important, such as being a mathematican, then formal schooling prevails over practical experience. Being a matheticain does not require one to have “hands on experience,” but rather, to be well educated in the concepts of math provided by math textbooks. However, if a student’s goal is a profession in which what they have learned must be translated into practices in real life, such as becoming an engineer, practical experience will prevail. An engineer must be able to put what he/she has learned into practice in real life, and thus, strictly learning via books alone will not provide as encompassing an education as practical experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 --clicked---Thanks a bunch! Students should be more interested in the process of learning than in the facts learned. One of the most important developments in a child's life is when he or she 'learns how to learn'. A person who has developed this essential skill early in life has a distinct advantage over others who have never had the chance to do so. This is because the good habits that enable one to learn efficiently and well - such as patience, dedication, a sense of duty towards completely one's work - can be applied later on in life during all levels of education. Thus, whilst learning how to add and how to read is very important in the first grade, a skill that is infinitely more valuable that is picked up at the same time is how to learn. Children who have not developed that skill tend to feel the strain as they venture into higher education. For example, I was one of the unlucky children who found elementary school to be easy. I almost always could finish my assigned work during class time, and almost never had to study after school. Well, upon entering high school and university, I have often found that I have to force myself - rather painfully - to hit the books. I never developed the habits that made studying second nature. Therefore, I understand how important it is for a child (or a child's parents) to focus on the progress of learning early on in life in order to help him or her acquire essential learning skills. However, there comes a point in a person's life in which those skills are no longer taught - it is assumed that one has already developed them. This usually occurs around the end of high school, and especially in university. University is an institution which seeks, in the short span of four years, to cram as much information as possible into your brain. It hopes to fill the gap between the standardized education you recieved in high school and the specialized knowledge you will need when entering the work force. For example, a person who has decided to attend university to recieve a Bachelor's degree in Science may hope, one day, to go into scientific research. As such, he or she hopes that a higher education can prepare him or her; this preparation usually involves becoming extremely well versed in the current literature surrounding the area of study. In such a situation, most of the learning this person will undertake involves extensive reading and absorbing of information. This is not a time to 'develop good habits'; it is a time to learn about your specific field of interest. Therefore, in this period of life, one may expect to focus on the content of education much more than the progress. Whether or not a student's education should center around absorbing information or around acquiring learning skills depends on the the level of education in which he or she is currently partaking. One of the most important things elementary school can help you achieve is the development of many basic life skills, including the ability to learn. The ability to learn is the foundation upon which all further education will rest, and as such needs to be built early in life. Later on, however, as one enters high school and university, the focus shifts towards adding to the structure that rests on your foundation. This structure consists of specific knowledge that applies to your personal field of study. Thus, we all need to remember to construct the foundation before the building, and realize that are specific periods of life that are appropriate for specific areas of learning. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments, however, you can make the second example more specific, and therefore more compelling. You can also expand more upon the first example (go into more detail, but risk giving up more personal detail) I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 -clicked- thanks again! Citizens who enjoy a country’s benefits during peacetime have a responsibility to support their nation in times of war. Wartime is characterized by more than a simple, legalistic definition of a country's leaders declaring war on another state. It affects all aspects of the country going to war, including its inhabitants. The citizens of a nation have a moral obligation, for the most part, to support and stand behind their government in times of war. It would be hypocritical to proclaim support for their nation in times of plenty only to abandon such sentiments when danger arises. As a citizen or inhabitant of a nation, for the most part, the government requires and needs your support in order to maintain a successful wartime campaign against a looming threat. When Europe was overrun by Germany's nigh-unstoppable march during the beginning of World War II, Britain held out as a bastion of Allied strength. Its citizens obeyed the air raid sirens, warnings and rations that were necessary as a result of brutal German campaigns such as the Blitz by Hitler's Luftwaffe. The citizens understood that a threat to their very way of living and survival had arisen, and stood behind Winston Churchill in defiance of the burgeoning Third Reich. However, this rule is not carved in stone. Take, for instance, the recent NATO, and by extension, Canadian involvement in the Libyan conflict. Many citizens do not support the authorization of direct use of Canadian force against Colonel Gaddafi's troops. The simple reason is this: the Libyans are not threatening Canada directly, and do not directly affect Canada's affairs. While some may see this as an isolationist approach, it is a valid viewpoint. If the Libyans have not threatened Canada or declared war, what right do the Canadians have to aid in bombing runs across the Libyan deserts? The motivation behind the Canadian involvement is not the result of a threat to the Canadian people, it is in light of a contractual obligation to NATO - as a result, the government cannot claim that its citizens have a responsibility to support their warlike actions. These two situations differ, then, in one critical aspect: harm to the native citizens. The motivation of Britain's defiance against Hitler stemmed from the most basic of human desires: to survive. It stands to reason the British citizens should support the wartime effort - to not do so would be fighting against their own survival and propagation. The motivation behind Canada's use of force against Libya stems, on the other hand, from a contractual military obligation. Canadian citizens are not obligated to back their government in this war endeavor, as Libya has in no way directly harmed or threatened to encroach upon Canadian lifestyles and borders. The basis for popular support in wartime can be directly linked to the desire for survival, then - if your nation's citizens are directly threatened by the war, they have a responsibility to support you, as you are fighting for their well-being. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. However, there may be other examples that will better suit task#2: "Describe a specific situation in which citizens might justifiably not support their nation in time of war." (can you think of a more compelling example where a citizen may justifiably not support their nation in times of war?) Evidence of some clarity, and depth. Some issues with integration and complexity of thought. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lekarza Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 --clicked--- Thank you soo much for looking this over! A politician's lifestyle should reflect his or her political views. Hypocrasy is the act of contradiction. Hypocrasy is not something that one would want to hear be associated with a politician, especially in the Canadian democratic society in which the political beliefs of a politician reflect the society as a whole. The political beliefs of a politician include the parties platform and all of the things the specific party stands for in an election. To go against these beliefs would result in a loss of faith from the electorates and could potentially result in losing the position held in parliament. There are many instinces throughout history where hypocrasy can be seen on the political forfront. An example can be seen at the 2010 G-20 and G-8 summits which were held in Toronto, Ontario from June 26-27. These summits were an opportunity for world leaders to come together to discuss the global financial situation, as there was a global recession occuring at the time. This summit received more press than usual not because of the discussions at the meetings but because of the budget laid out for the summit. On a final total it was calculated that the summits altogether cost almost one billion dollars. This greatly exceeds many of the other summits throughout history and is the second highest expense for Canada (after the 2010 Winter Olympics). The issue was that Stephen Harper was part of the Conservative Party of Canada and one of their main political platforms was fiscal responsibility. The fact that the government spent an exhorborant amount of money compared to other summits in history essentially meant that Stephen Harper went against his political party's beliefs. This incident was brought up in the most recent 2011 Canadian Federal election, where opposing parties blamed the Conservatives for their overspending, when their platform holds a strong belief in fiscal responsibility in terms of social spending and included many budget and tax cuts. The Conservative party still managed to win the election, however, the added negative attention may have lost him some votes, as well as some respect from his constituents. On the other hand, there are some occasions where a politician may have to go against his or her political beliefs in order to progress farther with their party. During the 2011 Canadian Federal election, the Green Party of Canada ran for a position in parliament. The Green party's platform is fairly self explanatory, with a heavy emphasis on greener energy and a cleaner future. However, during their campaign, many flyers and pamphlets were made to draw attention to their party. The fact that the party produced these paper flyers essentially contradicted their party's political beliefs because the printing of these pamphlets wastes paper and destroys natural habitats, whether it be through the process of making the flyers or through the pollution created by throwing out the flyers. However, at the end of the election, the Green Party managed to obtain their first seat in parliament, which is a historical first. It can be concluded from this example that the act of hypocrasy displayed by the Green Party of Canada was necessary in order for the party to get a seat in parliament and become more involved with parliamentary proceedings and decisions. The Green Party's voice in parliament would not be heard if they had not made those flyers in order to gain popularity by voters. This leads to the question of when a politician should reflect their politicial beliefs and when they do not need to. Essentially, politicians should, for the most part, always live by their political beliefs in order to hold the respect and trust of the constituents in the society. However, in the rare occasions where going against the political beliefs of a politician's party is somewhat appropriate is when the end justifies the means. Yes the Green Party of Canada went against their political beliefs by wasting paper to make flyers for advertising purposes, but if they had not done so, they would not have gotten the word out to the people and they would not have earned their first seat in the Canadian Parliament. Without the flyers, the Green Party would not be able to bring their views to parliament, in order to make a difference. In conclusion, a politician should always try to stay true to their political beliefs as much as possible, however, when a situation arises in which an act that goes against these beliefs must be done in order to get ahead in a political campaign, it can be looked at as more appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 And here's another one; -clicked- three times, since i'm kinda unloading two essays in a row here. Thanks again! In business, competition is superior to cooperation. The success of a business is contingent on numerous factors, but none are as prevalent as the need to be competitive. Competition breeds a culture of innovation, in which consumers are able to vote with their wallets as to what businesses they would like to see succeed. In such an environment, businesses failing to remain competitive will be quickly driven out of business. For example, Blockbuster Canada recently began liquidating a large number of its stores across the country, and to that end, video rental outfits across North America have been experiencing decreased profits and consumer patronage. In the face of elegant, simple, but highly profitable digital businesses like Netflix and Redbox, these outfits are unable to stay competitive with their physical media, as Netflix is innovating and offering a superior product to theirs. The success of Netflix far outstrips the rental businesses, then, due to its competitive nature, which in turn, garners votes from the wallets of increasingly numerous consumers and patrons. Though competition is crucial, it can pale in the face of a powerful alliance between entities in the business world. BestBuy Electronics, a US consumer electronics giant, acquired FutureShop, a Canadian electronics giant, a few years ago. Competition between FutureShop and BestBuy would have been futile, as BestBuy possessed much more assets and resources than the Canadian electronics outfit. Many speculated that BestBuy would slowly, but surely convert FutureShop locations into BestBuy stores. However, rather than that, BestBuy chose to retain much of FutureShop's command structure and model the stores as a cooperative business model. FutureShop typically stores higher end electronics, with less selection, while BestBuy stores mostly midrange electronics, with more selection. The result is an elegant cooperative effort between the two stores to generate maximized profits for the parent company. If you want something like the latest 3DTV, go to FutureShop, or if you're just looking for a simple auxilliary cable, head to BestBuy. As a result, FutureShop remains profitable due to its merchandise niche, as does BestBuy by a different product niche. What, then, was the reason for the difference in business strategies in these two cases? The answer is the type of market they cater to. The home movie market has been traditionally dominated by DVD, but with the arrival of digital alternatives from services like Netflix, the entire physical medium of DVD is being phased out by Netflix's competitive business model, which advocates cheap Internet-based streaming of entertainment. However, the success of a business in the consumer electronics market is not so heavily dependent on a single variable, which is why BestBuy and FutureShop have been able to highlight and sell their individual variables in a mutualistic relationship, with the profits still flowing into the same body's coffers. This clearly demonstrates one of the issues businesses face to stay successful - a strategy for demonstrating revenue may be advantageous in one market but not in another. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. The first example was good, but you need to expand more and describe the nature of the competition, and how Netflix benefitted from it. You can also go into more detail about Netflix (i.e. provide more evidence for the AAMC grader to examine, and therefore agree with your assessment). Your line of reasoning had changed in the second example. An AAMC grader may take issue with your example of the company Best Buy. Best Buy and Future Shop are divisions of the same company. While this may adequately satisfy the task, it will depend on the AAMC grader. You will need to find a stronger example that is in line with the first example you provided (inter-company competition with inter-company cooperation), or explain in greater detail the nature of cooperation with Best Buy, though I feel the essay will be scored higher if you pursue the former. Evidence of some clarity. Some issues with integration, complexity, and depth of thought. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 -Clicked-Thank you for your help! I have been working on my writing a little more, hopefully it improved a bit. P.S. In your opinion, do you think that more "general" examples hinder the essay score ? -------------------------------------------------------- The public's right to know must sometimes take precedence over an individual's right to privacy. Describe a specific situation in which an individual's right to privacy might justifiable take precedence over the public's right to know. Discuss what you think determines when the public's right to know is more important than the individual's right to privacy. Information can be used in a variety of ways, but its’ main purpose is to ensure human safety. The public is a group of people who live in proximity of one another and function as a social order. They have a right to information that will ensure that their lives are not in any danger. This information can be personal in nature and making it publicly available would infringe on a single person’s social freedoms, such as their right to confidentiality. This is demonstrated by the example of criminals who have been convicted of sex crimes such as pedophilia and sexual assaults. Aside from having a criminal record these people have to be also registered with the sex registry, whereby the police can monitor their location and activities. For instance, a person who has been convicted for pedophilia cannot have any toys in their apartment. The police have the right to search the home of these individuals to ensure that there are not toys in their homes. Moreover, in the United States of America the location of registered sex offenders is available to the public. This information allows people to take appropriate precautions in order to ensure that safety is maintained for them and their family. As a result, the public’s right to know takes precedence over an ex-convict’s right to privacy. However, there are instances when an individual’s right to privacy might be justifiable. For instance, people who are part of the witness protection program are allowed to hide their true identity from the public in order to protect themselves and their families. Since these people have witnessed crimes that may have been committed by a criminal organization their testimony may result in the conviction of several individuals that took part in long lasting crimes such as human trafficking. However, criminal organizations have far-reaching capabilities in their funding and available personnel in order to prevent key witnesses from testifying against them. This would make a weaker case for the prosecution and ensure exoneration. A witness’ privacy is important in this case because any information that may be available to the public or members of the public can be leaked and fall in the hands of individuals who are part of the criminal network. As a result, not only will the witness’ life be endangered but so will the public’s safety, as the criminals will be allowed to continue illegal activities. In order to determine whether a public’s right to privacy is more important than the individual’s right to privacy, one must consider the effect of information on society. In the case of registered sex offenders it is important that the public has the information about people who have been convicted of sex crimes in order to ensure their personal safety. However, in the case of witness protection program it is important to note that the witness’ right to privacy is important to ensure their own safety and to ensure that the criminals they are testifying against are brought to justice, which will subsequently prevent these criminals from harming the public. As a result, knowledge and confidentiality can both be important in order to ensure the safety of society. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. However, in relation to your question, specific examples are more effective than general examples (will get you a better score). For instance, if you went into detail about Jeffrey Dahmer's crimes, or named a pedophile by name, it would be more compelling than talking about serial killers or pedophiles in general. By compelling, I don't mean making the AAMC grader cry, but demonstrating a strong point that is difficult to argue against. If you provide general examples, general examples can be more easily attacked with other general examples. However, if you provide specific examples, they can only be taken out with a strong line of reasoning that counters that example, or with other specific examples. General examples usually are not strong enough to counter specific examples. Evidence of some clarity, and depth of thought. Proficiency in responding to the tasks, save for task#3. You have to be more clear and explicit with what you think determines when the public's right to know is more important than the individual's right to privacy. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dac11 Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 -clicked- Thank you in advance! Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. One of the advantages to living in a modern society is that we have a government that is charged with standardizing the services we receive, that is, to ensure that the services we receive are safe, effective and efficient. There are many companies employed by the government to provide services, for instance, garbage companies remove wastes, treatment facilities clean our water, and hospitals care for our sick. Although companies should have some autonomy in regards to how they offer services to the public, it becomes imperative that these services are regulated in some manner when we are discussing essential services that are necessary to maintain health. Hospitals stand out as a necessary service utilized by the public that require a particular standard of care to ensure the best health outcomes. This standard of care determines many details of the day to day life of a hospital, such as, how many staff are required to run the emergency room, how an operating room is cleaned, what certifications are required in order for an individual staff member to perform a procedure. Without these standards, particularly as demand for services rise, we may see a decrease in the quality of care. Perhaps the hospital will hire less staff as a cost saving measure, or nurses will feel comfortable performing minor surgery without having the training as there are no doctors available. Having a government regulated infrastructure in place to regulate such a service is imperative to maintaining a high standard of care in the long term and offering clients the best care possible. There are times however when a regulated environment could impede the quality of care given to clients, or may not be possible. For instance, in a crisis, such as 9/11, where there was a high number of injured people, make-shift hospitals would have been set up to address the high demand for care that would have overwhelmed the current regulated hospitals. In this short term, high demand crisis, staff and administrators would have been right to prioritize quick action on behalf of their clients rather than adhering to government regulations. Surgeries may have been performed in the field without a full complement of operating staff, nurses may have worked outside their scope to provide pain medications without a prescription, strict sterilization of the floor, for example, would not have been the priority. In a situation where services are being offered in an ongoing, long term, non-crisis setting, regulations are necessary by the government to ensure that standards are upheld and ultimately the best health outcomes for clients are achieved. An exception is made when crisis strikes. A shift happens where energy is refocused on the immediate needs in response to a higher demand for services in a higher acuity environment. For this short window of time clients’ needs are best met by responding to clients’ needs directly regardless of what regulations may be violated. In these crises situations the government is not responsible for upholding the same standards for hospital workers as it would be during times of non-crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdincale Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 - clicked- Thanks So much! The success of a business depends on its ability to compete. Describe a specific situation in which the success of a business might not depend on its ability to compete. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the success of a business depends on its ability to compete In our free market society competition is the basis for most business. This means having a product at a lower price than the competition and bringing it to the market place faster. These two factors can allow a company to sell their products in a higher volume then the competition which hopefully results in greater profits and long term viability. One example is the mobile phone industry, when apple brought the iphone to market it was the first mainstream phone to use a capacitive touch screen. This new technology allowed for a novel way for consumers to interact with their phone, this enticed consumer to purchase their product and thus resulted in massive sales. This was apple’s first venture into the mobile phone industry and one could argue that if they didn’t have this novel technology that was far better than existing resistive touchscreens they would have not out competed well-established phone manufacturers like Nokia or Samsung to take market dominance in the mobile phone industry. Therefore one can see that competition, by having new and innovative products, can lead a business to success. In opposition to an industry like the mobile handset manufacturers that is dynamic and constantly creating new technologies, industries like telecom service providers have slower innovation because they do not need to compete to be successful. Telecoms like Rogers do need to compete by introducing new services or competitively prices because the hold a monopoly over the industry in Canada. They hold this monopoly because they at one point either, out competed rival companies or acquired them. This put them in a position to be the sole owners of infrastructure for internet and other services. Therefore their current success stems from the sole reason that they do not currently have to compete with other companies so they can set their prices as high as they want and consumers have no other options . A new business’s success initially only depends on its ability to compete in the market place when there are a lot of companies selling the same product to the same audience. However if the company competes well, like in apples case, and rises to the top of their niche the requirement to compete dwindles and mediocrity sets in. This allows the company to costs off of previous innovations for a while because they hold so much of the market share. However this utopia does not last forever and eventually new companies will rise and competition will thrive again, therefore ultimately a company’s success depends on its ability to assess when it needs to be competitive and when it can coast and just make profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickentalk Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 -clicked- Thanks for doing this! People tend to ignore the flaws of national leaders. Psychologists have argued that during the tumultuous time of the Second World War, it took a narcissist like Sir Winston Churchill to rally a nation to fight against a psychopath like Adolf Hitler. These were two leaders that led their respective nations in a battle in which they assumed themselves to be correct for what they were fighting for—Hitler the advancement of Nazi Germany and Churchill in the establishment of World Order through Great Britain. The psychologists argue that these leaders believed in themselves so powerfully that they almost forced their constituencies to believe in them and their ideologies. This example reveals that when the people of a nation are aware of flaws in their leader, and ignore them, they are in fact refusing to believe that the flaws are relevant enough with respect to the nation’s greater benefit. But when the people are unaware of such flaws, it becomes irrelevant that they should ignore them. The establishment of the Hitler Youth is a prime example of this. This organization was founded in the early 20th century when Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime was on the rise. The youth of the nation were forced to enter into this paramilitary organization, where they were indoctrinated with ideologies such as anti-Semitism from a very young age. A former Hitler Youth leader says that at this age, the ideologies which seemed extreme to the outside observer were in fact considered normal and ideal for the youth involved. Thus they embraced the opportunity, often excitedly, to defend Nazi Germany at a later age. However, as is happening in the Arab world since December 2010, when the nation’s people are affected by the flaws such as the lack of delivery when it comes to a leader’s promises to his or her nation, the people revolt and rebel against such regimes. Such is the case in Libya against the regime of Muammar Ghaddafi, which is resisting the rebellion with violence, and such was the case in Egypt where Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down as Egyptian leader. Libya and Egypt are examples where decades of corruption within government, high costs of living, and dictatorships, have had their toll on the people. The very leaders they accepted with open arms failed to raise the standard of living during their regimes. The Hitler Youth and Arab rebellions illustrate how “flaw” is a subjective term. National leaders are successful when the people they are leading receive what the leader has