Writer's Corner: Free Essay Grading by PastaInhaler

[PastaInhaler]

--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.

 

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of clarity, depth, and complexity of thought.

Ideas presented in a unified, focussed, and coherent fashion.

Strong 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 an:

 

JKLMNOPQR/ST

[PastaInhaler]

-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 !!

 

You're welcome.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought.

Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus and utility.

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 passage of time is necessary to judge the historical significance of an event.

 

You had written: "This seeming inconsistency is resolved by the universal understanding of the event at the time by the different nations involved."

This is not sufficient in fully addressing task#3. You will need to formulate a different rule to address the conflict.

 

I feel this essay will be scored a:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[MacBiochem]

- clicked -

 

absolutely love ripple, now my homepage! thanks and also, thanks for doing this!

 

 

Of all the forms of media, television has the strongest influence on public opinion. Describe a specific situation in which television might not have the strongest influence on public opinion. Discuss what you think determines whether or not television has the strongest influence on public opinion.

 

There are many common forms of media used by society today, a common and highly influential form being the television. Companies most often use television as a means to attract customers and spread awareness. Through using both images and catchy phrases advertising companies can attract any type of customer they wish but also target a very large range of individuals. Clothing companies are an example of a type of company, which uses the television to its fullest potential in order to successfully influence the population to dress a certain way and buy certain brands. Many clothing brands make appealing advertisements to attract customers to wear their clothes, they use sex appeal, color, music and various other methods in order to attract people of all ages and genders. Some brands also make use of television shows to influence individuals. This can sometimes work against a company as people are highly influenced by television. An example of this is the popular television show, Jersey Shore’s use of Abercrombie and Fitch clothing. Although this caused many people to recognize and notice this company as a popular brand, the company thought it was creating a negative impact for them and influencing the wrong type of people to buy their clothing and thus driving away their desired audience. Abercrombie and Fitch recently paid the cast of Jersey Shore to not wear their clothing. This just shows how influential television can be, and how it can be used both positively and negatively to influence the decisions of people.

 

Although television is by far a highly influential form of media, at times other forms of media can be stronger influences in certain cases. When targeting a very specific niche the Internet has become a very strong influential form of media. Through social networks like facebook, twitter and myspace people have the ability to highly influence the actions of one another. The recent riots in London were an example of how influential the Internet can actually be. Two young individuals, age 20 and 22, were recently arrested for having influenced individuals to start two different riots in major cities. Both these individuals created facebook groups and invited potential rioters to attend this ‘event’ they had created. Although they did not actively force people to go through with this, just the act of creating a facebook group resulted in influencing hundreds of individuals to riot. This just goes to show successful internet can be as a means of influencing individuals.

 

Whether one considers the television of Internet to be the most influential form of media depends highly on the targeted audience. In short, the television can be categorized as the most influential form of media when wanting to target a very wide range of individuals. However, when considering a smaller or specific niche, the Internet is by far a much more influential form of media. Therefore, defining the targeted audience can highly assist in determining the strongest method for influencing public opinion.

[MacBiochem]

- clicked -

love clicking!

 

 

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.

 

A democracy can be characterized as a form of government in which all people have an equal say in decisions which influence their lives. The citizens living in a democratic nation often depend on one another to make a collective decision in the interest of the people. For instance, during the time of elections, citizens depend on each other to vote for the party that will most benefit the country as a whole. Take the most recent federal election in Canada, which occurred in May 2011. The people of the nation collectively voted for Stephen Harper, the conservative leader, to run their country as their Prime Minister. It was a majority vote which lead to him being elected. Both Stephen Harper himself, and the citizens who voted for him all depended upon each other to make this decision. The newly elected prime minister, being one of the citizens depended on the rest of the citizens to vote for him. The citizens responsible for voting all depended upon each other to collectively make the right decision as to who will be their leader. Each individual’s decision about who to vote for was influenced by the electoral platforms laid out to them, and each individual decision contributed to the final decision of who will be prime minister. This requires all the citizens to make an educated and informed vote, and requires them to be highly dependent on one another to make a decision that will best benefit society.

