Writer's Corner: Free Essay Grading by PastaInhaler

[rtamming]

--clicked!--

 

Thanks!

 

A news reporter should never express a personal opinion.

 

In news, it is a reporter’s duty not to show bias. To state things factually instead of being opinionated. When it comes to murders, they do not report on the awful characteristics of the murderer, but instead they focus on the matter at hand. When the Casey Anthony case came up, they did not focus much on Casey at all, but instead the actions which she may (or may not have) taken in the death of her child. They did not reflect on Casey’s personality, or offer opinions, but instead, they gave the audience exactly what they wanted – the facts. This was especially important in this case because there was no evidence towards Casey being the murderer – just speculations from her parents or others in the community.

 

However, there may be some instances when a reporter is allowed to express opinion. For instance, in reporting of the 9/11 attacks, many journalists used the words “depressing”, “a tragedy”, or “horrific” to describe the terrorist events. Though definitely opinionated, they used these descriptions to emphasize the death of hundreds of Americans, and to help people feel empathy for what happened. The same can be said for any major tragedy, including the John Wayne Gacy murders, or even car accidents on the highway.

 

There are times when a reporter must not express personal opinion, but there are times when it is allowed. When reporting a case, and especially if the case is not closed, it is important to not side with anyone, for fear that the audience will heed their opinions instead of forming their own. On the other hand, if the journalist is reporting on a great loss to both citizens and country alike, then it is perfectly fine to tell the public exactly what it is – a tragedy.

[mangos]

--clicked--

 

In a democracy, a successful politican resembles the ordinary citizen.

 

A democracy is a from of government in which the "people have the power." That is to say, the citizens of society vote their desired politican into power to represent them, either in the local, provincial, or federal level of government, on issues that are of importance to them. Thus, a politican can also be described as a representative of the people, with the main goal of doing what pleases the ordinary citizen who votes. This ordinary citizen is one who resembles the majority of citizens of society. He/she is neither overly intelligent, rich, or educated nor overly oblivious, poor, or uneducated. Since a politician's rise to power depends on the people, the majority of which are just ordinary citizens, it is easy to conclude that a successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. When a politician resembles the oridinary citizen in ways of education, upbringing, or moral values, they are better able to understand and connect with their voters, and thus, able to better represent them. A prime example of this is the current Prime Minister of Canada, Steven Harper. Unlike many before him, Harper was raised like any other citizen. He was not born into a wealthy family nor did he attend a presitgious school. In fact, Harper's rise to becoming Prime Minister began with humble beginnings. He worked his way up the chain of command in politics and because of his sincere and genuine understanding of the ordinary Canadian, he was voted to become Canada's Prime Minister. During his time in office, Harper has not lost touch with his voters. He has been successful in improving the educational and health system, and even reduced the Goods and Sales Tax (GST) from the outrageous 7% to his promised 5%. In addition, he is still able to find time to gather with his fellow Canadians and watch the recent Stanley Cup finals in Vancouver. As can be seen, Harper is a great illustration of a successful politician who resembled and continues to resemble the ordinary citizen.

 

However, there are cases in which successful politicians do not resemble the oridinary citizen. A illustration of this is the current Presisdent of the United States, Barack Obama. Obama was born into a wealthy family with strong connections to people of power in the US government. His education was extraordinary and was without a doubt, at a level much higher than any ordinary citizen could attain. However, despite these vast differences between himself and the electorate, Obama made strong attempts to connect with them through his family moral and values by being very open with the media about his family, often showing his children playing and his wife conducting fundraisers. As a result, even though Obama did not resemble the ordinary citizen in his education, wealth or upbringing, he was voted to become the first African American President of the United States. During his term in office, Obama was been successful in many areas including the most recent killing of Osama Bin Laden. Evidently, there are cases in which a successful politician does not resemble the ordinary citizen.

 

Upon analysis of the two examples above, it becomes clear that successful politicians can arise in two ways - either resembling the oridinary citizen or not. What determines whether or not the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizens depends primarily on the politicians upbringing, education, and wealth. In the case of Steven Harper, his upbringing, education, and wealth resembled the majority of ordinary Canadian citizens. He was not born into a rich family and did not acquire extensive education. Instead, Harper had to start from the bottom to and work his way up to become Prime Minister. However, because he resembled his electorate, he was better able to understand their needs and thus, molded him into the successful politican he is today. In contrast, Obama did not resemble the ordinary citizen, but yet, was still a successful politican. Unlike Harper, Obama was raised into a wealth and powerful family, with well known connections all over the U.S. As a result, his upbringing and education differed greatly from the oridinary American. However, despite this difference between himself and the electorate, he still became President of the U.S. which shows itself, that he is a successful politician.

[mangos]

--clicked--

Advancements in technological communication have reduced the quality of human interactions

 

Our society has always been a society spurred by technological innovations and progress. One of the main areas of technological advancements have been in the area of communication. Communication is vital to any civilization and thus, has become intertwined with the daily activities of human life. Communication, nowadays, as opposed to centuries ago, can come in many forms. Instead of sending mail using pidgeon from one village to another as they did during the medevil ages, we can now email with a computer, call or text with a mobile cellular device, and even create chat rooms for instantaeous messaging. It is evident that our society has advanced tremondously in communication technologies, but not without its problems. It has been argued that advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction- the ability to read and interpret facial expression and engage in a physical conversation face to face. That is to say, for example, the ability to just send an email, has allowed us the option to not interact face to face with other human beings, and thus, reducing the quality of human interaction. A great example of this is the invention of social network site, Facebook. Upon the emergence of Facebook, which has now over a billion users around the world, users are able to communicate instantaneously with anyone around the world. They can write comments on their friend's "wall" or even talk to friends on Facebook Chat, an instantaneous form of messaging over the computer. Thus, this eliminates the requirement to, for example, individually meet up with all your friends to invite them to your birthday party. Instead, you could just send a mass instanteous message to them with one click of the mouse and a mediocre internet connection. As can be seen, through the advancement of technology, such as the internet giving rise to social network sites such as Facebook, the quality of human interaction have been reduced substancially as face to face communication is considered troublesome and ineffective.

 

However, there are cases in which advancements in communication have not reduced the quality of human interaction. For example, Skype, is a form of communication technology that allows one to make video calls from one computer to another. Video calls are calls that allow each of the users to see each others faces, as if they were right beside each other. As a result of Skype, students that must study abroad and thus, are seperated from their family are friends, are able to still connect and communicate with them. With the ability to make video calls, Skype allows its users to see the person they are talking to and thus, to an extent, retains the quality of human interactions. Instead of families having to buy round trip tickets to see their son who is studying a city or even an ocean away, they can use Skype to communicate.

 

Evidently, advancements in technology have brought many benefits to society, but it has also reduced the quality of human interaction. What determines whether a specific technology has reduced the quality of human interaction or not depends solely on the primary purpose of its use. For example, in the case of Facebook, a majority of users use Facebook for mere convenience. Instead of the hassle of inviting several people individually to your birthday party, it is much easier to just message them on facebook via facebook chat or through a message posted on their "wall." This attitude of using this type of technology, because it is easier and more convenient, will eventually lead to human interaction conducted primarily through computer screens. However, if one uses communication technology to in fact, stay in touch, rather than out of mere convenience, then the technology has not reduced the quality of human interaction. In the case of Skype users, those that are unable to visit friends or family due to being located in different areas geographically, are able to take advantage of Skype's ability to make video calls to communicate and see their friends visually. Thus, the quality of human interaction is not hindered in this way.

