PastaInhaler Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 -clicked- Compulsory education often inhibits a student's motivation to learn. Compulsory education alludes to an education without choice, a plan meant to inspire learning in an individual but based on a generalized idea. It can be interpreted as the time required for education, such as the requirement of education up to highschool in many regions. It can also be interpreted as the type of education a student is required to receive, such as language courses, maths, or science courses. Either case, it can become counterproductive and turn the student away from learning, leaving them unprepared for later life. An example can be seen in many urban innercity neighborhoods across the United States where a generalized compulsory education is often given to inner city kids. In these families or social environments, an education is not often valued, and such compulsory education becomes frequently ignored. The result is a further devaluation of education, and ultimately the teenagers turn to a lifestyle of crime. In this situation, although a compulsory education is often the only option that seems economically possibly, it is not hard to see that an alternative individualized education would benefit these innercity kids. However, for some families where education is already an ingrained value, an early compulsory education can provide a framework for the student's further education pursuits. One of the most wealthy men in the world, Bill Gates, came frome a highly educated and wealthy family. He was put through a private school where many aspects of education are rigid and unchanging. In this academic environment he developed skills which enabled him to revolutionize the world of computing. Although he did not graduate from Harvard when he attended, many of his professors would testify to his work ethics and problem solving skills, and such attributes were carried with him when he went on to cofound Microsoft. It is easy to see that a compulsory education is not the best option for everyone. In places where education is lowly valued but desperately needed, a compulsory education can often create a hostile environment for the students, making further education more difficult. An alternative style of individualized education that encourages the student to learn on their own accord can be arguably better, however difficult to accomodate. On the other hand, when education is already highly valued, such type of education is not needed. A compulsory education which allows the students to create a solid foundation for their post-secondary education can be successful. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Some issues with integration. The Bill Gates example can seem a little weak. It presents a good foundation for someone to argue against you because a part of your argument doesn't address the prompt. The part about Gates founding Microsoft doesn't address the motivation to learn, succeed in the business world, yes, but learn, no. You must therefore tweak your argument to reflect the motivation to learn. You can do so by de-emphasizing Gates losing motivation to learn in university and subsequently dropping out, and emphasizing his need to learning about software, coding, and entrepreneurship. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 -clicked- Thanks in advance PastaInhaler! Prompt: There are times when an individual’s private acts should become a public concern Describe a specific situation in which an individual's private acts should not become a public concern. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the acts of an individual should become a public concern. The importance placed on privacy is evident in today’s society. Teenagers always seem to be under the impression that their parents are intruding on their privacy. Although each and every individual has a right to privacy, there are times when how a person exercises their privacy should become the concern of the general public. Take for example the Bernier-Couillard controversy. Maxime Bernier was elected to be a member of parliament in January 2006 and became a cabinet member as the Minister of Public Affairs. Bernier started dating a woman by the name of Julie Couillard in 2007 and she caught the media’s attention when it was discovered that she had had past romantic links with a member of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang. A political scandal erupted when it was determined that Bernier had left sensitive NATO briefing notes at Couillard’s residence. Although Couillard later returned the papers, the nature of the documents as well as her past links to the Hells Angels posed a risk to natural security. Bernier’s high political status matched with his private life was enough to jeopardize the security of the public. Thus, because Bernier’s private life posed a risk to natural security, the public had a right to be concerned. Although there are times when an individual’s privacy should become the concern of the public, this should not always be the case. Throughout history, celebrities have gained prominence but at the same time, have become victims of public scrutiny. Paparazzi photographers have been known to have a disregard for the privacy of celebrities mainly because of the candid photos that are taken and then sold. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, recently passed an anti-paparazzi law which is geared toward the protection of celebrities. The law states that it is illegal to sell unauthorized photos of celebrities in “private and familial activities”. The fact that celebrities are not involved in making decisions that could have a negative impact on society is thus a good reason why the public should not be concerned with the private lives of such individuals. Determining whether or not the acts of an individual should become a public concern should be judged by whether they are public officials or private citizens. Public officials are people who hold positions in the government either through election or by appointment. Private citizens, on the other hand, are people who are not involved with the government and do not hold a public or official position. Maxime Bernier, who falls under the definition of a public official, made decisions which jeopardized national security and therefore raised concerns among the public. It is thus safe to say that the private acts of public officials should become a concern of the public. Celebrities however can be classified as private citizens and are constantly under watch by society for solely entertainment purposes. Private citizens therefore should not have to worry about their private acts becoming a concern of the public. All in all, the public should continue to be wary of the private lives of public officials but should not be concerned with the private lives of private citizens. 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. You provided a good example for task#1. The example in task#2 was not as strong. Actually, the example in task#2 seemed like a background or appetizer example that would introduce the actual example. You may consider adding the example of Princess Diana and her fate as a result of the actions of paparazzis, or mentioning another celebrity who's privacy has been violated by the paparazzi. Also, be sure to spend some time reviewing your essay quickly, but carefully, after you finish writing. You had referred to 'national security' as 'natural security'. An AAMC grader will normally overlook minor spelling errors, however, this error occurred twice in your essay and it appears to be an important part of your argument. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 -clicked-and thanks The object of education should be to teach skills, not values. Describe a specific situation in which the object of education might be teaching values rather than skills. Discuss what you think determines when the object of education is to teach skills and when it is to teach values. It is said that a North American education prepares kids for the ‘real world’. The education system of North American focuses on the idea that teaching kids life skills is more important than teaching kids technical skills that could be used in future. Education policy makers often focus on teaching students values of life and of doing the ‘right thing’. I remember while I was in elementary school, we often were thought what is right and what is wrong by our teachers. Our teachers, like policy makers believe that teaching us about what to value and what not to value will in turn make us better human beings and better citizens. We are often thought of teamwork, leadership, responsibility, commitments, and many other virtues that a good citizen should have. When our graduation requirement had 40 hours of mandatory volunteer work, this was all there to teach us of what to value. When they ask us to do 40 hours of volunteer work, they are asking us to show sympathy and learn sympathy. They are telling us that volunteerism is a good thing. While learn about these virtues may make us a better citizen, it certainly will never help most of us earn a living. With these skills we also need technical skills so that we can apply them and earn a living. When we move from elementary school to high school and finally to college, we slowly move from an education that focuses on teaching us values to an education which focuses on teaching technical skills. While an engineer is in college, he is thought all the skills that he may need when he is working. It is true that an engineer takes classes on ethics which are placed to teach values, the focus of the education is on the technical skills that the engineer will need in the future. The same can be said about a doctor, a business graduate, a lawyer. One can now begin to see a pattern. As the education system goes from a public system such as the elementary school to a private education such as colleges and universities, we as students start to earn education that will help us get a job. Policy makers care more about keeping a civil society while colleges and universities are teaching students to make money. It is likely that government policy makers have little or no hold over what the universities and colleges teach to their students, mainly because it is a private business. This is exactly students who immigrate to canada from a nation with privatized education sysetm are stronger in academics than our students, but weaker in other aspects that are determined by having a firm set of values, such as volunteerism. A student who has just emigrated sees no reason to volunteer.Thus the hold of the policy makers on the education system is what determines what students are learning. Thus the hold of the government on the education system is what dectates what students are learning. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Some issues with organization and depth. Although you have completed the three tasks, task#1 and task#2 are not in common order, which is alright, but it may be easier for the grader if you kept the tasks in order. I feel that it would be best to arrange the tasks in proper sequence since the graders must specifically assess if you have properly explained the prompt (task#1). In the case of your essay, you actually did a better job explaining task#2 since you completed that task first, and the background info you provided was linked to that task, and not task#1. In your second example (task#1), you should go into more depth about what skills an engineer picks up from education and how this makes him/her more employable, and how his/her understanding of values will not. You can even explain how at this stage, an understanding of values is actually a technical skill. This will help illustrate your points better, and provides more depth. You had introduced some other professions, but did not explore them in depth. It may be best to omit them, and fully explore the single example that you first brought up regarding the engineering student. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMUBC_04 Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 -clicked- Social unity requires individual conformity with prevailing mores. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a situation in which individual conformity may hamper social progress. Discuss what a Pluralistic society can do to achieve unity. specific Individuals living within a society often conform to traditional customs that are practiced as a group. When many individuals conform to the same idea, the result is a sense of social unity. Often when a unified society reaches out to conform more individuals; they can create political movements supporting it with a massive force of unity. For example, prior to the 1960s in the United States of America, there was extreme racism against the Black population. It was a social norm to have Black slaves or to have Black people sit at the back of the bus. In particular, there were segregation laws aimed at the Black population. More people eventually became unified against these laws and created a mass political movement pushing for equality. They achieved their goal and unified society on the premise of equality rather than racism. Often in societies, individual conformity can hamper social progress. A society may be unified on an idea or custom that is aimed to harm or assimilate another race or another belief. This is the case of Nazi Germany in the 1930s to mid 1940s. After World War I and the Great Depression, Germany was devastated. Fascist leader of the Nazi party, Adolf Hitler, took advantage of this opportunity. He saw that the public needed leadership and someone to unify them. He led them to believe that the Aryan race was the most superior and that all others were inferior. This case of social unity resulted in the mass murder of all of who were not Aryan. Hitler managed to unify society but under a negative premise and this halted social progress in Europe at the time. Pluralistic societies face many challenges to achieve unity. The main challenge is that there are a variety of groups that practice different customs that may clash with one another. Although Pluralistic societies are faced with this sort of challenge, there is no reason why they cannot achieve unity. This can be the case if each group within a pluralistic society works towards a common goal that will benefit one another rather than focusing on their differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebriz Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 -clicked- -clicked- Thank you for doing this Pasta Inhalor! You are a good person and I wish I could click a button to give you all the pasta you could eat The primary goal of every business should be to maximize profits. Businesses around the world all involve some type of profit and a business is just an attempt to generate profit. Profit is defined as the difference between the amount that a business makes and the amount that it has to spend, essentially revenues minus expenses. The statement means that the main motive of all businesses should be to create the most profit possible, by either maximizing revenue or minimizing costs. This relates to the reason that businesses are created because businesses by definition businesses are an attempt to create profit. In the economic crisis and recession of USA in 2008, companies such as General Motors were forced to fire many employees in order to attempt to maximize profit in order to keep the shareholders happy. The shareholders are the people that have interest in the company making profit, either from owning the business or recieving dividends or portions of the profit. Although profit is a common goal amongst businesses, more than one type of profit exist and not all businesses are created to generate the same type of profit as defined earlier. Some types of businesses called non-profit organizations have other goals which range from raising money for causes or assisting people in need. The Heart and Stroke foundation is a non profit organization that has a goal to research cardiac and brain health and help avoid heart attacks and stroke. As we can see from the non-profit label of these businesses, they do not try and generate profit in the same sense as usual businesses. The profit that these types of businesses make is an intangible profit that results in the greater good for a certain cause. These businesses do have costs and revenues but the difference between these go back into the organization and not to the shareholders. The factor that decides when a business should maximize profits is the type of organization that is being run. A business such as General Motors that has a responsibility to its shareholders to generate profit should always try and maximize profits even if it means firing employees. A non-profit organization on the other hand is an organization such as the Heart and Stroke foundation whose goal it is to generate research does not maximize profit in the same sense as usual businesses, the profit generated in intangible. A further consideration is the reason that the business is created. Non profit organizations are created for the greater good while regular businesses by definition are there to generate profit. Profitability may be apparent in both types but the definition of profit varies. A politician's lifestyle should reflect his or her political views. A politician's lifestyle should reflect his or her political views. This statement means that a politician should abide by what they preach. A politician is a person who helps to create laws that other people are forced to follow whether or not those people agree with them. Politicians therefore should live a lifestyle that reflects what they think is the ideal for others to live. A politician who believes that marijuana should be illegal should not at the same time be consuming marijuana even if it is for medical purposes. Ronald Reagan helped push a very costly anti drug policy and him and his wife nancy are the epitimy of what society calls anti-drug. They truely lived the life (to the best of the publics knowledge) that the viewed to be ideal. Political views are all of the ideas that the politician has that will affect the people that they delegate over. Sometimes, politicians must do the opposite of what they truely believe in to get to get into office. A fundamental reason for having their values out in the open is so that the public can decide whether or not they agree with them and if they should vote for them to hold office. Many times politicians need to lie in order to become elected so that they can push their true agenda. Governer Arnold Shwarzenegger of California was elected under the premise that he was a republican and that he has a more conservative viewpoint of how things should be ran. It was later found out that he had smoked marijuana in the past and the people that had voted for him due to his republican stance were upset. He later helped signed bills making medical marijuana legal in the state of California. This did result in greater good for those suffering with ailments that can be helped by this medicine but the public that voted him in due to his rebulican stance were not happy as the republicans are very anti-marijuana. The main factor that can distinguish whether or not a politician should live the life that they preach is whether or not living that lifestyle will help them get into office. The ultimate goal of every politician is to get elected so that they can push their own agenda, even if they do not abide by what they say is ideal. Ronald Reagan truly believed that drugs like marijuana was bad so he lived a anti-drug lifestyle and was elected. Governer Shwarzeneggor on the other hand, saw the possible medical useses and lack of harm created by marijuana but knew that if he preached this before he was elected, he may not get into office. He therefore held a very conservative viewpoint differing from his own lifestyle until he was elected when he could push his true agenda. When it comes down to the facts we may not know that Ronald Reagan and Arnold Shwarzeneggors truly believed in the causes that they worked for, they might just be good actors. It has been said by some that all politicians are actors, only the better ones get elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stainless0 Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 -clicked- Hey PastaInhalor, thanks so much! In a country that fosters freedom of speech, the expression of ideas should never be censored. The freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental of human rights. A person who cannot express themselves cannot contribute to society. After all, art, as a whole, is a form of expressing the artist's passions and ideas. Flourishing literature, art, and music are the hallmarks of a successful society. Art also influences science, which allows for the progress of society and human culture as a whole. A country that censors its people cannot flourish and grow in the same way as a country that allows for free expression. When people are not allowed to express themselves, no new ideas are contributed to the public forum, and no progress can be made as a result of a collaborative growth of these ideas. Eventually, as has been seen many times throughout history, the country's society withers and dies, and the government collapses as either the oppressed people either revolt, or stagnate along with their country. There are also those who argue the opposite. Censorship of expression is beneficial to society as a whole by preventing opinions that are damaging to the people, state or culture from being expressed. Racism is a damaging and harmful opinion still held by many today. Throughout history, the hatred of another culture or race has resulted in actions which has harmed some group of people. The holocaust, slavery, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Japanese internment camps during World War II are all example of racist acts which have brought harm to the victimized cultural groups. Many millions died from these actions resulting from the expression of racism. Today many forms of racism are outlawed. People who perform such acts and have such opinions are often persecuted by law. This is censorship in action. Therefore, it can be concluded that freedom of speech should be uncensored by the government, but to a certain extent. Freedom of expression is essential for the growth and improvement of society, producing works of art and inspiring groundbreaking scientific discoveries. However, certain harmful opinions should not be allowed to be expressed. Ideas like racism are harmful to society as a whole and go against the intended benefits of having the freedom to express yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antithesis Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 -clicked- Thank you! In a free society, laws must be subject to change. We live in an ever changing society, where new realizations and discoveries occur constantly. Human beings have evolved as a people over thousands of years, and with that evolution there must sometimes come change in the laws that govern us as a people. An example of this is with regards to laws controlling gay marriage. We live in a time where we can look back in history and