PastaInhaler Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 --clicked-- Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer's weakness A business can be described as anything, whether just a street vendor or the Apple store, who provides a service to the consumers in hopes to make a profit from them, for themselves. Thus, it is evident that the goals of a majority of business is to make a profit which usually determines the success of that particular business. In many cases, the only way a business can be successful and make a profit is to take advantage of their consumer's- specifically, consumer weakness. This weakness can include the innert characteristics of humans such as their curiosity, or to the self induced addictions such a alcohol, gambling, or greed. Thus, with this knowledge, businesses often steer their services to capitalize on these consumer weaknesses. A prime illustration of this concept is the emergence and thriving success of tobacco companies. Tobacco companies provide cigarettes, proven to have the the addictive substance of nicotine within it, to its consumers. Knowing that their product is highly addictive,due to the effects of nicotine, tobacco companies realize that they only have to sell a couple to its consumers before they are hooked to their product. As a result, the determination to constantly fulfill their nicotine addiction, has become the consumer's weakness. Tobacco companies then exploit this weakness by providing even more cigarettes to their infected consumers. As more and more consumers become addicted to nicotine, tobacco companies capitalize on their weakness, resulting in higher sales of cigarettes and consequently, greater profits. As can be seen, this example clearly illustrates how businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer's weakness. However, although many businesses gauge their success based on the profits they make by taking advantage of consumer weaknesses, there are cases in which businesses do not take advantage of consumer weakenesses, but yet, still succeed. This case is exemplified when one evaluates the business protocol of non-profit organizations such as Make-a- Wish- Foundation (MWF). This organization is a non-profit organization, relying solely on consumer donations, to provide services to those who are unable, for whatever reason, pursue their dream and goals. First off, because it is a non-profit organization, it does not generate profits by taking advantage of consumer weaknesses but on the contrary, relies on consumers to provide them with the funds to continue to run their business. Without these consumers who freely donate, under no obligation, MWF would not be as great of a success as it is today. Just recently, MWF foundation in Edmonton, Alberta has fulfilled the greatest desire in this young girl's heart, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer, to meet the Duke and Dutchess of Cambrige, William and Catherine. Furthermore, it has also allowed a young quadrapalegic boy, who was an avid lover of cars, to attend the Indy and meet the racers. These two accounts are concrete examples of the success that the business, MWF, is able to achieve; not through capitalizing on consumer weaknesses, but rather, depending on them to fund their endeavours to make people's life better in times of hardship. As can be seen, there are two types of businesses- those that take advantage of consumer's weaknesses in order to gain profit and be successful, or those that do not measure they're success on profits but rather, the services they provide, made only possible by the free donations from consumers. What determines whether or not business take advantage of consumer's weaknesses in order to succeed depends primarily on the main goal of that business. If the businesses' main goal is to make a profit to measure its success, it must take advantage of consumer's weakness, capitalize on it, and rely on them to continually purchase their products as a result of their weakness. This can be seen in the case of tobacco companies who take advantage of the consumer's weakness, their addiction to nicotine, to purchase more of their product so they can make a profit. Conversely, businesses' whose main goal is not to make a profit, but rather, measure their success by their altruistic actions, do not take advantage of consumer's weaknesses. The Make-a-Wish Foundation clearly exmplifies this situation by relying on freely donated money from consumers to provide services that allow individuals to experince something they've always dreamed of, a reality. Instead of taking advantage of consumer weakness, they rely on them to ensure that MWF is a success. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Evidence of some clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Adequate control of language. The Make-a-Wish Foundation is a non-profit organization, specifically, it is a charity, which is not a business. A business is a for-profit organization. Task#2 is not complete as you will need to provide an example of a business that can succeed by not taking advantage of a consumer's weakness. The other tasks are otherwise good. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 --clicked--- Education makes everyone equal Education is a means of passing down knowledge from one generation to the next. It comes it various forms, whether from one's family, friends, or workplace, but mainly, education is found in the schools one attends. Schooling provides the primary form of education and thus, when anaylizing if education makes everyone equal, in terms of the education they have received, the study of various schooling systems is required. For example, if one were raised in a small town, such as I in Ft. McMurray, AB, all the three highschools run on the same educational curriculum as set by the government. Thus, whether I was student at the highschool near my residence, or the one in downtown, the knowledge i gain, from either schools is equivalent. In this way, one who graduates from one high school in Ft. McMurray as opposed to another, would have received their education and attain knowledge equivalent to one another. Thus, it can be said that education makes everyone equal. However, it should be noted that it is the type of knowledge they receive which is equal. But whether one student actually understands the concept or not, making them a more successful student than the other, is an independent factor that depends solely on themselves and not the educational system. However, there are cases in which education does not make everyone equal. This can be seen in cities which provide a different means of education, such as education recieved in a private school or from presitigous schools such as Harvard University. When cities offer various forms of schooling for education, equality in one's education from another cannot be expected. For example, if one student were to attend a public school as opposed to a private school, or a mediocre university as opposed the Harvard, the amount of knowledge, its thoroughness, and variety, are vastly different. Private schools and are not publicly funded, meaning that one must pay seperate tuition to become a student and receive education from the most critically acclaimed teachers in hopes of producing a more successful student. Similarily, Harvard attendees are taught by world renowned professor who are able to pass on the rare knowledge they behold, to their students. It has been proven that those who graduate from presitigous schools such as Harvard, Boston, or MIT, for example, have a higher job acceptance rates that provide higher wages, than those who graduate from mediocre school. As can be seen, due to the different educational institutions that are provided and that one may attend, different outcomes for the students occur. A student who graduates from a mediocre school as opposed to a private or prestigous school, may have received exemplorary edcucation than one who did not attend these schools. As a result, of their educational differences, they are unequal and this can be seen in the real world when companies hire students out of school. What then determines when education makes everyone equal or not? This depends entirely on the type of schooling one receives. If all students receive the same type of education by attending institutions whom all provide a simliar service, then the outcome will produce students of equal knowledge. A student graduating from a highschool compared to another invididual graduation from another highschool in which both highschools are under the educational system provided by the same government will produce students of equal oppurtunity. However, if various types of schooling a provide, those that are prestigious as opposed to the mediocre, then education will not make everyone equal. In the case of the Harvard graduate compared to an individual who graduated from a mediocre university, the Harvard grad will have attained higher, more thorough form of education than the other. As a result, both are on unequal standings based on the education they have received and consequently, the Harvard graduate will be offered jobs more readily than the other. Evidently, there are cases in which education makes everyone equal and cases where they are unequal. However, what determines the former or the latter depends on the type of schooling one receives. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Responds to tasks in a superior manner. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. Above average control of language. Ideas presented in a unified and focussed fashion. 