promised and what the people expect or want. If these criteria are not observed or achieved, people consider the leaders and their regimes flawed, and fight for change. The Hitler Youth were indoctrinated such that they were not exposed to the extremes of Hitler’s ideologies, whereas the people of Egypt and Libya had suffered for decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlliMack7 Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 -Clicked- Thanks a lot for doing this, I know I for one really appreciate the feedback! Prompt: "The exercise of political leadership is limited to those holding office" A democratic government is built on the premise of equal representation for all and as such creates an environment in which people of various backgrounds can be elected with ease. In such a society there is little need for leaders of the people to govern without official political positions. In every nation there are people who rely on a different political voice to be heard, and in Canadian politics such situation is demonstrated in the increasing numbers of native MPs, who no longer have the need to pursue political agendas outside elective government. In this situation political leadership is limited to those who are elected because the need for unofficial leaders is negated by the opportunities the democratic system provides. On the other hand political leaders may have much more sway outside an elected office if true democracy is not an option. such a situation arises when a country's government is primarily controlled by those who value one set of opinions only. Furthermore gaining a political office is then made impossible due to laws which restrict the rights of one set of people. A striking image of this set of conditions is Ghandi's fight for Indian civil rights in South Africa at the turn of the 20th century. As a man of Indian descent under a British ruled society, Ghandi was not allowed to run for political office and became successful in leading social change without the power of a title. His success out of office was due to a lack of opportunity for a group of people to be heard, and the sever one-sided bias of the government itself. what draws the line between the need for an office to be a effective leader? The simplest answer arises in the type of government and the opportunities it presents to be heard. In a situation such as modern Canada it is easy to be elected to an official position and therefore negates the need for outside political leadership. In contrast an opressive British ruled society as historical South Africa, there is no opportunity for select voices to be elected to government and the vaccuum creates a need for unofficial leadership as was the case with Mahatma Ghandi. The means for one to instill change is created by the type of society itself. In a government's attempt to silence, the stories of Che Guevera, Mahatma Ghandi, and Martin Luther King show that voices will find a way to be heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangos Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 --clicked To obey an unjust law is to approve of it. Laws are rules and regulations implemented by the government in order to ensure the well being of the society- to protect and uphold the safety and rights of its citizens. However, there are situations in which a government may impose unjust laws-laws that contradict the efforts to enhance the safety and rights of its citizens. To obey these unjust laws, without open critique, is equivalent to the approval of it. This could be seen in the times prior to the Women’s Right Moverment in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this time, women were accepted by the general public to be inferior to men and thus, did not benefit from the same legal rights as men did. They were perceived to not have enough knowledge in politics as men did and thus, were not allowed to vote. Despite the obvious inequality within society between men and women, no one, prior to the suffragettes during the Women’s Right Movement, openly critiqued the law preventing women from voting because it was generally accepted and approved by the majority of the public. However, although silence may imply approval of an unjust law, there are cases where citizens of a society are forced to comply despite their disapproval. The atrocities that occurred during the Holocaust are an excellent illustration of this. During the reign of the Nazi Regime in Germany, Hitler imposed the Nuremburg Laws. These laws required German citizens to aid in the extermination of Jews. The Jews had no choice but to witness the loss of their legal rights and property as they were sent to the concentration camps. Many citizens, German and especially Jews, opposed the Nuremburg Laws, but failure to comply resulted in immediate death. Open critique was impossible for fear of losing their life or harming the lives of their family members. As a result, both parties were forced to obey the unjust laws despite their dissapporval. By examining these two examples, it is evident that justification to disobey an unjust law depends entirely on the consequence that follows. Sometimes, disobedience does not result in severe consequences such as death and othertimes, compliance is mandatory in order to live. For example, after witnessing the general approval of inequality between men and women in society, suffrogettes such as Nellie McClung of the Woman’s Right Movement began openly criquing the law that prevented women from voting alongside men. This act of disobedience and disapproval of the unjust law resulted in opposition throughout her journey as a women activist, but however, did not lead to the threat of death. In contrast, the unjust Nuremburg Laws imposed by Hitler that stripped the Jews of all their rights and property, could not be disobeyed, but instead, must be adhered to. Disobedience resulted in immediate death for both German and Jewish citizens, so as a result, disapproval to the law was not an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebananakiwi Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 -clicked- To be successful in business, it is important to appear socially acceptable. One of the keys to success in business is the maintenance of a good public image. It is important that consumers think positively of a company, because it will ultimately make that consumer more likely to purchase that company. The public image of a business includes many aspects. For example, for a company that produces paper products such as Staples or Royale, consumers may consider whether the company uses recycled materials to reduce its environmental impact. In the cosmetic industry, consumers may consider whether the products were produced in an ethically acceptable manner. The Body Shop produces body care products without the use of animal testing. Research shows that when businesses act in a way that corresponds to the moral views of its customers, the customers are more likely to support that business. Thus, a business that appears socially acceptable in order will be more successful. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. Some businesses, even though they do not appear socially acceptable, are still able to flourish. Such is the case for casinos. Many people are opposed to the concept of gambling. Indeed, some even deem it sinful that a business makes its profit from the loss of others. People who have a gambling addiction fall deep into debt, and this may indirectly cause other problems such as family conflict and suicide. And yet, even though this business is the source of much tragedy, it is probably one of the most profitable. Entire cities like Las Vegas and Monaco can thrive due to the presence of casinos and the income it produces. As can be seen, though a business may be socially unacceptable, it can still be successful. Thus, while it is important to maintain a positive public image, it is not the sole factor in determining a business’s success. Indeed, what is more important is the mindset of the business’s audience. Some audiences care if a business is morally acceptable, whereas some don’t. In the case of the paper and cosmetics companies, the target consumer group is conscious of the impact on the environment. They care if the business is acting according to acceptable moral standards. However, for casinos, the audience it caters to only cares about being lucky and winning money. It doesn’t care if the business is environmentally or morally conscious. Thus, the casino business is able to flourish regardless of its public image. Thank you so much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebananakiwi Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 -clicked- Developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to the underdeveloped nations of the world. When we see fellow beings in need of help, it is our duty to lend a hand whenever possible. This extends from examples on the local scale, such as giving up our seat on the bus, helping somebody get up after they’ve fallen, or performer CPR on a heart attack victim. On the national scale, it is important that we maintain this altruistic behavior, in that developed nations should provide aid to the underdeveloped ones. For example, developed countries have provided foreign aid to African countries to help them rebuild their governments, economies and social infrastructures. During the Haiti earthquake in 2010, massive relief efforts were made from developed nations all over the world, helping Haiti to recover from its tragedy. Through altruistic actions such as these, developed nations have helped to improve the lives of people in underdeveloped ones, narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, and altogether make the world into a better place. However, though it is important to help underdeveloped countries, sometimes it is not possible. Developed countries can be plagued with their own problems. Perhaps they are in the midst of an economic slump, or ridden with poverty, or have very high unemployment rates. Though they may have all the good intentions to help the needy, they can’t because they have to deal with their own problems first. After all, one can only help others if one is able to. This is evident in the United States today. Facing a debt crisis, where the nation’s debt is in the trillions, this nation is nowhere in shape to provide any sort of monetary aid to other countries. It has to invest in its own people first, to provide jobs and help its own economy. Only then will the US have the means to help other underdeveloped countries. Thus, while it is true that developed countries should provide aid to underdeveloped ones, there can be exceptions. Whether or not they are obligated depends on if they have the ability to. In other words, help should be given whenever possible, but not when in doing so it causes harm to itself. In the case of foreign aid directed towards African countries, or relief efforts during the Haiti earthquake, these altruistic actions were altogether beneficial. The recipient countries were able to improve the lives of their citizens. However, sometimes a country’s first priority is to help its own citizens first. Such is the case with the United States. In the midst of an economic slump, with many of its own citizens unemployed, it is more important that the US invest in trying to improve the lives of its own citizens before helping others. Thank you. =] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FacelessMage Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 -clicked- Thanks so much! Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies. Describe a specific situation in which progress might simplify more than it complicates. Discuss what you think determines whether progress complicates or simplifies. Much of human history has strived toward progress. Each year, technology is advanced and new ways of living are touted, all promising to make life simpler. While progress does make many aspects of our lives easier and less time consuming, it also has the tendency to make many more parts of our lives more complex and difficult to comprehend. Take for example the creation of smartphones. These phones were created so that one could talk, receive email, send text messages, and browse the internet while being mobile. With these phones, one could communicate with others from virtually anywhere at any time. However, this new form of technology has also become a menace for employees who find themselves working constantly. While they are able to complete their jobs more efficiently, the standard 40 hour work week has disappeared, leading to often stressful and tiring work environments. However, there are forms of progress that have succeeded in making life simpler without any further complications. The delivery of mosquito nets to impoverished communities around the world has resulted in a reduction in the prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases, namely malaria. Because of this decline in malaria, the overall population becomes healthier, leading to an increased productivity in the community. The burden of these sicknesses within the community is lessened, and their lives become simpler. What then defines whether progress simplifies or complicates? One criterion is how many people progress reaches. If a new innovation reaches a lot of people, it is more likely that improvements would be made to it and new forms of it would emerge much more quickly than if it was less widespread. For example, because the smartphone is so prevalent within American society, new versions utilizing new technology are coming out several times a year. If a new innovation only reaches a select few, however, fewer people are less likely to ask how it could be improved, and the impact on the general population is lessened. A second criterion is how complex the new innovation is. Innovations in a medical or company setting, such as the smartphone, are much more complex than other forms of innovation. The complexity of the technology itself is likely to cause more complications than basic necessities, such as the mosquito net, because there is more potential for improvement. Overall, progress in the form of far-reaching, complex technology does tend to complicate as well as simplify our lives. However, progress in the form of simple and select technology that is used to improve the quality comes with less complication due to its nature of causing simple but profound improvements within society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangy Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 -Clicked- Hello, hello, hello! I hope you're all doing well Thanks again PastaInhaler for your awesome work! Much appreciated Crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. Describe a specific situation in which a crime committed by an individual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government. Discuss what you think determines whether or not crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. Laws are an important part of our society. They are guidelines that maintain orderliness, and also allow us to voice our rights. If a member of society decides to break a law purposely for their own gain, then the individual is regarded as a criminal. For example, there are laws against drinking and driving that drivers must abide by for the safety of others on the road. If an individual drinks