PastaInhaler Posted August 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 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? You're welcome, Bored. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Adequate control of language. Regarding the paragraphs, the essay weakened near the end of paragraph#1, and near the beginning of paragraph#2. The essay got better near the end of paragraph#2. The examples provided may be a tad broad, but you could zero in with Obama and Harper. You have to keep the ideas of communism and democracy separate. Communism tries to establish a classless and stateless sociopolitical structure. Democracy entails the running of the government by the people or by elected representatives. It is not a good idea to try to introduce an economic structure based on these two political ideologies. It may be best to try to stick within a democratic framework and focus in on particular examples from Canada or the United States. You could use something like a particular political problem that needs the support of other voters in order to have the winning vote. Maybe the people want change, and they will need to depend on enough people to vote for Obama. In a different way, if a certain group holds enough power, the people can no longer make major decisions. Voters usually pick those who they want to take care of things, and basically let the elected representatives take over and do their thing. What could this mean? It means that elected representatives may depend on people to vote them in, but afterwards they don't need the people anymore, they don't really depend on them. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 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' date=' 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'] You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Good control of language. Good examples, sufficient in supporting your arguments. Good exploration of the examples and their relation to the validity of the prompt. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQR/ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. You examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Another way of addressing the final task would be to state that the deciding factor is the magnitude of impact on the environment. Starbucks does generate waste and refuse directly through its operations (Starbucks trucks burning diesel derived from fossil fuels, internal garbage, filters, packaging, papers) and indirectly through the garbage thrown out by its customers (Grande and Venti cups, cupcake boxes). I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMUBC_04 Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 -clicked- businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses Every individual has their own strengths and weakness. We live in a competitive society where people try to improve their weak qualities in order to be competent. Everyday people are subject to a great amount of advertisements. Often these advertisements appeal to a consumers weakness. In this case, the consumer is an individual with a specific weakness and will be attracted to what the advertisement has to offer in order to improve their weakness. Therefore the businesses placing the advertisement is taking advantage of the consumers' weakness in order to succeed. For example, in the fashion industry, many businesses sell impossible standards or set an opinion of what one should percieve as "beautiful" rather than selling a product that is useful and affordable. Louis Vuitton sells handbags for hundreds of dollars. These handbags are advertised in settings of luxury with "beautiful" people. The consumer is lead to believe that owning this product will grant them luxury and beauty. Handbags can be bought at department stores for a tenth of the price and they will serve the same purpose. Knowing that, one can conclude that a business like Louis Vuitton appeals to the an individuals weak self esteem and therefore succeeds by taking advantage of the consumers' weaknesses. Many may argue that businesses succeed without taking advantage of the consumers' weaknesses. A company can thrive by demonstrating great potential and attract investors looking to increase their own profits. In this case, both the business and consumer have one thing in common, to increase their profits. The consumer in this case is an investor who is not being taken advantage of due to their weakness. The investor, being one that has experience and knowledge of the economy, wants to increase his or her profits by working with the company he or she ahs invested in. For example. Google is a company that has seen significant growth in the past years. Investors that caught on early bought into Google's shares and both parties, the business and consumer, have succeeded. The company by showing its great potential and the consumer by finding a means to increase their profits due a intellectual financial decision. The goal of both the business and consumer decide whether or not a business is taking advantage of the consumers' weakness. Furthermore, one must define the consumer. It is common that in the fashion industry, a business must take advantage of a consumers' weaknesses to succeed. The consumer is one with self conscious issues, with a desire to improve their weakness, and the business is one that offers products with "imaginary" benefits. Louis Vuitton, for example, offers the sense of beauty, power , and luxury to those who need to ensure themselves these intangible qualities. In other situations, the consumer is one who has a strength in financial decision making and is attracted to companies who promise growth, like Google, in order to increase their profits. Therefore, the business is succeeding off of the consumers strengths. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 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. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. Perhaps, you could elucidate the nature of the fear in your first example. What was Virgin trying to make people afraid of? Was there an information leak, or was it just that people were getting scammed? How serious were the hidden fees? Were the people potentially harmed or at risk and thus needed to be afraid? As well, a non-profit organization is not a business, and a business is not a non-profit organization. By definition, a business is a for-profit organization. Conversely, albeit a little bit odd, non-profit organizations actually do turn profit. At times, non-profits also have a board of directors and an executive director, much like a for profit corporation like Microsoft or Daimler-Chrysler (Chief Executive Officer, Board of Directors, etc). It is best to pick a different example. This prompt has come up a few times, and you may wish to proceed with a search to get an idea of the examples that are used for the counter-example from other people's essays. Overall, not a bad treatment of the prompt, but you can really nail it with a stronger counter-example. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. The examples are relevant, but could be more specific. For instance, you could mention the education laws in a particular geography for the high school example. For the second example, you could talk a bit about tuition costs in various geographies, and where law school fits in. How do people get admitted? Is it only those with money who get in? Good argument with the financial classes with education. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tocktic Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 Education comes not from books but from practical experiences. Gandhi once said "An ounce of practice is worth more than a kilogram of preaching." Education is the process is which new knowledge is learned. Practical experience in the above statement means the experiences that allow us to retain and fully understand what we have learned. In the current education system, most of learning done comes from books. How much we really have learned is assessed by how we apply the skills we have learned. Take for example the profession of a surgeon. Many of the best surgeons are relatively older. The reason for this is experience. Practice makes perfect. With more practice in surgery the better the surgeon becomes. On the same note, students are required in med school to make rounds in the hospital to gain and build practical experience. However, the profession of medicine, and many other professions, a basic foundation of knowledge is required. With a strong foundation built on knowledge from books, often times there is no value to the practical experience. For a surgery to be successful, the surgeon is required to know where parts of the body are and the consequence of each of his or her actions during the surgery will be. All of this information is learned prior to performing an actual surgery to lay the framework for practicality. Education, no matter where is comes from, is key in the development of a person. Learning requires both education from books and practical experience. The knowledge gained from books lays the foundation for practical experience to develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anon1234 Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 -clicked- Thank you! Voters should not be concerned about a political candidate’s personal life. 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 voters should be concerned with a political candidate’s personal life. Discuss what you think determines whether a political candidate’s personal life is a public concern. Living in an age where personal information and privacy are threatened by social media and the internet, politicians are often in the spotlight due to public interest in their lives “behind the scenes”. Typically politicians are viewed as the holders of an esteemed and respected position in authority, and behaviour unbecoming of an authoritative figure is often sought by opposing parties and enemies, not to mention to average voter, because society expects its elected leaders to lead by example, even in their personal lives. However, critics may argue that certain personal details about politicians lives only feed gossip and simply become an object of interest to the public due to the media’s interest in promoting such stories which will be shared and which will attract public attention. Whether these details will actually indicate how a political candidate will perform his or her duties as a leader, is often unjustly deemed irrelevant. For instance, during the 2008 USA elections, Sarah Palin became a political candidate who attracted the attention of many voters and the public worldwide, not primarily due to her political views or aspirations, but rather because her unwed teenage daughter Bristol Palin announced her pregnancy during her mother’s race for the vice-presidency of the country. The media also publicized the story of her baby with down’s syndrome who Sarah Palin had refused to abort, and Sarah Palin’s past as a beauty pageant competitor was also made common knowledge. During the elections, these stories were given much publicity, however, if considered objectively, none of these stories had any effect on Mrs. Palin’s efficiency as a potential leader and were mostly gossip, which should not have mattered to voters. There are however situations in which a political candidates personal actions should matter immensely to voters, as exemplified by the recent scandal involving Dominik Strauss-Kahn, who was the very powerful and influential chief of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and front-runner for the upcoming French presidential elections. Mr. Strauss-Kahn was accused of sexually assaulting a hotel worker, and following these accusations, other women also came forward with similar allegations regarding sexual abuse. Not only did these personal details ruin Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s bid for the presidency of France and call for his resignation as the chief of the IMF (regardless of whether a court had proven him guilty), they revealed to the public that Mr. Strauss-Kahn had a potentially disturbing and criminal past and present. This is an example of public interest in a politician’s personal life which is valid, because such criminal behaviour would obviously be unbecoming of a leader of a country. Therefore, at the heart of the issue of determining whether or not a political candidate’s personal life is the business of voters, is the question of whether the personal information is indicative of criminal or extremely immoral behaviour. If the personal details provided by the media are simply for promoting gossip and have no relevance towards the competency of the candidate, public interest in such matters would be unnecessary. However, if a political candidate is likely guilty of criminal behaviour, voters should be interested in such news because electing a criminal as a leader would be truly disastrous, not to mention embarrassing, for a nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdr44 Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 -clicked- Thank you so much Pasta Inhaler! You are saving me! Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers weaknesses Businesses, described as the individuals making or producing the products being sold, get ahead in the business world by taking advantage of consumers', described as the buyers in an economy, weaknesses. This can be seen commonly in instances of want. Businesses using soft sale advertisements, use tactics such as photographs of models, etc to create an image, worthy of wanting, connected to their product. This can be seen among most fashion businesses. In most cases, consumers purchase the image connected to the product, rather than the product itself. Take for example, a Louis Vuitton handbag, displayed in the magazine on the shoulder of a tall, slender, blonde haired, blue eyed model walking alongside her handsome, tall, dark featured partner. This advertisements plays to the consumers weaknesses and essentially allows Louis Vuitton to succeed as one of the top luxury handbag producers worldwide. However, in some instances, a businesses' success doesn't depend on taking advantage of the consumers' weaknesses, this is true in times of need. Hard sale advertising is a specific type of advertising containing statistics, facts, figures and numerical data (versus the images connected to soft advertisements). Such tactics can be seen among advertisements for computers, a product that is needed in our society. For example, when looking specifically at Dell Computers, during their advertisements on television, Dell includes information about the product itself, such as memory, hard-drive, exact prices etc and includes only a picture of the computer itself. Such advertisements do not take advantage of their customers, rather they equip the consumer with the proper knowledge in order to make a firm decision about their product. The factors determining whether or not the success of businesses' come from taking advantage of the consumers' weaknesses depends on whether or not the consumer wants or needs the product being sold by businesses. If the buyer wants an item, such as a Louis Vuitton handbag, he or she is taken advantage of by Louis Vuitton through soft advertisements, selling the image attached to the handbag, rather than the product itself. Such tactics lead to impulse buying, a consequence of soft ads, allowing businesses to play towards consumers' weaknesses. This is in comparison to consumers purchasing goods in order to fulfill their daily needs. Individuals buying a Dell Computer are equipped with the appropriate information in order to make an efficient decision about their purchase, thus impulse buying is decreased among the world of computers, thus decreasing the companies ability to take advantage of the buyers weaknesses. Essentially, in order to take advantage of a customers' weakness, businesses must employ soft advertising techniques when attempting to sell items, not necessary for everyday living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amalwa12 Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 Clicked. Thanks In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. A politician is also just a member of the population and often those who are successful politicians will resemble the ordinary citizen of a democratic nation. A democratic nation is one in which every citizen has a say in the running of their country, often through a voting system. The success of a politician is reliant on the extent to which he or she manages to convey his/her messages and achieve his/her political agenda. An ordinary citizen in a country is a non-politician who does not have power in their hands to actually implement their political desires. One example of a successful politician who resembled the ordinary citizen was Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the Indian National Congress. He played an essential role in the revolution for India's independence from British East India rule in 1947. He used non-violent civil disobedience to protest the British rule. One of his methods of protesting the British power was to advocate using personal spinning wheels to make garments to wear, in order to cut down on economic gain by the British. He did not just advocate doing this, but he himself practiced it for many years, wearing a simple garment out of yarn that he had hand-spun. Unlike many other politicians, he also did not separate himself from the ordinary citizen through means such as luxury, or extra security. Instead he had a very simple lifestyle that was like that of an ordinary Indian at that time, in spite of the fact that he was educated and was also a lawyer. In this way, Gandhi 'practiced what he preached', lived side by side with his fellow protesters - ordinary citizens - with the lifestyle of a commoner, and shared the same political goals with his subjects. His success is apparent in the fact that India was freed from colonial rule in 1947. On the other hand, some successful politicians do not resemble the ordinary citizen. One example would be Iran's Mahmoud Ahmedijanab, whose success can be seen in the fact that he is running the Republic in a manner that he deems fit, in spite of both local and international calls for reform. He has also been elected to power twice, to the great dissatisfaction of the majority of the Irani population. Ahmedinejab does not resemble the ordinary citizen in that his wishes and their wishes differ greatly in most issues of economic and social importance to the country. In fact, he disregards the rights of the ordinary citizens of Iran, and has often been known to imprison those who speak up against him, thus denying them their freedom of speech. In these ways and others, Ahmedinejab, who is a successful politician in that he is running the country according to his own political agenda, does not resemble the ordinary citizen, in their views or lifestyle, as Gandhi had. Thus, a successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen in a democracy when both politician and citizen are striving towards the same common goal. In the first example, Gandhi and his followers were both protesting against the British rule of India and working