PastaInhaler Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked- Developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to the underdeveloped nations of the world. 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 a developed nation might not be obligated to provide aid to an underdeveloped nation. Discuss what you think determines when developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to underdeveloped nations As citizens of a developed country' date=' we often enjoy privileges and rights that remain to be dreams of many impoverished people around the world. Global health and providing aid to underdeveloped nations seems to be a tremendous challenge for many parts of the developed world, requiring the investment and utilization of a plethora of resources and money. As a result, it is important to consider when developed nations may have an obligation to provide aid, and under which circumstances provision of aid may be not be our responsibility. Many developing countries face challenges around income, nutrition, shelter, and health care, all of which serve as basic necessities for survival. When an underdeveloped nation encounters an unexpected catastrophe, millions of people are inflicted with significant pain and suffering. For example, during a natural disaster, unstable economies often find it challenging to be able to restore the nation to its previously-struggling condition. A developing nation that is already burdened with economic and political crises will find it nearly impossible to reconstruct a nation and serve its citizens. In this context, developed nations have an obligation to provide aid in order to bring nations out of helplessness. For instance, Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) is Canada's deployable team of health care providers and engineers that provide emergency aid to disaster-stricken nations. In 2005, when Pakistan encountered a 7.6 magnitude earthquake in Kashmir, DART provided medical care to thousands of individuals as well as provided half a million litres of fresh water. In this situation, Pakistan was struck by a severe catastrophe, leaving many people homeless and helpless. Hence, developed nations were obligated to provide support to restore the country from the damages. Conversely, there are circumstances when developed nations might not be obligated to provide aid to an underdeveloped nation. Annually, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation spends billions of dollars in research and development in the fight against malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis. Given the limited resources that are available, it is a challenge to spend such a significant amount of money on providing constant aid. The actions of the organization may be considered moral, valuable and beneficial, but it is arguably not an obligation to use a nation's resources to provide aid when a developing nation may be relatively stable. Even if a developing nation is not prosperous, it is not realistic to expect all nations of the world to be entirely developed, considering the limited resources available. As a result, when a nation is not struck with an emergency that requires immediate relief, as in the case of a natural disaster, developed nations may not be obligated to provide aid to underdeveloped nations. In conclusion, developed nations spend billions of dollars annually on improving the living conditions of millions of individuals worldwide, by means of health care and nutrition. However, an effective allocation of limited resources is an important consideration. When underdeveloped nations are faced with a catastrophe that renders a nation unstable and helpless, prosperous and developed nations are obligated to provide aid and resources to help those who are vulnerable and powerless in such a situation. However, when a nation is fairly stable, even if not developed and prosperous, developed nations may not be obligated to provide continuous aid and resources from their own nation to improve the living conditions of individuals in another nation. As a result, aid is obligatory when nations are helpless and unstable, while developed nations may not be responsible for providing continuous aid to underdeveloped nations when they are fairly stable. Thank you once again![/quote'] You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. Proficiency in responding to the tasks. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docmm Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked- The scientific community, by itself, should determine ethical standards for scientific research. The scientific research process involves asking questions, designing experimental methods to answer these questions, and constantly evaluating findings. It can take as long as a few months for a large study to be approved by a governing ethical body clearing a particular experimental method as consistent with certain ethical standards. As a result of this the rate at which science is put into practice is limited by ethical processes. For the most part, much of scientific research is guided by ethical standards that have been put in place by ethicists and experts in the scientific field. In the past century, science and technology have advanced so much that those involved in interpreting scientific findings and methods must have a fairly strong understanding of modern science. For example, in the past decade there has been an emerging sense in both Canada and the United States towards alternative cancer treatments. The side-effects of classical chemotherapy are often traumatic for families of patients to watch, resulting in the efficacy of these treatments being questioned by many. Families may feel that since no real cure exists for the disease, teaching hospitals create a sense of false hope in patients and pursue unethical experimentation in hopes of advancing their research. Although the research process itself inevitably has it’s imperfections, and much about cancer is unknown, research shows that modern cancer treatment is very effective in certain types of cancers. Since no proven alternative exists, and modern treatment does show some signs of delaying the progress of the disease, these cannot so easily be considered as unethical. Thus, it can be assumed that if certain areas of science were evaluated on ethical grounds by individuals not educated within a particular field, it would be difficult for truly ethical decisions to be made. After all, if a treatment shows some efficacy is withheld from patients, is this not similarly unethical as conducting research to further progress cancer treatment? For the most part, scientific research should determine ethical standards for it’s research, as long as it ensures to draw on established ethical principles. Although scientific research is best suited for establishing it’s own standards, it is important for these standards to be consistent with the general aim of ethics. When scientific research aims to be approved by ethics the purpose of this should be to ensure that the pursuit of knowledge is accomplished without foreseeable harm that outweighs any potential benefits. For example, throughout the world countries divided into provinces or states will often have slightly differing laws depending on a particular region. Laws, similar to ethics boards, govern what is considered an acceptable or unacceptable act. The legal drinking age in Ontario happens to be 19 while in Montreal the legal drinking age is 18. At first glance it may seem like there is a great discrepancy between the two but the general principle of protecting children from the dangers of alcohol consumption is maintained throughout the entire country under slightly different laws. Thus, it is important that scientific research determines ethical guidelines for itself that can be compared and evaluated by other governing bodies to ensure that the protections that should be in place are indeed in place. So while ethical guidelines for scientific research should be determined by the scientific