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-- The primary goal for every business should be to maximize profits. Money makes the world go ‘round, or so it has been said by artists, thinkers, and economists alike. Businesses in any form exist in order to generate revenue. After all, regardless of any positive contributions of commerce to society, if doing business was not in any way lucrative, it would be impossible to maintain one’s livelihood on the basis of a business venture. In the case of large corporations, high profits ensure equally high investor confidence and therefore further support for the business in question. This in turn allows the corporation to consider alternative technologies or products to further improve the average consumer’s quality of life. Furthermore, because efficient production methods and efficient technologies reduce the overhead for a corporation, it can be said that maximizing profits is essentially equivalent to maximizing efficiency. We see the results of this school of thought in the technology of computers: central processing units, hard drives, and graphics cards are becoming smaller and smaller in size with each passing year, while increasing their processing speed and data capacity. This efficiency provides a twofold benefit, primarily in enhancing technology corporations’ profits, and additionally in reducing the impact of these corporations on the environment. But when is it unwise to seek maximum profit? In answer, one need only examine the case of the analgesic drug Vioxx, makes such a situation abundantly clear. Though it was released prematurely and without sufficient clinical trials, Patients found that Vioxx provided immediate and powerful relief for their symptoms well beyond the results of any other drug on market at the time. Doctors hailed the new product as a miracle drug and eagerly prescribed it to every patient in need of a potent analgesic. Mere months after its initial release, however, frightening reports of severe cardiovascular damage in Vioxx patients began to flow in, and upon testing it was discovered that the drug was indeed the root cause. Though the drug was immediately pulled off the market, the damage had already been done. Countless patients had lasting and irreparable damage as a result of Vioxx. Had Merck, the company responsible for the drug, been less hasty in releasing Vioxx, the dangerous side effects could have been discovered well before it could impact the health and safety of thousands of patients. We see, then, that cutting corners and bypassing important safety standards in pursuit of profits can result in significant harms to humanity, contrary to the very purpose of designing medical products. So it is clear that there are two sides to this issue. Maximizing profits allows businesses to maintain shareholder interest and even reduce their environmental footprint by maximizing the efficiency of both their production methods and the commercial technologies themselves. But ignoring important standards which are in place to preserve human health can cause a company to cause serious harm to humanity. Thus we can see that it is generally acceptable for business to maximize profits above all else. However, when human health is in danger, it is necessary for businesses to do their utmost to minimize the risks and potential harms, even at the cost of their profits. Thank you so much for this, PastaInhaler! I really need the help and would appreciate any advice you could give on the matter. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Some issues with integration of ideas. Adequate control of language. There is a hole in the logic to your first example. You must demonstrate how a company, in increasing the technological efficiency of its product, will increase profit. Making a product that is more efficient does not entail that the processes that made that product have become more efficient. Somehow technology companies are making more money, so they must be improving revenue, reducing costs, or doing both by making more efficient products. You will need to show how. Additionally, the Merck example isn't a strong one for your counterexample. The Merck example shows that the company is still after profits. They put the drug to market hastily so that they could save money, and put the drug to market sooner to make more money (make profit). You have also shown that such a company should be careful doing this or else they may not make as much profit (due to law suits). In other words, drug companies want to make profit however which way they can, but they have to be smart about it and plan their activities so that they don't get unwanted costs that would hinder their profit. It may be best to go with another example, otherwise it seems that task#2 is not sufficiently completed. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaMagnum Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Some issues with integration of ideas. Adequate control of language. There is a hole in the logic to your first example. You must demonstrate how a company, in increasing the technological efficiency of its product, will increase profit. Making a product that is more efficient does not entail that the processes that made that product have become more efficient. Somehow technology companies are making more money, so they must be improving revenue, reducing costs, or doing both by making more efficient products. You will need to show how. Additionally, the Merck example isn't a strong one for your counterexample. The Merck example shows that the company is still after profits. They put the drug to market hastily so that they could save money, and put the drug to market sooner to make more money (make profit). You have also shown that such a company should be careful doing this or else they may not make as much profit (due to law suits). In other words, drug companies want to make profit however which way they can, but they have to be smart about it and plan their activities so that they don't get unwanted costs that would hinder their profit. It may be best to go with another example, otherwise it seems that task#2 is not sufficiently completed. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Thank you very much for the criticism. Do you feel that using the Kyoto Accord (which mandates certain environmental standards) would be a better example, to show that preserving the environment is sometimes more important than maximizing profits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 -clicked-I really appreciate this! Thanks! Politicians should maintain ethical standards higher than those of other citizens. When a politician should not be expected to maintain higher ethical standards than other citizens. What determines when politicians should be expected to maintain higher ethical standards than other citizens and when they should not. The job of a politician is a high calling that demands discipline and integrity which is beyond that of the average citizen. Because a politician represents the beliefs and values held by his or her constituents and is responsible for expressing their opinions to the government, it is important that they maintain high ethical standards. These standards can be defined as living a life of personal integrity, honesty, discipline, and respect for others whether the politician is at home or at work. Such ethical standards, as honesty are universally agreed upon virtues and should always be expected of a politician even if the citizens that they represent do not maintain such behaviour. For example, Belinda Stronach was a Canadian politician elected as a member of the Conservative party. She had a duty to honour the beliefs of her constituents and to complete the term that she was elected for. However, at a crucial vote that was essential for the Conservative party, Stronach “crossed the floor” and became a member of the Liberal Party. Soon after she was promoted to a Cabinet Minister by the Liberal leader. Although the average citizen sometimes quits their job and switch to another company for their own personal benefit, such actions are not justifiable for a politician. It was the duty of Ms. Stronach to maintain ethical standards which go beyond what is expected of the average person. There are however, some standards which should not be expected of a politician. Values and beliefs which are only held by certain groups of people should not be expected of a politician. For example, I attend a Christian church where most people believe that it is wrong to drink. This standard is not even agreed upon by all Christians, let alone by the majority of the citizens in our community. Paul Steckley is the elected politician for my community, but he occassionally has a drink on certain occasion. Indeed, at some events it is expected of him. Value such as abstaining from alcohol are not universally held by the constituents that Mr. Steckley represents, thus he should not be expected to maintain the ethical standards that are held by those of other citizens. Whether or not a politician should be expected to maintain ethical standards that are greater than those of other citizens depends on how universally accepted those standards are in the community that the politician represents. As a politician, Belinda Stronach was expected to persevere with the job that she accepted and continue to represent her constituents, even when it was not advantageous to her career because she has a duty to represent her voters. However, Paul Steckely should not be expected to abstain from alcohol simply because certain groups of people believe it is wrong. In a sense, each and every politician is accountable to their voters. They must live their personal and proffessional lives with the behaviour and attitude that all people agree is virtuous. No one is perfect, but politicians should strive to represent their voters well by maintain such standards, out of respect for their fellow citizens and appreciation of the democracy that they are a part of. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Some issues with integration of ideas. Adequate control of language. For the first example, you may wish to explain what ethical standard Stronach is violating to help the reader understand your viewpoint. For instance, Stronach is betraying the trust of her constituents who put faith in her. She is being dishonest by leading the constituents to think that she supported their political beliefs, then abandoned them and took on a whole other set of political beliefs. The first example is good, however the counterexample is weaker. An AAMC grader will probably disagree with you regarding the drinking politician. An AAMC grader may consider that whether or not a politician drinks is not an ethical concern. Ethical concerns deal with good and bad, lying, cheating, stealing, that sort of thing. However, you are arguing from a religious standpoint, and I see your point as it could be true within that particular context. That context though is someone limited as it applies only to a small subgroup of Christians. It may be best to pick another example that has a more univeral impact, relating to a more universal idea of an ethical standard. You may wish to consider politicians whose actions may be construed as lying, or stealing. These will likely make for a stronger case. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bored Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 -clicked- Hey pasta, thanks for doing this one and the last one The nature of democracy requires that its citizens be dependent upon one another. Describe a specific situation in which citizens in a democracy might justifiably not be dependent upon one another. Discuss what you think determines when citizens in a democracy should be dependent upon one another. Democracy is the most desirable government of the current era. Democracy is a people elected government. It places much of the power on the citizens. Citizens collectively vote to decide which individual or group governs the state. In this context, a citizen is anyone part of that specific state which functions democratically. The nature of democracy is very simple; the people are the voters. Voters often must relay on each other for the victory of a particular party. When people vote for a party, they are inherently relaying on other citizens to make the same choice so that the party wins the elections. Thus citizens are often counting on each other to vote for the same part. This is especially the case when the economy is based on a communist system. A democracatic government can be one that is communist like the one in Soviet Union and China in the 1970s, or the economy can be capitalist as is for much of the modern world. In communism, all revenue to the country is divided to all the people so that each citizen earns the same amount of earning. In this sort of an economy, the citizens vote for a party for the greater benefit of the nation, not of individual benefit, because individual good in a communist economy is impossible to achieve. For this reason all people work together when they are voting for a common cause. This common cause being the good of the state. The cause being common to all people allows the people of communist economy to relay on each other. In capitalist democratic economy however, the dependency of citizens on one another decreases drastically. People in a capitalist are allowed to be greedy; they are allowed to think about their own benefit. For this reason, people in a capitalist society vote for the party that most benefits their individual self. This means that a student will vote for a part that helps reduce student loans, a company owner will vote for the party that places terifs on external companies. These citizens of a capitalist society only think about the good of the individual self. This makes the people much less dependent on one another when it comes to voting. They are only voting to see the benefit of self, not of the nation. Often times we see big company owners arranging meetings with politicians so that these politicians can make policies that benefit the company, and not some foreign corporation. These politicians that agree to the demands of the company will likely gain the votes of the company owners as well as donation support from the company when time comes for the next election. The cause of voting for each individual in a capitalist society is different and for this reason, the people are often nor relaying as much on each other as they would in a communist economy. Because of the nature of a capitalist society, the citizens are justifiably allowed to vote for the party that benefits them. They are not doing anything wrong by providing funds in form of donations to parties that will inturn benefit themselvels. It can clearly be seen that the citizens of a communist democratic nation are much more independent on each other when it comes to electing a party because they are thinking for the benefit of the nation, whereas the citizens of a capitalist society are only thinking about their own gains. What determines the dependency of citizens on each other when voting in a democratic society depends on the type of economy the state functions on. If the state functions of ideas from the communist side of things, then the citizens will be very dependent on each other. But if the state functions on capitalistic laws, then the citizens’ dependency will be less. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions for you: do you think my examples are wayyy too broad? also, Ive started to notice that my paragraphs get weaker and weaker.. with the first one being strongest and than the last resolution paragraph being the weakest beacuse I do most of my explaining in the other paragraphs,.. do you concur? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey's Anatomy Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 -clicked- Wealth is generally amassed at other people’s expense. 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 wealth is not generally amassed at other people’s expense. Discuss what you think determines whether wealth is generally amassed at other people’s expense. In society, wealth plays a significant role in the opportunities, lifestyles and power of individuals. This drives many people to amass wealth, which is generally acquired at other people's expense. In other words, in the process of accumulating wealth, the actions or neglect of individuals may inflict harm on other members of society, whether intentionally or inadvertently. Often, political figures who hold great power within a nation, particularly one that is undemocratic, unstable and underdeveloped, may be corrupt. For example, Arnoldo Aleman was the 81st president of the Republic of Nicaragua, holding power between the years 1997 and 2002. Nicaragua is a relatively underdeveloped nation in which many citizens live in poverty and lack the basic necessities of life. However, Arnoldo is considered one of the most corrupt leaders in recent history, amassing up to $100 million from the nation's wealth. While most of the nation is in extreme poverty and facing hardship, Arnoldo's corruption led him to accumulate wealth at the expense of citizens, neglecting them of basic necessities for survival and an adequate lifestyle. This large amount of wealth that he acquired from the nation could have been utilized to improve the living conditions in the nation. However, Arnoldo disregarded the citizens, suggesting that wealth is generally amassed at other people's expense. Conversely, there are situations in which wealth is not generally accumulated at other people's expense. For example, Oprah Winfrey is an prominent figure and role model who has acquired wealth primarily through her day-time television show, The Oprah Winfrey Show. Oprah is an admirable and inspirational woman who survived through hardship as a child, including rape, and became a voice for many people and issues around the world. Among one of her many contributions to society is her building of a school in South Africa, providing young girls with education in order to help them escape poverty. Throughout her career, Oprah addressed many concerns in society, consequently becoming highly admired among citizens, and gaining wide support for her television show. The support she received from her audience resulted in her accumulation of more than $2 billion dollars of wealth. It is evident that Oprah was able to amass wealth not at other people's expense but rather by advocating for change and providing hope to many struggling individuals. In conclusion, whether wealth is amassed at other people's expense depends on the intent of the individual. In some cases, corrupt individuals would selfishly accumulate wealth at other people's expense. This is evident in the example of Nicaragua's president, Arnoldo Aleman, who neglected the poor conditions of the nation and accumulated significant wealth. On the other hand, some individuals may generate wealth not by inflicting harm to others but by becoming a spokesperson for issues concerning the global society. Oprah Winfrey is a powerful figure who not only advocated change but also acted to implement change herself, such as through building a school in South Africa. As a result, wealth may be amassed at other people's expense if the individual is corrupt and has no intention of serving other members of society, while an individual may accumulate wealth by voicing and addressing significant issues for the betterment of society. Thank you!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangos Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 --clicked-- Any business must be concerned with the environmental impact of its actions. 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 businesses might justifiably not be concerned with the environmental impact of its actions. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a business must be concerned with the environmental impact of its actions. The main goals of any business, ranging from a street vendor to the Apple store, is to make a profit by providing its consumers with specific services to suit their needs or wants. Since profit is a way of measuring a business’ success, it is very easy for them to lose sight of the balance required between making profit and the environmental impacts it may have. Evironmental impacts can either be beneficial or detrimental to the global environment, which as a result, also affects the citizens of the world as we live under one environment. Therefore, businesses must be concerned with the environmental impacts of its actions. For example, since the discovery of fossil fuels, such as coal, as a source of energy to provide power, many business have developed coal plants to make use of this cheap energy source. However, it was soon discovered that the burning of fossil fuels resulted in emissons of greenhouse gases such as CO2. These gasses are directly responsible for the effects of global warming, resulting in higher than normal global temperatures, triggering a cascade of harmful effects to our environment such as melting of the polar icecaps and inhospitable habitats for certain species. Furthermore, the emission of CO2 is the main cause for acid rain, which is harmful to all, especially to livestock and crops for farmers. Due to these detrimental effects to the global environment, as a result of the actions of businesses in attempts to capitalize and gain profits by producing energy through a cheap source, C02 emissions had to be reduced. This was accomplished by the invention of what is called a “scrubber” which is now found on most coal plants to reduce the emissions of C02. Evidently, this shows that businesses must be concerned with the environment impact of its actions. However, not all businesses must be concerned with the impact its actions have on the environment. These businesses include those that provide a service which do not impact the environment. For example, Starbucks, is a franchise that provides its consumers with many signature drinks, but offers primarily coffee. Its product, coffee, does not directly affect the environment as did C02 in the above illustration and as such, a business like Starbucks do not justifiably have to be concerned with the impact it has on the environment. However, with that being said, although Starbucks is not obligated to be concerned with the environment, they have still incorporated recycled paper cups into their stock to be “environmentally friendly,” in attempts to attract consumers that are conscious of their environment. As can be seen, as long as businesses provide a service that do not directly affect the health of the environment, it is justifiable for them to not be concerned with the impact of its actions on the environment. After anaylsis of the two illustrations above, it can be safely concluded that there are businesses that must be concerned with their actions and those who do not have to be in regards to the impact it has on the global environment. What determines the former or the later depends on whether the service the business provides directly affects the environment itself. In the case of the devlopement of coal plants to burn fossil fuels as a source of cheap energy, detrimental effects were seen towards the environment. CO2 emissions resulted in global warming and an increase in the occurrence of acid rain. Thus, these businesses were required to be concerned with its actions and its impact on the environment, and had to obtain “scrubbers” to reduce their CO2 emissions for the benefit of the environment and its global citizens. In contrast, businesses such as Starbucks who provides coffee to its consumers do not affect the environment directly. Thus, Starbucks can justifiably not be concerned with the impact of its actions on the environment. Ultimately, what determines whether businesses should be concerned about its actions and the effects it has on the environment is if the service they provide directly affects it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangos Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 A politician must sometimes adopt an unfavorable position for the good of the country. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a politician should not adopt an unfavorable position for the good of the country. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a politician must adopt an unfavorable position for the good of the country. In a democractic society, politicans are voted into power by their constiuents to represent them on issues at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. As a result, in order to continue in office, politicians must do what pleases their voters. However, there are cases in which pleasing their voters contradicts what is good for the country, or the well being of society as a whole. Thus, this places the politician in an unfavorable position- a position that may jepordize his chances at office for future terms or a position that may inadvertently place him in a situation that displays his weakness. However, in the field of politics, it is well known that politicians must sometimes adopt an unfavorable position for the good of the country. A great illustration of this can be seen in the recent enactment of the “back to work bill” proposed by the Harper government towards Canada Post empolyees. Prior to this bill, Canada Post employees could not come to an agreement with its employer in regards to their wages and pension plan. As a result, employees went on strike. Mail was no longer delivered across the nation and small businesses that relied on Canada Post for shipment and arrival of items suffered tremendously. Some businesses had to fire their employees as a result of the loss of income caused the mail strike. The economy of Canada and the well being of its citizens were greatly affected. Realizing that this situation could be a catalyst to another economic recession, Harper immediately proposed the “back to work bill,” which effectively forced all Canada Post employees back to work. However, this bill brought much outrage amongst Canadians,including those that were not Canada Post employees. They saw this bill as a symbol of the restriction of liberal freedom. In addition, the bill did not meet the requirements that Canada Post employees were demanding from its employer. Many protests arose against the Harper government for the enactment of this bill. It was speculated that this particular situation could harm his image as the Prime Minister of Canada and the image of his government. However, despite this outcry, Harper realized that this bill would ensure the good of the country for the future. Businesses began running as per usual and citizens began receiving mail. As a can be seen, this is clear example in which a politican must sometimes adopt a unfavorable position, a position that may jepordize his chances at office for future terms, in order to do what is good for the country. However, there are cases in which a politican should not adopt an unfavorable position for the good of the country. A prime illustration of this occurred during the hunt for Osama Bin Laden conducted by the Navy Seals Team 6. As they neared the compound in which it was believed that Bin Laden was hiding, they called President Barack Obama for the approval to kill who they thought to be Bin Laden on sight. Now this operation was supposed to be covert, meaning no one would know about it. Therefore, if the invividual in the compound was not Bin Laden, and the Seals team was discovered to have intruded, serious political repercussions could have followed. Obama, thus, had a very difficult decision to make for the good of the country. In this case, Obama could not be in an unfavorable position- a position that could display his weakness and lack of judgment. Instead, he had to be affirmative and positive of his decision. As a result, Obama gave the approval and the raid into the complex was conducted. Miraculously, Bin Laden was in fact in the complex and killed on sight. His body was brought back to the United States, and an immediate television broadcast was made to all American citizens and people around the world of the great accomplishment that had just occurred. This news boosted the moral of all Americans since the September 11, 2007 attacks and has undoubtedly brought good to the country. What then determines whether a politican should an adopt unfavorable position for the good of the country or not, depends on the situation required at hand to ensure the well being of the nation. In the case of the “back to work bill” for Canada Post employees, enacted by Harper government, Harper himself had to place himself in an unfavorable position in order to protect the well being of Canada. Despite public outcry against his bill and possibly damaging his image and the image of his party, Harper continued on with the bill. However, in contrast, in the case of Obama and the covert operation to kill Bin Laden, Obama could not be in an unfavorable position that might show his lack of judgment and weakness despite the serious circumstances at hand. Obama had to be definitive and affirmative in his decision to raid a complex, in which it was not 100% certain that Bin Laden was in, for the good of his country. As a result of his decision, Bin Laden was killed and the moral of all American were boosted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 - Clicked!! - Great site btw And of course, thank you! Crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. Describe a specific situation in which a crime committed by an individual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government. Discuss what you think determines whether or not crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by government The existence of a government is for the protection of its citizens. In a democratic society, a government is composed of elected representatives voted into office by fellow constituents who believe the politicians have their best interests at heart. In order to maintain social order and proper societal functioning, governments establish laws that reflect the morals of their nation, which are used as guidelines to regulate the actions of their citizens. Since a government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, they should be held accountable to the same level of responsibility for acts against humanity as regular citizens would. Earlier this year, a civil uprising for the removal of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak broke out. The Egyptian citizens were angered by the widespread corruption in the political system, which included police brutality on civilians, restriction of freedom of speech, rigged elections, embezzlement of funds, and unwarranted detainment of civilians. If individuals conducted these acts, they would be charged with kidnapping, money laundering, torture, and violation of personal rights. The Egyptian government misused and abused its power in order to suppress the dissent of its opponents. Their actions were driven by greed and self-interest as opposed to the needs and benefits of its citizens and society at large. There are times, however, when a government must undertake actions that can be deemed criminal if conducted by individuals in order to maintain the safety of its constituents and to uphold the founding principles of the nation. The Patriot Act was established post 9/11 terrorist attacks, which enabled the US National Security Agency to wiretap any individual suspected to be in affiliation with Al-Qaeda or other organizations that fuel terrorism. This is considered a violation of personal privacy when undertaken by an individual and is punishable by law. However, the Patriot Act was evoked in order to prevent and eliminate the threat of another terrorist attack on United States that could undermine the very stability of the nation. The motive behind such a policy that infringed on the privacy of its citizens was rooted in the desire for the protection of society, the sustenance of its freedom, and the safety of its citizens. The government had the citizens’ best interests in mind and was not driven by personal benefits or individual gains. Evidently, the motive behind a government’s choice of action should be used as a measure of its validity and righteousness. Criminal acts are defined as actions that are unlawful. However, the basis of lawfulness lies in the intention of the act itself. When actions are conducted for one’s personal gain at the harm of another, be it by an individual or by a government, they are viewed as criminal and should be condemned. In the case of the Egyptian protest, Mubarak was eventually forced to step down and be held accountable to the criminal deeds conducted by both him and his government against its citizens. The Egyptian government not only failed to represent its constituents but also used its power to force universal consent and to propel its selfish desires of unchallenged supremacy. On the other hand, the US government’s implementation of the Patriot Act, despite being controversial, had its citizens’ best interest in mind. Its government wanted to maintain the public order of society in order to ensure the safety of its citizens. Thus, the intention behind a government’s course of action determines the nature of its legitimacy. You're welcome. I am glad that you like the site. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Evidence of some clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. One theme that you raised that you could explore in your essay in both task#1 and task#2 is the idea that the government has "gotten away" with crime in both cases. Why is this? A citizen who commits the illegal acts that you mention cannot "get away" with those crimes. 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-Thanks so much for offering this service! Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. Services provided by companies range from the absolute essential to non essential ones. A necessary service is one that is needed for maintaing one's standard of living and protecting human rights. Such services include healthcare, water and electricity supply and access to medication. The lack of these services often has a severe negative impact on a citizen's standard of living. Unnecessary services are those which are not necessary for living, but which contribute to a comfortable lifestyle. Governments have a role to protect citizens from exploitative manufacturers. Unregulated services are business, existing for the sole purpose of generating income from the masses. When unregulated, essential service providers may take advantage of the necessity of their services, and exploit consumers. Governments should intervene and regulate companies if only a single company is providing the essential service. For example, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is the only public transport service in Toronto. The TTC is a private body, operating independant of government control. In 2008, all TTC workers went on strike, demanding raises and further rights as workers. The strike left the entire city paralyzed. Students missed exams, workers were unable to commute and amubalances were delayed on the roads as a result of extreme traffic congestion. This is the result of a monopoly in essential services. If the TTC had been controlled by the government, such a city wide strike would likely not have occured. Furthermore, the TTC raises its fares regularly, resulting in Toronto Transit being one of the most expensive in the world. The lack of competition in the sector has resulted in this and government regulation in such situation would serve to protect the interests of the nation's citizens. However, in situations where multiple companies are providing the same essential service, government regulation is unnecessary. In such a situation, the rival companies compete with each other and are forced to provide the consumer with the best possible service. Healthcare in Sri Lanka is not regulated by the government. Private hospitals charge consumers for ambulance calls and for consultations with physicians. The lack of government control, and the presence of over a dozen hospitals in near vicinity of each other, has fuelled the hospitals to provide the best possible health care options to the citizens of the city at the best possible charges. Ambulance services are even offered for free for elderly patients as an incentive to attract patients to the hospital. Government regulation in such an atmosphere would only serve to dampen the necessary enthusiasm of the companies in providing the best possible service. Necessary services, which are required for protecting a citizen's standard of living and human rights, may be provided by a single company or by multiple ones. Government regulation is necessary when a single company is providing the service, as a means of protecting the interests of the citizen and ensuring that the company does not victimize the consumer due to the monopoly it sustains. However, when several companies provide the same essential service, government regulation is not necessary to protect the consumer since rivalry among the companies will result in the companies serving the consumer's best interests. The latter scenario is often more effective than the former, and even when only one company exists, a governmental body may decide to encourage the growth of competing companies as opposed to directly regulating the only existing company. Both scenarios will eventually protect the citizens of the country and ensure that they are not victimized due to their dependance on necessary services. You're welcome. Glad to provide this service. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Evidence of some clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. One theme that you touched upon is: "Governments have a role to protect citizens from exploitative manufacturers." You should explore this theme a little more as it is pertinent to the prompt. Why is it necessary for governments to regulate companies and not any other body, organization, or firm? Is it because the government has the power, or is it for another reason, or both? I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 -clicked- Thank you! Businesses succeed by by taking advantage of consumers’ weaknesses. The chief aim of most businesses is to increase profits. In order to increase profits, companies attract consumers in an effort to sell their products or services. Advertisements are made to convince a consumer that they need a product. This need, whether it is real or not, is a weakness that the average consumer has. Because of a consumer's need they are more likely to listen to an advertisement or sales pitch and then buy the product being promoted. For example, Virgin Mobile ran advertisements on Canadian television which stated that one out of ten Canadians suffered from "The Catch" and that Virgin Moblie had "The Cure". The Catch was merely hidden fees that other cell phone companies were charging and the advertisement directed viewers to their website to find out more, but the purpose of the advertisement was to create fear in the minds of potential consumers. Consumers who were curious or concerned would then research the issue and become exposed to Virgin Moblie products. In this case, a businesses successfully increased the exposure of their products by preying on the weaknesses of consumers: their fear. However, not all companies achieve success by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. World Vision is a non-profit organization that organizes and delivers humanitarian efforts across the globe. Although it is important for the company to make enough money so that it can continue it's existence. What is essential to note is that World Vision does not exist so that its employees and owners can make money. It exists to distribute aid to those in need. For this reason, it does not need to take advantage of the weaknesses of its consumers. Advertisments invite people to donate money, but it offers no direct service which could help to fill a consumer's need or weakness, nor does it compel them that they must do so. In the case of non-profit businesses, they can succeed without appealing to any sort of need that a consumer may have. For most companies, the purpose of their existence is to earn money. To succeed, they increase their public exposure by taking advantage of the weaknesses of potential consumers. In the case of the Virgin Moblie advertisement, the weakness was the need to discover what "the Catch" was and to determine how they could avoid "the Catch", even though the need may not have been real at all. However, non-profit organizations do not measure success by how much money they generate. Therefore they do not need to take advantage of the weaknesses of potential consumers in order to be successful. World Vision advertises that consumers may donate money to humanitarian relief if they wish, but not compulsion is stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 -clicked- Education makes everyone equal. Education as a gift that produces many tangible benefits for those who recieve it. For one to recieve an education means that they have been trained in a particular area of study by learning skills or facts. Because education is offered to all people, it makes everyone equal in the sense that all are given equal opportunity to learn and succeed in the classroom. In many nations an education up to a high school diploma is provided by the government. As a result each student in a highschool classroom is given an equal chance to learn from their teachers. What they learn can then give them the opportunity to find a job or to tutor their siblings. If a student is not attentive, they may not find the same benefits from education as someone who paid close attention in class. Nevertheless, education provides everyone with the opportunity to reap the benefits of a highschool education. Regardless of a person's class or income, they have the chance to recieve a highschool education because it is freely provided by the government. However, education does not provide equal opportunities beyond highschool. Those who come from a high income family are more likely to be able to afford the high costs of tuition at university. Thus post-secondary education, to some degree, separates people based on their socioeconomic status. Scholarships and grants are available, but because there is a limited supply not everyone who took advantage of highschool and earn high grades can attend a university. The government provides an equal opportunity for all to learn up until they have achieved a highschool diploma. There is not an equal opportunity for any level of education above this. As a result, those from lower social classes often find lower paying jobs and do not recieve an income equal to that of the lawyer who was able to afford an education from law school. Education can only provide equal opportunities up until the end of highschool. What determines whether or not education makes everyone equal depends on the level of education being discussed. The function of an educational system is to provide all people, from all social classes, the opportunity for an equal chance to be successful. However, education is only provided freely up to the level of a highschool diploma. Any education that is beyond this is usualy paid for by the student and thus students who come from higher income families have more of an opportunity to recieve a higher education and achieve their dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecobeco Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 -clicked- The popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations. I haven't had much practice in writing essays for the MCAT (actually I haven't had any practice) but here goes: Each generation brings into the world new people with new tastes in music. Recently, the popularity of certain genres of music always seems to fluctuate - depending on the status of the world at the time. The rise of house, R&B and electronic music serves to signify the rapid advances in technology that have taken place over the last few decades. Long gone are the mellow tunes of The Beatles or the melancholic melodies of Pink Floyd. Instead, today's radio stations are constantly buzzing with songs that portray single gangster men going out to a metaphorical club, looking for girls to take home for the night and smoking various drugs for personal pleasure, all while shooting up opposing gang members. This type of music seems to be very popular today, and completely rejects the conventions of generations gone-by, which placed emphasis on "being happy" and "not worrying". This is not to say that the youth of today do not listen to Bob Marley - more teenagers are smoking marijuana and committing crimes now than ever before. However, the message is no longer the same. Bob Marley preached for peace, while artists today such as "soulja Boy" make millions of dollars rapping about their Friday nights and seem to support violence and criminal behaviour. However, this has not always been the case throughout history. The music of the Baroque and Classical Eras serves to remind us of the fact that music has not always undergone such fluctuations in popularity. The music of the classical era, made famous by composers such as Mozart and Beethoven, is not so much different that that of Handel and Bach written a century previously. There is, of course, marked differences between Beethoven's Sonata Pathetique and Bach's Preludes and Fugues, but these differences are not in stark contrast to each other. Peace and violence are two completely opposite ideas, whereas fugal development of melody does not differ greatly from "sturm und drung" effects achieved by Beethoven in his works. It seems as though the popularity of music has been fluctuating at a much greater degree in recent decades than ever before. The majority of the world population is between the ages of 14-30 and consequently, the popularity of music is by and large determined by teenagers and young adults. It is rare to see the average teenager today describe to you the works of Schubert or Wagner if they do not have a background in musical history or have a personal interest in such music. What determines whether or not the popular music of one generation rejects the conventions of previous generations seems to be the lives of the aforementioned individuals belonging to the age group 14-30. Today, many more songs are dedicated to gang life and pursuing your fantasies at ridiculously expensive resorts, and less and less songs seem to deal with the morals and virtues that have been around for millenia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