[Robio]

-clicked-

 

The historical significance of an event cannot be determined without the perspective afforded by the passage of time

 

Often when a historical event occurs, no one can be sure of its later consequences on the world until time passes and we are able to analyze it. A firm grasp of the implications of an event may only be obtained when we are able to observe the inner workings of the event from many different angles. Accordingly, even an event such as a pact that prescribes certain effects can have an opposite effect to that intended. This is conclusively demonstrated by the establishment of the Treaty of Versailles, which was created after the First World War in 1919, which acted ultimately to impose restrictions on the defeated Germany to weaken its economic and military power sufficiently enough, so that it could not start another war. While the Treaty seemed to be functioning as planned early on, it eventually fostered animosity within the Germans towards the rest of Europe and predicated the rise of Hitler’s nationalistic Nazi regime, which is largely responsible for starting the Second World War. Only after later analyses did we realize that the Treaty had actually aggravated, not suppressed, Germany into starting another war.

 

However, we may have a thorough understanding of the event and its implications even without passage of time and later analyses. For instance, the fatal bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 to end the Second World War had killed more than 200,000 civilians and had immediately reverberated the possible repercussions of nuclear bombs to the world. Ergo, the bombing generated the Three Non-Nuclear Principles in Japan in the 1960s, which forswore Japan from ever manufacturing or possessing nuclear weapons, and sparked a heated debate on the ethical justifications for the use of the bomb to end the war in the United States. Here, we see that the event immediately signified the magnitude of danger associated with nuclear bombs and promptly lead to predictable courses of action by the United States and Japan in opposing them. Even today, the world has the same prohibitory view on nuclear arms.

 

Interestingly, the Treaty of Versailles’ had unpredictable implications which were realized only after passage of time and analysis, whereas the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing had implications which were realized immediately following the event. This seeming inconsistency is resolved by the universal understanding of the event at the time by the different nations involved. When the Treaty of Versailles was signed, the rest of Europe less Germany saw it as a justified and necessary restriction in preventing another war while the Germans themselves saw it as an unfair and unjust treatment; hence, tension was created, which was resolved only after an unpredictable outcome, another world war, had occurred. On the other hand, the nuclear bombing, after it had occurred, was perceived as a horrific and unnecessary event by both the United States and Japan, which lead to both sides condemning nuclear bombs.

 

Thank you !!

[PastaInhaler]

--clicked--

 

Prisoners should be granted the same rights as the other members of free society

Describe a specific situation in which persons might justifiably not be granted a right in prison that they are otherwise granted in free society. Discuss what you think determines whether the rights of free society should be granted to persons in prison.

 

 

Laws are placed in a society in order to uphold the peace and safety of all its citizens. It follows then that those who break the law are considered criminals and thus, depending upon the severity of the crime, could be sentenced to jail. While in jail, one is known as a prisoner, and some are granted the same rights as other members of free society while others are not. A right is considered as something that all cititzens are obliged to have according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights include, but are not limited to, freedom of speech, belief, and the right to liberty. Although it can be perceived that prisoners have all their rights curbed when compared to members of free society, those that have obeyed the law and are not confined to jail according to the law, this is not the case. In fact, prisoners share the same rights as free civilians with the minor exception of their right to liberty. Due to the fact that society has deemed a particalur criminal dangerous to those around him according to the law, his right to liberty is constricted, but not revoked. As a prisoner, one is not confined strictly to a cell and unable to walk around. In fact, under certain times of day, prisoners are able to go anywhere they choose within the jail vicinity. Furthermore, various activities are provided to prisoners that are also available to free civilians such as jobs, a fitness center, and even a church. With the provision of a church, all prisoners are able to partake in any form of religious practice they wish in accordance with their freedom of belief. As can be seen, prisoners confined within a prison do not have all their rights revoked. In stead, a prison can be seen as a rehabilition center in which criminals are confined within, for the protection of society, but yet are still able to excerise their various rights.

 

However, with that being said, there are cases in which prisoners do not have the same rights as free civilians in society. For example, there are unique circumstances in which a criminal commiteed a crime so severe, such as harming human life, that have resulted in them being sentenced to death. This could be seen in the recent Caysee Anthony trial in which she could have been sentenced to death if found guilty for the death of her child. Since death is the most serious penalty, it effectively curbs one of all their rights-freedom of speech or freedom of belief is no longer taken into account once one is found guilty of the death penalty.

 

As can be seen, there are two types of prisoners- those who deserve to have the same rights as free indivduls of society and those who do not. What determines the former or the latter depends on the type of crime committed. If a crime is commited that does not deserve the death penalty, the prisoner’s rights within prison are still upheld to a degree. However, if one’s crime is punishable by death, then upon being convicted as guilty, one’s rights are effectively revoked. This could be seen in the Caysee Anthony trials if the jury had deemed her guilty.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Ideas presented in a coherent manner.

Evidence of some clarity, depth, and complexity of thought.

Adequate control of language.

 

For the first paragraph, it would be best to show a specific example of a prisoner having committed a non-violent crime to illustrate your point.

 

The second example is fine, but you should go into a little more detail about the rights that have been removed from the violent criminal. Further, it may be better to use a different example since Casey Anthony was found not guilty of the violent crimes.

 

Task#3 was done well, but would be stronger with a stronger clarification of tasks#1 and task#2.

 

I feel this essay will be scored a:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked-

 

Prompt:

The more wealth a nation possesses, the more personal liberty it offers its citizens.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the personal liberty of citizens might not depend on a nation's wealth. Discuss what you think determines when the personal liberty of citizens depends on a nation's wealth and when it does not.

 

The citizens of all democracies around the world have the same fundamental rights upon which democracy is founded. However, the liberty to exercise a particular right might depend on the country’s wealth. One’s personal liberty includes the freedom to choose a profession of interest and lead a lifestyle according to one’s own terms. The degree to which a person can enjoy these liberties is often determined by how big the economy of the nation is. In a big economy like USA, there are various professions from which one can choose, there are more employment opportunities, and thus, overall a better chance of earning enough to lead a lifestyle of one’s dreams. On the other hand, in a small economy of Bangladesh there are not enough employment opportunities and not many high salary jobs that can allow the people to live life to their expectations. This is a major underlying factor for high rate of immigration in wealthy countries where one has the highest personal liberty.

 

However, it is also important to highlight instances when a country’s wealth does not determine the liberty of its citizens. Malta, an island country in Mediterranean Sea, legalised divorce on July 30, 2011. Personal liberty includes the freedom to decide when one can break the marriage. In Malta, before today, one did not enjoy the liberty to end a marriage. People in many other countries with smaller economies than Malta would have had this liberty, suggesting a country’s wealth is not always correlated with personal liberties.