community itself, these guidelines must be consistent the same goals that all ethical bodies strive to achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 clicked.Thanks! _____ Technology designed to make our lives simpler often turns out instead to make our lives more complicated. Describe a specific situation in which a new technology might not make our lives more complicated. Discuss what you think determines whether a new technology simplifies or complicates our lives. As the old adage says, “necessity is the mother of all inventions.” Throughout history, humans have been constantly coming up with ideas that serves to our needs. Technology are often designed with the aim to simplify a process or to make possible a previously unachievable work. However, the solution to an old problem often comes with new problems. Indeed, technologies designed to solve a problem in our society often gives us more troubles than it solves, making our lifes more complicate than before. For example, cars are technologies invented to make our lifes simpler by reducing the time it takes for transportation. However, the millions of tons of fossil fuel we burn to power our vehicles and the greenhouse gases produced are contributing to the dire global warming problem we face today. With global climate change and rising sea level, the new problem of global warming challenges the survival of human race on Earth and is a much more complicated problem for human to deal with than transportation. Therefore, technologies such as the vehicles we designed to utilize fossil fuel to speed up our transportation creates more complicated problems to the society than it solves. It may be true that technologies often creates more problems than it solves for our society. However, for individuals, technology ususally makes our lives much simpler. The creation of the internet may be argued that it creates more problems to the society than it solves, but the internet doubtlessly makes individual lives much more convinient. With internet, a person in North America may send emails to another in China with a click of a mouse rather than having to wait for months for the message to be delivered in mail over the sea. The internet also allow students to find information much more rapidly using a search engine such as Google than having to go through millions of archives in a library. Consumers may use the internet to buy items online or watch their favorite movie without having to leave their house. Thus, the internet, amongst many others that are used by individuals, makes the lives of individuals simpler by speeding up and simplifying more lengthy and complicated but nervertheless necessary processes of our lives. What determines whether a technology can make our lives simpler or more complicated depends on the scale we consider. At a larger scale of the society as a whole, technologies that are designed to solve a problem often creates new problems that are more complicated and more difficult to solve than the one being addressed. The technology designed to exploit the energy of fossil fuels to power cars for transportation creates the more serious and complicated problem of global warming that humanity now face. At a smaller scale of an individual, technology often makes one’s life simpler by simplifying and accelerating a necessary process in life. Computers, the internet, or cars, amongst many others, all make our lives easier and simpler by feeding to our needs. Therefore, technologies often make individual lives simpler at a smaller scale while tend to make things more complicate at a larger scale for the society. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Evidence of some clarity, and depth of thought. Proficiency in responding to the tasks, save for task#3. You may need a different rule for determining whether a new technology simplifies or complicates our lives. It can be argued that the internet can have a large scale impact, even if it were just one person accessing the internet. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked-Thanks. Education comes not from books but from practical experience. The process of educating someone for a task is complicated, with multiple approaches available for a student's learning. Often, a practical or hands-on method of teaching will produce more successful and enlightened students than a theoretical approach. Consider Student A, who excels in learning through spatial means. Skilled with her hands, she is obviously full of Gardner's spatial intelligence traits. To maximize the quality and efficiency of her education, then a theoretical approach will not do - she is used to a hands-on approach, and will learn better in that manner. She remembers and learns from actually performing tasks, not seeing them in text on a set of notes or in a textbook. These may as well be wasted on her with respect to practical assignments, because she simply is not maximized in Gardner's linguistic trait (which denotes high verbal and textual recall). The practical method is not without its shortfalls, however. for example, Student B, who can be considered an antithesis to Student A, learns best through reading and looking at diagrams rather than being made to manipulate objects and perform practical assignments. He is lacking in Gardner's spatial intelligence, but demonstrates high amounts of Gardner's linguistic basic intelligence. He has excellent memory, and textual recall comes to him as easily as does the hands-on approach for Student A. Student B, then, would benefit from a textbook education, as it would make the best use of his mental faculties and maximize his efficiency while learning. What makes education for those two hypothetical students so different, so that they might learn similar material through different avenues? The answer is their innate learning style. A practical education suits Student A's learning abilities and encourages her to wield and develop the strongest of her intelligences, the spatial sense. Conversely, a book-oriented or theoretical approach to education will allow Student B to make use of his linguistic and verbal recall skills. Education has a duty to the students to allow them to learn in the style they feel most comfortable - the varying efficiencies of theoretical and practical education according to their context are testaments to this. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. You will need to give the essay reader background information on Dr. H. Gardner's Multiple Intelligences and Education theory as not all AAMC graders will know who he is. At the same time, the AAMC will expect that the essay writer will be aware of this and will write appropriately, giving the necessary background information and details. There is a hint given in the instructions: "Describe a specific situation in which books might educate students better than practical experience." Notice how students is the plural form. This is to help direct you in a certain direction when interpreting the prompt. What the test makers are expecting is an explanation that describes forms of education that impact many students. Therefore, your approach to explaining the prompt and providing an argument and counterargument may not be the best one. Perhaps, you can shift the focus away from the type of student, to another factor. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked-and another one, haha. Thanks again Developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to the underdeveloped nations of the world. The term "underdeveloped nation" refers primarily to third-world nations, characterized by lower living standards and GDP while the term "developed nation" refers to first-world nations, characterized by higher living standards and GDP. It is commonplace, even expected that the latter should bestow aid to the former, in the form of financial, disaster and humanitarian relief. A nation like Rwanda, victim of a horrible genocide, but finally able to get back on her feet and make decisions leading to a prosperous future requires such aid from states like Canada, the EU and the USA. To NOT provide aid in such an instance would prolong instability in the nation and its newly erected moderate government. Such instability could result in another massacre, leading Rwanda further away from its goals of stability and prosperity. The government has openly asked for aid and has a plan for using it - it would be churlish and cruel of these developed Western nations not to provide it. However, aid, while essential, is not a right. Some underdeveloped states require aid, but developed nations are under no obligation to provide it to them. Consider North Korea, a militant communist state with a one-party government led by Kim Jong-il. Party Leader Jong-il refuses to hold peace talks with other nations with which it has hostile relations and pursues a nuclear program when most of the world's nations are slowly dismantling their own nuclear arms. He funds these programs by steering money away from social assistance and agricultural support, generating artificial famines in cities and the countryside. The estimates of hunger casualties reach into the millions, and anecdotes of cannibalism due to food shortages have sprung up. Clearly, North Korea requires aid. But if such aid is provided by developed nations, these donors have no way of ensuring that Kim Jong-il will use this monetary advantage for appeasing food shortages - it may simply be wired into the nuclear program or military budgets. A state like this is focused on military theatre - not the welfare of its citizens. It may seem strange, that one of these nations is entitled to humanitarian relief from the first-world while the other is not. But the factor differentiating them is a simple one: the long term goals and attitudes of their governments. One hopes to rise out of the difficulties and hardships of the third-world and become a prosperous, forward nation. The other has seemingly minimal concern for its citizens and is striving for military dominance. The former is entitled to aid because the Western donors can be reasonably sure that the money and resources they send is going where it needs to go. The same cannot be said with the same degree of confidence for the latter. Indeed, a state like North Korea, openly hostile to the US and South Korea, would be unlikely to even allow an audit by donor nations in the event of aid being sent. Thus, while aid is essential to the rise of third-world nations and the well-being of their citizens, the disposition and agenda of their incumbent governments may prove to be a catalyst or obstacle to the entitlement of such relief. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Responds to tasks in a superior manner. Ideas are substantially developed. Good examples used. Sufficient in supporting and exploring your arguments. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked-Thanks! A good movie usually teaches a moral lesson. Describe a specific situation in which a good movie might not teach a moral lesson. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the quality of a movie depends upon its ability to teach a moral lesson. A good movie is a motion picture that has an emotional impact on the audience by delivering a message. Usually that message is a moral lesson that teaches the audience to re-evaluate their values and develop decency. For instance, Casablanca was a movie that was released in 1942. It has won the best motion picture award at the Oscars and has been regarded as the best movie in the last 100 years by the American Film Institute. Casablanca tells a story of Rick, played by Humphrey Bogart, who meets his lover Ilsa, played by Ingrid Bergman, during the start of World War II. Despite both characters being madly in love, Ilsa suddenly leaves Rick when she finds out her husband, who she thought was killed by the Nazis, is still alive. Later, she and her husband encounter Rick in the Moroccan City of Casablanca. Despite the fact that both Ilsa and Rick are still madly in love, Rick sacrifices his relationship in order to help her husband, a resistance leader for the Allied forces. The ending of the movie was very unique and original because throughout the movie Rick did not act as a patriot and he did not want to be involved in the war. However, his final actions were those of a true patriot, he gave up his love in order to help resistance fight the Nazi forces. As a result, this highly regarded movie by the critics and audiences alike, taught the moral lesson of sacrificing one’s personal happiness in order to help the greater good. However, there are good movies that do not teach moral lessons. For instance, Pulp Fiction was released in 1994 and did not teach a moral lesson at all. In fact, this movie’s story about criminal organizations did not seem to have any purpose to it at all. However, what made this movie so enjoyable was the way the story was presented. The movie began with a fragment from the end of the plot and continued to play backwards to the beginning of the plot. The non-traditional sequence of the film made this movie very unique. The American movie industry professionals have recognized the originality of the movie and it has won the Oscar for the best picture of the year. Thus, a good movie does not always teach a moral lesson. In order to determine whether or not the quality of a movie depends upon its ability to teach a moral lesson one must look at the originality of the movie. In case of Casablanca, the movie was original because it presented an unexpected ending to the audience. The viewer did not think that Rick was capable of giving up Ilsa in order to help the resistance. Thus, the moral lesson taught in this movie makes it unique because it unexpectedly comes from Rick. However, in the case of Pulp Fiction, the movie was unique in how it presented the plot and challenged the way viewers expect storylines to be presented to them. In this case, it was not the moral lesson that made the movie original. Overall, the presence of uniqueness and originality determines the quality of a movie. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Evidence of some clarity, and depth of thought. If you are able to provide some information abot box office ticket sales for the movies, that could make your examples more compelling, but are by no means required. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemist11 Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked- Hello PastaInhaler, thanks for doing this for everyone! I also have a quick question related to the writing sample, if you don't mind. I'm wondering about the specificity of the examples that you must describe in the second task. If you were, for example, writing about a natural disaster, could you say "consider a country that has recently had a natural disaster within its boundaries" or would we have to write something specific and real, such as "consider the earthquake in Japan recently"? Thank you for your time. EDIT Don't worry about this one if you haven't got to it yet, I might post some more carefully constructed ones later on. If you could get to my question I'd greatly appreciate it, and thanks again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ameltingbanana Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked- Your feedback has been really valuable in seeing gaps in logic/mistakes etc FYI. Thanks! Edit: Forgot the prompt itself. That might be necessary, haha. The more people rely on computers, the more people become alienated from one another. Over 2 decades into the information age, the use of personal computers and the myriad of software with which they come equipped has rendered many individuals socially inept and ostracized from one another. A key culprit in this phenomenon is the rise of social network systems, like Myspace, Facebook, and the more recent Google+. These networks offer congregated access to the minutiae of peoples' lives and actions. However, they do so at the cost of human contact and conversation. Instead of calling Joey Hypothetical or running over to his