towards an independent India. In the second example, Ahmedinejab opposes general citizens' wishes in most of his decisions, such as his disregard for human rights, the gas rationing plan that he launched and his support for a nuclear energy program. Thus, a successful politician may or may not resemble the ordinary citizen, depending on if their political agenda matches the will of the citizens in the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amalwa12 Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 Clicked. And thanks again Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction Advancements in technology have been phenomenal in our world today and it has come to the point where we cannot live without the internet, or our Blackberry. On the downside, advancements in communication technology have in face reduced the quality of human interaction. Advancements in communication technology in essence involves progressing towards a world in which we are all better connected to each other. Hence, the Blackberry Messenger which allows for people to stay in touch no matter where they are and no matter what the time. The quality of human interaction has been reduced in the sense that often with these technological gadgets, we cannot convey our real emotions through our facial expressions and hand gestures. Even though we now have video calling technology, it cannot mirror an in-person interaction because of many reasons, such as not being able to touch one another or see entire body movements, etc. One example of an advancement in communication technology that has decreased the quality of human interaction is the phenomenon of matrimonial or dating sites on the World Wide Web. In conventional dating situations, two people will normally meet, and get to see what their partner actually looks like, what kind of clothes they wear, the smell of their perfume, the sound of their voice, any odd or likable habits they have, etc. However, on dating sites, a person looking to get involved can exhibit themselves in any way they want, even falsify their personality. When two people start talking to each other online, they miss out on all the things that a real dating experience can give. In this way, although dating sites have been able to come about due to the advancement of the internet, they have undermined the dating experience for many. On the other hand, it can also be argued that advancements in communication technology have improved the quality of human interaction. During the days of the world wars, families would separate and if lucky, they would be able to keep in touch by mail. Even then, receipt of mails sent was uncertain, not to mention the lengthy process involved. Today, families that separate when a member is deployed for military duty outside the country can keep in touch regularly, conveniently and with more certainty compared to a time before the internet was widely in use. This has resulted in improving the quality of human interaction because now, families can keep in touch more often and therefore, familial ties can be strengthened and maintained. What determines the effect that technological advancements have had on human interaction is the way things would be in the case of particular events had that technology not existed. In the first example with dating sites versus conventional in-person dating, dating sites have made the experience of dating a lot more impersonal and untrustworthy because the person you read about or chat with online may be very different from their real-life persona. Therefore, had the dating sites not existed and people using them were obliged to go on real dates, the quality of human interaction would substantially be greater. In the second example with families separating in war times and being able to keep in touch faster and more efficiently because of the internet, in the absence of the internet, they would not be able to maintain and strengthen their family ties as well using snail mail. Therefore, by comparing how things were in the case of particular events prior to and after the advancement of technology, we can say whether or not the technology has reduced the quality of human interaction. Therefore, specific scenarios would have to be analyzed in order to make a judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llsoftll Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 -clicked!- It is always best to be cautious in financial matters. Matters regarding money often yield unexpected surprises to people. Being careful and utilizing a lot of time when making a financial decision is often regarded as best. Being cautious is defined as taking a long time to make a decision, and financial matters involve a decision-making action. For example, the leading cellphone companies such as Samsung were already contemplating the idea of manufacturing Smartphones about a decade ago. At that time, ordinary people were not even familiar with the idea of using phones that were able to act as a miniature version of computers. Samsung began such project about 10 years ago when it began to contact the software engineers to build a system fit for a smartphone. Of course, such decision was not made until Samsung reviewed many reports, researched the field of intellectual technology for a long time. As a result, Samsung became one of the biggest mobility companies of the world. Samsung demonstrated that taking time to contemplate a decision to verify its competitiveness is beneficial in a financial way. On the other hand, taking time to decide may not yield favorable results to some financial matters. For example, there is a House Lottery system in South Korea where houses that are subsidized by the government are put to lottery. To explain such a system, the real estate market in South Korea possesses sky-rocking price range. For middle class people, it is often hard to buy a house of their own. To aid them, the government put forth a plan where the government subsidizes building an apartment or houses, and put them in the market for a low price. It is then, when eligible citizens are allowed to enter into a draw to buy such buildings. The lottery is only open for a day or a very few days and is often closed early due to the high volume of substances that it receives. Thus, when someone takes their time whether they should enter the draw or not, the lottery may be closed when they make a decision. Quick decision would increase the chance of