 

A person is free to enjoy all liberties as long as he/she is within the boundary of law. One cannot practice something that is not legal in the state. Hence, correlation between nation’s wealth and personal liberties is limited to things that are legal. It is perfectly legal to indulge in any profession of personal preference, and thus, wealthier nations have comparatively more liberty in choosing the kind of work one wants to do. However, if certain activities, although personal liberties, such as divorce or same sex marriage are not legal, then the nation’s law is the determinant of degree of liberty.

 

Thank you, Pastainhaler.

 

You're welcome.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Adequate control of language.

 

For the first example, it may help to name a particular job that pays well and go into more detail with that. Also, you may need to clarify the first part of the example regarding the United States and employment opportunities. Specifically, you should go into detail about high-salaried positions and what this means for personal liberties. Talk about having money, and being able to buy things, being free from troubles associated with money, that sort of thing.

 

The second example seems okay, but may benefit from a restructuring of the paragraph. You could describe the liberty from the perspective of a poorer country then compare it to Malta now. And if possible, if you could find another personal liberty that is shared by Malta and this other country.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNO/PQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-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.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

This prompt has a strange structure and does not seem to fit the current AAMC MCAT format.

 

Have a look at the ones here that are current and official prompts by the AAMC:

https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/preparing/85192/preparing_writingsampleitems.html

 

Ideas presented in a coherent manner.

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Adequate control of language.

 

You may wish to mention that the Jim Crow laws were unethical. Then mention how there was equality and better social justice after the works of the Civil Rights Movement, and what that meant for society overall and not just Blacks.

 

The second example illustrates an idea that you need to explore further. This point has to do with the actions of the Nazis and how conforming would hinder social progress.

 

The third task seemed sufficient given the instructions, but again, this prompt and its instructions seem un-MCAT like. It is strongly recommended that you use prompts from this link:

https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/preparing/85192/preparing_writingsampleitems.html

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-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.

 

 

Only one essay per post please.

 

You're welcome. A prepared pasta supply device as you described would be quite interesting.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Ideas presented in a coherent manner.

Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought.

Adequate control of language.

 

This is one of the nastier prompts that the AAMC has up. It is meant to cause stress and to throw off the examinee's rhythm. Not focussing on profit goes against the very nature of business.

 

The first part was good. The second example however was not sufficient. You've mentioned that the primary goal of a non-profit organization is to generate profit (an intangible type, I presume you meant non-monetary). This will logically support the prompt and entails that task#2 was not adequately completed. You will need to change your argument to reflect a not-for-profit motive. Furthermore, a non-profit organization is not a business. Therefore, the Heart and Stroke Foundation cannot be used as an appropriate example for this prompt. Using a non-profit as an example is one of the pitfalls that the AAMC writers have set. The AAMC graders will likely be aware of this. You will need to find another example that is not a non-profit organization, and also not a charitable organization.

 

Side note: it would be best not to mention the prompt or to refer to it such as:

 

"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."

 

It alters the feel and the voice of the essay. The essay is meant to be a standalone showcase of your thinking and reasoning skills regarding a particular topic. The essay should not refer to a prompt.

 

The only time that you could possibly refer to the prompt (and I discourage doing this), would be if you used the actual prompt statement in your essay.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-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.

 

You're welcome, Stainless0.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Some issues with regards to focus.

Adequate control of language.

 

It would be beneficial for the essay to give an example of an art piece that demonstrates freedom of speech and how it is beneficial. It could be a poem speaking out against the government, or a painting, or a sculpture, but something that encapsulates the idea of the benefit to society of freedom of speech. After this, you will need to explain why the example shows that freedom of speech is necessary to society.

 

The second example was emotionally charged, but you should stay within the scope of the essay; namely, freedom of speech. You could focus in on one particular example and how certain aspects of freedom of speech should be restricted.

 

Task#3 was sufficient.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNO/PQRST

[bsm]

- clicked -

 

A nation's ability to survive is often dependent upon its military strength

 

Since the first civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia, to the Greeks, Romans, Soviets, and now American Empire (that may or may not be on its last legs), history is filled with the rise and fall of countless nations. It is natural to ponder, then, what is the key ingrediant that ensures the survival of a nation? Survival in this sense refers to both maintenance of the boundries that comprise its physical territories, but also the maintenance of its governmental structure and cultural ideologies. Is is possible that a strong military, capable of attacking others and defending its homeland, is the key component to national sovereignity?

 

A stong military force has certainly helped Iran maintain its national integrity. The Islamic Republic of Iran, established in 1979 after a revolution to overthrow the foreign-installed Shah, has drawn the ire of Western nations for its controversial policies. For example, Iran refuses to recognize the state of Isreal, and consistently critizes its actions, and has generally declared Isreal a national enemy. As such, Iran's insistence on pursuing a nuclear energy generating program has sparked fears that this could lead to an Isreal-Iran confrontation. Political pundits have suggested a possible Western-led operation to overthrow the current Iranian regime. Similar actions were performed covertly against Iran in 1953 for the removal then President Mohammed Mosadeq, and more overtly recently with operations such as the NATO bombing of Libya to remove the Colonel Gadaffi leadership. However, the prevailing drawback of militarily forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear energy program has been Iran's well-developed anti-aircraft and defensive military capability, and insistence that it would attack all American bases in its vacinity. The fear that attacking Iran would lead to a bloody and widespread war has likely been the main reason for survival of its current regime and maintenance of its internationally controversial policies.

 

However, that is not to say that all nations survive through the presence of their military strength. The key is that some countries are politically in sync with other global military powers, and thus survive through cooperation rather than intimidation. For example, Canada's military ranks well outside the global Top 10 military powers in any metric. However, Canada is a politically stable nation, which an emerging economy and overall high standard of living. Canada's lack of military power has not resulted in any threats of invasion of its borders or external removal of its government.

 

In determining the importance of a nation's military strength to its survival, then, we must consider its relation to any global military powers that exist to be paramount. Nations that rebuke the hegemony of global powers need to be able to defend themselves militarily to prevent those powers from imposing their will. However, nations that are politically consistent with global powers face less external pressure, and thus have less need for imposing military capability. Iran's nuclear program is strongly opposed by Western powes such as America, Britain, and France. It is the fear of their military response that keeps these powers at bay from imposing their will on Iran, as they have done in the past. In contrast, Canada generally adheres with UN protocols and is a contributing member of the NATO alliance and thus does not face similar threat. Interestingly, we can image that, in a hypoethical world where the greatest superpowers were Islamic Republics, Iran would face less pressure to reform, and Canada would require a strong military capability to defend and maintain its secular democratic policies.

 

Thanks PastaInhaler...PM me your address and i'll send you a bag of Pasta!

[vitals]

-clicked-

 

......Thanks for doing this, I greatly appreciate your feedback.........

 

A person's first priority in life should be financial security

 

Most adults spend their lives trying to live up to their goals. Values shape our goals by providing a framework for our course of action. Some believe that "money can buy hapiness" and measures success by the monetary value of their possessions and assets. Maslov's hierarchy of needs classifies motivating factors and states that the most basic need should be met first before moving up the the higher level. Security, including financial security, comes right above physiological needs such as food, air, water and shelter. Without achieving financial security, it would be challenging to satisfy higher needs such as establishing meaningful relationships, personal growth and self actualization. Those who agree with Maslov would make financial security a priority in life.