 

Some decisions that citizens make however do not require them to depend on each other. The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms clearly outlines that the individuals in a society have the freedom of expression. This allows all individuals to freely express their beliefs. A recurring example of this is the freedom of Muslim women to wear a hijab when headgear is often frowned upon in most social gatherings. Their decision to wear a hijab is not dependent on the other individuals of the society nor does it highly affect them. If this Muslim woman, who chose to wear a hijab all her life one day decided against it, she would easily be able to take it off without having to depend on any other individual. This allows her to exercise her freedom of expression without having to depend on all the citizens of her democratic society.

 

Whether or not the individuals of a democracy depend on one another is highly affected by the nature of the decision. If this decision is going to affect all the people living in the democracy, such as electing a nation’s leader, then the individuals are highly dependent on each other to make the correct decision. However, if the decision does not impact society as a whole, such as an individual’s choice of clothing, then individuals do not depend on each other to make decisions. A democratic nation allows individuals to collectively make decisions, which impact their lives, but also allows room for freedom where all of society is not impacted. Through these guidelines it is easy to distinguish whether individuals do or do not depend on one another when making decisions.

[PastaInhaler]

- 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!

 

You're welcome. That won't be necessary, but thank-you.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks.

Evidence of clarity, depth, and complexity of thought.

Ideas presented in a unified and coherent manner.

Adequate control of language.

 

Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments.

Try to allow yourself a few minutes at the end to re-read your essay and correct for grammar and spelling errors. Otherwise, the treatment of the prompt was thorough and proficient.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNOPQR/ST

[PastaInhaler]

-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.

 

You're welcome, glad to assist.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus and utility.

Ideas may benefit from further depth and a more thorough exploration of the examples.

Adequate control of language.

 

Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments.

It may be beneficial to describe what you think financial security means. This will help you to build a stronger argument and to make a deeper statement.

 

You may wish to explore other socio-cultural aspects of money, financial freedom, and financial security. You could address the status symbols attributed to wealth, and the importance of having a certain level of income to be comfortable in North America. Now, you could be moving into a global treatment of the prompt. In North America, having money is really important -it has strong ties with happiness and success as painted by popular culture, but what of other countries? If your essay has a larger impact or is entrenched with global implications, then your arguments will be much more compelling and quite a bit more convincing.

 

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-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.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Ideas presented in a coherent manner with some focus.

Adequate control of language.

 

The first example was good. However, you must realize that a non-profit organization and a governmental body such as a police station are not businesses. Public services are generally not-for-profit unless it's a company specifically subcontracted by the government. World Vision and a police force are therefore not businesses. Businesses are for-profit. Also, you have provided a counter argument against your counter-example, which thereby weakens it. If a police chief didn't care so much about safety, he would not provide safety training for police officers. You have to realize also that a police chief actually cares quite a bit about the safety of his officers. The main priority is for his officers to perform their duty, but well enough and safe enough to come back to the station with a report about it. You may wish to choose another example altogether, or focus entirely on the duty aspect of policing, but it still leaves you with a non-profit being passed off as a for-profit.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNO/PQRST

[ecobeco]

-clicked-

 

A popular television show reveals more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper does.

