mangos Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 --clicked--- Education makes everyone equal Education is a means of passing down knowledge from one generation to the next. It comes it various forms, whether from one's family, friends, or workplace, but mainly, education is found in the schools one attends. Schooling provides the primary form of education and thus, when anaylizing if education makes everyone equal, in terms of the education they have received, the study of various schooling systems is required. For example, if one were raised in a small town, such as I in Ft. McMurray, AB, all the three highschools run on the same educational curriculum as set by the government. Thus, whether I was student at the highschool near my residence, or the one in downtown, the knowledge i gain, from either schools is equivalent. In this way, one who graduates from one high school in Ft. McMurray as opposed to another, would have received their education and attain knowledge equivalent to one another. Thus, it can be said that education makes everyone equal. However, it should be noted that it is the type of knowledge they receive which is equal. But whether one student actually understands the concept or not, making them a more successful student than the other, is an independent factor that depends solely on themselves and not the educational system. However, there are cases in which education does not make everyone equal. This can be seen in cities which provide a different means of education, such as education recieved in a private school or from presitigous schools such as Harvard University. When cities offer various forms of schooling for education, equality in one's education from another cannot be expected. For example, if one student were to attend a public school as opposed to a private school, or a mediocre university as opposed the Harvard, the amount of knowledge, its thoroughness, and variety, are vastly different. Private schools and are not publicly funded, meaning that one must pay seperate tuition to become a student and receive education from the most critically acclaimed teachers in hopes of producing a more successful student. Similarily, Harvard attendees are taught by world renowned professor who are able to pass on the rare knowledge they behold, to their students. It has been proven that those who graduate from presitigous schools such as Harvard, Boston, or MIT, for example, have a higher job acceptance rates that provide higher wages, than those who graduate from mediocre school. As can be seen, due to the different educational institutions that are provided and that one may attend, different outcomes for the students occur. A student who graduates from a mediocre school as opposed to a private or prestigous school, may have received exemplorary edcucation than one who did not attend these schools. As a result, of their educational differences, they are unequal and this can be seen in the real world when companies hire students out of school. What then determines when education makes everyone equal or not? This depends entirely on the type of schooling one receives. If all students receive the same type of education by attending institutions whom all provide a simliar service, then the outcome will produce students of equal knowledge. A student graduating from a highschool compared to another invididual graduation from another highschool in which both highschools are under the educational system provided by the same government will produce students of equal oppurtunity. However, if various types of schooling a provide, those that are prestigious as opposed to the mediocre, then education will not make everyone equal. In the case of the Harvard graduate compared to an individual who graduated from a mediocre university, the Harvard grad will have attained higher, more thorough form of education than the other. As a result, both are on unequal standings based on the education they have received and consequently, the Harvard graduate will be offered jobs more readily than the other. Evidently, there are cases in which education makes everyone equal and cases where they are unequal. However, what determines the former or the latter depends on the type of schooling one receives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. Problems with clarity of thought, depth and complexity. Problems with organization, integration and coherence of ideas. Ideas are undeveloped and unfocussed. Tasks #1, #2, and #3 have not been properly addressed. You must describe in your own words what the prompt means: The scientific community, by itself, should determine ethical standards for scientific research. Then come up with an example to illustrate your understanding of the prompt. Your example must coincide with the meaning of the prompt. Then, you must find an example that refutes the prompt. Explain this example and how it refutes the prompt. Then, you must determine under which conditions the prompt is true, and under which conditions the prompt is not true. This must make logical sense, it must apply to the examples you came up with, and it should apply to other more universal examples, or at least other instances as well. Have a look over some other higher-scoring essays, and try to model your work after those. There are plenty of essays available for review and study in this thread and on this forum. I feel this essay will be scored a: JK/LMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaMagnum Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 --clicked-- The primary goal for every business should be to maximize profits. Money makes the world go ‘round, or so it has been said by artists, thinkers, and economists alike. Businesses in any form exist in order to generate revenue. After all, regardless of any positive contributions of commerce to society, if doing business was not in any