 

On the other hand, some will argue that "money cannot buy happiness" and believe that success in life cannot be measured by tangible objects. Their focus is usually on intangible things such as spiritual growth, time or passion and would be unwilling to compromise them for financial reasons. For example, a parent may decide to stay at home with his or her new child at the expense of a double income. New parents may find the option worthwhile as the time they get to spend with their loved one is priceless.

 

Whether or not we choose to make financial security a priority goal is dependent on our personal values. Those who value money will strive for financial security and more, while others may choose to invest time and effort on avenues that provide them personal and spiritual growth.

[Kovah]

-clicked-

 

The primary concern of a business should be the safety of its employees.

 

Businesses, any formally organized body of people who work together to provide services, are not just those which seek to generate profit. Non-profit organizations such as World Vision can be thought of as businesses, and even the organizational bodies that coordinate the actions of police officers and emergency care services can be thought of as businesses. The primary concern or the most important goal of a business should be to ensure that all of its employees are not put into dangerous circumstances as a result of their job responsibilities. In the past hundred years businesses have come along way towards putting the safety of their workers first. In 1911, a garment factory in New York City burnt down in what is known as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. The disaster occured because the manager place more emphasis on factory efficieny and profit than they did on providing good working conditions and safety for their workers. This business ought to have made the safety of its employee’s is primary concern because the preservation of human lives is more important than any economic profit.

 

However, some businesses provide services which guarantee that its employees will be put in danger as part of their job responsibilities. Police officers enter dangerous circumstances whenever they are called to apprehend a criminal or investigate suspicious behaviour. The polic station and the organizational body which controls it, does not and should not place their officers’ safety as the primary concern of the organization. The purpose of the policing force is to ensure that the public is kept safe from criminals, and thus the duty and main concern of the policing body and of each officer is to keep the citizens safe, even if it means that an officer will be put in danger. Of course, policing organizations do whatever they can to ensure that each officer is safer on the job by providing training and organizing officers in pairs, but the safety of the officers is of secondary concern. Thus for emergency services which exist to ensure the safety of the public, the safety of its employees should not be its main goal.

 

What determines whether or not a business should treat the safety of its employees as its top priority depends on the purpose for which the business exists. Businesses which seek to generate profit should not pursue that goal with such abandonment that they disregard the safety of their employees as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory did. In fact, businesses should put the safety of their workers first because a human life is more valuable than a large income. However, organizations which exist to provide safety for others, such as the governing bodies of police officers or firefighters, should make the safety of their employees as their secondary concern. The men and women who serve as emergency workers have volunteered to put themselves in danger because they believe that the safety of public individuals is even more important than their own safety.

[Grey's Anatomy]

-clicked-

 

In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective.

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 it might be possible to be objective in the recording of history. Discuss what you think determines when objectivity in the recording of history is possible and when it is not.

 

History is an integral part of society. The recording of history and past events allows us to transfer knowledge to future generations regarding certain issues, conflicts, challenges, accomplishments and advancements from which individuals can learn. However, in the process of recording history, it is often difficult to be objective and to present information without personal bias. This is a frequent occurrence in the reporting of news, as biased views are intended to educe certain emotions in the viewers. For example, during the Tunisian Revolution that began in December 2010, the protesters had to overcome heavy censorship in order to voice their concerns. Citizens posted videos of non-violent resistance on Facebook, through which Al Jazeera's media team was able to access and disseminate information about the events. In the reporting of news, and in recording history, Al Jazeera presented a biased view of the conditions in the nation in order to gain viewers. It was not particularly difficult to be subjective because human behavior is open to alternative interpretations, and Al Jazeera can be viewed to serve personal interests as well, namely the acquisition of viewership.

 

Conversely, there are circumstances in which it is possible to be objective in the recording of history. Impartiality can be observed in instances when indisputable facts are presented. For example, during the publication of the Anatomy and Physiology Textbook by Tortora et al., the authors simply reported observable and tested facts that have been learned throughout our exploration of the workings of the human body. These facts and information are arguably indisputable and are reported as truth, without being open to alternative interpretations. In this context, presented biased information would not serve any personal interests insofar as increasing readership. As a result, when indisputable facts are presented only with the intention of disseminating knowledge as opposed to increasing readership, the recording of history can be achieved devoid of bias.

 

Evidently, subjectivity is a part of recording of history when the presenters convey information regarding human behavior that is confounded with personal interests, while impartiality can be achieved when presenting proven and indisputable facts that are not open to alternative interpretations. Al Jazeera's reporting of the conditions of the Tunisian Revolution was biased, as human behavior was interpreted in a manner that would serve their personal interests of increasing viewership. On the other hand, it is possible to be objective in the recording of history when indisputable information, such as scientific facts regarding the functions of the human body, is presented with the intent of sharing knowledge as opposed to serving personal interests of increasing readership. Thus, the subjectivity and objectivity in the recording of history can be evaluated on the basis of whether or not information presents human behavior confounded with personal interests, or if proven facts are shared without personal interests.

 

Thank you!

[miss_q]

--Clicked--

 

The best kind of education encourages students to question authority.

In a democratic country such as Canada and United States, everyone has the freedom of speech. With so many opinions and information given from various sources, the question comes down to who to believe when there are two sides of stories. In today’s classrooms, students are always encouraged to carefully evaluate the validity of information based on source’s credibility and impact on society and make educated decision on whether to believe that piece of information. University students’ involvement in the investigation of train collision happened in China proved that authority is not always telling the truth to the citizens. Without students’ consistent questioning regarding the burying procedure, the authority would not be pressured enough to explain or look further into the actions.

 

 

However, since most students are young adults, they are easily influenced. When they are brainwashed by terrorists and lead to question authority, the results could be detrimental both to the society as well as to themselves. For examples, among followers of terrorists in Middle East, many are students. They are taught only the terrorists can bring a better society therefore question every action of local government. What they do not realize is that they are not well informed on the situation before the questioning.

 

 

Whether the best education should encourage students to question authority depends on how much background information do the students know on the subject matter. If the students can view information objectively, then questioning the authority would bring new thoughts on the problem and benefit the society as a whole. On the other hand, if the students are biased and not willing to hear both sides of stories, encouragement to question authority endlessly might turn out to be riot.

 

Thank you! This is my first writing and to be honest, because I am not a good writer at all, I worry about the writing portion of MCAT the most. ANY feedback is greatly appreciated!

[PMUBC_04]

-clicked-

 

Thank you!

 

 

the object of education should be to teach skills, not values.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the 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.