"Get crazy! Get wild! Let's do it get loud! If you wanna have fun let's do something crazy!" This is the opening theme to the television show that is sweeping the nation "Jersey Shore". Based on the lives of eight Italian-Americans, the show documents their wild escapades at various nightclubs during the summer. It is surprising that it has received such high ratings and has become MTV's most popular show in history. Seeing as there are a plethora of reality TV shows today, this is no easy feat. It's popularity among TV viewers across the nation stems from the fact that it deals a lot with partying and getting intoxicated - a rather common occurence among the young adults of today's society. It is rather shocking that so many people on the street can reiterate the details of the previous episode, but cannot, for the life of them, speak about the recent atrocities committed in Oslo which resulted in over 80 people being murdered. Violence has become so commonplace and desensitization has reached the point where people are no longer focused on events happening around the world. Instead, many youths today, which represent the majority of the population, choose to stay ignorant of such topics as the approaching oil crisis or the slow withdrawal into yet another recession. Events occuring on another continent may just as well occur on another planet as far as the majority of today's youth are concerned. Simply stated, if it does not directly concern or coincide with one's interests, people today merely ignore the world around them. There has been a slow shift in recent years academically; less students are going to university and pursuing higher levels of education and more students are dropping out with just a high school diploma. Jersey Shore serves as the perfect example as to where the interest of the nation's youths lie and can show an outsider just how much priority drinking and partying takes over knowledge and interest in world news today.

 

Although the minds of many young people today revolve around partying, there are quite a handful of people who still dream of achieving success and pursue their careers with the utmost determination. The effects of TV shows such as Jersey Shore are not so apparent in European countries where the goal of many young students is to gain admission to esteemed universities in order to make a living. The recent outbreak of riots across England have shown the world just how much people desire to get an education. Many rioters are in fact students who have either been denied admission to school or who simply cannot afford to pay for further education at the post-secondary and graduate levels. It would be quite safe to conclude that the primary concern of these students is not the pursuit of pleasure, but rather more rewarding aspects of life such as receiving a quality education. That is not to say that people in England do not watch Jersey Shore but this reflects the fact that students overseas treat reality TV shows as just that - something to watch to pass the time on their break from studying.

 

Whether or not a popular TV show reveals more about a nation than the newspaper in that nation can be determined by the mindset of the people who watch that show. Viewers in North America have reacted to Jersey Shore in such a way that it dictates a lot of the decisions that they make. For example, it is very easy to find people on social networking sites, such as Facebook, who have named theirselves after the characters of Jersey Shore and developed the mindset of the show - going clubbing every night and drinking - when there are far more rewarding activites to take part in. Many residents in Italy are probably shocked to see their compatriots make utter fools of themselves on nation TV. One can find articles in the Italian gazzeto that ridicules such TV shows and this goes to show that despite the popularity of Jersey Shore, the Italian people remain steadfast in their values and morals and emphasis is still placed upon doing well in school and maturing into a hard-working citizen.

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked-

 

In the recording of history' date=' it is impossible to be objective.

[/b']Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which 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!

 

You're welcome.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Ideas presented in a coherent manner.

Adequate control of language.

 

The first example doesn't seem to fit well. It is understood that censorship was meant to hide the truth. Censorship was therefore the vehicle for subjectivity. Objectivity came from the release of the videos on the internet. The videos showed what was actually going on. You may wish to choose another example for this.

 

As well, the Anatomy and Physiology textbook does not seem fitting for a counter-example. Was this a historical or socio-historical treatise of Anatomy and Physiology? Was the main emphasis of the book on the works of anatomists and physiologists throughout history, or a coursebook for a core anatomy/physiology course for science students? If it is the latter, then it would be best to choose an alternate example.

 

Task#3 could have been better treated as the rule for reconciling the two examples seems circular in logic. You convey the idea that the recording of history is objective when you are dealing with objective things (proven and indisputable facts).

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[rsingh]

Action taken for the good of the greatest number can sometimes be detrimental to the interests of the few

 

Governments are present in order to represent the people, yet when a government decides to tackle a very controversial issue it is impossible for the government to to uphold the interests of every citizen. In the end, the will of the majority will often be served and the minority will have to settle with what has been decided by those who hold greater influence. This is inherent to solving a problem which divides a country into different groups, as there is often no middle ground present which will allow one to stay true to the democratic ideals of the country if a compromise is attempted. For example, when Paul Martin’s Liberal government decided to set the country on a path to legalize same-sex marriage in Canada, it ignited a huge debate between those who felt that banning gay marriage was constitutionally impossible and those who felt that it was something that is morally wrong. For these two groups there was no middle ground, and so the government continued on the path of making same-sex marriage legal, which was the direction supported by the majority of the population, and succeeded in 2005. Yet this action left those who opposed the action feeling as though Canada had taken a huge step in the wrong girection.

