PastaInhaler Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 -clicked- Education makes everyone equal. To be educated is to be knowledgeable. This statement is often what people equate education to mean. Currently, most education formally occurs in classrooms with all members of the class learning the same material. In such an environment, all members of the learning group will theoretically have the same knowledge once they have completed their period of learning. If this year’s class at McMaster University’s nursing school entered at the same period of time, provided they all passed their required courses, they would all obtain the same designation and degree upon graduation and as such would all be made equals. In this sense, education can often make a group of people equal. However, education may sometimes introduce an inequality between a group of people. If a group of people enters a certificate program for fish harvesting in British Columbia, and another group of people enter Harvard Medical School, these groups would both become increasingly educated over the course of their programs. The difference is that the qualifications they receive would be astonishingly different. The differences go on to include salary and lifestyle differences. Therefore, from all the observed differences between these two groups of people who each received education, education does not make everyone equal. To elaborate, there are some circumstances where education may lead to an increased equality among a group of people and others times where they lead to diversity and inequality. Education leads to equality when learners are in the same learning group, are likeminded and are learning the same things and education will lead to inequality when a group of learners differs by either learning group, or learning topics. Thanks Pasta! You're welcome, Charty. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. The essay shows some clarity of thought, but may lack complexity. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Your examples are sufficient, but you may wish to try a different angle in arguing the validity of your examples. The real question is what happens to the nursing school graduates when they are looking for work? What factors come into play during the hiring procedure. Does a physically challenged nurse now have an equal chance at getting the same job because she has a B.Sc.N.? Is it equal now because of the extra letters at the end of her name? The tasks were otherwise completed, but you can revise your argument a bit to address a broader social context. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 -clicked- The best politician is the one most removed from politics. The term 'politics' has many connotations associated with it. Some are good, but most conjure images of scheming and plotting behind closed doors, much to the chagrin of the the general public. This negative association brings about the idea that good politicians ought to be the most removed from politics. But what really defines a good politician? Some might argue that a good politician resembles that of King Leonidas of Sparta. Defying the squabbling of councilmen in the Spartan legislature, he took a small force of 300 men to defend his people against the invading Persian armies. He must have known that the mission was suicidal, yet he believed that the sacrifice was worth it and he gave the politicians time to get their act together and send the whole army. His actions arguably changed the history of the world and definitely changed the fate of his people. Despite the heroics of Leonidas, there are also instances in which politicians must be engaged in politics to derive results for their people. One group of politicians that demonstrates this is the Tea Party of America. While the majority of people may not agree with the Tea Party's values - and many people still can not figure out what those are - their political resilience is to be admired. In spite of the relatively small proportion of the American public that they represent, the Tea Party has managed to block or hinder almost every social reform on the Democrats agenda. The Tea Party manages to garner immense public support despite a relatively undefined platform, and their political clout has become a huge force in American politics. Even the less-ultra-conservative members of the Republican Party have had to give way to some very inspired Tea Party enthusiasts during the current debt-crisis. Tea Party maneuvering has effectively blocked all "revenue increases" - tax hikes - to alleviate debt, despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party and even some Republicans who conceded that taxes may need to be increased to deal with the worst deficit in world history. Whether on the battlefield or in Congress, politicians can be an unstoppable force. The separation between when political involvement or lack thereof makes a good politician can be reduced to a matter of survival. When the safety of his people was endangered, Leonidas was the best politician he could be by avoiding politics. He acted as a strong commander-in-chief should, and saved his homelands from destruction. However, when survival is not an imminent concern, and politicians must advance the views of their minority followers, than the most effective ones are those who can politically out-maneuver their competition, like the Tea Party recently did during the debt-crisis. Thanks Pasta! You're welcome, Zchadha. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Good control of language. Interesting examples. They are unique, but useful in supporting your arguments. The tasks were sufficiently completed. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 -clicked- In politics' date=' the correct course of action is the one that will win the most votes.