way lucrative, it would be impossible to maintain one’s livelihood on the basis of a business venture. In the case of large corporations, high profits ensure equally high investor confidence and therefore further support for the business in question. This in turn allows the corporation to consider alternative technologies or products to further improve the average consumer’s quality of life. Furthermore, because efficient production methods and efficient technologies reduce the overhead for a corporation, it can be said that maximizing profits is essentially equivalent to maximizing efficiency. We see the results of this school of thought in the technology of computers: central processing units, hard drives, and graphics cards are becoming smaller and smaller in size with each passing year, while increasing their processing speed and data capacity. This efficiency provides a twofold benefit, primarily in enhancing technology corporations’ profits, and additionally in reducing the impact of these corporations on the environment. But when is it unwise to seek maximum profit? In answer, one need only examine the case of the analgesic drug Vioxx, makes such a situation abundantly clear. Though it was released prematurely and without sufficient clinical trials, Patients found that Vioxx provided immediate and powerful relief for their symptoms well beyond the results of any other drug on market at the time. Doctors hailed the new product as a miracle drug and eagerly prescribed it to every patient in need of a potent analgesic. Mere months after its initial release, however, frightening reports of severe cardiovascular damage in Vioxx patients began to flow in, and upon testing it was discovered that the drug was indeed the root cause. Though the drug was immediately pulled off the market, the damage had already been done. Countless patients had lasting and irreparable damage as a result of Vioxx. Had Merck, the company responsible for the drug, been less hasty in releasing Vioxx, the dangerous side effects could have been discovered well before it could impact the health and safety of thousands of patients. We see, then, that cutting corners and bypassing important safety standards in pursuit of profits can result in significant harms to humanity, contrary to the very purpose of designing medical products. So it is clear that there are two sides to this issue. Maximizing profits allows businesses to maintain shareholder interest and even reduce their environmental footprint by maximizing the efficiency of both their production methods and the commercial technologies themselves. But ignoring important standards which are in place to preserve human health can cause a company to cause serious harm to humanity. Thus we can see that it is generally acceptable for business to maximize profits above all else. However, when human health is in danger, it is necessary for businesses to do their utmost to minimize the risks and potential harms, even at the cost of their profits. Thank you so much for this, PastaInhaler! I really need the help and would appreciate any advice you could give on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 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! Hello Alchemist11, Glad that I can be of assistance. Thanks for clicking, I really appreciate it! I would definitely go with the more specific example citing a real-life occurrence. It is much cooler that way. Additionally, it is also more difficult logically to argue against a specific and real example than it is to argue against a general and hypothetical example. For instance: "In general, sometimes photographs can evoke an emotional response in people. For example, some pictures of nice images can make people happy. Some photos that show a lot of sad images or angry images can make some people bothered." v. "Kevin Carter travelled to Sudan in March of 1993 where he had taken a photograph of a starving little girl who lay curled up, dying, being sized up by a vulture. The photograph had been published in St. Petersburg Times, and had stirred up a lot of responses from readers. There was intense emotional outcry; people were shocked, angered, and saddened by the photograph that had won the photojournalist the Pulitzer Prize. The photographer later took his own life. To this day, the photograph gets circulated on the internet and still causes the intense catharsis that the photograph brought when it was first made public. Without a doubt, intense images in photography that show intense human suffering and that remind us about the frailty of the human body, and the limitations of human compassion and love can deeply impact viewers." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 -clicked- I really appreciate this! Thanks! Politicians should maintain ethical standards higher than those of other citizens. When a politician should not be expected to maintain higher ethical standards than other citizens. What determines when politicians should be expected to maintain higher ethical standards than other citizens and when they should not. The job of a politician is a high calling that demands discipline and integrity which is beyond that of the average citizen. Because a politician represents the beliefs and values held by his or her constituents and is responsible for expressing their opinions to the government, it is important that they maintain high ethical standards. These standards can be defined as living a life of personal integrity, honesty, discipline, and respect for others whether the politician is at home or at work. Such ethical standards, as honesty are universally agreed upon virtues and should always be expected of a politician even if the citizens that they represent do not maintain such behaviour. For example, Belinda Stronach was a Canadian politician elected as a member of the Conservative party. She had a duty