house to congratulate him on his 21st birthday, you are afforded a different avenue of action: to simply write on his personalized wall or space. No human contact necessary - this serves to retard the efficacy of an individual's social skills. If someone makes a joke on their facebook status, other people may respond with snarky comments and observations at their leisure, with no mental stress in conversation. Whereas if that same joke was made at a social outing, those same people would undoubtedly be sweating to think of an appropriate comeback or comment - because social ineptitude and alienation is masked and propogated by computerized social networks. However, computer systems can be used for the opposite - bringing people closer together. Consider Sue, who has left her home country, Canada, to study in the Netherlands. Her parents cannot afford to fly her home or go over and visit themselves more than once a year - computerized solutions exist for such situations. With the invention of video conferencing programs like Skype and MSN video chat, her parents can talk to her and see her in real-time at the cost of nothing more than bandwidth. This serves to lessen the sense of alienation that the parents feel, and vice versa for Sue. The computer is not acting as a substitute for human interaction in this context - it is providing a means of interaction where there wouldn't be otherwise. Computers then seem to have opposite effects in different situations - what determines the effect? The answer lies in the role the computer is playing. When it is used as a substitute for human contact and conversation, it will undoubtedly cause alienation, as a computer is not capable of wholly mimicking human interaction. This preference for the computerized social situations over social outings will lead to a rift between the user and other individuals. However, if the computer is used to initiate and maintain contact in a situation where there wouldn't otherwise be any contact, it does not cause alienation. It is affording an avenue to interaction where there would be none without the computer system. The rift is closed, in this situation, because the computer is not being used as substitute - it is being used as a means. This duality in the nature of computer use betrays the fact that depending on the manner of its use, a computer can help make a person a pariah or help them reach out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ameltingbanana Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked- In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective. History can be defined as a record of past occurrences and phenomena. However, the historical records present to us are subject to the bias and agenda of the original recorders. History is not recorded with the simple intent of passing knowledge down to the next generation - another agenda is at work. These biases make objectivity an unreachable standard in the historical record, especially during the writing of secondary historical texts. A secondary historical text, for the purpose of the following example, would be a text based on primary sources but written by someone with a bias toward a particular stance. Today's History textbooks, which almost all Canadian students are exposed in their study of a mandatory history credit in high school, all seem to gloss over Russian involvement in World War II. The book mentions almost in passing key occurrences such as the Battle of Stalingrad and the fact that the Russians were the first to enter Berlin and liberate it from the remnants of the Nazis. The reason for undermining the Russian involvement is because the publishers and editors, being Western, invariably introduce a Western slant into the perspective of the text - they cannot help but empathize with the Western soldiers more, due to kinship and the ability to relate. A personal connection, whether conscious or unconscious, is formed - as a result, Canadian texts focus more on Western Allied battles like Vimy Ridge and the landing at Normandy. In this case, a pro-West agenda is working behind the scenes to exaggerate Western involvement and diminish Russian contributions. However, objectivity is reachable in settings where biases can be eliminated. Consider the court reporter - her job is to typographically generate a transcript of court speech during all matters of jurisprudence during her shift. No bias is present - due to the emphasis on objectivity, she has no connection to the judge, the defendant, the plaintiff or the jurors. As such, the history of a court proceeding is recorded with complete objectivity, as the record being generated is a completely primary source document not subject to biased editing. If one were to enter the court records and read her transcripts, they would simply reiterate the words being said during the court, with no conclusions being drawn - that is not her job. What allows the court reporter to be unbiased, where the textbook editor cannot be? The presence of empathy or lack thereof with the historical subjects or material. The Canadian textbook editor is a Western citizen - there will be a greater connection to Western involvement in World War II, simply because he is able to empathize with the Western characters more. As such, their involvement and achievements are overrepresented in their historical record. The court reporter has no personal or political connection to any of the characters who will be immortalized in her historical transcript. She has no reason to inflate, undermine or distort the views of any of the parties, because she does not demonstrate any kinship to them. These two examples demonstrate how a simple contextual factor can determine the presence of objectivity in history - whether in a courtroom or on the war-fronts of World War II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ameltingbanana Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Aaaand one more. -clicked- Thanks again! The best politician is the one most removed from politics. Politicians tend to work best and the most efficiently when they are able to rise above the distractions and petty demands of subordinates and opposing political candidates. Vladimir Putin served as the President of Russia for many years, but was eventually succeeded by a candidate of his choosing, Dmitri Medvedev. However, Putin still holds enormous pull in the Russian government, and can work much more efficiently behind the scenes with regards to national policy and diplomacy. Why? Because the new President Medvedev is now available as the public face of the Russian presidency, which means Putin's hands are significantly freed of red tape. This allows Putin to work Russian politics without being subject to the amount of scrutiny that invariably falls on someone like a president. As such, Putin's step back from public politics allowed him to stay on as a much more powerful and efficient politician, increasing his efficacy and capacity to influence Russia's future. This rule is not carved in granite, however. Barrack Obama won a stunning victory as the first black president of the United States, because he was so in tune with the desire for change resonating from his voters. Instead of distancing him from those politics, he climbed up onto a diving board and jumped in, attending everything from town hall conferences to chili cook-offs. Something that may have been seen as banal political pandering by others worked brilliantly for now-President Obama. What served as distractions for Putin was a chance for Obama to get his views and agenda out onto a public forum for his future voters to see, and demonstrate his supremacy over the opposing candidate. By embracing politics rather than stepping away from it, he showed American voters that he was able to govern the country and possessed the capacity necessary to become the next Commander-in-Chief. Both these approaches led to successful and efficient politicians. Why the variability in political involvement? The deciding factor is the benefit politics afforded each