[/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 the political course of action that will win the most votes might not be the correct course of action. Discuss what you think determines when the course of action that will win the most votes will be correct. In a democratic society, the citizens are granted the right to vote and voice their opinions in order to implement change and support their ideologies. For an idea or course of action to win the most votes, it must receive a favorable response and support from the citizens. Politicians often posit certain proposals, and the one that receives the most support is generally deemed the "correct" course of action. The word "correct" in this context means that the idea or action on the government's part will serve in the best interests of society as well as protect the welfare of the populace. Often, the idea that receives the most support and votes will be considered the correct course of action. For example, During the October Crisis of 1970, members of the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) party took extreme measures in order to separate Quebec from Canada, including abduction and murder of several authority figures. Pierre Trudeau, who was the Prime Minister at the time, took drastic measures to suppress the violent revolt, such as granting police extended powers to detain individuals without trial. This course of action, although extreme, was favored by the majority of citizens as it sought to protect the security and unity of the nation as a whole. As a result, Prime Minister Trudeau's course of action was deemed correct as it won the most support as well as served in the best interests of society. Conversely, there are circumstances in which the political course of action that gains the most votes and support might not in fact be the correct policy or strategy. For instance, in 2010, many individuals, including Zach Wahls, an engineering student at the University of Iowa, stood in front of the State of Iowa House of Representatives to oppose a resolution, which, if passed, would end civil unions in the state. Despite some opposition from the citizens, the majority of individuals on the House of Representatives voted in favor of the resolution, thereby revoking the rights of same-sex marriage from individuals of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. This resolution, although received the most votes, may arguably not be the correct course of action, as it violates the fundamental rights of individuals by revoking rights and freedoms that had been granted in the past. As a result, this may not be the correct course of action as it discriminates against a minority group of individuals and does not serve the best interests of society. Consequently, what determines whether a course of action that receives the most votes is correct or incorrect? A political action that receives the support of the general population will generally be correct as it would serve in the best interests of society in terms of security and welfare, while a course of action that receives the most votes only from a small number of individuals who may represent the society may not in fact be the correct course of action. In the case of Pierre Trudeau's drastic measures against the FLQ separatists, the support of the general population suggests that the course of action was correct, as it favored the interests and well-being of members of society. Conversely, the resolution to end civil unions in the State of Iowa, as voted favorably by the House of Representatives, may not be the correct course of action, as it discriminates against a minority group, and is only supported by a small number of representatives, as opposed to the general population. Hence, a political action that is supported by the populace will generally be correct, while an action that is supported only by a small number of representatives may not be the correct course of action. Thank you! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Evidence of clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Ideas presented in a unified, focussed, and coherent fashion. Strong control of language. Good examples used and task#3 was well done. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQR/ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 -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. A business is any company that produces and sells goods for public use at a price set by the executives of the company. An example would be Ford automobile company. Ford manufactures automobiles, which the public use for transportation, and sells them at a price set by headquarters. At the end of the day, a business will have made revenue, from which it will subtract the amount of money used to manufacture or produce the goods. The resultant is called profit. It is often the case that a business would maximize its profits. This follows particularly in privately owned business. For example, Kraft is a business company that sells a wide variety of goods to the public, including Krafts cheese. During economic stability, the primary goal of Kraft would be to maximize profits. The reason behind this is that consumer spending is high during this time. The company will take into consideration the needs of the public and how much they are willing to offer for their goods. This will allow the company to come up with a reasonable price that will result in maximum profits. Since there are few limiting factors due to the economic stability of the nation, the primary goal of a company would be to maximize its profits. Accordingly, when the economy of the nation is not stable - there is inflation, some companies are already going bankrupt, and consumer spending is much less than what it normally would be - the primary goal of a company is to ensure that they do not go bankrupt, rather than maximizing profits. To illustrate, during the debt crisis in the US and Europe in 2011, many people began to purchase gold and Swiss franc. These are considered a safe haven for consumers to save their money without having to worry about the economic instability of the nation. Along with inflation, this results in lower consumer spending. This is particularly the case in the gas industry for automobiles. Now the amount of money per barrel of gas has decreased. This tactic is to ensure that consumers are still willing to pay for gas