see how intolerance of others wreaks havoc and promotes violence within society. Therefore, there is no reason to be intolerant of gay marriage and it is a law that must evolve with the times. People cannot be denied fundamental rights just because they are a little bit different than the majority of the population, which is why in many places such as Canada, laws regarding gay marriage are evolving. However, there are times when laws should not be changed. Laws are made in order to protect people within society and some laws, such as those regarding safety should not be altered. For example, traffic laws, such as stopping at a red light, serve a fundamental purpose, to protect people on the road. These laws must stay in place so that chaos is not created on the streets. As well, laws protecting fundamental human rights must be upheld. For example, laws governing abortion should not be changed. Having an abortion is a woman's fundamental right of freedom to choose what happens to her body. Denying a woman this right, would be denying her her personal freedom. Therefore the question is, what determines if a law in a free society should be subject to change. Some laws are put in place to protect the people, in terms of safety as well as fundamental human rights, such as the examples above regarding traffic safety and abortion. In this sense laws should not be changed. However, we must recognize that we live in an evolving society and there are outdated laws that do deny groups of people fundamental rights. These laws, such as those controlling gay marriage, must change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickentalk Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 - clicked - Thanks again PastaInhaler. Most advertising encourages conformity to social norms. 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 advertising might not encourage conformity to social norms. Discuss what you think determines whether or not advertising encourages conformity to social norms. Advertising has always played a large and important part in forming the beliefs of society. The actions that result because of these beliefs determine whether or not an advertising party was successful in its endeavours. Most advertising, that is a message that a party is trying to convince its listeners of or a product that it is trying to sell, encourages conformity to what is commonly believed as acceptable and popular in society. These social norms can be beliefs that the party is trying to alter, or contrastingly, trying to promote into action. Since the technological advancements of television and the Internet, advertising has been used greatly by industries that use celebrity icons to promote their products. For example, Nike Sports, prior to 2010, endorsed Tiger Woods, arguably the greatest golfer in professional history, to promote their apparel. Under his multimillion-dollar contract with Nike, Woods was the face of Nike advertisements ranging from hats to golf gear. He also promoted products by wearing the apparel during play. ESPN even tagged him as “Best Male Athlete” recently. Such recognition is sufficient for individuals who aspire to be like Tiger Woods to believe that his endorsements have a part in his success. Nike feeds on this belief and encourages consumers in their advertisements to buy Nike apparel so that they can taste similar success. The company enhances a social belief and encourages individuals to put into action. On the contrary, some advertising does not encourage individuals to conform to social norms. In other words, this form of advertising tries to alter a belief among individuals and/or discourage common practices. Such is the case in many public service announcements. For example, in the middle of the twentieth century, the Laskerites—a self-proclaimed group of high class influential lobbyists for medical research—turned their efforts towards a cure for cancer through research and political funding. They published advertisements in newspapers and magazines, and eventually created the Jimmy Fund, a charity organization that was funded by influential associations such as The Boston Red Sox. However, despite a large fund, the Laskerites believed that to really ignite the war on cancer they would need the backing of the United States congress. They appealed to President Nixon in December, 1969, in such a horrific yet powerful manner that made it sound as if Congress was not providing the support it needed to find an oh-so-close cure for cancer. This newspaper advertisement also resulted in the attention of the general public, and Congress eventually passed the Cancer Act allocating a large portion to cancer research. Endorsements to celebrities like Tiger Woods illustrate that when advertising is to enhance and promote action as a result of beliefs that are already present and common in the public, then companies such as Nike use advertisements to encourage these social norms. Individuals with an aspiration to become great golfers or athletes like Tiger Woods for example, have an incentive to buy Nike apparel under the valid impression that the products play a part in the athlete’s success. However, when advertising is in the form of public service announcements that are trying to persuade and convince the target audience of a belief not completely of their own, then parties such as the Laskerites use advertisements for this purpose rather than to encourage conformity to social norms. The swaying of public belief in favour of the Laskerites was done to lobby support to bring to Congress in order to increase funding for cancer research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 -Clicked- Thanks for your previous feedback! My last essay was done outside a testing situation and took a little longer than half an hour. This essay was done during a practice test and as a result is sloppier grammar wise. Any feedback would be appreciated nonetheless! Prompt: Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated. The field of pharmaceuticals and treatments is a physical representation of a large scale test of scientific concepts. Despite preclinical testing a drug or treatment is truly tested on the large scale of the open market. As a result may agencies have been put in place to ensure that in testing the science behind a drug or treatment, human life is never unneccessarily discarded. Therefore if a drug or treatment is among many designed to treat the same issue and it puts lives at risk it is a responsibility for an agency such as Health Canada to remove the item from the market in the face of risking human life. Furthermore, if the issue being treated by the product is non-terminal then removing the drug becomes more paramount. In 2005 the ADHD treatment drug Adderall XR was removed from the Canadian market after reports of healthy people suffering from strokes and heart problems. In this example the issue is ADHD a problem which, if left untreated, would not lead to death. Furthermore many other anti-ADHD drugs existed at the time, leading to the conclusion that the loss of human life was not justified in pursing the priciples behind Adderall. On the other hand there are situations in which is is justified for the loss of human life in the pursuit of principles behind drugs or procedures. In a situation where the procedure or drug is used to treat an issue which is terminal on its own, those participating often volunteer knowing the risks. Furthermore if the treatment or drug is the only new option available then many feel their lives are worth sacrificing for hope in finding a cure. Arguably if those who are at risk are themselves willing to sacrifice their lives then it is justified to do so in finding the principles behind new treatments. Recently many sufferers of multiple sclerosis underwent surgery to insert steints into the jugular veins in the neck. This new treatment was based off a brand new theory and those suffering from terminal MS felt that it was worth risking their lives to find out if the treatment works. Consequently, because those involved were terminal, willing and the treatment was the only new treatment for MS, the loss of life is justified in pursuing the truth. There are a number of factors which contribute to whether the loss of life is justified in pursuit of knowledge behind treatments or drugs. If those involved face an issue which is non-life threatening such as ADHD and are not willing to give up their own lives the loss of life is not warranted, especially if other treatments are available. On the other hand if a treatment or drug faces a terminal illness, and those affected are willing to give up their lives, then it becomes justified to learn in the face of loss of life - as has occurred with the vein steint MS trials. Furthermore if the treatment is the only new option to face a terminal disease such as MS the sacrifice of those lost is further justified in the long run. Thus whether human loss is justified depends on if the problem is terminal, whether the participants are willing to risk their lives, and if there are other options available. All in all it takes an extraordinary situation to allow knowledge to come before human life - situations which are rare amongst the world of today. Thanks once again! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. For this prompt, try to argue more from a research perspective. This applies to both the first example and second example. The idea behind this prompt is that research should be done without risking human life. If there is a chance that human life could be risked, then the research should be stopped. You have to emphasize this idea more in the first example with the ADHD treatment. Then, for the second example, try to move away from a therapeutic aspect of the research, and move towards a larger theme of scientific inquiry in general, and why it is sometimes necessary to risk human life in research. You may wish to cover the ethics behind it, as well as what an ethics committee would say about such research. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 --clicked--Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated. Throughout history, societies have strived to discover new ways to improve their standard and quality of life in various ways, whether it be in the form of the invention of new technologies for medical or military purposes, or even new ways of doing the same thing. Humanity has an innate characteristic of curiosity in attempts to gain more knoweldge, and it is this curiosity that has led to our desire to discover. However, over the years, this curiosity has driven humanity to the extreme of endangering human life in attempts to make discoveries. A perfect illustration of this is the desire to discover by the Germans during the Nazi regeime led by Adolf Hitler. During WWII, Adolf Hitler confined many Jews those not part of the Aryian race to concentration camps. Within these camps, several experiments were performed on human life in order to discover new ways to improve their military warfare, their medical procedures, and even their solider's performance. As a result of his curiosity to discover, prisoners were subject to harsh treatments which often led to disfigurement and even death. Experiments such as trying to sew bodies together, dismemberments of limbs, and and subjection to poison gas vaults are only a few examples of the extreme procedures that occurred in these concentration camps, all under the banner for new discoveries. At the end of the war, those involved with these experimentations were tried in the Nuremburg Trials and punished. As a result of the attrocities that occured, the Nuremburg Laws were developed illustrating the code of medical ethics that must be followed in present day experimentations, thus effectively protecting human life during acts of discovery. As can be seen, this is an example in which the desire to discover is not as important than the protection of human life. However, despite the high value placed on human life over the desire to discover, there are cases in which human loss is acceptable during the journey of new discoveries. A prime example of this is the NASA space exploration program. The desire to discover space and the moon has become the main ambition of several nations. Ever since the first landing of a human on the moon, space exploration has continued to advance and progress with more space shuttles carrying astronauts to perfrom different tasks in space. However, this program does not continue without its set of dangerous, life threatening consequences. Just prior to the launch of the Challenger shuttle for another round of space exploration, a malfunction in the shuttles rocket system led to explosion of the shuttle and instantaneous death of all atsronauts aboard. This turned out to be one of the most tragic experiences the NASA space exploration program had ever experienced. However, despite this tragic loss of human life, space exploration has continued to progress and prosper. Evidently, in some cases, the pursuit of new discoveries at the expense of human life may be tolerated. It is evident that human curiosity has driven us in the desire to discover. However, this desire has sometimes led to threat of human life and thus the journey of discovery must be halted, or in other cases, tolerated and allowed to continue. What determines whether this journey to discovery, although bring harm to human life, is tolerated or not depends on the main goal of the discoverer. In the case of Adolf HItlers desire to find new military and medical breakthroughs, his goal was to experiment on human prisoners within his concentration camps through ways that would knowingly lead to pain and death. Thus, this form of discovery abhorred and those involved in these gruesome experimenations were punished. Furthermore, the new set of laws, the Nuremburg Laws, were put into place to protect human life during experimentations. However, in the example of the NASA space exploration program, the main goal was to discover the benefits that space and the moon could bring to society on Earth. Despite the tragic loss of human life in the Challenger expedition, this loss is a result of a fatal mechanical error in the shuttle. The goal was not to put human life in endanger, but rather, this tragic event occurred unknowingly. As a result, space exploration is still endorsed and continues to progress. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Some issues with organization and integration. The first example may not be the best example for the argument that human life must be protected in research. The fact is, the researchers already did not care about human life, and human life was already lost, and this can act as a loophole in your argument. You can try to alter the argument somewhat by saying the researchers were coerced at gunpoint to conduct the experiment, or were fearful of being punished by their leader if they did not proceed as planned. If this is not the case, then you can emphasize that the rest of the world was strongly opposed to this research. The example in the second paragraph is sufficient. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 --clicked-- A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch. It is known that humans are subject to their innert characteristic of curiosity, thus giving rise to the occupation of a researcher. A researcher is one who primary goals are to develop or find something new that may bring benefits to society. Since the beginning of man-kind, it is only through research that as led to the consistent advancement of society to this day. Similarily, only through research nowadays will lead to the advancement of our society. However, as a researcher, strict rules must be abided in order to ensure the safety of all inviduals and the ethics of the research being conducted. As a result, in order of uphold these rules, a researcher is subject to being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined. A great example of this are the researchers involved in the journey to find a cure for AIDS. AIDS is a viral disease that, if contracted, would result in immunodeficiency, and eventually death. The world has never seen this virus before and as a result, provides a huge road block in finding a cure for it. Due to the extreme danger that AIDS possesses, researchers much be thorough in their research about the function and origin of AIDS in order to better understand how it works in hopes of finding a way to counter its effects. In addition, researches must also be painstaking and endure the long hours of research that must be put into their challenge to find a cure. Finally, they must be disciplined in all aspects of their research, especially when trying to find volunteers to test for a possible cure. Strict rules must be adhered to when using a living human being as part of an experiment as the consequences of contracting AIDS are lethal. As can be seen, when research involves lethal consequences, much attention must be spent on adhering to the strict research rules and these can only be upheld if the researcher is thorough, painstaking and disciplined. However, the field of research is vast and filled with many unexpected results. The high variability in research lead to the ability of some researchers, depending on their type of research, to suspend the qualities of thoroughness, being painstaking, and being disciplined, in order to follow a hunch. A hunch is defined as something that cannot be confirmed scientifically, with proof, but is rather something the researcher feels strongly for, similar to a gut feeling, and decides to act on that feeling. A great illustration of a case like this is Galileo when he confirmed the relationship between the sun and the moon and the other various planets of the solar system. During his time, Galileo did not have as advanced technology as we do nowadays. Therefore, he based his understanding of the solar system solely on the limited resources available, such as a weak telescope, and conclusions of other researches during his time. At this time, many challenged his proposal of the solar system as it was based on a hunch and he did not have clear scientific proof to support his theory due to limited technological advancements. However, several years later, when technology finally caught up, it was scientifically proven that Galileo’s hypothesis, based on a hunch, was in fact correct. In this case, Galileo had to suspend the usual characteristics of being a researcher so that he could follow a hunch because his research would not directly affect human life and he had limited resources to allow him to be fully thorough. As can be seen from the above examples, researchers are encouraged to be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined in order to uphold the rules geared at the safety and ethics of a research. However, there are also cases in which a researcher is able to abandon these characteristics and follow a hunch. What determines whether the former or latter should take precedence depends solely on the type of the research and tools available to conduct that research. In the case of researchers in search of a cure for AIDS, they are expected to have the characteristics mentioned above in order to provide and ethical and safe environment to conduct the research. Since AIDS is a lethal virus, and present day technology allows researchers to manipulate the virus and test it on human beings, their research must be conducted by being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined. However, in the case of Galileo and his research for how the solar system worked, it did not directly affect human lives and Galileo only had primitive technology to research space. As a result of his type of research, Galileo was able to abandon the characteristics of being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, to pursue his hunch and predict how the solar system worked. As technology advanced, it was proven that his theory was correct, despite many challenges proposed against his theory during his time. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language with some grammatical or usage problem. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Some issues with organization. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. It would probably be best to place your definition of a hunch earlier in the essay when you are explaining the prompt, since 'a hunch' is a part of the prompt: A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch. Try to allow yourself 6 minutes at the end of the essay to have a read through to correct any grammatical or usage problems. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 -clicked-Thank you! Education comes not from books but from practical experience. In an effort to better themselves, people often take courses at a community college or attend university. Such formal education teaches facts and specialized skills that equip a person for particular jobs and limited situations. However, education can be thought of as something much more than simply learning facts. This kind of education develops a person and changes who they are. This kind of education is learned through practical experience and not from books. For example, Terry Fox is a Canadian hero known for his battle with cancer and his run across Canada which raised millions of dollars for cancer research. Terry was just a young man when we was diagnosed with cancer and needed to have one of his legs amputated. When asked in an interview where he found the perserverance to keep on running even though he had a prosthetic leg, Terry responded that his battle with cancer had taught him a great deal about determination and the value of every effort. He had known these values before his struggle because they were promoted and valued in the society which surrounded him, but this kind of passive education did not make those values a part of him. It was the practical experience of hardship which taught Terry how to persevere. Yet it can be said that many products of education do not easily come from experiences. Last year, as a first year student at a new university, I attended my first microbiology laboratory session. Lectures had only just begun and I was not at all familiar with the staining techniques of bacteria. It was not until I had review the relevant chapters of the textbook and attended lecture for a few weeks, that I learned to be proficient in the lab. The practical experience of the lab was of little use to me until I had first understood the basic facts and skills that are necessary to succeed. In this case books and lectures were the more successful of method of education. What determines whether education is better achieved by books or by practical experience depends on what is intended by the educator. If an educator desires for their students to learn about facts and ideas, it is best to use the methods of formal education which employ textbooks and lectures. If however, an educator intends to teach their students to value different facts and ideas, it is best to give them practical experience. This kind of an education goes beyond formal education by changing who the student is and how they think. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. You should probably go into more detail about the processes behind how Terry Fox learned about perseverance because of his battle with cancer. What was so integral about having to experience suffering, and face mortality that was so different from book learning? Conversely, what was so special about reading books and attending lectures that made you succeed in a laboratory setting? You should explore this in more detail to strengthen your essay overall and to add more depth and complexity. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 -Clicked- Thank you PastaInhaler for your help! Prompt: Any business must be concerned with the environmental impact of its actions. Nowadays, people are becoming more aware of the environmental damages we are causing to our planet. This includes companies polluting the air with chemicals that slowly destroy our ozone layer. The challenge now for many business companies, especially those that produce output at the expense of nonrenewable energy sources, such as oil, is to become more efficient with more renewable, environmental friendly energy use. In fact, some countries like South Africa are already establishing power plants that will use more renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind, and less of nonrenewable energy such as coal. They are predicting that one power plant will provide the energy to run three other power plants and the amount of carbon dioxide release will be reduced significantly compared to current levels. Clearly, the concern for the environment is increasing because of clear impact that business have on the environment. Environmentalist observe an increasing trend of global temperatures and floods, aspects that have become more evident in America and Canada this summer with the heat waves and Pakistan's flood in 2010. If business companies, especially those that care more for their annual profits, do not take into consideration the environmental impact, then our nonrenewable sources of energy will soon be deplete. In addition, the pollution emitted in the process of harvesting energy will cause harm to our ozone layer, thereby increasing global temperatures. This in turn has an effect on ecosystems, since the increase in temperature usually has an effect on forests. To illustrate, there has been an increasing number of forest fires in this decade because of the temperature compared to previous decades. As a result, it is important for any business to take notice of their impact on the environment. Eventually, our nonrenewable sources of energy will run out, and unfortunately, that may not be the only problem, because along with it will be the disastrous effect on the environment. Owing to the broad field of business, there are other companies which should justifiably be not concerned about the environmental impact of their action. Such business include tax firms and sport business, such as FIFA. They are inherently businesses, and unlike companies such as Exxon Mobile, they do not produce a lot of carbon dioxide in harvesting nonrenewable energy. In other words, such businesses do not produce massive amount of chemical pollutants that effect the environment to begin with. In such cases, why should the company be concerned with the environmental impact of their action, if there are none? As a result, whether a business company should take into consideration the environmental impact of their firm depends on the nature of their work. If a company is heavily involved in using energy, especially nonrenewable energy such as Exxon Mobil, then they should take into consideration the environmental effects of their work. In fact, they should look for alternative ways to harvest energy with minimal hazardous effect son the environment. However, if the company's business does not effect the environment, then it is justifiable if the company were not concerned for the environmental impacts of their action. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are undeveloped. Some issues with coherence, focus, and organization. The example with Exxon Mobil was not explored enough to illustrate your argument. You should place that example at the end of the first paragraph and explore it there as opposed to mentioning it in passing as a counterexample to your counterexample. For the first paragraph, you should try to stay on topic and focus your ideas on the importance businesses must place on the environmental impacts of their actions. You should redirect your arguments to show how this relationship between businesses and environmental impact exists, and why it is important, and why it must be regulated. You may also consider that a tax firm and FIFA do consume the planet's resources, and contribute to waste (and possibly recycling). You may wish to change your rule in task#3 a little to reflect this, and that will actually make your essay stronger. (Think along the lines of scale, and the least harm to the environment and cost-benefit analysis). I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLM/NOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 -Clicked- A politician must sometimes adopt an unfavorable position for the good of the country. Elected by the public, politicians are held accountable for their actions and are expected to listen to the citizens of the country. Barack Obama, the president of the US is a politician who was elected in 2008 to bring about change to the economy of the country as well as to bring back the troops that serve in Afghanistan and Iran. Sometimes, a politician may take an unfavorable position, one where the a great number of the citizens are firmly against, for the good of the country. Naturally, the good of the country can be in many terms, including the safety of the citizens or increasing the economy of the country. To illustrate, although President Obama did end the war in Iraq and called troops back, he sent extra platoons to Afghanistan. Families of the newly traveling troops and the troops already in Afghanistan were against this Agenda. As a result, President Obama was in an unfavorable position with the citizens of the US. However, only after killing Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, do we finally understand that his agenda was for the good of the country. In this case, to ensure the safety of the citizens in US from future plots against the US. In fact, the US troops were able to decipher Osama Bin Laden's journal and look into his computer to find out that future plans were made to attack the US. Clearly then, even though it was an unfavorable position for President Obama, it was indeed for the good of the country. It will help the US to adjust in such ways to prevent future plans by Al-Qaeda. When the good of the country is changed from safety to economics, then sometimes a politician should heed the advice of the citizens, instead of pursuing an unfavorable agenda. Not only will the politician be recognized for listening to the citizens, but also the citizens may not hold the politician accountable for the poor economy of the country. Instead, one would expect the citizens to acknowledge the attempt of the politician and blame the economy instead of the politician per se. For example, in the present debt deficit, President Obama, in attempt to reach a compromise with the Republicans, has put forth an increase of income tax for the middle class. This is an unfavorable position to be in because the majority of citizens in the US are either of the middle class or the low class. There are only a "wealthy few," just as President Obama mentioned in his speech about the debt on 25th of July 2011. It would make more sense for the President to adhere to the citizens' needs and instead increase tax on the wealthy. The president, however, seems unable to do this because the Republicans have said from the beginning of the debate that they would not agree with such an increase in taxation. Nonetheless, it is wiser for the President to follow the citizens' needs because a politician is elected by the people. If the people recognize that the politician not only is not listening to their call, but instead, making it more difficult for them to live, the chances of the politician to be re-elected would be lower. As a result, depending on the good of the country in question, whether the safety of the public or the economy, a politician may sometimes adopt an unfavorable position. If the former is in question, then as citizens we may not foresee the future outcome of the politician's agenda right away, as exemplified by the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Hence, it is more justified that a politician should adopt the unfavorable position. However, if the economy is in question, then a politician should more often not adopt the unfavorable position, and heed the advice of the citizens. This way the citizens would at least be happy that the politician is listening to their needs, even if he or she was not successful in fixing the economy during his or her term. Thank you once again PastaInhaler! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Some issues with coherence and focus. You must be more focussed and explicit with your argument in paragraph#2. You should clearly describe what the outcome was with President Obama's income tax policy. It seems that you describe President Obama as going ahead with the increase in income tax and putting himself again in another unfavourable position. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 -clicked- A researcher must be thorough' date=' painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.[/b'] Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch. Research plays a significant role in the scientific field for the discovery of truth and ways in which we can confront some of society's biggest challenges. Researchers must often be thorough and methodical when testing their hypotheses. Researchers and scientists generally require a basis on which they propose hypotheses, particularly when human lives are at stake. For example, when experimenting with drugs to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic, researchers must follow strict guidelines and scruples to minimize the risk endured by humans. An innovative idea in the field of research and science may be ground-breaking but scientists must have some empirical evidence on which to base their hypotheses. This stems from the absolute necessity to protect and value human lives, rather than to treat them as guinea pigs. Conversely, although researchers must be thorough and scrupulous, there are certain circumstances in which they may justifiably pursue a hunch. Particularly, the testing of hypotheses on experimental models without endangering the lives of humans may justifiably be carried out based on a hunch or instinct. For instance, microbiologists are often interested in understanding how certain strains of bacteria react to antibiotics in order to assess their efficacy on treating bacterial infections. A well-known example is the testing of penicillin to asssess its effectiveness against serious illnesses such as syphilis and infections caused by streptococci. In this context, a researcher would be justified in following a hunch in hopes of making scientific progress and expanding our understanding, without harming humans. In conclusion, it is important to consider under which conditions should researchers be thorough and disciplined, and when they are justified in pursuing their hunch. Since the human life holds significant value, researchers must follow precise guidelines and principles when human experimentation is involved. This is evident by the example of testing novel HIV/AIDS treatments on humans only on the basis of previous evidence from experiments conducted on models. On the other hand, researchers are not necessarily limited by the same restrictions when experimentation cannot cause any harm to humans. This is exemplified in the study of antiobiotics against bacteria. Thus, researchers must be thorough, painstaking and disciplined when conducting in vivo experiments on humans, whereas they may resonably follow a hunch when intending to enhance our understanding and knowledge through in vitro experimentation. Thanks very much! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas presented in a coherent manner with some focus. Some issues with depth. You should go into more depth about the reasoning behind why each example fits each argument. In other words, describe and explain why it is necessary to be painstaking and thorough in HIV/AIDS research. Who is at risk? How are people going to be harmed? Is the medication inherently dangerous? Is it intravenous medication, or are the antiretrovirals in pill form? Are there people left out of the study for safety reasons? You may also emphasize the seriousness of your argument by illustrating the seriousness of the condition. By answering such questions, you are enhancing your essay on three levels: 1) Through a painstaking and thorough exploration of the prompt, you are making the grader experience the thoroughness, painstakingness, and discipline in such research. 2) You are reinforcing your argument by providing more evidence that makes you correct. 3) You are demonstrating depth in your thinking. Your essay would also benefit from a definition of "a hunch." Moreover, your essay will benefit from an explanation of how a hunch is used in bacterial research. This is actually a significant part of task#2 which does not seem fully addressed in your essay. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 -clicked- Prompt: A country needs enemies, real or imagined, in order to maintain its identity It is rightly said that an enemy is as important as a friend. Presence of an enemy always keeps you on your toes and motivates you to improve and increase in strength. Identity of nation is not held in its geographical spread or its economy, but its identity is stored within the people. A group is recognised only when its members are together and call themselves part of the group in unification. History of mankind holds many accounts when people have come together to give their nation an identity. A the beginning of the 20th century many countries of South Asia and Africa were ruled by the British Empire. All these countries were under their rule of the same empire and hence, were hardly different from one another in their identities. They got their identities when the natives came together to topple the British Empire and end their reign. India and South Africa got their identities on the international scene only after their people were unified by the presence of an enemy. However, to realize the importance of an enemy in maintaining a nation’s identity one need not look back that far into the history. Recent 9/11 terrorist attack in United States brought an unprecedented wave of patriotism in the country, and the consequent invasion of Afghanistan and killing Osama Bin Laden were attempts to re-establish America’s identity. In summary, the enemies, real or imagined, play an important role in keeping a country united and maintaining its identity. However, it would be naive to consider that enemies are the primary driving force in sustaining a nation’s identity. A nation’s culture, practices, morals, art, technology and religion are some very important factors that collectively develop a nation’s identity. It is important for the people of a country to keep their traditions alive in order to keep their identity alive. Indians are well known for their hospitality. In India it said that, “Guest is equivalent to the God”. Hence, the Indians believe that if they please their guests, they will attain the goal of pleasing their God. This tradition has been the essence of India since hundreds of years and hasn’t changed till date. So, a nation should thrive to be rooted to its values in order to maintain its identity. As alluded earlier a country’s identity is similar to a flavour, which is a result of combination of many ingredients. Whether existence of enemies is important to maintain a country’s indentify depends on how the country wants to be perceived at the international level. A country like United States that prefers to represent itself as a superpower, needs enemies that it can fight to demonstrate its power. On the other hand, countries like Canada and New Zealand want to portray themselves as peaceful nations and thus, don’t need enemies to maintain their identity. In fact, they rely on many other factors such as culture, landscapes, government leaders, and support to United Nations to maintain their identity. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. It would be best to have less examples and explore them in greater detail than to have additional examples that are not well explained. You should only be utilizing extra examples if you are properly exploring single examples and have extra time to fully explore more examples. You should also elaborate more on the second example, and relate this to the points you mentioned previously concerning "a nation’s culture, practices, morals, art, technology and religion." Where does it fit? Also, how does that example define the people of India? You will need to clarify your position and how you arrived at your conclusion. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey's Anatomy Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 -clicked- In a free society, laws must be subject to change. Describe a specific situation in which a law should not be subject to change in a free society. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a law in a free society should be subject to change. In a free and democratic society, laws are established in order to ensure the well-being and security of the citizenry. Laws entail edicts that regulate the way in which society functions as well as rules and regulations which citizens must obey. However, as society progresses, certain laws that dictate the rights and freedoms of individuals are often challenged in hopes of bringing equality and ending violation of human rights. For example, in the United States of America, the 1960s was a period of Civil Rights Movement, during which diverse individuals - black, white, young, old, men and women - united as the Freedom Riders in order to challenge status quo and end segregation of Black Americans from society. These Freedom Riders practiced non-violent resistance in order to change de jure segregation of and discrimination of Black Americans. The Supreme Court ultimately declared the existing laws unconstitutional and in violation of human rights. As a result, these laws were amended in order to ensure equality among all citizens, regardless of race. This suggests the importance of changing laws in order to protect human rights and create a safer and equal society. Conversely, there are instances in which laws should not be subject to change in a free society. For example, the topic of gay marriage and civil unions has been debated for many years. Advocates hope to bring greater equality to the minority groups of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT). Although the USA is still far from ensuring equal rights and privileges and ending discrimination against LGBT people, some States have granted the right to civil unions. In 2010, Zach Wahls, an engineering student from the University of Iowa, spoke at the Iowa House of Representatives to oppose a resolution, if passed, would end civil unions in the State of Iowa. In this context, a change of State law would affect how government treats the LGBT people as well as withdraw certain rights and freedoms granted to the heterosexual individuals in society. This change of law propagates further discrimination against the LGBT people. Consequently, laws that revoke certain rights and freedoms of a particular group of individuals, and thus, discriminates against them, should not be subjet to change. It is important to consider in which situations laws should be subject to change or permanent in a free society. Laws that are intended to ensure equality and protect the rights and freedoms of individuals indiscriminately should be strived for and established. This is exemplified by the Civil Rights Movement that occurred during the 1960s in order to end racial discrimination against Black Americans and bring equality to all citizens of the nation. This scenario suggests the importance of amending laws to ensure equality and to protect human rights. Conversely, laws that have already been established to protect members of all groups should be permanent in order to prevent repealing certain rights and freedoms that were once present. The change of law that would end civil unions in the State of Iowa would promulgate discrimination against the LGBT people and treat them differently from individuals of heterosexual orientation. As a result, laws must be subject to change in order to amend for greater equality and protection of rights and freedoms for all individuals, while they should be permanent once certain rights and freedoms are granted to individuals of all groups indiscriminately. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stainless0 Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 -clicked- -clicked- -clicked- Thanks again Pasta! An understanding of the past is necessary to solve the problems of the present It is often said that history has a way of repeating itself. Many current world events are quite similar to historical examples. A comparison can be drawn between the current economic crisis and the Depression in the 1930's following the stock market crash. Both of these problems can be solved in a very similar manner by the government. As well, many revolutions and wars are caused by similar events. Often, the ruling class will oppress the working class, creating problems and frustrations. The working class will then rise up and overthrow the rulers to make their own lives better. The Communist revolutions in Russia and Cuba , the French Revolution, and the American Revolution are all examples of rulers oppressing the people, and the people taking the same action. Many can also argue a different opinion. The world today is changing rapidly and new technology and ways of thinking are coming about. Human nature is unpredictable and new situations will result from a person's reaction to an event. Consider the Industrial Revolution. With large industry becoming more prevalent, new problems were arising that had never been seen before. Pollution, and competition for jobs are two novel situations that resulted during this time. New ideas had to be thought of to solve these problems. Today we are still dealing with the pollution created by the Industrial Revolution. We are coming up with new approaches to clean up the environment and lessening the amount of waste from production. Thousands of people came from the farms to work in the city and flooded the job market. Since the demand for work was so high employers could treat employees however they felt because people were so desperate for work they would put up with inhumane conditions. Labor unions arose as a novel approach to deal with the horrible working conditions created by the competition for jobs in the city. Thus, an understanding of the past is beneficial to solving current problems, however innovation is often necessary. The situations that create the problem may imitate the past and can be fixed in a way