to honour the beliefs of her constituents and to complete the term that she was elected for. However, at a crucial vote that was essential for the Conservative party, Stronach “crossed the floor” and became a member of the Liberal Party. Soon after she was promoted to a Cabinet Minister by the Liberal leader. Although the average citizen sometimes quits their job and switch to another company for their own personal benefit, such actions are not justifiable for a politician. It was the duty of Ms. Stronach to maintain ethical standards which go beyond what is expected of the average person. There are however, some standards which should not be expected of a politician. Values and beliefs which are only held by certain groups of people should not be expected of a politician. For example, I attend a Christian church where most people believe that it is wrong to drink. This standard is not even agreed upon by all Christians, let alone by the majority of the citizens in our community. Paul Steckley is the elected politician for my community, but he occassionally has a drink on certain occasion. Indeed, at some events it is expected of him. Value such as abstaining from alcohol are not universally held by the constituents that Mr. Steckley represents, thus he should not be expected to maintain the ethical standards that are held by those of other citizens. Whether or not a politician should be expected to maintain ethical standards that are greater than those of other citizens depends on how universally accepted those standards are in the community that the politician represents. As a politician, Belinda Stronach was expected to persevere with the job that she accepted and continue to represent her constituents, even when it was not advantageous to her career because she has a duty to represent her voters. However, Paul Steckely should not be expected to abstain from alcohol simply because certain groups of people believe it is wrong. In a sense, each and every politician is accountable to their voters. They must live their personal and proffessional lives with the behaviour and attitude that all people agree is virtuous. No one is perfect, but politicians should strive to represent their voters well by maintain such standards, out of respect for their fellow citizens and appreciation of the democracy that they are a part of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 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. You're welcome. Glad that the feedback is of benefit to you. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity of thought. Some issues with depth of thought. You should set the stage a little bit more and describe what Myspace or Facebook is. What is a status? What is a wall in terms of a socialized networking site? Perhaps you could cover a profile and build on that, and show the social interaction. This interaction is key, and will be based on status, walls, and profiles. Instead of using Joey Hypothetical, can you think of another way of introducing a hypothetical example -of making it seem more concrete and less hypothetical? (city? university?) What is video conferencing? What does it mean to be real-time? These are important themes that you need to explore in more detail since your argument depends on how these work. Putting more detail into this explanation will enhance your argument a great deal. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Que Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 - Clicked!! - Great site btw And of course, thank you! Crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. Describe a specific situation in which a crime committed by an individual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government. Discuss what you think determines whether or not crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by government The existence of a government is for the protection of its citizens. In a democratic society, a government is composed of elected representatives voted into office by fellow constituents who believe the politicians have their best interests at heart. In order to maintain social order and proper societal functioning, governments establish laws that reflect the morals of their nation, which are used as guidelines to regulate the actions of their citizens. Since a government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, they should be held accountable to the same level of responsibility for acts against humanity as regular citizens would. Earlier this year, a civil uprising for the removal of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak broke out. The Egyptian citizens were angered by the widespread corruption in the political system, which included police brutality on civilians, restriction of freedom of speech, rigged elections, embezzlement of funds, and unwarranted detainment of civilians. If individuals conducted these acts, they would be charged with kidnapping, money laundering, torture, and violation of personal rights. The Egyptian government misused and abused its power in order to suppress the dissent of its opponents. Their actions were driven by greed and self-interest as opposed to the needs and benefits of its citizens and society at large. There are times, however, when a government must undertake actions that can be deemed criminal if conducted by individuals in order to maintain the safety of its constituents and to uphold the founding principles of the nation. The Patriot Act was established post 9/11 terrorist attacks, which enabled the US National Security Agency to wiretap any individual suspected to be in affiliation with Al-Qaeda or other organizations that fuel terrorism. This is considered a violation of personal privacy when undertaken by an individual and is punishable by law. However, the Patriot Act was evoked in order to prevent and eliminate the threat of another terrorist