obtaining their ‘dream house’ at a very cheap price in this case. Time could play two different roles when it comes to making a financial decision. Whether taking sufficient time to make a decision would pose a negative impact to the supposed financial decision is a determining factor in such a case. For example, utilizing the time to plan for the upcoming era of smartphones have brought Samsung a huge financial success. As the company took time to decide, develop and research into all the technologies and necessities of manufacturing a smartphone. On the other hand, taking a lot of time when making decisions regarding the House Lottery system in South Korea would yield negative impact on one’s financial decision. The lottery system may be closed due to high volume of applicants. In such case, the individual may lose a chance to even enter the draw itself. Therefore, time has two sides when it comes to making a financial decision: to aid it or not. --- Thank you so much, you're awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm1234 Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 Clicked - Thank you so much for taking out the time to do this! Prompt: Education comes not from books but from practical experience Education is a learning process that enables us to gain knowledge and perform the relevant tasks. However, the source of education and of the learning process can be either books or practical experience. When a job or profession entails the use of skills to perform a task, practical experience is essential to learn and display expertise. For instance, a student in training to be a pilot will need books to study the physics, aerodynamics etc involved in flying. However the practical experience of learning to fly a plane gives the pilot skills to master their profession. Appropriate steps required during a dangerous situation can only be learned by physically flying a plane and not by studying and memorizing the appropriate strategies. In times of stress when prompt decision making skills are required, skills learned from hands on experience rather than skills learned from a book are better recalled. Thus education is gained from the numerous flight trips and simulator sessions taken by the student, that enables him to learn how to fly and take the appropriate steps in critical situations. However, it could be argued that books provide the basic knowledge and build the foundation to any profession. For example a medical student cannot learn the anatomy and physiology of the human body by trial and error on a patient. The books provide information required to understand how the body functions and that will enable the medical student to take the relevant steps when treating patient. Thus, in order to master the art of healing and curing, the student needs to know the fundamental processes and physiology of a human, which comes from books. Education could come from a variety of different sources and picking one source as the sole provider of knowledge is not plausible. Different professions require different sources. In order to master the skill of flying and gaining experience to deal with critical situations requires practical experience. On the contrary, when a profession requires a strong foundation built by the knowledge of relevant details and mechanisms, books are apt at providing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus and utility. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in illustrating your ideas. Task#3 will need to be altered to better reflect your essay and to improve your score. Perhaps, you may wish to move away from the issue of the age group of the audience and focus on some other aspect. Those living in the late 1600's-1760's aged 14-30 would enjoy music in the high Baroque, and possibly the Classical genre. The age group is not a strong enough determinant of rejecting or accepting conventions of past generations. Remember, Mozart was 17 when he became a court musician. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 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 You're welcome. Glad to help. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. For the first example, it may be best to elaborate more on the consequences of involvement. Also, you may wish to clarify what involvement would mean. What is action within a political context (sort of a trick question)? The second example was useful, and task#3 was sufficient. You may wish to change out the phrase "American soil" for something with more clarity and more impact. As well, you may wish to indicate clearly who was being killed and not "thousands of civilians..." even though it is commonly known. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 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. You're welcome, glad to help. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. Problems with clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Problems with integration and coherence of ideas. You may wish to focus in on the definition of skepticism and clarify why it would be useful for teachers to train their students in this. This will help keep your arguments in line so that the idea of what skepticism is doesn't get diluted in your discussion. You should also try to cover the drawbacks of too much skepticism, and outline something else a teacher may teach to help students. Finally, you will need to resolve the two issues for task#3. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKL/MNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. Some good examples, but the essay may be better served by not focussing entirely on the actions of a single politician. It will give your essay more breadth to explore other politicians. Otherwise, the rest of the essay was good, and the tasks were addressed well. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. However, similar to the comments to your previous essay, it may be best to pick another politician for one of the examples to add breadth to your essay. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 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. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. You may wish to mention a specific region in the United States for your second example, or to name a few companies that were taking risks. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST 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. For your conclusion, you may wish to try: Clearly, stability can have an affect on stagnation and progress. It is wise to pay attention to this relationship in order to appreciate how stability can lead to the downfall of an empire or the rise of an economic powerhouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQ/RST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdincale Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 Clicked! Prompt: An understanding of the past if necessary for solving the problems of the present This statement represents one of the fundamental principles of learning which is learning by example. This type of learning has its benefits and its fall backs. One clear benefit is that if a new problem arises that has the same elements as a problem that has arose in the past less time has to be spent thinking of a solution because a well established one already exists. A clear example would be mathematics, if you wanted to find the length of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle while knowing the adjacent and opposite side length you would use the hypotenuse theorem. This is an example of a problem with clear elements that can be "plugged" into a strategy to get a solution. If you did not know this theorem it could take a long time to derive it from other principles, or you might not be able to solve it all. A situation where an understanding of the past is not needed to solve a problem would be when a problem arises that have novel elements which have not been accounted for before. A good example would be during WWI. This was the first war fought with tanks and artillery, thus generals were unsure of how to lead soldiers into battle. At first they attempted to revert to the old ways of fighting trench warfare where soldiers would just run out and attack the opposing trench. However this lead to many deaths because the automatic gun fire could easily eliminate the threat. This example amplifies the fact that not only was a knowledge of the past not required but rather it seriously harmed the ability for generals to solve the problem of winning. One could theorize that if they had not fought in that manner in previous wars the generals would have developed more appropriate means to attack and many lives would have been save. In conclusion, the need for past knowledge in solving problems of today depends entire on the novelty of the problem. If the problem is a clear cut replication of something that has happened in the past that is easily fit into a formula, like a math problem, then prior knowledge greatly accelerates problem solving. However if a novel problem arises that has novel elements, prior knowledge of a similar problem doesn't really help solve it and might even be detrimental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdincale Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 Clicked again Prompt: Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please the voters, not on what is best for the country. Politicians will often make a decision in order please the voters which will ultimately lead to voter support. This voter support can be used to win elections. However, these decisions can be detrimental for a country. A clear example of this is the promise not to raise taxes. A lot of politicians, from Steven Harper to John McCain, have election platforms which revolve around keeping taxes low, or cutting taxes. This is very appealing to the voters because it means more money in their pockets. However this can be detrimental to the country since it needs money to operate things like schools and hospitals. In opposition to this, sometimes decisions need to have the good of the country at their core goal rather than voter approval. An example of this would be cutting government funded programs in order to reducing spending and help reduce deficit in a country. This was at the heart of recent debates in the USA house of commons because they needed to reduce the deficit. The cutting of the programs are not viewed favourably by the public because this means they have less access to services for free, however it help the country in the longer term because it has more free capital to pay debts. In conclusion, politicians should only make decisions that have voter support as their core goal only if the result of them getting the support of the voters will allow them to be elected and than use the power gained to do something that benefits the country. This could be promising lower taxes during their election campaign to get voter support, then eventually cutting social programs during their term to ensure the country will not have large amounts of debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 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 !! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language with some grammatical and usage problem. You examples are sufficient in supporting your examples. However, the idea behind task#3 seems somewhat circular in logic. You came up with how the success depends on socially acceptable behaviour and this is dependent on how socially acceptable society deems it. You will need to correct the logic behind this and elaborate more in simple terms or to come up with another deciding factor. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 --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. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Your essay can benefit from a more in-depth exploration of the philosophical themes involved in the prompt. What would be the reason behind keeping objective while reporting the news? You can probably also elaborate more on being opinionated and the effect this will have on the quality of the news in your second paragraph. What does it mean to be opinionated? What impact does it have? Is there a hidden message behind doing so? Why would a reporter do so? What does it mean for the reporter to be opinionated? What is the nature of being opinionated? These are just some ideas and questions you may wish to explore to add significant depth and complexity to your essay. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 --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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. However, task#3 was not properly addressed. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. When is a politician successful by resembling the ordinary citizen and when is he not? I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.