in_hindsight Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 -Clicked- In politics, inaction is often the wisest action. Describe a specific situation in which action in politics might be wiser than inaction. Discuss what you think determines whether action or inaction in politics is wiser. In some sense, politics is much like a game of chess. Politicians must examine situations carefully before deciding to take action. In some scenarios, the wisest action a politician can take is no action at all. Such circumstances typically arise when an issue does not directly concern one’s nation. For instance, China and Tibet have been at conflict with each other for many decades. The Chinese believe that Tibet should be amalgamated as a province of China while the Tibetans seek independence. This conflict of interests fueled violent dispute between these nations resulting in the deaths of thousands of civilians over the years. Several nations choose not to intervene in this conflict out of fear that doing so would harm the relations between them and the Chinese. The United States (US) in particular released a statement stating that it neither condemned nor supported the actions of the Chinese towards the Tibetans. This lack of action was viewed as a wise decision on several fronts because choosing a side in the conflict would have drawn the United States directly into the controversy. However, taking action is the wisest choice under certain circumstances. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre (WTC), the US was adamant about mitigating the efforts of future terrorists. As a result, the US launched the war in Afghanistan—a country suspected of harboring the terrorists--- in an attempt to eradicate terrorism. Nearly over a decade later, the presence of terrorist organizations in Afghanistan significantly diminished. In addition, the US successfully captured and assassinated several individuals responsible for the 9/11 attacks including Osama Bin Laden (the leader of the terrorist organization Hamas). Therefore, if an issue directly concerns the interests of a nation, action will often be the wisest course that can be taken. If no action was taken in this case, terrorist organizations such as Hamas would have only accumulated in number and this may have led to further attacks on American soil. Therefore, the degree to which an issue directly concerns one’s nation determines if inaction or action should be taken. The conflict between China and Tibet did not concern the immediate interests of the US. Furthermore, if the US did intervene in the situation this may have harmed relations between them and China fueling further conflict. It is for these reasons that US politicians decided that inaction was the wisest decision. However, the 9/11 terrorist attacks directly affected the nation of America and its citizens. For this reason, US politicians took action and launched the war in Afghanistan in an attempt to eradicate the terrorists responsible for this attack. This was the wisest choice because if the US decided to take no action, this would have allowed terrorist organizations to proliferate and pose future threats to American safety. Thank you for your service! It has helped me immensely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtamming Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 -clicked- Thank you so much for doing these for us! A teacher’s main goal should be to encourage a sceptical attitude among students. As children, we are taught to take in everything with a broad mind. This way, we learn to discern for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, developing the morals we will use so often as adults. As a teacher, to encourage students to think in this way would result in the class becoming more engrossed in the topics being taught. Especially when teaching such controversial theories as evolution vs. creationalism, or the multiuniverse theory, urging the children to keep an open mind will help them in later years as they encounter other extreme ideologies such as xenophobism and racism, which are so blatant in today’s society. However, sometimes it is not in the student’s best interests to encourage them to look at subjects with a broad mind. For instance, when learning about such things as the shape of the Earth, Newton’s Laws, or the Laws of Thermodynamics, open-mindedness is not the best way to approach the situation. Since a child who is sceptical about the laws of physics will ultimately learn he or she is in the wrong, this will deter the student from further learning. Therefore, the teacher must learn when to encourage scepticism and when it is best to teach things as fact. When presenting theories such as the String Theory, the Evolutionary Theory, and the Big Bang Theory, one should tell the other side(s) of the argument, to let the student decide for themselves what they want to believe. When teaching fact to the students, such as historical events and the anatomy of the body, it is best to just state the fact, and let it be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 -clicked-Thank you so much! Education come not from books but from practical experience. A person can often learn better from actually performing a task with their own two hands, rather than just reading about how to do it in a book. It is usually easier to understand how something is done when one actually does it for themselves. This allows a deeper understanding because it requires thinking about why something must be completed a certain way. For example, when performing an experiment in the lab, the only way one can ever truly learn is to actually do it themselves. Watching others and reading the theory behind it, will never compare to actually doing it. While doing it, one must think about why each step is being done to contribute to a positive outcome, therefore enriching their knowledge of the process. However, there are times when books are more important learning tools than experience. When learning basic, concrete facts in school, such as mathematics, books are better educators then practical experience. In this case, one must learn the basic principles of math from a book before they can go any further. An individual must build a foundation which comes from books, before being able to jump into "hands on" experiences. Therefore the question is, when does practical experience provide a better education than a book. The answer is that they truly go hand in hand. In the previous example regarding a lab experiment, before one attempts to perform the experiment, background reading must be done in order to acquire a basic understanding of the process. Books are crucial to providing a foundation for learning, whereas practical experience really solidifies understanding. General knowledge must be obtained from a book, whereas practical experience teaches troubleshooting and modifying, which expands one's knowledge. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. You must go into further depth with the examples in task#1 and task#2. For example#1, you must illustrate and explain how someone learns through practice, and how this is particularly relevant to lab work. What is involved? Where is the learning? How do we know learning is taking place? For example#2, you may wish to pick a more specific math subject, such as probability, calculus, algebra, geometry, etc. Then from there, cite specific instances where a student learns from a book. How does this occur? What is so special about a book? What does the book do? How does the book help a student learn? What must the student do? Is a teacher needed? You would also like to talk about practice. The final task was not properly completed. You are to explain under what circumstances the prompt is true and when it is false. What you have shown is that the prompt is both true and false. When is practical experience better than book learning? When is the inverse true? Why is this? I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 -clicked- Thank you!!! The object of education should be to teach skills, not values. In a democratic society, citizens have the right to freedom of thought and of belief. Indeed, this right is so fundamental in a democratic society that it is often entrenched in the constitutions of democractic countries. For example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Canadian constitution, lists freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression among its fundamental freedoms. In the same vein, as everyone has the right to their beliefs, governmental educational institutions should not impose cerrtain values to students who attend them. The main object of education, then, would be to teach students skills, such as mathematics or how to write. Indeed, these would be more objective in nature and remove the possibility of a teacher imposing their own personal values on his or her students. However, there are situations where a teacher in a classroom might want to teach certain values to his or her students. This is especially the case when a teacher must keep order in the classroom and punish intolerable behaviour. For example, he or she might have to discipline a student who has bullied another student for wearing a religious item or punish a student who threatens another. In doing so, the teacher is teaching them that respect for others is of the utmost importance. This would not be contrary to the principles of a democratic society. In fact, the promotion of respect in the classroom is in keeping with the values of a democratic society, as by imposing certain behaviour on students that encourages respect, a teacher is promoting equality among members of the classroom and teaching them that everyone has a right to their views. This is in line with the principles of freedom of thought and belief that are fundamental under a democracy. What determines whether the object of education is to teach skills and when it is to teach values, then, is whether the object of the lesson is to teach a topic that is part of the curriculum or whether it has to do with the behaviour of students in the classroom. Generally, topics that are part of the curriculum are not decided by the teacher and the latter will not have a chance to impose personal values on his or her students. However, without keeping order in their classroom, a teacher will have difficulty in teaching his or her students the necessary skills that they need in order to pass their exams and integrate the subject matter. In so doing, they are also teaching their students the value of respect for others and that everyone has freedom of their beliefs. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Some issues with depth and complexity of thought, and integration of ideas. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Adequate control of language. To add further depth to the essay, you may wish to write about why it is up to educators to teach skills. How are teachers different from other people? Did they have special training and were screened in order to hold their position? Furthermore, why are skills so important? What would happen if students did not acquire these skills from education? As well, why should students be taught values? Why is it effective to teach values in a school setting? Is this a form of group learning? Why is learning values better in a group setting in a school? Is there social pressure, or peer pressure in this case? These are ideas that will help you to think through the reasoning behind your points to lead to the necessary and logical conclusion that teaching values in school can be effective. The third task was not adequately completed. You will need to find a stronger rationale which explains why the prompt is true and why it is not true. You have described that it depends on: "whether the object of the lesson is to teach a topic that is part of the curriculum or whether it has to do with the behaviour of students in the classroom." This rationale is actually circular as it pertains to your examples. You will need to find another rationale that explains how your examples make the prompt true and not true under certain circumstances. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 -clicked-Thanks for your feedback for my last essay. Thanks in advance for this one! Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies. As we move forward in time, civilized human beings constantly seek ways to better our lives. Such advancement, especially in the creative realm, often evolves to comprise of increasing components. From the prehistoric age to modern day, musical instruments went from tree branches and rocks to nine-foot-long concert grand pianos with eighty-eight keys. Along with improvements in the media on which people play music, musical styles have also seen a significant change through the centuries. Drab, monophonic textures that emerged from primitive percussions gave way to the polyphonic, colorful harmonies of Handel's Messiah and Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake. On the other hand, technology has leapt through the years and broke uncountable barriers. A single first-generation programable electromechanical computer in the late 1940's was enormous and took up the space of an entire room. These were extremely inconvenient and limited in their practical use. As computer science developed into the twenty-first century, we now have portable, compact notebooks and tablet personal computers such as the iPad. Simplication in electronic devices is only made possible through progress. Ultimately, through innovation and reinvention, many facets of humanity are either made more complicated or simplified. The determining factor lies in the aspect of civilization on which the progress impacts. Art, music, fashion and other genres of creative expression are increasingly complex as more intricate tools are trifled with to match up to our growing appetite for artistic appreciation. At the same time, our exaggerated dependence on information technology has pushed for the emergence of handy gadgets. Without progress, we would not be able to enjoy Beethoven's 5th Symphony on an iPod Nano. P.S. This was the first essay that I wrote a while back for a practice test, so I was greatly struggling with the time constraint, thus the rather short essay. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Some issues with coherence and depth of thought. Some issues with integration of ideas. Adequate control of language. What the prompt is saying is that progress creates a lot more problems than it solves. You have to show that this is true, and that this is not true: that progress solves problems and helps make life better for people and sometimes it causes problems. The first examples seem to show that progress makes things better and makes life better which is just an expansion of task#2. In other words, task#1 was not properly addressed. You could isolate a single example and explore that in more depth so that the reader can assess your reasoning better. The second paragraph would benefit from a more detailed exploration of the advancement of computers and how they benefit people in everyday life. You may wish to focus in on the iPad and talk about how it makes the internet more accessible and takes away the drudgery of everyday life by providing entertainment and convenience. Task#3 may need to be readdressed with a more explicit rationale. It seemed okay at first, then the idea lost focus towards the end of the paragraph. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slumdogMD Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 <clicked> In politics, good intentions cannot justify bad actions. Describe a specific situation in which good intentions in politics might justify a bad action. Discuss what you think determines whether or not good intentions in politics can justify bad actions. Often in politics, a good intention goes un-praised when bad occurrances arise on national national security. In the context of politics, a good intention is the proposal of legislation that is intended to increase the nations well-being. Take for example Stephan Harper's proposal of increasing funding in the education sector in order to cut the cost of pursuing post-secondary education for Canadian citizens. In 2006, after continous out-cry from university and colleges students asking for a decrease in tuition costs, Stephan Harper proposed to increase funding for education by 1.5 billion dollars. Although the goal was to increase funding for education while at the same time maintianing other aspects of Canada's treasure funding, many financial analysts argued that the increase for educational funding directly lead to a decrease in funding for Canadian armed forces. The deaths of 5 Canadian soldiers who died in Afganistan because they ran out of bullets was pinned on Stephan Harper. The weeks that followed their deaths included many newspapers and journals blaming Harper for deaths of soldiers. In this case, Harper's good intention of increasing educational funding lead to a decrease in funding for national security and the subsequent deaths of soldiers in the battle field due to not having enough resources. His good intentions were not justified and thus was scrutinized by themedia and journalists. However, in the case were good intentions lead to bad occurances that do not involve national security, the good intentions are justified. Take for example Stephan Harper's legislation for the increase of tax in order to stabilize Canada's financial situation. In 2005, Harper proposed a legislation to increase tax by 2% of goods and services. The idea was that since America's economy was in a devastating crisis, that an increase on consumer tax would allow Canada from falling into the same pit-hole as America. Three years after the increase in goods and service tax, Canada's currency took a sharp and sudden fall, leaving many wondering what the main cause was. Analysts were blaming Harper's increase on tax as the main driving force behind the currency drop since citizens were not able to spend as much on new purchases as before. Nevertheless, the blame quickly subsided and journalists turning to ideas of increasing Canada's currency back to where it was previsously rather that bashing Harper for his legislation. In this case, Harper's good intention of stabilizing Canada's economy led to the bad action of a sharp decrease in currency. However, his good intentions justified the bad action and journalists and media spokes men directed their attention to finding a solution to the currency decrease. Whether or not good intentions in politics justify bad actions depends on if the bad action surrounded national security. Since a politians main obligation is to protect his or her citizens, bad actions that occur on national security ought not be justified by good intentions. In the case of Harper's increase in educational funding leading to the deaths of soldiers, his good intention were not justified since the bad action involved a decrease in national security. However, in the case of Harper's increase in taxes leading to currency drop, his good intention was justified since the bad actions did not involve national security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slumdogMD Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 <clicked> An effective leader must possess the ability not only to deal with current problems, but also to anticipate future ones. Describe a specific situation in which a leader might be effective without anticipating future problems. Discuss what you think determines whether or not it is necessary for a leader to anticipate future problems. Politicians ought be able to merge the ability to deal with current problems and the ability to anticipate future problems when the issues surround national security. In the context of politics, anticipation future problems is the ability to propose legislation that serves to prevent problems that may arise later. Take for example Stephan Harper's proposed legislation of the Anti Terrorism Act in 2004. After the onset of the attacks on the twin towers in september of 2001, the threat of terrorism became the main issue for Canada's national sercurity. Stephan Harper proposed the flexibility of police searches on suspicious individuals believed to be part of Al-Quida. The legislation included faster times of obtaining warrents, increasing