attack on United States that could undermine the very stability of the nation. The motive behind such a policy that infringed on the privacy of its citizens was rooted in the desire for the protection of society, the sustenance of its freedom, and the safety of its citizens. The government had the citizens’ best interests in mind and was not driven by personal benefits or individual gains. Evidently, the motive behind a government’s choice of action should be used as a measure of its validity and righteousness. Criminal acts are defined as actions that are unlawful. However, the basis of lawfulness lies in the intention of the act itself. When actions are conducted for one’s personal gain at the harm of another, be it by an individual or by a government, they are viewed as criminal and should be condemned. In the case of the Egyptian protest, Mubarak was eventually forced to step down and be held accountable to the criminal deeds conducted by both him and his government against its citizens. The Egyptian government not only failed to represent its constituents but also used its power to force universal consent and to propel its selfish desires of unchallenged supremacy. On the other hand, the US government’s implementation of the Patriot Act, despite being controversial, had its citizens’ best interest in mind. Its government wanted to maintain the public order of society in order to ensure the safety of its citizens. Thus, the intention behind a government’s course of action determines the nature of its legitimacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. The treatment of the writing assignment is coherent, with some focus. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Somehow, the second example doesn't sit right with me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems that your essay will benefit from another example. It would be something that matches the intensity of the first example. Perhaps, you could come up with another example that is more far-reaching such as the Russians in World War Two? I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 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. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus and utility. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Perhaps you could clarify better the relationship between Putin and Medvdev after Medvedev became president. How much of an influence did Putin have on Medvedev, and how much of the role of merely figurehead did Medvedev play? I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 -clicked- Thanks so much for offering this service! Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. Services provided by companies range from the absolute essential to non essential ones. A necessary service is one that is needed for maintaing one's standard of living and protecting human rights. Such services include healthcare, water and electricity supply and access to medication. The lack of these services often has a severe negative impact on a citizen's standard of living. Unnecessary services are those which are not necessary for living, but which contribute to a comfortable lifestyle. Governments have a role to protect citizens from exploitative manufacturers. Unregulated services are business, existing for the sole purpose of generating income from the masses. When unregulated, essential service providers may take advantage of the necessity of their services, and exploit consumers. Governments should intervene and regulate companies if only a single company is providing the essential service. For example, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is the only public transport service in Toronto. The TTC is a private body, operating independant of government control. In 2008, all TTC workers went on strike, demanding raises and further rights as workers. The strike left the entire city paralyzed. Students missed exams, workers were unable to commute and amubalances were delayed on the roads as a result of extreme traffic congestion. This is the result of a monopoly in essential services. If the TTC had been controlled by the government, such a city wide strike would likely not have occured. Furthermore, the TTC raises its fares regularly, resulting in Toronto Transit being one of the most expensive in the world. The lack of competition in the sector has resulted in this and government regulation in such situation would serve to protect the interests of the nation's citizens. However, in situations where multiple companies are providing the same essential service, government regulation is unnecessary. In such a situation, the rival companies compete with each other and are forced to provide the consumer with the best possible service. Healthcare in Sri Lanka is not regulated by the government. Private hospitals charge consumers for ambulance calls and for consultations with physicians. The lack of government control, and the presence of over a dozen hospitals in near vicinity of each other, has fuelled the hospitals to provide the best possible health care options to the citizens of the city at the best possible charges. Ambulance services are even offered for free for elderly patients as an incentive to attract patients to the hospital. Government regulation in such an atmosphere would only serve to dampen the necessary enthusiasm of the companies in providing the best possible service. Necessary services, which are required for protecting a citizen's standard of living and human rights, may be provided by a single company or by multiple ones. Government regulation is necessary when a single company is providing the service, as a means of protecting the interests of the citizen and ensuring that the company does not victimize the consumer due to the monopoly it sustains. However, when several companies provide the same essential service, government regulation is not necessary to protect the consumer since rivalry among the companies will result in the companies serving the consumer's best interests. The latter scenario is often more effective than the former, and even when only one company exists, a governmental body may decide to encourage the growth of competing companies as opposed to directly regulating the only existing company. Both scenarios will eventually protect the citizens of the country and ensure that they are not victimized due to their dependance on necessary services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ameltingbanana Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. The treatment of the writing assignment is coherent, with some focus. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Somehow, the second example doesn't sit right with me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems that your essay will benefit from another example. It would be something that matches the intensity of the first example. Perhaps, you could come up with another example that is more far-reaching such as the Russians in World War Two? I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Hmm, so you're suggesting that it's an issue of scale that hinders the essay right? I agree, the court reporter example was certainly weaker than the first one, but time was not on my side haha. Thanks again for the input! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 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' date=' 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'] You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. For the second example, it is not apparent why the reporting was not completely objective. You will need to establish this. Was certain information missing? Was there a voice over narration on the videos that was misleading? Your reasoning seems to show that there was some suppression of the reporting of events, followed by the release of this information, but this is not enough to adequately and logically show that the news report was not completely objective. It is not completely objective if certain nonrepresentative information was released to the public, yet information that represents actual occurrences is withheld. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Hmm, so you're suggesting that it's an issue of scale that hinders the essay right? I agree, the court reporter example was certainly weaker than the first one, but time was not on my side haha. Thanks again for the input! That's right. If you were to mention the court reporter in the trial of Bernardo, Homolka (re: French and Mahaffy) in Ontario in the early 1990s, that would be more compelling, and would make for a better essay. Yet, if you took out the example altogether and wrote about 9/11, and how there were tons of journalists from around the world reporting on the story, and how it was hard not to be objective since there was so much camera footage, then your essay would be even stronger. (Mention how the camera doesn't lie, and something along those lines, and argue from that standpoint. Some will argue that the camera does lie, argue back that if there are many cameras from many operators from around the world, it is more likely that the camera is telling the truth.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 -clicked- The more people rely on computers' date=' the more people become alienated from one another. [/b'] 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! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. The second example may not fully suit task#2. It seems the underlying conclusion from that example is that computers had facilitated a resolution to a sociopolitical issue. It therefore deviates from the intended purpose of the example to show how computers can rebuild human interactions and closeness in communication. The example is still salvageable, except, you must argue from a whole other perspective to make the example fit. Try to see how the useage of social networks can enhance human communication and interactions under the conflict. What is lost under such conflict, and how is it restored through online social networking? Further, can computers be used to enhance community during political and civil unrest? I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 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. Thanks for clicking and setting ripple.org as your home page. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus and utility. I would advise against using too many pronouns in the essay, especially as it pertains to formulating arguments. To clarify, as you personalize your arguments, they have less of an impact and are less compelling since you reduce their scope and universality. For instance: 1)"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." v. 2)"Some voters may find such behaviour questionable, and although it may raise some concerns, it is largely irrelevant in politics. The reason is that Mr. Steckely is a model politician, always attending each session healthy and sober. It is very evident that Mr. Steckely's personal life has no bearing on his political proficiency, and therefore his personal life is of no concern to anyone but himself." Also, when you mentioned that Waterloo, Ontario is the city in which you live, it hurts your essay. I don't mean that the AAMC grader has a problem with Waterloo, rather, that your examples are from the same geographical area, and it would logically seem that your examples apply to a particular part of the world only. Otherwise, your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 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. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity of thought. The explanations that you provided in your first two paragraphs will need to be refined as this prompt is a little trickier to explore than most. It may even seem that the prompt is logically inconsistent with the definition for freedom, so you have to tread carefully. Your examples are adequate, but your explanations are not. While you were putting energy in the anecdotal references, you could have been explaining the rationale behind your examples. It does make your essay unique, however, uniqueness isn't one of the requirements for the MCAT essay, depth is. In order to increase depth, you should explore how someone can reason the prompt to be true in your first paragraph. Then you ought to show how the prompt is not true in the second paragraph by showing how freedom can be measured by our rights and freedom of choice. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 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. You're welcome. Glad to offer my assistance. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. Task#1 was incomplete. You must explain what the prompt means in your own words: The law’s essential role is to regulate society rather than to provide justice. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments, however, your essay would benefit from a more in-depth exploration of your arguments and explanations. You could cover how and why the law regulates society. Why is it important? Why is it important that the law provides justice? What happens if the law doesn't provide justice? What happens then? Is the law fair, or at least more fair than what the deceased constable's loved ones could be in light of what happened to them? These are some ideas that you could also explore in your essay. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 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. You're welcome. Thanks for continuing to click. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus. Some issues with integration and complexity. One thing to note first is that New Hampshire is on the other side of the country from California. Be weary of facts like this since the AAMC graders are American and have an intuitive sense of American geography. If someone told you that British Columbia and Ontario are neighbouring provinces, you may subconsciously find that the author's other examples may not be very credible. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. There may be room for a more powerful rule determining whether laws change or do not change social values. The rule you provided was sufficient, but there could be a more compelling one. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingStar Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 You're welcome. Thanks for continuing to click. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus. Some issues with integration and complexity. One thing to note first is that New Hampshire is on the other side of the country from California. Be weary of facts like this since the AAMC graders are American and have an intuitive sense of American geography. If someone told you that British Columbia and Ontario are neighbouring provinces, you may subconsciously find that the author's other examples may not be very credible. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. There may be room for a more powerful rule determining whether laws change or do not change social values. The rule you provided was sufficient, but there could be a more compelling one. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Oh wow, did not even realize the geography mis-connect there haha. thanks so much for pointing it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antithesis Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 -clicked- Thank you so much! Education come not from books but from practical experience. A person can often learn better from actually performing a task with their own two hands, rather than just reading about how to do it in a book. It is usually easier to understand how something is done when one actually does it for themselves. This allows a deeper understanding because it requires thinking about why something must be completed a certain way. For example, when performing an experiment in the lab, the only way one can ever truly learn is to actually do it themselves. Watching others and reading the theory behind it, will never compare to actually doing it. While doing it, one must think about why each step is being done to contribute to a positive outcome, therefore enriching their knowledge of the process. However, there are times when books are more important learning tools than experience. When learning basic, concrete facts in school, such as mathematics, books are better educators then practical experience. In this case, one must learn the basic principles of math from a book before they can go any further. An individual must build a foundation which comes from books, before being able to jump into "hands on" experiences. Therefore the question is, when does practical experience provide a better education than a book. The answer is that they truly go hand in hand. In the previous example regarding a lab experiment, before one attempts to perform the experiment, background reading must be done in order to acquire a basic understanding of the process. Books are crucial to providing a foundation for learning, whereas practical experience really solidifies understanding. General knowledge must be obtained from a book, whereas practical experience teaches troubleshooting and modifying, which expands one's knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minowa Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 -clicked- Thank you!!! The object of education should be to teach skills, not values. In a democratic society, citizens have the right to freedom of thought and of belief. Indeed, this right is so fundamental in a democratic society that it is often entrenched in the constitutions of democractic countries. For