that worked before. However many new problems occur today with all the advances in technology and thinking that require new solutions. We cannot respond to every problem the same way, and so must tailor the solution to fit. Politicians too often base their decision on what will please voters and not what is best for their country A politician in a democracy can be roughly defined as a representative chosen by the people to govern their nation. In order to be elected as the people's representative, they must be popular and support the dominant public opinion. Quite often the politician will tailor his or her electoral platform to what is the most popular stance on issues for the purpose of gaining the most votes. The popular opinion may not be the best option, but by following it the politician gains power. An example is the War in Iraq. After 9-11 occurred, George Bush was in his first term as President and the public was demanding retribution for the attack. Bush declared a war on terror and invaded Iraq. This war ended up being costly and put the US into a large debt, but at the time, many people were in support of the war and even re-elected him to a second term. When a politician is in power, he or she must make the hard and unpopular decisions that benefit the nation in the long run. An excellent example of this is the Health Care reform in the US. President Obama pushed a bill through supporting public health care. This is seen by the majority as an unpopular stance that will cost a lot of money in taxes. However if you look to countries where public healthcare exists, like Canada and Sweden, people appreciate it and have better access to the necessary medical treatments. Perhaps then, a politician should support some popular public opinions to get elected, but also maintain his or her own agenda to better their country on their platform, even if they might not be doing the most popular thing. After all, a politician is the people's representative in a democratic government and should be the voice of the nation, but as well be able to make the unpopular decisions which are in the best interests of the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 -clicked- Prompt: Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated. Science, the pursuit of knowledge, continues to grow at an ever increasing rate. Every day, the frontiers of knowledge are expanded and the boundaries of what we know are challenged.” The curiosity to know more about a particular topic and the urge to increase its potential utility are the primary forces that drive a scientist to discover new things. Furthermore, the anticipation of honour and good monetary rewards gives the scientific discovery an impetus. But, it is important for the scientists to realize that no discovery justifies jeopardizing the life of humans. There has been increasing demand of cosmetic drugs and procedures that can impart people with desirable physical features. This has stimulated the research to discover novel and more effective methods that can enhance the looks artificially. However, many such methods have deleterious effects on the health of the individuals that use these facilities. For instance, silicon embedded in fake breasts has been shown to have many side effects, including potential to cause cancer, and thus, many women have to get them removed after certain age. Hence, it is important for scientists to not get lured by the people’s demands and monetary profits, and pursue scientific discovery that does not risk the human life. Nevertheless, in certain cases, it is important for the sake of betterment of human life itself to go ahead with a discovery, even if it may be potentially harmful to humans. After witnessing the dreadful effects of the Tsunami-struck nuclear power plant’s failure in Japan, none of the countries have stopped their plans to expand nuclear energy. The radiation that pervaded the residential neighbourhoods can even cause cancer, and increase the chances of abnormal progeny. The benefits of a nuclear power plant in today’s energy-hungry world are so great that it is hard for the nations to discard it. Hence, in some cases it is inevitable to reject a technology in spite of it being a threat to mankind. However, the risks can be minimized by investing in further scientific inquiry to develop more stable reactors and more efficient coolers for nuclear plants, and establishing the new plants in areas that are less prone to earthquakes. Scientific discovery is very important for the progress of humans. When the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life is determined by the benefits that the discovery serves and the degree of the risk that accompanies the discovery. If the discovery has very few or no real benefits to offer, then it is futile to risk the human life. The cosmetic drugs and treatments mainly fulfill the unreasonable wants of the society rather than essential needs. They are not inevitable for the progress of the nation. On the other hand, if a discovery, such as a nuclear plant, offers huge benefits, it can be accepted if the degree of risk associated with it can be reduced by further developing the technology. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. Ideas are undeveloped. Problems with clarity of thought. Problems with integration and coherence of ideas. Adequate control of language. The treatment of the prompt deviates from the expected treatment. You are to comment on the ethics of research and scientific inquiry. Certain words in the prompt guide you in its interpretation: scientific inquiry, discover, its pursuit The example that you provided in paragraph#1 doesn't fit with the prompt. Perhaps, you could focus on the research side of things, such as the methodology in the retrospective epidemiological study, and relate this to sound ethical requirements. Alternatively, you could use a whole other example in which you demonstrate that strict ethical guidelines in research prevent presenting danger to both researchers and research participants. For example#2, you've failed to demonstrate how it may be justified to pursue research that may pose a threat to human life. You've illustrated an example of a disaster involving a nuclear reactor, but this does not show research jeopardizing human safety possibly resulting in death. Actually, you started to lead into the right explanation, but only briefly, and at the end of the paragraph. That topic area should be where you focus in your argument and explanation. However, even though you have touched on a position where you could justify risking human safety, there are other more compelling examples, and therefore other more compelling arguments that can be used. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKL/MNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Thanks a lot for your service PastaInhaler. It is my first time posting an essay for grading. I am pleased to know that there are people like you in this world. Thanks for the kind words. Glad that I could be of service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 -clicked- The essential concern of a democracy must be the protection of human rights. A democratic society's backbone is the support of its constituents. Without that, a democracy is degraded and becomes a facade for often imperialistic goals of those in power. To maintain the support of its constituents, a democracy's foremost priority is the protection of human rights. Human rights refer to many things, such as the freedom of speech, the right to own property, the right to a fair trial. If at any instances these rights are revoked without reason, the democratic motto is tarnished. A good example is the recent Casey Anthony trial. Many people were outraged over the results of this trial, and the evidence is supportive of the fact that someone in the Anthony household had committed a grave offense. Despite the overwhelming public opinion, the court cannot convict Ms. Anthony without evidence proving guilt beyond a shadow of doubt, because it would be a violation of her basic rights. In this case, perhaps "justice" was not served in that the rightful killer is not behind bars, and may never will be, the framework of the democratic society demanded that the rights of the individual had to be upheld. There are times, however, where a democratic society will revoke the rights of individuals because the exercising of those rights will endanger others. Recently Bradley Mannings was arrested and is currently tried in Virginia for the leak of US Diplomatic Cables. There are some argue that the government should not censor the press and Mannings and Wikileaks have the freedom of press. However, within those documents contained sensitive information which if leaked, would endanger the lives of deployed American Soldiers. There were such documents containing the specification of jamming devices which disarms remote triggered landmines, and it is easy to see how the publication of such documents would endanger the lives of many. In such cases, the right of speech and freedom of press must be taken away from the individuals who possess such knowledge. Although in most instances the main concern of a democratic society is to uphold the protection of human rights, there are instances when those rights can be taken away. During times when exercising those rights does not put others in dangers, preservation of those rights is essential for preserving social structure and democracy. When exercising those rights put lives of others at risk, there should be no hesitation in removing those rights as the right to live supersedes any other. thanks a lot! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Adequate control of language. You should try to unify your essay a bit more by referring back to the examples in your essay in the final paragraph to explain how you arrived at your resolution in task#3. Otherwise, the examples used are sufficient in supporting your arguments. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 -clicked- Prompt: In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. In a democracy the politicians are elected by the majority vote and hold an official position as the representative of the people who voted for him. A successful politician is firstly able to win majority of the votes by connecting with the people, and secondly, is able to satisfy majority of the voters during his tenure in the office. A politician’s success is more often based on public opinion than on any absolute measures. Hence, criteria for a politician’s success vary from one democratic country to another because the public opinions vary. In the world’s largest democracy, India, most of the successful politicians resemble ordinary citizens. Their current prime minster, Dr. Manmohan Singh, is one of the most successful PMs of the country. He has been already been elected twice, and is the most likely to be re-elected in 2013. His success is mostly attributed to his ability to connect with people in the country’s core. He dresses, speaks and conducts less like the head of the government, and more like a common man. One can see similar qualities in Canada’s current prime minster, Stephen Harper. He was recently elected as the PM third time in a row, and this time he won with an unprecedented majority. He is perceived as a calm and composed person and conducts himself as any other person working in an office in downtown. Therefore, in a democracy, the success of a politician often depends on how well an ordinary citizen can relate with him. However, there are many instances when a successful politician is someone who is perceived as unordinary and powerful. A powerful look is often associated with a successful leader. If one looks at the presidents of United States, one can feel the powerful personality. For instance, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the personality of current president of US, Barack Obama. The way he speaks in public, it is difficult not to think of him as an apt president for a country that is a superpower at the international level. Hence, a successful politician is often someone who the public perceives as a strong and powerful leader. As alluded before, type of successful politicians can vary from one democratic country to another because of differences in people and their expectations. A country’s global image is an important determinant in the image of a successful politician. Countries like India and Canada are more of neutral countries on the international scene and hence, don’t indulge themselves in any or many conflicts. Hence, Indians and Canadians are more in favour of politicians who are very polite and very ordinary in their personality. On the other hand, citizens of a superpower like US expect their politicians to be powerful enough to convey the country’s image through their own conduct. In summary, in democracies around the world, the expectations of people are different and consequently, the image of a successful politician is spread across the spectrum. Thanks a LOT PastaInhaler!! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Adequate control of language. It may be best to omit the Singh example or the Harper example, and then explore the remaining example in further detail. This will help you create more depth in your argument. As well, try to explore why it is important in certain democratic governments that the politician resembles the ordinary citizen. Why do you think politicians have to resemble those whom he represents? In the second example, you may wish to explore why it would be necessary that a strong and powerful leader would be appropriate to lead a superpower at the international level. Sometimes, things like these can seem self-evident to you, but it is best to clarify things so that the grader knows what you are thinking and how you arrived at your conclusions. As you show your reasoning, you also strengthen your position, and it makes it harder for someone to argue against you if your line of reasoning is shown to be strong. You should also explain briefly how the general American population is not strong and powerful, and do not possess unique leadership skills. This is not to express anti-American sentiments, but to demonstrate that you are directly addressing task#2. Task#3 is sufficiently completed. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 -clicked- Thanks so much! Pride weakens powerful nations. There is a proverb that states 'Pride often comes before a fall'. This statement precludes circumstances in which thinking too highly of oneself can misguide the individual and lead to their demise. In society, countries with political and economical power may profess a lot of pride in their accomplishments. However, from history, it can be seen that this belief can have a negative impact on a nation. Prior to the 1800s, China had completely sealed itself off from the world due to it's sense of superiority. Specifically, China restricted trade from all foreigners because it believed it was self-sufficient and feared that trading with outside 'barbarians' would actually hinder it's development. Consequently, it also blocked off the exchange of news and technology and became unaware of the rapidly changing world around them. As a result, during the Opium War in 1840, China underestimated the power and new tactics of the British army and was swiftly defeated. Due to it's excessive pride, China suffered decades of economic depression and territorial dismemberment following the war. However, the opposite to this situation can also occur where pride can play a role in further strengthening a country. Recently, the 2010 Winter Olympics took place in Vancouver, Canada. This event greatly propelled Canadian nationalism across the country and fuelled the citizens' pride in their country and athletes. This led to many positive impacts on Canada including growth of the economy from increased consumer confidence levels. A high level of Canadian nationalism was also broadcasted to the rest of the world during Olympics, which enhanced Canada's image as a powerful and influential nation. Even months after the Olympics, tourism remained at an elevated level contributing to economic developments. Without a doubt, the pride of the citizens from the Olympics was able to advance Canada. Whether pride can actually lead to strengthening or weakening a country depends on how it is utilized. If excessive pride leads a country to cease development, such as with China prior to the 1800s, this arrogant belief can hurt the nation as it will fall behind while others progress. Alternatively, if pride guides a country to further develop, such as with the 2010 Olympics in Canada, this will allow the nation to continue to build upon its strengths and improve on the world stage. Undoubtedly, the citizens of the nation have the right to be proud of the countries accomplishments. Yet, we must be conscious of our pride and the ignorance that it can bring. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas are somewhat developed. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Adequate control of language. You've created a sense that pride is a condition that leads to action which results in consequences. That argument is evident in the first example, but not in the second example. You must therefore, provide more info regarding what the pride invoked in Canada and its citizens will lead to. The extra tourism could very well be attributed to the increase in media attention, or the tourists who lingered after the games and toured Canada since they were already in Canada. The tourism example does not fit with your argument, and your line of reasoning is weak in this regard. If you show how Canadian pride meant creating more Canadian merchandise for sale, such as items with Canadian emblems, that could help your argument. If through Canadian pride, there were more cultural activities and celebratory events that encouraged tourism, this would further strengthen your essay. Pursuing this line of reasoning will help strengthen your essay through added depth and through unifying a theme. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 -clicked- Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated. Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life. Scientific inquiry is the pursuit of knowledge through controlled experiments and physical measruments. The basis of such a search for knowledge is the desire to discover new useful information which can often be used for the benefit of a great many people. The means to such knowledge, must however, be balanced with a regard for the safety of other human beings. Scientific studies are a result of a desire to discover, but no matter how useful that discovery might be, the safety of one human being should be valued more highly. For example, during World War 2 Nazi doctors performed many experiments on the prisoners who had been sent to concentration camps. One of the results of these experiments was the anti-inflammatory drug, Bayer. Although Bayer has relieved many headaches over the years it is not a life saving drug. The number of lives lost in the development of this drug and the search for this discovery cannot be justified because few, if any lives have been saved as a result of the drug. However, there have been scientific advances which were so valuable that it was justifiable to tolerate a threat to human life. The discovery of the polio vaccine was not found without threat to human safety. A young boy who was ill came to a doctor who was currently working on a vaccine for polio. It was not known whether the vaccine was safe for humans to use, but upon agreement between the boy, his family, and the doctor, it was decided that the vaccine would be used. It was a success and as a result polio has been almost completely exterminated. These results perserved many human lives from polio and saved many more. Thus it was justifiable to endanger one human life for the sake of preserving many more. What determines whether or not the pursuit of a scientific discovery is more important the the protection of human life depends on many lives might be preserved as a result of the discovery. Studies which seek a discovery which might provide benefits for people, but would not result in the preservation of human life, cannot justify any threat to human safety as a means to seeking that discovery. The sucess of Bayer is primarily a result of the research that was gathered by Nazi doctors who performed experiments on prisoners in the concentration camps of World War 2. The benefits of Bayer to us cannot justify such an atrocity because the benefits did not lead to a greater preservation of human life. On the other hand, the search for a discovery which could save many lives can justify a threat to human life. The efficacy of the polio vaccine needed to be verified with tests on human beings, but such a clinical trial put humans in danger. Even so, because a greater number of people could be saved as a result of the trial, it was permissible to risk a human life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro_07 Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 -clicked- The public's right to know must sometimes take precedence over an individual's right to privacy. The right to privacy has emerged as a big issue since the paparazzis have come onto the scene. The media has become increasingly intrusive of the late, which has become a big concern for today’s politicians, businessmen and, especially, the celebrities. Each and every individual is entitled to privacy in free society. However, in some cases public’s right to know takes precedence over an individual’s right to privacy. A politician or any other public official who is accountable to the citizens of the country should be ready to disclose his private matters when needed. The citizenry votes and puts the officials in the office to make decisions in their interest. So, they have the every right to know about their activities, which directly or indirectly will affect the society. There have been many instances when a corrupt politician uses some tax money for personal use or transfers them to the Swiss Banks so that no one could track it. But, lately there has been movement in countries around the world that requires the government officials to disclose all of their bank accounts when asked to. However, it is also true that public is not entitled to know about private life of other citizens. A celebrity is just like any other citizen and is not accountable to the society for any of their private activities. Some sections of media are specially based on the private life the celebrities. And, these programs are highly popular among the general public. But, celebrities have the right to hold their privacy as much as they want. Whether public’s right to know is more important than an individual’s privacy is mainly determined by the status of the individual. If the individual is a public servant, like a politician, who is accountable to the public, then his right to privacy is essentially secondary to the right of people to be informed about his activities. On the other hand, if individuals like celebrities, who are public figures but not a public servants, then the public has no right to intrude into their private life. 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.