 

 

 

The statement suggests that the purpose of education should be to teach skills and that the educator should ignore teaching values. Although when one is educating, it is difficult to disregard his or her opinion regarding what to do with such skills. An individual may be seeking an education in order to gain valuable skills that may benefit one’s profession. For example, a carpenter must learn how to use the fundamental tools in order to succeed in his career. He must learn what each tool can offer and when to use them. In this case the carpenter gains skills to become better at his profession. His decision in regards to what to build is not influenced by the educator’s point of view. Many may argue that if an educator includes his values in the teaching process, the student may be heavily influenced by the orientation of the education provided. For example, in world war II, the education provided to the Hitler youth withheld a heavy bias against any race that was not the Aryan race. In this case the young minds were influenced to think that they were superior to other races. In this case, the values taught resulted in horrible acts of violence against innocent citizens because the educators values were racist and unethical.

 

 

 

Although education should be to teach skills, sometimes it might be teaching values. When one teaches history it is nearly impossible to not teach values. For example, when one teaches about the holocaust, he is teaching about the violent acts against humanity that occurred in the past. A core value of any rational human being should be to treat others with respect and kindness. The holocaust resulted in millions of death and disintegration of almost all civil rights due to the lack of these values being taught. Thus, if an educator is teaching with the mind of a rational human being, one that believes in equality, he will be teaching values that are beneficial for society, rather than skills.

 

 

 

When educating, it depends on the subject matter that is being taught and what the student is trying to gain that determines whether values or skills should be taught. When one wants to gain skills to advance in his career, the object of education is to learn skills rather than values. When one is learning the history of human behaviour, it often involves values that are oriented from the educators opinion.

[slumdogMD]

<clicked>

 

A country's strength increases in direct proportion to its freedoms.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a country's strength might not increase in direct proportion to its freedoms. Discuss what you think determines when a country's strength will increase in direct proportion to its freedoms and when it will not.

 

A country's strength is best measured by its economic stability. In today's world, a country can increase its economic stability and thus their strength by decreasing consumer tax. A decrease in consumer tax leaves more money in citizens pockets and thus allows them to spend more freely. When citizens spend freely, the country's economy flurishes, allowing a stable economy to form. Therefore, in this context, freedom for citizens is the decrease in consumer tax. Take for example Priminister Truduea's legislation for a decrease in cosumer tax of 4% in the early 1990's. When elected into office, Trudeau's main focus was to stabilize Canada's economy. To do this, he decreased the tax citizens would pay on food and gas. Analysts predicted that since Canadian would be able to spend more on purchases, that Canada's economy would be imensly stimulated. A mere 2 years after the instillment of Truduae's legislation, Canada's economy surpassed that of America's for the first time in decades. In this case, decreasing consumer tax lead to Canadians being able to have more freedom on how much they spend on their purchases. The result was a proportional increase in the strength of Canada's economy.

 

However, in the case where a decrease in tax is installed during times of war, the strength of the nation might not increase proportionally. Since the cost of war of on the scale of billions of dollars in treasurey money, a decrease in consumer tax, and thus the increase in the amount of freedom citizens have to spend, might indeed cause the nation to not be able to sustain its military due to the lack of funding. Take for example Stephan Harper's decrease in tax during the war in Afganistan. In 2006, Stephan Harper decreased the service tax citizens pay of gas and utility bills. This decrease in tax was instilled in order to buslter Canada's currency, which was behind the American dollar by a significant margin. Analysts reported that the decrease in tax would allow Canadians the freedom to spend more, particularly during holiday shopping. It was thought that eventually, the Canadian dollar would surpass the American dollar. However, it was soon realized that Canada's military funding was lacking since the decrease in service tax left a large hole in Canada's treasurey. In the end, Canada's strength in military was in fact weaknd due to the increase in the freedom citizens had in spending.

 

A nations strength will increase in proportion to its freedom when the increase in consumer freedom does not occur during times of war. Since war costs billions of dollars for a nation, a nation's strength will be inversely proportional to an increase in consumer freedom because decreasing tax to increase consumer freedom results in less money available for military purposed. In the case of Truedua's decrease in tax, it occurred during times of peace. Thus, a proportional increase in the nations strength ensued. However, in the case of Harper's decrease in tax during the Afganistan war, the increase in consumer freedom resulted in a decrease in the nations military strength.

[slumdogMD]

<clicked>

Alliances between nations are more often a matter of economics than of shared ideologies.

 

Describe a specific situation in which an alliance between nations might be a matter of shared ideology. Discuss what you think determines when alliances between nations are a matter of economics and when they are a matter of shared ideologies.

 

During times of peace, nations throughout the world have alliances based on economics. Since times of peace often sees nations focused of stabilizing their respective economies, alliances based on economics is much more abundant than alliances based on ideologies. In the context of economics, an alliance is the relationship two countries have with one another that sees both parties mutually benifit. Take for example Canada's alliance with China. In order for Canadian companies to compete with stronger and larger companies throughout the world, Canada has formed a strong alliance with China that allows Canadian companies to manufacture their goods for a fraction of the cost it would to manufacture products in Canada. Canadian companies benifite by being able to past the savings of manufacturing to consumers and thus increasing the amount of sales made. China benifits by being able to stimulate their economy due to citizens having the ability to find work and earn an income. In this case, Canada's alliance with China is a matter of economics and flurishes during times of peace. Both parties benifit from their relationship by being able to stabilize their economies.

 

However, in the case where alliances exist during times of war, often it is a matter of ideology rather than economics. Since war often involves morals and principles, nations with similar ideologies form alliances in order to effectively engage in war with the opposition. Take for example Canada's alliance with Britain during the fight against terrorist. Soon after the attacks on september, 11, 2001, Tony Blair and Stephan Harper met in parliment to discuss how to defend terrorism. Reporters say that after a few hours of discussion, both Harper and Blair realized that their approach on how to defend against terrorism were remarkablely similar and were based on similar principals. In early 2005, both countries formed an alliance and instilled a legislation called the anti-terrorism act that enables police officers the freedom to search suspicous individuals. Although many regard the legislation an intrusion in human rights, analysts say that both countries would not have form an alliance and passed similar legislation of terrorism if it were not for their similar ideologies. In this case, Canada and Britain formed an alliance not based on economic but on ideology since it was during a time of war.

 

Alliances are a matter of economics during times of peace and are a matter of ideology during times of war. Since times of peace often sees countries try and stabilize their economies, alliances are based on economics in order to fulfill each parties goal of economic stability. However, in the case of war, alliances are a matter of ideology since each nation is often more sucessfull in fighting the opposition when alliances of similar ideology exist. In the case of Canada and China's alliance, it exists during times of peace and is a matter of economics. However, Canada and Britain's alliance exists during times of the war, and thus is based on similar ideology.

[bored]

Clicked

 

Youth and innovation are sometimes more beneficial in politics than age and experience.

 

Describe a specific political situation in which age and experience were or might be more beneficial than youth and innovation.

Discuss what you think determines whether youth and innovation are more beneficial that age and experience in politics.

 

 

 

The Youth are always encourged to express their ideas because many believe that the youth are much more better at thinking of benificial innovations. Innovations are totally new or alternate ways of doing something. That something can be from machines, to politics.In Politics, the youth are often encourged to vote and to take an active part, because they are believed to be the most innovative. History has shown us that if a Youth takes an active part in politics, that is the governing of a state, then that youth can achieve the unachievable.Take recent uprisings in the Middle East as an example. many Middle Eastern nations were being governed by dictators for much of the 20th and 21st centuary, but the revolution created by the youth put a halt to the rule of these dictators. The youths used their innovation to turn the nation of egypt into a democracy, and they forced the dictator to resign. By thinking of innovative ways to get their message accross to the rest of the world, such as posting information on facebook, they were able to gain the support of the UN as well as the support of many countries who halted trade with the dictator and placed sanctions on trade from that country. All of these things forced said dictator to resign.