example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Canadian constitution, lists freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression among its fundamental freedoms. In the same vein, as everyone has the right to their beliefs, governmental educational institutions should not impose cerrtain values to students who attend them. The main object of education, then, would be to teach students skills, such as mathematics or how to write. Indeed, these would be more objective in nature and remove the possibility of a teacher imposing their own personal values on his or her students. However, there are situations where a teacher in a classroom might want to teach certain values to his or her students. This is especially the case when a teacher must keep order in the classroom and punish intolerable behaviour. For example, he or she might have to discipline a student who has bullied another student for wearing a religious item or punish a student who threatens another. In doing so, the teacher is teaching them that respect for others is of the utmost importance. This would not be contrary to the principles of a democratic society. In fact, the promotion of respect in the classroom is in keeping with the values of a democratic society, as by imposing certain behaviour on students that encourages respect, a teacher is promoting equality among members of the classroom and teaching them that everyone has a right to their views. This is in line with the principles of freedom of thought and belief that are fundamental under a democracy. What determines whether the object of education is to teach skills and when it is to teach values, then, is whether the object of the lesson is to teach a topic that is part of the curriculum or whether it has to do with the behaviour of students in the classroom. Generally, topics that are part of the curriculum are not decided by the teacher and the latter will not have a chance to impose personal values on his or her students. However, without keeping order in their classroom, a teacher will have difficulty in teaching his or her students the necessary skills that they need in order to pass their exams and integrate the subject matter. In so doing, they are also teaching their students the value of respect for others and that everyone has freedom of their beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPfanforever Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 -clicked- Thanks for your feedback for my last essay. Thanks in advance for this one! Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies. As we move forward in time, civilized human beings constantly seek ways to better our lives. Such advancement, especially in the creative realm, often evolves to comprise of increasing components. From the prehistoric age to modern day, musical instruments went from tree branches and rocks to nine-foot-long concert grand pianos with eighty-eight keys. Along with improvements in the media on which people play music, musical styles have also seen a significant change through the centuries. Drab, monophonic textures that emerged from primitive percussions gave way to the polyphonic, colorful harmonies of Handel's Messiah and Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake. On the other hand, technology has leapt through the years and broke uncountable barriers. A single first-generation programable electromechanical computer in the late 1940's was enormous and took up the space of an entire room. These were extremely inconvenient and limited in their practical use. As computer science developed into the twenty-first century, we now have portable, compact notebooks and tablet personal computers such as the iPad. Simplication in electronic devices is only made possible through progress. Ultimately, through innovation and reinvention, many facets of humanity are either made more complicated or simplified. The determining factor lies in the aspect of civilization on which the progress impacts. Art, music, fashion and other genres of creative expression are increasingly complex as more intricate tools are trifled with to match up to our growing appetite for artistic appreciation. At the same time, our exaggerated dependence on information technology has pushed for the emergence of handy gadgets. Without progress, we would not be able to enjoy Beethoven's 5th Symphony on an iPod Nano. P.S. This was the first essay that I wrote a while back for a practice test, so I was greatly struggling with the time constraint, thus the rather short essay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangos Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 --clicked-- Prisoners should be granted the same rights as the other members of free society Describe a specific situation in which persons might justifiably not be granted a right in prison that they are otherwise granted in free society. Discuss what you think determines whether the rights of free society should be granted to persons in prison. Laws are placed in a society in order to uphold the peace and safety of all its citizens. It follows then that those who break the law are considered criminals and thus, depending upon the severity of the crime, could be sentenced to jail. While in jail, one is known as a prisoner, and some are granted the same rights as other members of free society while others are not. A right is considered as something that all cititzens are obliged to have according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights include, but are not limited to, freedom of speech, belief, and the right to liberty. Although it can be perceived that prisoners have all their rights curbed when compared to members of free society, those that have obeyed the law and are not confined to jail according to the law, this is not the case. In fact, prisoners share the same rights as free civilians with