 

However, there are other times when the actions of a government will please everyone in a society. This usually occurs when the action suggested is not controversial, which most often means that it does not conflict with a segment of the population’s morals. These actions usually take the form of easing the lives of the population, something that every citizen would like the government to do and is most often the reason a population elects a government. An example of this is Stephen Harper’s actions early on in his tenure as Prime Minister, when he decided to lower the Goods and Services Tax by 2%. This action greatly lessened the burden present on many families, as this tax was added on to almost every product sold in the country. Also, since this tax had only been introduced just over ten years before, it was still considered to be too large and unnecessary. Therefore, the lessening of the tax was supported by the whole population, as it greatly helped many people and families to support themselves and did not conflict with the morals of any group.

 

In conclusion, what determines whether a tax will be detrimental to a few is how controversial the action, and this will most likely depend on if the action conflicts with the morals of a segment of the population. So when actions that deal with issues such as gay marriage, health care, or military action are undertaken, this will inevitably conflict with the interest of at few and will be considered detrimental to their interest as these are issues in which much of the population has a vested interest. Yet there are other actions which do not have to deal with the morals of a group, and therefore will be supported by the whole population if they are convinced that it is for the benefit of the country and themselves.

 

 

Thanks you!

ps you seem to to appreciate "clicking" but I'm not sure what that is. If you tell me how to do this ill be sure to do it to!

[PastaInhaler]

--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!

 

You're welcome.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Adequate control of language.

Ideas are undeveloped.

 

You will need to elaborate more on the train accident example and why questioning authority was necessary and important. Why was education good in teaching students to question authority? You may wish to elaborate more on your second example as well. Is education best in this case when it teaches students not to question authority? Are there specific consequences to doing so? (Are there consequences to not questioning authority?)

 

You may wish to choose another rule for task#3 such as the education may vary with different sociocultural contexts.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKL/MNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-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.

 

You're welcome.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Some issue with coherence and organization.

Adequate control of language.

 

There was a bit of conflict generated by your second example. It makes it harder for your third example to be valid. Essentially, you are arguing through example#2 how teaching values can have negative consequences, then you are arguing how good and important it is to teach values with the third example. You may wish to omit example#2 and focus more on elaborating the first example and third example.

 

Task#3 was sufficient, but not fully complete as it does not fully reconcile the friction between example #2 and #3.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMN/OPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

<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.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Some issue with coherence, organization, and integration of ideas.

Adequate control of language.

 

Your arguments do not entirely address the prompt. The prompt deals with freedoms, and it is a bit of a stretch in logic to state that a decrease in tax is enough to yield freedoms. You may wish to speak of freedoms in general and on a larger, broader scale to maximize your score. Can you think of any freedoms in Canada that are more far-reaching? Quite simply, a tax hike can still give the same amount of freedoms. You had also shown how for the same issue, taxes, there is an opposite effect. It would be best to use another example for the counter-example.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMN/OPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

<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.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought.

Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus and utility.

Adequate control of language with some grammatical or usage problem.

 

Your examples are good and are useful in supporting your arguments. Remember to allow yourself enough time to re-read the essay checking for errors.

 

I feel this essay will be scored a:

 

JKLMOPQ/RST

[PastaInhaler]

-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?

 

You're welcome.

 

Only one essay per post please.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Ideas presented in a coherent manner.

Ideas are somewhat developed.

Adequate control of language.

 

Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Although, you may wish to describe the prompt first and address related themes before introducing your example. The third task was not adequately addressed and you will need to:

 

Discuss what you think determines whether or not the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

 

What the AAMC graders will be looking for is the rule that you use to reconcile the two contrasting examples you provided in your essay.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[samd681]

Clicked!

 

...

 

Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens.