candidate. Consider that Putin was already president, and had effectively maximized his power in the Russian state. The thing limiting him was the public scrutiny and micromanagement,defined by politics, that he was forced to dabble in as a result of his position. The former Russian president was being hampered by these distractions, so he simply installed a loyal party member in his position and continued to work, free of his former burden - politics had no benefits to afford him. However, Barrack Obama was a relative unknown at the start of his campaign. His involvement with politics allowed him greater visibility and the widespread diffusion of his presidential claim and message. Politics afforded President Obama a chance to become a household name and garner popular support - something crucial to his performance as a politician. The disparity can be accurately summed up in the following: Putin's duty as a Russian politician was being hampered by politics, so he removed himself from such considerations. However, Obama's duty as an American politician was contingent on maneuvering politics in his favour - he could not have become an effective politician otherwise. These two political leaders are a testament to the fluid nature of politics - strategies are only adopted if they allow politicians to reap benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey's Anatomy Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked- Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news. 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 a news report might justifiably not be completely objective. Discuss what you think determines whether or not objectivity should be the primary goal of news reporting. Objectivity in news reporting can be defined as presenting information devoid of personal bias and opinions. In many cases, objectivity should be the primary goal of reporting the news in order to avoid passing personal judgment and allow the viewers to form their own opinions. News that seeks merely to educate and inform the viewers about an event that has occurred should be presented without personal bias. For example, recently, a 92-year-old ex-guard at the Nazi concentration camps underwent trial for his past involvement in hateful and immoral crime against minority groups such as the Jews during World War II. Supporters of his incarceration believe punishment will serve justice as well as to comfort the families of victims who underwent this tragedy. Opponents argue that since there is no way of proving whether or not he was in fact directly involved in the mass killings that occurred decades ago should not be punished. Since there are two views to this event, news reporting should be objective in order to allow viewers to formulate their personal thoughts and opinions towards this issue. Reporting of this news subjectively would restrict the thoughts of viewers and, in essence, impose the personal beliefs of the news reporters on to society. As a result, when an event that aims to educate and inform the viewers regarding an event, without requiring any action on their part, should be presented objectively. Conversely, there are some situations in which a news report might justifiably not be completely objective. For example, during the Tunisian Revolution that began in December 2010, demonstrators has to overcome severe censorship in order to inform the world about the inequality and lack of freedom in Tunisia. The protesters communicated through Facebook, through which Al Jazeera's media team was able to find videos of non-violent protests. Al Jazeera then presented the news to expose the harsh living conditions and injustice in the nation. Gaining international support was deemed important for the cause. Consequently, the reporting of such news might justifiably not be completely impartial, as it aims to incite viewers to take action towards a revolution in order to improve the lives of individuals living in poverty and suppression. As a result, objectivity may not be the primary goal in reporting news when the object of the news is not only to educate and inform its viewers, but also to encourage action towards or against a specific cause. In conclusion, when objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting news can be evaluated based on the intent of the news. When the intent of the news is only to educate and inform the audience about events around the globe, objectivity should be the primary goal in order to allow the viewers to form their own thoughts and opinions on the subject matter. This is evident in the example of ex-guard at Nazi concentration camps, whose trial has valid arguments as well as counterarguments. As a result, in such cases, the news should be delivered objectively to avoid restricting the views of the audience. However, when the purpose of the news is to encourage viewers to take action towards or against a cause, news reporting in this case might justifiably not be completely objective. This is exemplified through the protests that took place in Tunisia, seeking greater freedoms and improved living conditions. In this situation, support from international citizens was important, and thus, Al Jazeera was justified in promoting a bias view of the conditions, hoping to incite action towards this cause. Thus, whether or not objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news depends on if the intent is to merely educate or also to encourage action. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey's Anatomy Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked- The more people rely on computers, the more people become alienated from one another. 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 computers might not alienate people from one another. Discuss what you think determines whether or not computers alienate people from one another. In recent decades, improvements and advancements in technology have significantly impacted the way in which people interact with one another. Particularly, the increasing dependence on computers may arguably alienate people from one another. Alienation can be defined as poor quality and depth of communication, with concomitant decrease in personal interactions and unity. For instance, studies suggest that one in five minutes on the Internet is spent on Facebook, a venue of keeping in touch with your old friends. While the "Friends" list may be composed of hundreds or thousands of individuals for a profile, the quality of communication that occurs is heavily compromised. Although Facebook allows us to view the photos of our friends, or receive updates through personal statuses, it can be argued that we have grown away from having personal and meaningful conversations with one another. Additionally, studies suggest a strong correlation between the number of hours spent on the computer and the lack of social skills in the physical world. As a result, increased reliance on computers and technology have often resulted in people becoming alienated from one another on a personal level. Conversely, computers may in fact unite people in certain circumstances. For instance, during the Tunisian Revolution that began in December 2010, the demonstrators had to overcome heavy censorship, as the government tried to suppress the voices of protesters. However, Facebook was not among one of the social networking websites that were banned, inadvertently allowing demonstrators to plan protests and post videos of non-violent resistance on the Internet. Al Jazeera, a media network that searches the Internet for videos from the Arabic world, came across the videos that were uploaded by protesters on Facebook. This venue gave voices to people who were fighting for justice, equality and improved living conditions. The news spread all throughout the world. Consequently, use of computers and technology provided an avenue for unity among citizens who supported the cause. As a result, computers may often unite as opposed to alienate people from one another. In conclusion, it is important to evaluate