 

Another excellent example is the revolution conducted by Ghanghis Khan. The youngest of the family, Ghanghis Khan was able to unite all the other Khans (kings) of monoglia to form a formidable force. He used that force to conquar much of asia, eastern europe, the middle east and parts of africa. His empire once ran from china, to Hungary to pakistan and to turkey. He started at a very young age, by age 19, he was considered the king of mongolia. His innovation was to unite all the different clans of mongolia so that they can beat their enemies, the chinese. This innovative thinking was never possible by the aged kings of those clans. Many examples such as these have created an idea that the youth are much more innovative than we give them credit for, and for these reasons, many people want the youths to take part in politics.

 

Often times, the youth are very good at creating the innovative ideas to produce a revolution, but when it comes to development, the age and the experience of a politician is precieved to be of much more importance. When the soviet union had just turned from a communist economy to a capitalist economy, the innovative youth was redundent in the policy making. Though these innovative youths were the core of the actual revolution, they were not very useful when it came to creating policies for the new russia.At that point in time, the experienced economists had taken over, and they were providing much of the policies of the new russia. The youths innovation though was very useful when the revolution was to be initiated, it was useless after the communist government was taken down. The age and experience of those politicians was very useful when it came to making policies about the education system, the trade, housing and employment. Without the experience, Russia would have taken much longer to get back on its feet. Russia was back to being one of the top economy in just 10 years after the fall of communism. Had the youths been in power and used their radicalistic ideas, Russia would take much longer to get back up and might have even been in a worse position than what it is now.

 

It can be argued that both the innovative youth and the experienced man are necessary to have a good political system. The innovative youth is much more important when a change or a revolution is needed such as those in the middle east. The youths of egypt used their innovative ideas to bring down the government of their dictator. Ghanghis Khan also used innovative thinking to beat their rivels, the chinese. These events would not be possible had there been an aged experienced person in charge. They would have a hard time comming up with innovative ideas because their experience would always hinder them. The Experienced man is however necessary when it comes to developing a nation such as the nation after the fall of soviet russia. The aged and experience filled politicians took over when the communist part of brought down. These experienced politicians were absolutely necessary to provide russia with policies that helped russia get back up in just a matter of 10 years.

[Stainless0]

-clicked-

-clicked-

 

Thanks so much. This is very appreciated!

In a democracy, the successful politican resembles and ordinary citizen

 

People tend to prefer public figures they can relate to, often ones who hold similar values and beliefs. Prince William and Princess Kate of Wales are said to be "The People's Royalty" since they are viewed as being so similar to the everyday person. The same rules apply for politicians. They must be able to relate to the average person, and be liked by the majority. In a democracy, the elected official is a representative of the people and so must hold the same values as the majority for people to relate to them. There is a reason why the cliched view of the successful politician often has him saying, "I'm just a simple man, raised here in the country and just looking to do right by folks." This person is essentially saying that he resembles an average person, and therefore is the best representative of the people.

 

On the other hand, many will argue that a politician must stand out to be successful. After all, a politician is a leader of his or her electoral area. They must demonstrate qualities that prove they are exceptional and fit to be a leader. Many people don't want John Smith, the mechanic, to be the leader of the nation. They want someone who has set themselves apart and proved that they are different than everyone else. President Obama is a lawyer. Not just anyone can be a lawyer, it take above average intelligence and dedication many people do not possess. George W Bush was a successful business man. Again this is quite rare to be successful to the extent he was.

 

Thus, it may be true that a successful politician must look the part of a capable leader, by demonstrating that he or she is exceptional, but also must represent the majority by holding the values and beliefs of the average citizen. A democratic politician, by definition, is the people's representative in government and must speak for the people who elected him or her. This is often done by holding the same ideals as the people and ensuring they are upheld. But the people's representative must also be seen as special, in order to be elevated to the power to speak for the majority. Politicians are public figures which many people idolize and put on a pedestal, and as stated earlier, people like the public figures they relate to the best. After all, isn't the overall goal of a successful politician to be the best liked?

 

Advancements in communication technology have decreased the quality of human interaction

 

During the twentieth century and over the past decade, devices which we communicate with have improved drastically. We have improved writing letters and sending people as messengers with inventions like the telephone, instant messaging and email. These new forms of media are so efficient to use, that many people may communicate solely via email or on the phone. Many people argue that the prevalence of these new forms of communication decrease the quality of interactions that occur between people. Much of a person's communication is non verbal, taking the form of gesticulations, subtle body language, or physical contact. Without these, much of what a person is saying is lost. Watching a young child speak on the phone is an excellent case. They are speaking and gesturing at the same time. They may pout when hearing something on the phone, but cannot express their disappointment verbally. As we grow up with these devices, we've trained ourselves to stop giving these non verbal clues, and much of what we say is lost.

 

Despite the arguments against the technology, some may say that these advancements have improved how we communicate. It is now easier than ever before to communicate with people all over the world. Before, we would send a letter across an ocean and it would take a months to arrive. Now, we can have a conversation occur across continents almost instantly. These improvements have increased the rate and speed we are able to pass information to each other, and stay in touch with a friend or relative who is across the country. We can keep up on daily events in their lives easily and more in-depth than in the past. Meeting someone in person after not seeing or speaking to them for months or years is often quite awkward and the conversation is forced with small talk. When you can keep in touch with someone, the awkwardness of a long absence is nearly eliminated when you are able to meet up with them.

 

Perhaps then, the advancements in the technology of communication doesn't change the quality of interactions, but instead people's interactions have evolved to a new form. Much of the face to face interaction that occurs between people happens on a physical level, as opposed to being purely through verbal means. With these new mediums of interaction, the non verbal aspect is usually lost, but the speed and amount of communication that occurs between people increases. People can become more involved and have much more information about others than was possible in the past. The whole goal of communicating is being able to pass on information, and these advancements have made that more efficient.

[jmsanders]

Clicked!! Great website. Such a brilliant idea...

 

Thanks for the help in advance!

 

In a democracy, the rights of the minority should take precedence over the desires of the majority.

 

 

Our system of democracy prides itself in its ability to serve its citizens with dignity, respect and treates all under it with equal rights. Rights constitue as a set of rules and justices that govern our society to protect and equilibrate the citizens under the democratic system. In such a democratic system, there always exists groups that may be under represented and may make up a smaller proporton of the total population of its citizens. Such groups are known as miniority groups, characterized by their small make-up in the grand population of the democratic system due to cultural, ethnic, or socioeconomic differences, to name a few. Through out history, minority groups have fought to defend their rights and succeedded to have equal representation in democracy. This movement of social change has a common goal: to protect the rights of the minority. In inspection of our democratic system, under various charters of rights of its citizens in various countries, the general consensus is that all indiviuals under a democracy should be treated equally. Even if such implementation should be againsts the desires of the majority, the rights of the minority should be respected as everyone is treated as equals under democracy. Something Martin Luther King Jr. fought for; that law and order does not discriminate against ethnic backgrounds, is a prime example of such equal rights. Even if the majoriity's wishes are not in line with the rights of the minority, rights should be respected as it serves to fundamentally protect and represent our democratic structure.