 

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 government might not have a responsibility to regulate a company that provides a necessary service to citizens. Discuss what you think determines whether or not governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens.

 

...

 

The goal of government is to protect the overall interests of society. These societies have varying approaches towards regulation of the companies that make up their economies. The debate is an eternal 'tug-of-war' between Adam Smith's laissez-faire (complete freedom of the market) and central control (full regulation of companies by the government). The idea that governments have a responsibility to regulate companies providing essential services derives from the combination of this central power model and a need to protect citizens' interests. This regulation can be seen in the form of, for example, putting a cap on how much food can be exported by a farming corporation to other countries, or requiring paramedics to continue working despite a strike. Both of these can been viewed as promoting the interests and needs of the citizens at the expense of the company's freedom.

This policy is not always universally embraced as beneficial to socity, however; the recent economic recession in the United States, for instance, has seen several large financial companies, deemed 'too large to fall' by the US government, bailed out by public funds. The government may have viewed this as an essential action to prevent a more drastic fallout, but how has it affected the common citizen? The funding for those bail outs was provided by tax dollars which were collected from working Americans. Indeed, it seemed to many that, in a time of already light wallets, money was taken from the general population in order to aid the relatively few people in those companies instead of being utilized in a more influential manner. Despite these bail outs, the US market has not made a significant return, and societies around the world are still uncertain about their economic futures.

 

Thus, not all instances of government regulation are perceived as necessary by all. The responsiblity of a government to take action concerning a particular company depends on how many citizens that company directly benefits and the necessity of its services. For example, regulating the car industry to improve the mpg of its cars may not be as important (at least in the short-term) as ensuring that not too many technological or industrial jobs are exported to workers in foreign countries. Additionally, the financial cost to the taxpayers should be weighed against the positives of regulating a company, as any governmental action undoubtedly requires funds allocated from the public budget. Finally, the morality of such interference (as some might call it) on the part of a government in a company's business must be assessed in light of how the population will benefit from its regulation.

 

Thanks a ton!

[PastaInhaler]

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.

 

You're welcome. Glad to help.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Ideas undeveloped.

Adequate control of language.

Problems with integration of ideas.

 

The first example was sufficient, but you can spend some more time elaborating on the example of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement. The second example however did not satisfy task#2. What you have effectively done was provide a refutation of the counter-argument. You are arguing that when the desire of the majority is satisfied there are negative consequences. To effectively complete this task, you must argue that satisfying the desire of the majority is a good thing and will lead to positive results. Task#3 was not sufficiently addressed as a result.

 

In the future, try to use current and official items from the AAMC:

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

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-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.

 

You're welcome. That may be too much pasta.

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity of thought.

Ideas undeveloped.

Adequate control of language.

 

Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. The final task was good. You will have to explain the examples further and relate them back to the prompt:

1) How does example #1 show that advertising of chocolate bars is impairing rational decision-making? How are they impairing judgement? (preying on youths? preying on weakness by using enticing images? underplaying probability?)

2) Explain further about how the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is helping people be rational in their decision-making process. What are they doing that facilitates this? How are they making it happen?

 

I feel this essay will be scored a:

 

JKLMOP/QRST

[PastaInhaler]

-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.

 

You're welcome.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks.

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. Just so you're aware, one country's public denigration of the actions of another country is actually quite serious. So if the United States was chastising the actions of the Chinese government, it is quite close to, but not at the same level as physical or military intervention. You may wish to downplay that aspect of the U.S.'s stance, and write along the lines of how American leaders may disagree with the actions of China, but have not spoken out against the Chinese government or taken a military response to its human rights injustices.

 

I feel this essay will be scored a:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[rsingh]

Clicked! haha sorry just read the first page ill re-post mine

 

The exercise of political leadership is limited to those holding office.