when computers may or may not cause people to become alienated from one another. When computers are used for entertainment, increased dependence on technology, such as Facebook for making new "friends" and updating others through personal statuses, may in fact result in alienation from one another. This alienation is brought about by decrease in quality and depth of personal interaction that occurs. Conversely, computers and technology may often give voices to people who may otherwise be unheard, suggesting that computers may not always alienate people from one another. In the context of the Tunisian Revolution, it is evident that without computers and media, the protests may have gone unnoticed, without gaining the intended benefits. Computers provided a way for people to connect with others throughout the world, resulting in increased unity among citizens advocating for a common cause. Thanks a lot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked- I made it my home page Voters should not be concerned about a political candidate’s personal life. The right to privacy is an important ideal that everyone is entitled to. Even politicians are entitled to a certain degree of privacy concerning their personal life. Although voters often want to get to know the political candidates for their area, each politician does have the right to keep private, many aspects of his or her life. Voters do not need to know whether the candidate is married or what the candidate likes to do in their spare time. A politician may want to publicize these aspects of their personal life, but voters should not be concerned with these details because they are unlikely to affect a candidate’s political choices. For example, Paul Steckely was the elected politician in my area for a number of years. Because my family knows him personally, I know that Mr. Steckely likes to drink have a lot to drink on a Friday night. Some voters would find this questionable, but I would argue that it is unimportant. Mr. Steckely was a model politician, always attending each session healthy and sober. His drinking habits never affected his performance and he represented his constituents well. Such personal aspects that make up a politician’s life should not concern voters. Because a politician represents all of the citizens of their area, every politician is accountable to the citizenry. When a politician’s ability to serve has been affected by a major change in their personal life, a voter should consider this when voting. For example, Trevor Potts is the mayor of Waterloo Ontario, the city in which I live. He was recently involved in an affair and a divorce, and as a result he has been unable to fully lead the local government. Proposals to install a new bus system have been put on hold because of his personal circumstances. Such a dramatic personal life is a concern of each and every voter in Waterloo because our interests are affected by the situation. Whether or not voters should be concerned with a candidate’s personal life centers around the likelihood that a candidate’s personal life could hamper their ability to serve the people. A politician, just like any other employee, must be competent while on the job. In the same way, when the citizenry vote in an election, they must have sufficient information about a candidate’s personal life to know that he or she will be able to effectively voice their concerns to the government. However, voters need only concern themselves with the major facts about a politician which determine whether or not a candidate will be a reliable representative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 -clicked- Thank you!! We too often measure our freedom by what we do not have to do rather than by what we should do. “It is a great privilege to live in a free nation where young men do not have to join the army in a time of war”. This statement is something that my grandfather has often said. He was a teenager in Canada during World War 2 so he was left at home while older brother fought in the war. His brother died in the war and as a result he was left to take over the family farm, but he has repeatedly emphasized how blessed I am, as a Canadian citizen, to be free from the draft which could send me to Afgahnistan at a moments notice. I am truly thankful for this freedom, but by treating liberty as the measure of what I do not have to do, I have to wonder what liberty actually provides. If freedom were simply the measure of a lack of obligation, it would us with the option of doing anything. My grandfather was free from the draft because he was too young to go to war. As a result he had the option of going to university or of staying at home and living of off his parents for a while longer. This kind of freedom did not compel him to do anything at all. There is however a different kind of liberty. Only in the last two hundred years have women gained the freedom to vote and be recognized as citizens. It took case at the Canadian Supreme court to decide that women were in fact “people”. For this reason women have an obligation to honour the actions of women’s rights groups that work so hard for their freedoms. In fact every citizen in a democracy has an obligation to vote in government elections in recognition of their freedom to vote. Such blessings as the right to elect a governmental representative and the duty to appreciate it, are a measure of freedom Some freedoms are defined as the lack of obligation to do something undesirable and instead by free to pursue whatever one desires. Other freedoms are defined as the obligation to do something great, something you have long desired to do and have been restrained from doing. It is often possible to apply both definitions to the same situation. A hardworking businessman may be freed from cancer treatments to live out his last days in peace with his family. He has been freed from an obligation to keep on living, and has been freed to the obligation to spend time with his family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Evidence of clarity of thought. Some issues with depth of thought. Proficiency in responding to the tasks. The last line of paragraph #2 left the reader hanging: "Thus, economic concerns were of primary concerns to the American government because they were more of an imminent threat." You will need to explore the idea of imminent threat further. What exactly is the increased cost affecting? Will it harm any particular industry? Will it cause layoffs? Will it hurt Americans in another big way? You will need to explore this idea further to make for a more compelling argument. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 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 You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Evidence of clarity of thought. Some issues with depth of thought and integration of ideas. For the second paragraph, you have two examples, yet both examples are underdeveloped. It may be best to work a little more quickly so that you can explore the North Korea example, and the Libya example. Or you can abandon the example in which you are less knowledgable and put more effort into the other example to add more depth to your explanation. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. You've clarified the nature of each form of learning and how they are superior in their respective contexts. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. Proficiency in responding to the tasks. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 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. You're welcome, glad to look over your essay. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Normally, I do not take issue with spelling errors, however, in this case there were quite a few mistakes. Notably, the spelling of 'hypocrisy' is important since it is the overriding theme of the essay. Excellent approach, but be careful of spelling since the AAMC graders can lower your grade for spelling errors and grammatical usage problems by citing weak control of language. Some issues with integration and organization. Your first example is actually a counterexample to the prompt. You have not provided an example which demonstrates your understanding of the prompt. The second example is sufficient. For task#3, you will need to keep the essay unified by referring back to the first example, and not just the example concerning the Green Party. Your writing quality is otherwise good. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 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. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. It is important to note that the examples you listed in your opening paragraph are not companies, but divisions and departments of the government, except for hospitals. Hospitals are non-profit organizations and are not companies. Regardless, your line of reasoning is good. You might be able to get away with the hospital example, however, it would be safer to choose another example such as CanadaPost, or some other company that provides an essential service. It is also possible that the government may have laws for specific crises situations that have lax regulations for makeshift hospitals which would mean that they are regulated still, yet in a different manner. That is why another example for the counterexample might better serve your essay. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 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. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity of thought. Some issues with depth and integration. Your first example is a good one. However, the second and counterexample is not as convincing. It may be hard to show that a telecommunications company in this day and age is monopolizing the telecommunications market. There are many carriers in the United States and Canada. Virgin Mobile is one very special example (that is tied into Rogers). It is harder still to show that a monopoly is independent of competition. Monopolies are examples of extreme forms of competition -they have competed so fiercely that the competition is eliminated. They have reached a point where any new competition is destroyed almost outright. Yet, in certain sectors and industries, even monopolies can be toppled when new ideas are explored and new creations are made. Creative entrepreneurs can still gain market traction and overcome even tough barriers to entry. The point is, the example of monopolies isn't necessary the best counterexample to use for two reasons: it can probably be construed as competition, even if a nontraditional form, and secondly, you are unable to provide a sufficient alternative to competition. For a company to coast and to be succeeding isn't necessarily a strong alternative to competition. Even though a company may seem like it is coasting, it is not. If the company is succeeding, it is doing something very special, especially when it comes to telecommunications, which stands at the forefront of technological advances. The company must be doing something else. If you can figure out what this something else is, you will have formed the basis of a compelling argument -one that will be as strong as your initial argument (task#1). I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 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. You're welcome. Glad to provide this service. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Major ideas are undeveloped. Problems with organization, integration, and coherence of ideas. Task#1 was not adequately addressed. You will need to go into more detail about flaws in national leaders, and what ignoring them means, and how this is demonstrated by the people. Paragraph#3 seems to focus too much on a detail that is loosely related to the essay topic, and does not provide enough support for the example in paragraph#1. You've introduced two counterexamples in paragraph#4, but have failed to explore those examples and their implications in much depth. Task#3, which was addressed in paragraph#5, will need more work and you will have to be more clear and explicit with what you think determines when people might ignore the flaws of national leaders and when they might not. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKL/MNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 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. You're welcome. Glad to provide feedback. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. As you had presented a specific example in your counterexample, you should do the same as well for task#1. You can find various ways of doing so. One way may be to refer to a specific geographic region in Canada, and you could list a politician's name and explain that he/she was elected to office. You can then explain why that is significant, and what positional authority means. It is probably not a good idea to list new examples and cases in the final section of the essay, since it can cause problems for your grade. The AAMC has an item marked 'depth,' and if the grader felt that you may have introduced some new ideas that are relevant to your discussion, but have not explored them enough, you could lose marks for depth. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPfanforever Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 -clicked- Hi pastainhaler, I hope you can take a look at this. Thank you so much for offering your services! The law’s essential role is to regulate society rather than to provide justice. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the law’s essential role might be to provide justice. Discuss what you think determines whether the law’s essential role should be to regulate society or to provide justice. For any civilization, from the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians to countries of the 21st century, a legal code has always been deemed crucial to the prosperity and development of a society. Such codes serve many purposes, creating order and providing justice being two of the more significant ones. In our daily life, we are governed by many legislations, mostly in the way we conduct ourselves in public so as to avoid causing harm, either emotional or physical to the self, and of course, to others. Laws that preserve order and those that provide justice differ in the way that the latter is only of use when the rights of an individual is infringed upon, while the former focuses on preventing such infringement. Wearing seat belts in a moving vehicle has been proven time and again as an extremely effective way of saving lives in road accidents shown by studies from road safety databases. Crash-testing experiments, conducted by both private car manufacturers and governmental authorities indicated that wearing seat-belts dramatically reduce the potential risk of injuries and deaths. In 1976, Ontario was the first Canadian province to pass a law to legally require passengers of a vehicle to wear seat belts. Nationwide, this seat belt law is categorized under primary enforcement, meaning that police officers have the right to stop and ticket a driver who violates this law, even if the driver did not commit any other offences at the same time. The existence of this law was aimed at creating a safe environment for everyone sharing the road – drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. In this instance, notions of truth and equality are not involved in the regulation of society. On the other hand, the law’s main purpose of existence is to defend the rights of a violated individual and to punish those who committed the acts of violation. Every nation has a judicial and tribunal system where an expert of the law doles out a sentence to the violator and rewards the victim with compensation. In June 2011, Constable Garrett Styles, a York Regional police officer, was killed on duty while attempting to stop a van driven by a minor speeding along the highway. The 15-year-old-boy is to be charged with first degree murder. In this case, the law simply serves to bestow integrity and righteousness to the late Constable himself, and