the amount of time of detaining a suspect, and the increase of survailance on suspects. This legislation was to be instill for the upcoming 5 years, just long enough to ensure that the threat of terrorism that was arising from the Afganistan could be controlled by Canadian forces. In this case, Staphan Harper's proposed legislation not only dealt with the current problem of terrorism, but also anticipated the increased threat of terrorism that may occur due to the war in Afganistan. However, in the case of proposing legislation that is to increase economic wellbeing, a politician may be effective without anticipating future problems. Take for example Stephan Harper's proposed legislation of increasing taxes in order to stabilize Canada financially. With the onset of the American economic crisis, Stephan Harper set out to increase taxes on goods and services by 2%. This drastic increase was thought to bring Canada into a state of financial security quickly so that the economic downturn that was occuring in America would not spill over to Canada. Analysts were urging for a smaller tax increase, arguing that tax increases of such a scale would put Canada into a consumer buying crisis a few years down the line. Nevertheless, the legislation was enstilled 3 months after the initial proposal and Stephan Harper was able to avoid Canada from having an economic downturn. In this case, Stephan Harper was able to be effective without anticipating the future problems of consumer buying because economic stability was needed now, rather than later. Whether or not it is necessary for a politician to anticipate future problems depends on whether or not the issues surround national security. Since a politicians primary obligation is to protect his or her citizens, protecting citizens ought to be an ongoing fight and the continous anticipation of future threats must occur. In the case of Harpers legislation of Terrorism, anticipation was needed because the issues surrounded national sercurity. However, in the case of the tax increases, antication was not needed since the issues did not surround national security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 -clicked- Stability in society can lead to stagnation. Describe a specific situation in which stability in society might not lead to stagnation. Discuss what you think determines whether or not stability in society leads to stagnation. The presence of stability means that there are no major uncertainties within a certain social class about what may happen to it. Members of a stable society can be confident that their jobs are secure and their safety is sure. However, stagnation may come as a result of social stability. Stagnation can be defined in a number of ways. In this context the stagnation of social class is its lack of advancement, and even a regression, whether that be a regression of wealth or morals. A social group which is economically stable can become a class that is stagnant in regards to its morality. For example, before the fall of the Roman Empire, the society had a strong economy. Because of such prosperity, the upper class became even more wealthy and secure in their positions. As a result they became less and less charitable to the lower classes. The cruelty of the Roman emperors became worse and worse, and the moral character of the upper class became stagnant and regressive. It was in part because of the moral stagnation of the powerful people in Rome that the empire fell. However, economic stability does not always lead to stagnation. After World War II the American economy was extremely strong and stable. This lead to economic improvements for most of the population: the opposite of stagnation. Because the society had such a stable economy, businesses could afford to take risks, investing in other companies which stimulated the economy and created jobs. Greater economic stability allowed the government to create social programs and improve education which led to a greater number of skilled and successful workers. Thus economic stability in society can lead to economic progress for its members. What determines whether or not social stability leads to stagnation depends on what type of stagnation is being discussed. A complete lack of moral progress in the hearts of members of a social class resulted from the economic stability of the Roman Empire. However, a great deal of economic progress which benefited most American individuals was the result of the economic stability that occurred after World War II. Thanks for your help so far! I’m definitely learning a lot. Do you have any ideas on what I could have said as a good concluding sentence for this essay? I couldn’t think of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 -clicked- The popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations. Describe a specific situation in which the popular music of a generation might not reject the conventions of previous generations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the popular music of a generation rejects the conventions of previous generations. Each generation has its own unique music which encompasses ideals and styles which are different from anything that came before them. It is difficult to point to one particular style of music which could be considered “the popular music” of that time period or that generation of youth. Musical tastes vary between social groups and ages, not just between generations, but popular music finds its identity in how popular it is with the youth of the time. Overall, however, the popular music which is most widely listened to and aired by radio stations and TV channels, often rejects the conventions that were held by the previous generations. These conventions are the opinions about social issues and how to approach them. For example, the popular music of the seventies can be exemplified by the progressive rock band, Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd was known as progressive not only because of its new and sureal style of music, but because of the provocative motifs that were presented in its lyrics. The song, Another Brick in the Wall, and its line “we don’t need no education”, point to the fact that many of the youth of that decade were not interested in becoming the young man or woman that their parents expected them to be. They, just like every other generation, wanted to plan their own future and create their own goals. However, the music most widely listened to by the youth of any particular generation does not always rejected the conventions of previous generations. The musical conventions and styles that were developed in the seventies still influence the popular music of today. Alternative rock bands, such as Green Day, have become quite popular in the past few years. Yet the style of Green Day uses an adaptation of the guitar riffs that were created by bands like Def Leppard thirty years ago. Hence, the stylistic conventions of the popular music of previous generations is not rejected by the popular music of today. In fact it is influenced by previous music. What determines whether or not the popular music of a generation rejects the conventions of the previous generation depends on the type of convention being discussed. Popular music, such as Pink Floyd, often rejects and even speaks out against the social ideas that are held by the previous generation, by proclaiming a desire for freedom. However, popular musical bands such as Green Day draw on the musical ideas that were discovered by the previous generation to create a new kind of music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alxdude Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 - clicked - Hello! Would you mind taking a look at this this thread for me: http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54953 This writing sample thing is giving me a lot of trouble. Thanks for your help! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robio Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 -clicked- To be successful in business, it is important to appear socially acceptable. Describe a specific situation in which a person or group was or might be successful in business without appearing socially acceptable An acceptable social image is critical for the success of a business. In the music business, image of the artist is especially important for the sales of his music. When the artist exhibits behaviour that is normally rebuked by the public and frowned upon, his customers become repulsed, leading to a loss of his sales and diminished success. For example, Chris Brown was a phenomenally popular hip-hop artist whose songs continuously came in the top ten within the Billboards top one hundred songs chart. Furthermore, he was recognized as a role model to many youths as he projected a wholesome image. Then suddenly, Brown was accused of assaulting his girlfriend Rhianna in 2009, to which he confessed of being guilty. Following this incident, he was condemned and criticized for this unacceptable behaviour, which inevitably lead to his CD sales and popularity quickly diminishing. Therefore, maintaining socially acceptable behaviour is crucial for the success of a business. On the other hand, some artists harbor an unacceptable social image, but rather than hindering success and sales, it fuels them. An exemplary artist is Tupac Shakur. Clearly at odds with acceptable standards, Shakur is a self-proclaimed gangster-rapper who flaunts his gang-affiliations, drug usage, and promiscuity; for example, in one of his songs “Rather be a...”, Shakur describes smoking marijuana for entertainment. Although such behaviour is normally considered socially unacceptable, it boosted his image and sales to an extent that he is known as one of the most popular early rappers ever, who vividly and accurately portrayed life in African American communities. There is a seeming inconsistency in both Shakur’s success and Brown’s demise being fueled by socially unacceptable behaviour. This can be reconciled, however, when we observe the circumstances of the behaviour, or more specifically, the public’s perception of it. In Shakur’s case, the public saw that his thug-like behaviour was a product of his harsh ghetto environment and that he had no choice but to act that way; accordingly, the public embraced his behaviour, seeing it as an inevitable side-effect and that he was only being genuine. As a result, Shakur’s success was propelled. However, Brown originally had a wholesome image and was seen as a responsible person; therefore, when he committed the assault, the public condemned him for choosing to act that way. Because Brown could have avoided conflict but chose to act unacceptably, his popularity and success as an artist suffered. Hence, the public’s perception of whether or not the business, the artist in this case, chose to act in a socially unacceptable manner decides the fate of his success. thank you so much !! 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.