Political leadership is defined has the ability to make decisions which will affect the country as a whole and which may affect have an impact on the rest of the world, with the support of the other politicians and the general population. When dealing with international matters, which usually follows a strict protocol and the cooperation of multiple heads of state, then political leadership is usually held by those who have been elected to lead a country and those who are appointed by this leader to speak on his or her behalf. This is due to the fact that leaders of one country prefer to deal only with others who have been elected to their posts, as doing otherwise could lead to their own position being undermined later on when other leaders attempt to influence the events occurring in their own country. For example, the Dalai Lama has a huge influence among his own people, but he is still unable to gather firm international support for independence for Tibet. When dealing specifically with Canada, the government is unwilling to offer their full support because if the Prime Minister breaks protocol and decides to engage with the Dalai Lama in serious talks, the Chinese could retaliate by sitting down with speratists from Quebec and offer them their support. In this way, leaders attempt to keep control of their own affairs by not acknowledging the unelected leaders from other counries.

 

However, there are times when political leaders can be very influential while at the same time being unelected, and this usually occurs at the level of national politics. National leaders can have the support of many politicians and a large portion of the population due to their leadership skills and viewpoints, and choosing not to enter politics only furthers the admiration of the rest of the population. This then gives the leader a chance to affect the politics of a country because they are able to cause instability if they so choose. This is a common occurrence in Indian politics, where there still exists a culture of choosing someone as a spiritual guide in life. One recent man who has gained the respect of a large part of the populace is Anna Hazare, due to his campaign against corruption. He has been able to force the Prime Minister to submit a law which would appoint a corruption ombudsman who would monitor political representatives. But to his opinion that this law would be largely ineffective as the Prime Minister has written it, thousands of Indians have begun to protest in an attempt for Prime Minister Singh to submit a new, more effective law.

 

Thus, what determines the level of political control that an unelected official will have depends on if one is looking at the international politics of a country or domestic politics. Control over international affairs is mostly restricted to elected officials, as other leaders are more comfortable in dealing with those who have been elected as this reasserts their own legitimacy in handling the affairs of their own country. However, if one is looking at domestic politics, then unelected people can have a very strong voice in the running of the country. This is due to the popular support of the people, who are needed by the elected officials in order for them to be re-elected, and therefore politicians tend to listen to those who hold popular support in return for their own political survival.

[All_star]

-clicked (wow this is a cool charity model, use advertising money for donations)

 

Thanks for the help.

 

___________________________________________________________

 

Human behaviour is guide primarily by self-interest.

 

One of the charactersitics of humans is that we act with our best interests in mind. In general people would rather gain something than lose something. Thus, our behaviour is mainly guided by our self-interest. This is very evident in many aspects of our lives. To be more specific, corporations tend to act out of self-interest. Today corporations are reporting record high profits, while the middle class are suffering more and more. The government taxes corporations at a much less rate than your average person. The reason for this is that politicians secure funding for political campaigns from these rich corporations in exchange for promising tax breaks and other incentives. The corporations know that by paying less taxes they are taking away from the rest of american society. However, they continue to push for paying less to the government because it benefits them solely and allows them to stay competitive. Furthermore, the politicians won't raise taxes for corporations for fear of losing polticial funding and are also acting with their interests in mind. Therefore, one may see that human behaviour is clearly dictated in these circumstances by self-interest. Otherwise, the politicians and corporations would increase taxes for corporations if they had other peoples' interests at heart.

 

However, there are examples where the actions of people are guided by altruistic intentions. Most charities act to help other people in need as opposed to the people running the charirty. One example is Engineers Without Borders. They seek to provide clean water to many third world countries that do not have a clean source of water. Many people donate to such a charity knowing that their money will be put to good use. The charity then uses the money to help build sanitation systems in these countries as opposed to pocketing the money for personal use. Thus it is clearly exemplified that this behaviour benefits the interests of other people and not oneself.

 

In general the behaviour of people is guided by self-interest when their actions pertain to things that people want. Corporations want more money so they continue to exploit the system to maximize their profits. They do this knowing that no one truly suffers from a survival perspective. However, when people act on things that are necessities for life they tend to do so in an altruistic manner. In the case of Engineers Without Borders, they know that people of third world countries lack the basic necessity of clean water which is required for survival. Ultimately, the actions of a person are within self-interest when pertaining to items of want and are of other's interests when related to items of need.