his family by giving the driver the maximum legal penalty of claiming the life of an innocent individual, ignoring the boy’s original violation of driving without a license. Safety and security are the basic rights of any individual in a society, it is only in regulating society and maintaining a code of justice can we live without fear. When no laws are violated, the law’s essential role should be to maintain order among its people, making sure everyone is protected from potential threats to their safety. However, when the personal rights of an individual are violated, the law’s main goal should then be to assess the situation, and to punish the wrongdoers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingStar Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 -Clicked- (and have done so many times before! ) Thanks so much for doing this!!! Laws cannot change social values As society progresses, certain laws, such as the laws within a state, will be subject to change. There are many instances where an addition of a certain law will not change the values of the citizens. These values are often what the citizens believes to be an inherant right within a society. Such an instance is seen in 2008, when California, USA passed the Propositio 8 law, prohibiting marriages between same sex couples. This proposition, although passed, was not able to changed the views of the millions that voted in favor of same-sex marriage. Up until today, many groups and organizations are fighting for Prop 8 to be re-evoked, stating that it promotes hate and unfair treatment towards a targeted group of people. As well, many insists that California is "going backwards" in its values by establishing Prop. 8, because many neighboring states, such as New Hampsheir, had already legalized same-sex marraige. Therefore, although the law against same-sex marriage was passed, the opinions and beliefs of many Californian citizens were not altered. However, there are situations in which societal beliefs will change in accordance with the implementation of a new law. In the case of slavery, when act of slavery was banned in the United States in the 1800, the citizens' belifs were also altered. This new law was widely accepted by its citizens because its neighboring countries, such as Canada, had already banned the concept of slavery. Therefore, it seemed as a progressive choice for the United States to follow suit. Now in 2011, the concept of slavery is inconcievable, whereas only centuries ago, it was seen as the common thing to do. In this case, the abolition of slavery in the united states altered the belief systems of its citizens. By banning slavery, this new law was able to promote a new psyche within its citizens, and therefore changing the values of their citizens. While there are many circumstances that determine whether a country's law can change the values of its society, the most important factor is how deviant the law is from the laws of its neighboring countries. In the case of California's Prop. 8, its initiation was not able to alter the psyche of many citizens, because it seemed contrary to the progression of a typical state. Therefore, if a state's new law is seen as contradictory to its neighbors, its citizens will rebel against it. However, if a law is seen as progressive, or following the trend of its neighboring countries, then it is more likely to gain wide acceptance amongst its citizens, such as the case with slavery. Thus, whether a country's new laws are able to change societal values largely depends on the circumstances of its neighboring countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey's Anatomy Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 -clicked- A good movie usually teaches a moral lesson. Describe a specific situation in which a good movie might not teach a moral lesson. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the quality of a movie depends upon its ability to teach a moral lesson. Movies have become an integral part of today's society. The roles that movies play in society range from entertainment, education, and appreciation of various aspects of our lives. A movie is generally considered "good" if it attracts a large audience, culminating in the generation of substantial revenue, often in hundreds of millions of dollars. Considering the value of these movies, it is important to reflect what features or aspects make the movie attractive, and what functions do these movies usually play in society? A good movie often educates the audience and teaches a moral lesson. A moral lesson may be a message that causes us to reconsider and reevaluate certain aspects of our lives. For example, Blood Diamond was a remarkable movie, which depicts the harsh living conditions in underdeveloped nations, particularly in parts of Africa where people search for diamonds to sell to developed nations in order to generate income. Early in the movie, we see that a village is raided by local soldiers who kill civilians blindly and kidnap children in order to brainwash them into becoming brutal like them - child soldiers. A father in desperation of searching for his family is captured by the soldiers, and is given the duty to search for diamonds. The movie exposes the audience to neglected living conditions in many parts of the world. The movie shows the suffering of millions of civilians and families due to a corrupt nation that seeks to create income by selling these valuable items to wealthy nations and people. Blood Diamond causes us to reflect on the ways in which our privileged lifestyle exists at the cost of innocent people in underprivileged conditions. As a result, this movie teaches a moral lesson and invokes a reconsideration of our lives by portraying the harsh reality of other human beings around the world. Learning about the reality from the point of view of a particular family allows us to empathize with the characters on a personal level. The value of the moral lesson learned by watching this movie makes it an attractive and thus, a "good" movie. Conversely, some good movies that are very fascinating also attract a large audience, but do not necessarily teach a moral lesson as a primary goal. Some movies are intended to stimulate our creativity and imagination, taking the audience away from reality and into a new ideal world. For example, the movie Avatar takes the audience on an adventure in the world of Pandora. The audience is amazed by the scenery and beauty that exists in that world, as well as the level of spiritual network that connects all members of their society. In a sense, the world of Pandora depicts an ideal world that we may wish we had. The movie stimulates our imagination and wonder, causing us to appreciate the beauty of an interconnected society. One of the attractive features of this movie is the portrayal of a world we would wish to live in. It depicts fantasy. As a result, despite not teaching the audience a moral lesson as its primary goal, the movie Avatar appeals to a large audience as it successfully lures individuals into a fantastical, beautiful and ideal world. In conclusion, good movies generally appeal to a substantial number of people by invoking emotions and imagination. A good movie usually teaches a moral lesson when it depicts the reality of our world, as evident in the movie Blood Diamond. It causes us to reflect on certain aspects of our lives and reevaluate how our actions and lifestyle affect the lives of other individuals. On the other hand, a good movie may not necessarily teach a moral lesson, but rather stimulate our imagination and creatiivity. This is exemplified by the movie Avatar, which portrays a world of fantasy, beauty and a sense of social network, and thus does not represent reality but rather an idealized world. As a result, whether a good movie teaches a moral lesson depends on if the movie is intended to represent reality and cause us to reflect on our lives, or to invoke imagination and bring us to a world of fantasy. Thank you! 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.