 

As a consequence of several movements that have taken place in our history, we have examples where the rights of the minority were not respected and where the will of the majority has breached the fundamental rights of minorities. For example, in Canadian history, the native population has gone trough various hardships placed upon it by the desires of society. Unwillinginy, native children were placed in educational systems called 'residential schools' in the attempt to assimilate the native culture into the majority of the population. Their rights were essentially stripped off of them through sometimes violent enforcement of cultures that were not theirs. Such acts are reminescent of the the shameful way society and by extension, our government placed the native population under such unfair treatment. This serves as an example where the rights of the minority were not taken into consideration in order to satisfy the desires of the majority. While, some may argue that this sore spot in Canadian history was done to 'help' the native population, it actually has done more harm. The effects of the treatment of the native population still lingers on today through sometimes bitter relationships with the governemnt and and native population. This is an unfortunate example where the desires of the majority took presedence over minority rights in order to satisfy what the majority thought was the right thing.

 

Conclusively, What determines when the rights of minority should ever be entrenched upon to serve the desires of the majority? As seen from a historical context, one would argue almost never. Thus affirming that rights are something that should always be respcted for all those under a demcratic system. In contrast, one may also argue such situations occur when the majority believes that what they are doing is for the good of its people and society. While true, from examples in our history, trying to do good may actually do more harm. Our democratic system exists to provide support and to protect its citizens. Unfortunately such systems and by extenstion, the majoirty, may feel certain laws or structures, even if it breaches the rights of minority groups, are better for the long run. Unfortunetly this serves as the deciding factor of when democracies may not respect the rights of its minorities, to servce the desires of the majority. Simplified, the rights of minorities do not take precedence over the goals of the majoirty if the majoirty believes such acts are for the benifit of the people and the overall improvement of decmocracy.

[HPfanforever]

-clicked-

 

Thanks! May the karma gods grant you all the pasta in the world!

 

Most advertising is designed to prevent consumers from making rational choices.

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 does or might help consumers make rational choices. Discuss what you think determines whether or not advertising prevents consumers from making rational choices.

 

Companies and organizations utilize various forms of media to raise the public's awareness of products and ideas, as a means to gain profits or a following. Billboards, television, radio, the Internet and newspapers are the most common places where one can find advertisements that contain words, phrases and slogans to initially attract the attention of potential consumers, and ultimately encouraging them to believe in their products or ideas, and purchase them. For many materialistic products, such as cosmetics, food, electronics and clothing, companies often employ concise words that make a lasting impression and big impact on people. Furthermore, advertisements stress on the time-limiting factor, urging people to act fast, or else they will regret it for the rest of their lives. Special deals, sales and contests are often promoted with words such as "buy one get one free", "for a limited time only", "chance of a lifetime", "one in a million", and "get a free gift card". It is human nature to be attracted to superficial messages, and it is the psychology of consumers that many advertising plays on, to stop consumers from thinking thoroughly about the choices companies influence them to make.

 

Caramilk, the chocolate bar made by Cadbury Adams in Canada, launched a contest campaign claiming that there are golden keys hidden in random Caramilk bars, with the website stating that the odds of finding a key are no less than one in 1.6 million. There are only 10 of these golden keys and that each key leads to the ultimate Caramilk prize. Advertisements like these are mostly targeted at children, teenagers, and young adults with a sweet tooth. Normally, they would purchase one bar per day, however with the temptation of finding a grand prize, they now irrationally purchase the bars with an alarming increase. The consequences of such rash actions are severe, including waste of food, should the bars be opened but not eaten, and the premise of an unhealthy diet.

 

On the other hand, advertisements of non-profit organizations or government agencies often have the goal of educating the public, and informing them of choices that can be rationally made. In Canada, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care of the province of Ontario has recently launched a nation-wide advertising campaign teaching citizens about many healthcare options in hopes of alleviating the high demand of emergency services at hospitals. The ads that appear on television and across the Internet are extremely effective in listing various places, for example walk-in clinics, nurse practitioner clinics, and community healthcare centres, where people can turn to when faced with non-life-threatening injuries such as an elbow scrape or a bee sting. Depending on what services they are closest to, patients can now make rational alternate decisions with regards to their own treatment options.

 

The main goal of advertising is to promote a product or an idea, and there are many ways to achieve this. Companies that wish to earn money from selling products are usually more inclined to mislead people into believing their products are the best and that buying them is the right thing to do. In order to maximize their profits, these companies would want as many consumers buying as much of their products as possible, when this happens, consumers are making irrational choices under the influence of false or exaggerated advertising. However, when an institution is concerned with the well-being of the people, rather than of its own benefits, the advertisements of such an institution would exist to provide choices for people to thoughtfully consider and pick from.

[HPfanforever]

-clicked-

 

Thanks again!

 

No country should interfere with the internal politics of another 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 country might justifiably interfere with the internal politics of another country. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a country should interfere with another country’s internal politics.

 

Any country on the world stage is entitled to its independent sovereignty and rule over the region as well as the citizens with autonomy. As with individual citizens, a country retains many basic rights and it is crucial that they are not violated by any other country. However, due to the various forms of political systems held by each country, there will be time when the viewpoint of one country is at odds with that of another. In such cases, conflict is bound to occur. For the past century, especially so since the 1989 June 4th Tian An Men Square crackdown in Beijing, China, the United States of America has accused China of human rights violations on numerous occasions. These allegations have only been conveyed verbally, and the USA has never taken physical or military actions against China. Such refrain shown by the USA proves that the USA understands that China has the ability to take matters into its own hands without the aid of a foreign country since no country knows its internal structure and situation better than the nation itself. Appearances can be deceitful when a 3rd party observes from the outside, and such interference could only make matters worse.

 

On the other hand, in recent weeks, the United Nations has urged international cooperation in helping Somalia as its famine crisis takes a turn for the worse. The UN has declared 3 new famine zones in the poverty stricken Southern African country, it has also warned of many more vulnerable zones. Following the declaration made by the UN, the USA claims that more than 29,000 children have fallen victim to the famine in the last 90 days. Such alarming numbers inevitably calls to the attention of country over the world. As it appears, food shortages and poor nutrition are issues that Somalia itself is unable to take care of, even though it has rejected international humanitarian relief efforts. In this case, other countries, especially the developed ones should step in and take responsibility in protecting the human rights of the Somalian population, especially with the approval and encouragement of the UN.

 

Nobody wishes to have their basic rights violated or be told what to do, and this applies without a doubt to nations as well. When the situation in a certain country is not as clear and transparent, other countries should refrain from interfering with the domestic affairs of the country in question, as doing so may only worsen the current situation or place increased tension between the nations and ultimately bring harm upon the citizens of all involved nations. Yet, there are times when the physical actions of other countries are indeed necessary for the good of a country. When a nation is no longer able to fend for its own people and its resources running scarce, humanitarian intervention from other countries should be welcomed to ensure that every citizen of the world retains his basic rights to food.