[PastaInhaler]

--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.

 

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of clarity and depth of thought.

Ideas presented in a unified, focussed, and coherent fashion.

Strong control of language.

 

Tasks#1 and #2 are complete, however, the logic in task#3 is circular. Essentially the argument there shows that whether making money is at the expense of others depends on whether making money is at the expense of other people or not. You will need to find a less circular way of completing task#3. Consider the fundamental difference between a tobacco company and a financial investor, then build from that.

 

I feel this essay will be scored a:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-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.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks.

Evidence of clarity of thought.

Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus and utility.

Adequate control of language.

 

The Ford and Shirtwaist examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments.

Task#3 was sufficient.

I feel this essay will be scored a:

 

JKLMNOPQRST

[mayerrr]

-clicked-

Hey guys I sent this essay into Kaplan a while ago and they still have not returned it so I was hoping someone could give me some criticism and suggestions, mainly on the format and flow of the essay. I'm aware that my examples were very very broad and not good, but I am more concerned with essay flow. Thanks!

 

 

Developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to the underdeveloped nations of the world.

 

Developed nations are countries in which its citizens are given the opportunity to be able experience a good quality of life through the resources provided to them by their government. Such resources include the ability to obtain a job or an education, access to food, water, and shelter. Undeveloped nations are run by a corrupt government system that deprives its citizens the opportunity to obtain a good quality of life and the access to the main resources needed for a healthy lifestyle. In such cases, developed nations should be held the obligation of providing aid to the underdevelopment nations of the world. For example, there are many organizations that are founded within the United States and Canada which try to raise money from citizens of its country in order to provide food and basic aid to the African citizens who are forced to live under the rules of a government that deprives its citizens of basic resources.

 

Although a developed nations citizens are provided with the resources to live a healthy life, there are times when a developed nation is faced with economic and social challenges, such as financial struggle, that may temporarily put them through a meltdown. In such cases, jobs are no longer easily obtained due to the poor economy and people are no longer able to make money to get the necessary requirements to live a healthy lifestyle. For example, Canada and the United States, both considered developed nations, experienced a "stock market crash" and a recession of the economy. Citizens were not able to acquire a job to provide support to their family due to the problems within the economy. The Canadian and U.S. governments focused less attention on the underdeveloped nations and put more effort back into stabilizing their own through various reforms.

 

Thus, whether or not a developed nation holds the responsibility of supporting and providing resources to undeveloped nations depends on the economic status of the developed nation. Only if the developed nation is not experiencing problems within the economy and if the resources needed to sustain a healthy lifestyle are open to its citizens, should it be held the obligation to support undeveloped nations.

 

edit: wow im just realizing that this essay is extremely short...fml

[PastaInhaler]

-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.

 

You're welcome. Don't blame yourself if you were not too satisfied with this particular essay. The prompt that it responds to isn't easy.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought.

Ideas presented in a coherent manner.

Adequate control of language.

 

The first argument was formulated as a refutation of a counterargument. Although it is okay, your essay will be stronger from a direct argument.

This will be determined by your example. Your example shows what a politician shouldn't be doing if his political position had a heavy environmental protection and resource management position. What you would ideally want is an example that shows how a politician recycles garbage, and reduces waste in his everyday life. You could use another example such as how Barack Obama wishes to serve families, and how much he wants to help American families out. Then cover: Is Obama a family man himself? Does he show it in his day-to-day life?

 

The second example did not quite fit the reasoning for a counter-argument of the point you made in example #1. It may be best to choose another example, one that shows specifically how a politician can still be effective by having a lifestyle that is not in accordance with his political views. One example (that requires a bit of a stretch in reasoning) is where a politician likes to drink alcohol at bars occasionally (and takes a taxi home), but is against drinking and driving.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

 

JKLMNO/PQRST