a lot of alcohol in a party, and selfishly driving on the road without regard for the safety of others, then the individual is a criminal for breaking the law. Police work to arrest such individuals to maintain the safety of the road. It should not matter if the individual is a teen driver or a politician in parliament. The same offense is committed by either party should they decide to drink and drive. The law is broken regardless of who is behind the wheels. Laws are made for everyone, and accordingly, it is expected that they should be followed by all members of society. However, there are cases where laws could justifiably be broken by governments. For instance, there are laws protecting the privacy of citizens. If an individual steals information from a company for their own gains, whether to sell for profit to another company or to blackmail said company, then the individual has committed a felony for breaching the privacy of the company. Conversely, if the government is trying to gain intellectual information from a group for the safety of the public, then it is justifiable that the government is not committing a crime. Indeed it is breaching the privacy of the company, but it is doing so for the protection of society at large after suspicious acts done by said company. For instance, in Norway, it has been documented that some Intelligence Officials in Norway have used fake names in chat rooms to gain information about potential terrorist groups. The use of fake names in chat rooms, if committed by a member of society, might be regarded as a crime if done to seduce particular members of the chat room - for the individual's own gains. However, the Norway Intelligence Officials are using such methods to gain potential information that will help them to prevent any future attacks on their country, and therefore, protecting the civilians of Norway. In this case, it is justifiable that the government has tried to access information, more so than committed a crime. Laws are integral for our society's functioning. They vary from the laws that protect us while driving on the road, to laws that allow us the right to voice our opinion. Laws ensure the orderliness of our society. When someone decides to break the law for their own gain, such as for profit or simply disregarding the safety of others, then the individual is regarded as a criminal. Even if a government official broke the law, then he or she is still considered a criminal, because the law was broken for personal gain. However, it is justified when a law is broken by government for the safety of the public. In this case, it would not be considered a crime, because by not following this particular law for justifiable reasons, the government is saving the lives of its citizenry. As a result, it is usually clear whether a crime committed should be considered a crime when committed by governments. In the end, laws are meant to protect the citizenry from harm and ensure the maintenance of an orderly society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangy Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 -Clicked- Justice is best served by truth. Describe a specific situation in which justice might not be served by truth. Discuss what you think determines whether or not truth serves justice. Courts are commonly viewed by the public as the places where justice is often served. In this case, justice is being able to correctly discern whether a defendant has committed a crime or not, and what the punishment should be. If the individual is wrongly convicted by the judge, then justice is not served, and usually, this is followed by public riots outside the court. Truth - hard evidence - is an integral part for establishing justice in the court. Sometimes there are no hard evidence against the defendant, and therefore, the judge and jury have to consider the motives of the individual, their criminal record, et cetra, to come to a decision. However, when there is truth against the defendant, then it is the best way to serve justice, because it is concrete proof for the case. For example, a court case where an individual is charged for rape and murder, might wrongly convict a defendant who is the ex-boyfriend of the victim based on motives, especially when DNA testing of the semen later finds that a different criminal committed the felony. In this case, the evidence brought forth by DNA testing, is concrete and is truthful in the sense that it is verified scientifically with very low probability of being wrong. Without the DNA testing results, the ex-boyfriend would have been wrongly convicted and justice would not have been served. With the truth in the hand, justice is served. Unfortunately, sometimes the truth might be tainted in favour of the true criminal. In other words, a criminal might taint the evidence to make it seem as though a different person might have committed the crime. In this case, if the court solely based their decision on the evidence found on the crime scene without considering the whole picture of the crime, including potential motives by the defendant, then justice might not be served. That is to say, justice might not be served by truth. For example, in Judge Judy, a televised show where Judge Judy acts to serve justice in court, a defendant tried to taint the truth in order to win the case. The case was in regards to a lease contract between the defendant and the prosecutor. The defendant tried to white out a statement in the lease, while the prosecutor had the genuine lease with her. Fortunately for the prosecutor, the defendant did not manage to white out the statement properly, and thus, there was evidence of attempting to taint the truth. In this case, had it not been for the faulty use of whiting out on the side of the defendant, Judge Judy might have had a harder time discerning the truth of the lease. In fact, if the prosecutor did not have a copy of the contract and the defendant ingeniously removed the statement, then justice might not have been served. The truth has been tainted by the criminal, and hence, it should not be used to serve justice. Sometimes it is a difficult task for a Judge to serve justice by correctly convicting the criminal and freeing the innocent when truth is not available. In fact, it is possible that a Judge can wrongly convict an innocent person. Thus, it is commonly believed that concrete evidence is the best way to serve Justice, because it cannot be denied. This is exemplified by the use of DNA testing in rape and murder cases to shine light on whom the criminal might have been. DNA testing is quite unlikely to be tainted with, and therefore, it has high credibility for use as truth in court. Once DNA testing shows that the defendant is in fact the criminal in the case, then the case is usually settled, and the defendant is found guilty. However, when evidence is tainted by the criminal to remove them from the crime scene, as exemplified by the attempt of a defendant to white out truth from a lease contract, then it should not be used to serve justice. If used without knowledge that it has been tainted by the criminal, then justice will not be served. All in all, courts are sensitive areas with experienced Judges who are familiar with attempts to taint evidence. Thus, it is predominately the case that justice is best served by using hard evidence - truth. Note: I think that my second task might not have been strongly supported by the trivial example. Do you also feel that this is the case? It was hard to come up with a concrete example and I did not want to suggest another hypothetical example. Looking forward to your feedback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheWheel Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 -Clicked- Thank you! In politics, one's friends and one's enemies are often the same. Describe a specific political situation in which one's friends and one's enemies might not be the same. Discuss what you think determines whether or not one's friends in politics are also one's enemies. Politics is a complex system of government that makes collective decision on behalf of different members of society in order to govern the nation. In politics, allies are made in order to reach a goal that both parties can benefit from. Political enemies are those who compete with one another over opposing views on governing issues. It is said that in politics, allies can easily become foes depending on the situation. This is usually determined by whether or not they stand to benefit from forming an alliance with one person or an alliance with someone who opposes that person. For instance, in 2008 the Canadian government has experienced a major shift in politics due to an alliance between three parties. In order to defeat the Conservative government’s budget, the National Democratic Party, the Liberals, and the Bloc Quebecois moved to form a coalition government. Although, unsuccessful in their endeavour to overtake the leadership role, their alliance remained strong and forced the Conservative government to alter their budget motion in 2009. However, during the Canadian federal election in 2011, these former allies fiercely competed against one another in order to secure the most seats in the parliament. This was especially noticeable in the media campaigns, which did not focus on their strengths but on their opponents’ weaknesses. As a result, in this political landscape, friends quickly became enemies. However, there are situations in which one’s friends and one’s enemies might not be the same. An example of this is the political relationship between Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, and Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba. Since becoming a leader in 1999, Hugo Chavez has moved towards the nationalization platform that resembled that of Cuba. Moreover, his governing practices have alienated the United States in a similar fashion as Cuba. As a result, the two leaders have become close allies and trading partners for the past two decades. The two economies have become very dependent on one another. Cuba is known to have the second highest number of medical doctors in the world per person. The Cubans send their doctors to work in Venezuela while in return Venezuela sells them oil from their reserves at a bargain price. In this situation the two allies have supported one another even when faced with fierce opposition and attacks from the public. As a result, one’s friends in politics can remain friends. In order to determine whether or not one's friends in politics are also one's enemies, one must look at the relationship of the allies. In the case of the New Democratic Party, The Liberals, and the Bloc Quebecois, their relationship was based on overthrowing the Conservative government’s budget. Once they have achieved that goal they had no need to stay in the coalition, as their political platforms were very different. However, in the case of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, both their countries’ economies are so intertwined with one another that they have no choice but to remain allies and support one another. Overall, friends are made in politics in order to reach a common goal. If that goal is reached, then friends can easily become enemies when they oppose each other on another issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked- Education comes not from books but from practical experience. 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 books might educate students better than practical experience. Discuss what you think determines when practical experience provides a better education than books do. As humans' date=' individuals have an innate desire for knowledge and curiosity to understand the world in which they live. Education exists in several forms, such as facts, skills and values. In school, we read and learn from books in order to grasp a better understanding of the basic principles of the subject we are studying. In the practical world, we learn from experience and by engaging in hands-on activities. Both forms of education are valuable; however, it is also important to consider the circumstance in order to assess which method may educate students better and more effectively. Learning from practical experience is a valuable tool in society, as we strive to explore and expand our understanding of the workings of the world. In the process of discovery, we often learn new information that has not been recorded before. In this context, practical experience teaches something that books cannot - new knowledge and skills. For example, during the initial stages of HIV research, there were many questions that needed to be answered, and only through practical experience were we able to learn and enhance our understanding. We came to understand the way in which HIV infects patients and deteriorates their health over time. Such knowledge could not have been found in books, since we have never been in a battle against such a deadly and perpetually-mutant virus. As a result, in the process of new discovery, students learn better from practical experience than any knowledge books can provide. Conversely, considering certain circumstances, books might educate students better than practical experience. Often, we try to learn from our past for various reasons, which include avoiding repeating the same mistakes, or simply to appreciate culture and history. For example, learning about the lifestyle of seminal personalities in history teaches students not only about our history, but also to be inquisitive. The knowledge gained from books in this context cannot be acquired from practical experience as we are learning about the past. For example, students can learn significantly about the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s by reading about Martin Luther King Jr. Additionally, this knowledge is transferable in a practical setting, suggesting that education from books and practical experience often go hand-in-hand. In conclusion, education can be gained both from books as well as from practical experience. Examining the circumstance will allow us to determine whether books or practical experience may educate students better. When we are examining and scrutinizing our current understanding of the world in order to expand the knowledge domain, we benefit greatly from practical experience. This is particularly important when we are facing a challenge or embarking upon a journey that has never been explored before. In other words, the knowledge accessible through books may be limited; hence, practical experience may educate students better than books. In contrast, we can gain significant knowledge from books regarding our history in order to learn from past events, influential personalities, and mistakes. Such knowledge is valuable as it allows us to appreciate our past and the struggles we have faced. Thanks![/quote'] You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Some issues with integration, depth, and complexity of thought. It may be best to choose a different example from the HIV example. You had referred to it as HIV research which isn't necessarily education. You must clarify your definition of education, and also explain the process of educating through research. It may be easier to pick a totally different example that requires less defending. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST 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.