[mangos]

--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 nowadays, it is often said and believed that, “money is power.” Thus, it is of no surprise that individuals and companies strive to gain the most wealth possible. Wealth can be described as anything that can be exchanged for money- assets such as property, paintings, antiques, or even money itself, can all be considered one’s wealth. Since the goal of the majority of people in society is to attain wealth, this conflict of interest usually results in amassing wealth at the expense of other people. In other words, one who gains wealth in society often affects another party negatively. A great illustration of this can be seen by examining the rise of tobacco industries in the past century. Upon the first emergence of the cigarette, filled with substances harmful to human health as well as the additive, nicotine, tobacco companies and their CEO’s have profited substantially. Due to nicotine within their product, many consumers become addicted to cigarettes after only a few tries, and this addiction, almost always, lasts a lifetime. Consequently, tobacco companies have ensured themselves a constant market for their product and a continual generation of profit- an amassment of wealth. However, this gain in wealth is at the people’s expense- especially their consumers. Cigarettes have been medically proven to be harmful to users, destroying one’s lungs and being the main cause of lung cancer. In addition to not only harming users, it has been found that 2nd hand smokers, those exposed to the effects of smoking, are also affected negatively-more so than users themselves. Thus, as can be seen, tobacco companies and their CEO’s have amassed great amounts of wealth at other people’s expense-primarily their health.

 

However, there are cases in which wealth is amassed in a way that does not harm others negatively. This can be seen in the business practices of one the world’s richest people, the self made mult-billionaire, Warren Buffet. Buffet amassed his great wealth by ways of the stock market, rather than at people’s expense. Warren studied companies thoroughly and made surprisingly accurate predictions on their future success and use these extrapolotions in deciding which stock to invest in. He bought stocks at a low price and sold them at their peak price, resulting in massive gains of profit. As a result of his unique eye for stocks, Buffet is only person in the world to have become a billionaire by stocks alone. However, despite his amassment of wealth, Buffet did not achieve this at other’s expense. No one was negatively affected in his decision to purchase specific stocks. Rather, his wealth amassed due to his keen eye on company success and accurate predictions of the stock market.

 

Evidently, there are two cases in which wealth can be amassed- either at people’s expense or not. However, what determines the former or the latter depends on how that wealth is gained. If wealth is gained primarily through the transfer of money from consumers to a specific individual or company, as in the case of tobacco companies, then it is very likely that wealth is gained at people’s expense. In order for one to gain wealth from someone else, there will always be a winner and a loser. For tobacco companies and their CEO’s, they were the winner, as they gained huge sums of profit from selling their addictive cigarettes, and their respective consumer market were the losers as they were not only addicted to the product but also simultaneously harming their health and the health of others. In contrast, Warren Buffet did not amass his wealth by relying on consumers. Instead, Buffet gained his wealth as a result of his thoroughness in studying companies and judgment in investing money in the right stocks that would provide a profit. His decisions affected himself only and thus, did not negatively affect other people.

[Kovah]

-clicked-

 

The primary goal of every business should be to maximize profits.

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 maximizing profits might not be the primary goal of a business. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the primary goal of a business should be to maximize profits

 

Businesses, organizations which empoly professionals in order to provide services to the public, often exist in order to make as much money as possible. The desire for maximized profits and sales may seem like a selfish attribute that should not be held by the leaders of businesses, but such a desire is beneficial for all. Maximizing company income allows the business to provide larger salaries to its employees and to improve upon itself so that it can provide better services to customers. For example, Henry Ford implemented the assembly line into his automoblie factories in order to increase productivity so that his business could increase profits. Although his workers did not have same variety of responsibilities, they did benefit from the change. Because automobiles could be made faster on an assembly line, they could also be sold for less. As automobiles became more affordable, more people purchased them and the net income of Ford's factories increased. Not only did, the goal of maximizing profits make automobile more affordable for the general public, it also allowed Ford to provide his workers with a larger salary.

 

However, businesses should not seek profits to the extent that the safety of employees or members of the public is disregarded. In 1911, a garment factory in New York City, the Shirtwaist Factory, was burned to the ground because of an accident. A lack of safety standards and an emphasis on maximizing the efficiency of the factory led to poor working conditions. The business was so focused on maximizing its income that it did not implement safety regulations such as procedures for how to evacuate the building in case of a fire. Many employees lost their lives because the primary concern of the factory was to maximize its efficieny in order to generate income.

 

Businesses should focus primarily on maximizing their profits, but only after their employees have been provided with safe working conditions. Because Henry Ford’s automobile factories were safe, it was permissible and even beneficial for him to make the maximizing of factory profits his primary concern because it led to more affordable products for customers and better wages for his workers. However, before safe working conditions are established, increasing company profit should not be the primary concern. The Shirtwaist Factory Fire resulted in the loss of human life because the factory concerned itself with maximizing profits before it had bothered to make the factory safe. Maximizing profits, should be the top priority of businesses, but the benefits that come from increased company income can only benefit their workers if the basic right of safety is provided in the workplace.

[Kovah]

-clicked-

 

I'm definitely not satisfied with this one. Thanks anyway!

 

A politician’s lifestyle should reflect his or her political views.

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’s lifestyle might not reflect his or her political views. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a politician’s lifestyle should reflect his or her political views.

 

Hypocrites make for poor politicians. Every member of government who represents his or her constituents must live their personal life in a way which is consistent with the beliefs that they hold on political issues. If a politician claims that they will use tax dollars to increase services to the poor voters can reasonably expect him to donate to charities out of his own pocket. In a previous Canadian election, the Liberal party made action on climate change a key part of their platform. However, the leader of the Liberal party, Stephan Dion, was accused of driving gas-guzzling vehicles. This created problems for him with voters because although Dion said that he cared about the environment, some of his actions did not reflect his claim. If a politician wishes to be supported by voters, it is essential that they live their personal lives according to the values that they uphold in their political agenda.

 

There are however, political views which are difficult to see reflected in a politician's personal life. For example, governments across the world have condemned the violence of Colonel Gadafi against his own people in the country of Lybia. The majority of the people of Lybia have rebelled against the dictatorship of Gadafi and the leaders of many nations have worked together with the UN to provide military protection for the citizens of Lybia who protested against Gadafi's dictatorship. Yet, there is little that any politician can do in their personal life to show the way they feel about the problems in Lybia. Politicians cannot donate to humanitarian relief out of their own pocket because the only aid that can be sent to Lybia is done through the government. Thus, in this case, the only tangible way that a politician can show their viewpoint on the issue is through their role as a politician: to vote in government meetings.

 

What determines whether or not a politician's lifestyle should reflect their political veiwpoints depends on the extent to which this is possible. Many international issues, such as relations with enemy countries, only involve the political responsibilities of a politician. His or her personal life cannot easily reflect their viewpoint such issues so it should not be expected of them. However, politicians should live their personal lives in a way that reflects their opinion on political issues as much as possible.