the minor exception of their right to liberty. Due to the fact that society has deemed a particalur criminal dangerous to those around him according to the law, his right to liberty is constricted, but not revoked. As a prisoner, one is not confined strictly to a cell and unable to walk around. In fact, under certain times of day, prisoners are able to go anywhere they choose within the jail vicinity. Furthermore, various activities are provided to prisoners that are also available to free civilians such as jobs, a fitness center, and even a church. With the provision of a church, all prisoners are able to partake in any form of religious practice they wish in accordance with their freedom of belief. As can be seen, prisoners confined within a prison do not have all their rights revoked. In stead, a prison can be seen as a rehabilition center in which criminals are confined within, for the protection of society, but yet are still able to excerise their various rights. However, with that being said, there are cases in which prisoners do not have the same rights as free civilians in society. For example, there are unique circumstances in which a criminal commiteed a crime so severe, such as harming human life, that have resulted in them being sentenced to death. This could be seen in the recent Caysee Anthony trial in which she could have been sentenced to death if found guilty for the death of her child. Since death is the most serious penalty, it effectively curbs one of all their rights-freedom of speech or freedom of belief is no longer taken into account once one is found guilty of the death penalty. As can be seen, there are two types of prisoners- those who deserve to have the same rights as free indivduls of society and those who do not. What determines the former or the latter depends on the type of crime committed. If a crime is commited that does not deserve the death penalty, the prisoner’s rights within prison are still upheld to a degree. However, if one’s crime is punishable by death, then upon being convicted as guilty, one’s rights are effectively revoked. This could be seen in the Caysee Anthony trials if the jury had deemed her guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro_07 Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 -clicked- Prompt: The more wealth a nation possesses, the more personal liberty it offers its citizens. Describe a specific situation in which the personal liberty of citizens might not depend on a nation's wealth. Discuss what you think determines when the personal liberty of citizens depends on a nation's wealth and when it does not. The citizens of all democracies around the world have the same fundamental rights upon which democracy is founded. However, the liberty to exercise a particular right might depend on the country’s wealth. One’s personal liberty includes the freedom to choose a profession of interest and lead a lifestyle according to one’s own terms. The degree to which a person can enjoy these liberties is often determined by how big the economy of the nation is. In a big economy like USA, there are various professions from which one can choose, there are more employment opportunities, and thus, overall a better chance of earning enough to lead a lifestyle of one’s dreams. On the other hand, in a small economy of Bangladesh there are not enough employment opportunities and not many high salary jobs that can allow the people to live life to their expectations. This is a major underlying factor for high rate of immigration in wealthy countries where one has the highest personal liberty. However, it is also important to highlight instances when a country’s wealth does not determine the liberty of its citizens. Malta, an island country in Mediterranean Sea, legalised divorce on July 30, 2011. Personal liberty includes the freedom to decide when one can break the marriage. In Malta, before today, one did not enjoy the liberty to end a marriage. People in many other countries with smaller economies than Malta would have had this liberty, suggesting a country’s wealth is not always correlated with personal liberties. A person is free to enjoy all liberties as long as he/she is within the boundary of law. One cannot practice something that is not legal in the state. Hence, correlation between nation’s wealth and personal liberties is limited to things that are legal. It is perfectly legal to indulge in any profession of personal preference, and thus, wealthier nations have comparatively more liberty in choosing the kind of work one wants to do. However, if certain activities, although personal liberties, such as divorce or same sex marriage are not legal, then the nation’s law is the determinant of degree of liberty. Thank you, Pastainhaler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 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' date=' 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'] You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus and utility. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. An AAMC grader may take issue with your definition of a moral lesson. Perhaps a movie that is provocative will get you to think and reflect upon your own life, but a provocative movie doesn't necessarily teach a moral lesson. Your argument still follows a good line of reasoning, and your premises entail your conclusion. However, the issue is with the premise dealing with the definition of moral lesson. It may be a superior option to stick with the common understanding of a moral lesson, namely a lesson learned about ethics, about right and wrong and their consequences. You also may wish to strengthen your argument a bit more and unify your essay by referring back to what defines a movie as being good -one that attracts a lot of viewers and generates millions in revenue. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.