instead of using government transport or the conventional bicycle. In this case, the goal of the gas company, such as Exxon mobile, is to ensure that consumers are still buying gas, regardless of maximizing profits or not. In turn, this will allow them to stay in market, rather than slowly and eventually going bankrupt like other businesses during economic instability. As a result, depending on the economic stability of the nation, the primary goal of every business would fluctuate between maximizing profits and simply staying in the market without going bankrupt. During economic stability, there are few limiting factors in play, and consumer spending is quite high. Accordingly, the primary goal of the business would be to maximize its profits, as was exemplified by Krafts Company. However, during economic instability, there are more limiting factors, such as lower consumer spending, inflation, and possibly higher taxes on the business. As a result, the business' primary goal would shift from maximizing profits, to ensuring their survival. Thank you so much! You're very welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Some issues with organization and coherence. Adequate control of language. Some good examples, but the essay is somewhat disorganized. It may be best to stick to one example for each argument and explore them well enough before introducing other examples. Too many examples that are not properly explored and well organized can make the essay less coherent. The Exxon Mobile example is a delicate one as it can be easily construed as maximizing profit. Even though they are accepting less revenue, something must be going on with the costs in order to prevent the company from tanking. If the CEO is still focussing on this equation, he is trying to maximize profits just in a different way. (In entrepreneurship, profits can be maximized by increasing revenue, decreasing costs, or increasing revenue and reducing costs). Another way to look at it is despite the reduction in price, there is an increase in the sales per unit, this can still maintain a certain level of revenue, and possibly raise revenue to a higher level through increased sales. Also, even if revenue is reduced, if cost is lowered by a big enough magnitude (layoffs), profit can be maximized. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 -clicked-Art should not challenge our perception of the world Artistic forms of expression such as music, paintings, and theatre can be used to depict an aspect of life. Often these depictions are shallow and do not offer a broad picture of the world we live in. Of course art works can only express a limited number of ideas, but a great piece of art should seek to demonstrate broad ideas about life. Art can also affect the way it’s viewers percieve the world by helping them to realize how the complexity and variety of emotions and problems that exist. Yet too often the art forms we are commonly exposed to do not provoke deep thought about the world we live in, nor do they challenge our ideas about the way the world is. We should not look to these artists in hopes of having our worldview challenged and refined. For example, popular music by artists such as Rihanna is mostly focused on themes of love, dance, and sex. In her song “Please Don’t Stop the Music”, the thrill of dancing in a club is represented as the only things that matters for the time being. Although dancing can be a important part of many cultures and is an enjoyable part of reality, consumers should seek deeper art forms if they want to have their perception of the world be challeneged. In fact, art which focuses on only the ideas of love and fun compltelely neglects the hard realitys that are faced by those in poverty. However, some artisits do create works which have cause shifts in the worldviews of nations. Frida Kahlo was a Latin American painter in the nineteenth century who depicted the political struggles of Nicaragua. Many of her fellow citizens identified with her paintings which stand as a symbol and reminder of the struggles faced by citizens who have lived through a political revolution. Her paintings helped to challenge Nicaraguan ideas about Communism and poverty, as well as victory and defeat. Painting by artists such as Frida Kahlo should challenge our perception of the world because they depict a broader perspective of the world as well as the hard and the beautiful issues that are faced. What determines whether or not a peice of art should challenged our perception of the world depends on how close that artwork is to depicting a broad veiw of the positive and negative aspects of reality. Often art which is created for commercial profits such as popular music, does not offer a broad depiction of reality which could serve to widen our understanding of the world. Art made by those who are involved in difficult realities such as the political strife faced by the Nicaraguans, will often offer a wider view of the world and provide insightful ideas about reality which should challenge our perception of the world. 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 Rihanna and Kahlo examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Task#3 was sufficient. Be sure to take some time at the end to re-read the essay to correct for errors. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Not disputing PastaInhaler's grading or advice IN ANY WAY, but for those of you who are consistently getting disappointing grades: I just got my MCAT score today and I got an S on the writing sample!! I probably posted 4 or 5 essays on this thread and the highest mark I ever received was an N/O. So keep practicing and you never know, you may surprise yourself! (and sorry about bragging) Hi Adrianna, thanks for sharing. Did you find my feedback, tips, and advice helpful? Great job on the MCAT overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 -clicked- Thank you so much ! The historical significance of an event cannot be detrained without the perspective afforded by the passage of time Often when a historical event occurs, no one can be sure of its true significance on the world until time passes and we are able to analyze it. In this case, significance must be understood to mean the actual consequences the event has on the world. Even an artificially triggered event rather than a spontaneous event, can go as far as having an opposite effect to that predicted. This is conclusively demonstrated by the establishment of the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War in 1919. At the time of signing, it was created 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. Moreover, the League of Nations was created concomitantly in part to enforce the restrictions. While the Treaty seemed to be functioning as planned, it eventually fostered animosity within the Germans towards the rest of Europe and predicated the rise of Hitler’s nationalistic Nazi regime. Only following the end of the Second World War, triggered in part by Hitler’s Nazi Germany, did we realize that the Treaty had actually aggravated, not suppressed, Germany into war. However, the true significance of a historical event are at times predictable right away. 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 announced the grim further repercussions of nuclear bombs to the world. Accordingly, 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. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing hence conclusively demonstrates that the implications of a historical event can be immediately realized. 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. This essay is very similar to your previously posted essay: http://www.premed101.com/forums/showpost.php?p=616780&postcount=530 -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 !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 -clicked-Thanks PastaInhaler! ---- Almost every great fortune is made at the expense of other people. Describe a specific situation in which a fortune might be made without harm to other people. Discuss the principles you think determine whether or not fortunes are made at the expense of other people. In order to determine the meaning of the above statement, the phrase "great fortune" and the keyword "expense" must be analyzed. A great fortune involves the acquisition of something, whether it be a physical discovery or simply a piece of knowledge. It often involves luck and is quite rare and significant. By "expense" the statement is saying that in order to obtain a great fortune someone else has to suffer. Perhaps this suffering is direct through physical pain, or indirect by manipulating or using someone in order to help ones self obtain that fortune. In either case, the statement overall is asserting that it's almost impossible to obtain a fortune without someone else suffering. For example, consider the lottery such as LottoMax. This is a lottery where people buy a card with numbers, and at the end of that week the numbers are called out with only one true winner. Although there are additional prizes of one million dollars, in general, most people want the grand prize of many millions of dollars, which only one person can obtain. A person participating in this lottery is in direct competition with everyone else who buys a ticket, because each has a unique set of numbers and hoping that their number is called. In this case, a person who wins the lottery automatically causes every other person who wanted to win that prize to suffer. The individual obtained his great fortune, but was unable to do it without causing every other LottoMax participant to lose (at least for that week). However, not every great fortune causes harm to other people. For example, consider a scientific breakthrough such as identifying a mutation in Rb that causes a type of cancer. Due to the nature of the research, this study can now be cited in future research done by others and its results can be used to make assumptions and further research into this field. This great fortune of discovering the mutation may have been luck, but in either case it is a great fortune that does not harm anyone else. This holds especially true if the entire team of researchers is credited with the discovery (which usually occurs). Thus, it is possible to obtain a great fortune without it occurring at the expense of other people. In order to determine whether the fortune harms other people or not, it must be classified as competition or cooperation. In the example of the lottery, LottoMax classifies as direct competition with everyone else and therefore the person who ends up winning the great fortune harms others to get it. On the other hand, the example with the research breakthrough, due to its classification as cooperation, shows that someone's gain is not necessarily someone else's loss, since the research can be used for further studies. Competition inherently allows for a 'winner' who obtains the great fortune, and everyone else participating becomes a 'loser'. However cooperation simply allows everyone to work together to obtain a great fortune with no one losing if they were not the individual who obtained it. You're welcome, Alchemist11. 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. It may be best to choose another example other than the lottery example, since the magnitude of the expense is the cost of a lottery ticket. The probability of winning is set so that most players will lose. That is the nature of gambling. It is not on the same order as having to take millions of dollars away from someone that was rightfully theirs. This would be more on the line of people buying a particular sequence of numbers, with another person also buying the same set of numbers. When those numbers come up, the person who purchased the ticket first would get all the money, even though another person has the same winning numbers, he gets nothing. This fictional case would satisfy the prompt better with a good enough magnitude of expense of another person than the real case of a lottery. However, it is the rationale from the fictional case that would best fit the prompt. As well, the counterexample actually follows the same line of logic as your lottery example, so it may be best to find another example. Laboratories do compete against another when trying to find answers to scientific and medical questions. When one group finds an answer (breakthrough/discovery), it makes the work of other laboratories in that field a less potent. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 -clicked-Thanks! Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies. Progress is the objective of most organized groups. Politicians seek to pass a bill which will create benefits for their consituents. Businesses seek to offer better services to their customers by designing new and more efficient products in an attempt to progress as a company. Businesses want to make their products simple and user-friendly, but progress is usually accomplished by developing a more complicated machine. The invention of the automatic transmission for the automobile has greatly simplified the driver's experience. There is now no need to focus on pressing the clutch while shifting gears nor a need to remember to shift gears when climbing a hill or slowing down. However, most automatic transmissions are now computerized and as a result it has become increasingly difficult for the typical mechanic to fix car transmissions. The mechanic who services my family recently had to take a course on new transmissions because many of his customers have switched to newer vehicles. The progress made in vehicle transmission technology has complicated the task of mechanics as much as it has simplified the task of drivers. However, some types of progress do not complicate an issue nearly as much as they simplify it. In July 2011, Canadains experienced a strike from the Candian postal services. Schools could not send out transcripts by the official method, wedding invitations were put on hold, and the simple system of sending and recieving mail was shutdown. The Canadian government quickly came together to discuss how to best meet the demands of the postal workers so that the lives of Canadians could get back on track. After a compromise was made between the postal workers and the government it serves, Canadians no longer had to find a new way to accomplish all of the tasks that postal services did for them. Here, political progress to restore a system simplified the tasks of everyone involved and removed the complications that were created by the strike. Whether or not progress complicates or simplifies an issue usually depends on the area that is making advances. As areas of science and technology progress, they become more complex because the product of their research is generally more complex. Advancements in car transmission technology have simplified the life of drivers but the responsibilities of mechanics have become more complex. Areas involving political advancements, such as the passing of a bill to restore the Canadian postal services, simplifies the lives of all those involved in the progress. There are bound to be exceptions to this criterion, but in general technological advances introduce complications while political progress does not. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner with some focus. Adequate control of language. The automatic transmission and Canada Post examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. You may wish to introduce the legal context in paragraph#2, as opposed to mentioning it in paragraph#3. Task#3 is sufficiently addressed. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdawso23 Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 -clicked- Thanks for doing this! The primary goal of a business should be to maximize profit. Every business will have a certain set of goals of which they should attain for success. These include a sturdy clientele base, satisfied workers, and producing a quality product for their consumers. For most businesses though, the primary goal should be to maximize profit, since for what purpose would one own a business if not to make money? Furthermore, if they are not making a good profit, it would be difficult to continue achieving other important goals such as happy workers and producing quality products (which require money to be paid, and money to produce, respectively). When a company is in in the prime of its existence, it will need a steady cash flow to continue as it is, and to progress and expand. For example, a company such as Apple, the main goal should be to make the most money possible. Apple has millions of employees and customers, as well as a well-established name. If it put less of an emphasis on money, it would be difficult to supply its many employees with proper payment and benefits as well as supply its customers with a satisfying product. Without money, any business - large or small- would not be able to run smoothly and eventually find trouble. On the other hand, for new businesses, it would be more fruitful to work on establishing a sturdy clientele base than to immediately focus on maximizing profits. A new business' primary goal should be to create loyal customers and a good name because these are stepping stones to being fiscally successful. If a business is not trusted by the public, it will not sell its product or service as well and so flounder. Once a firm basis is developed, then should a business turn its focus to maximizing profit. This concept it proven by the restaurant chain Tim Hortons. When it first opened, the store did not immediately make a lot of money. Instead, the owners focused on making friends with the community and creating a trust with the customer. Due to this loyal clientele base, the restaurant was able to develop and mature into a full grown business and then begin to focus on making more money. If they did not have such a firm following, the business would never have reached such success as it has, because fewer people would have trusted it and chosen Tim Hortons as their coffee stop. Overall, an older and well-established business should focus on maximizing profit so as to keep the company running smoothly and successfully, whereas a newer company should first make a strong basis to the company before focusing on profit. Older businesses, such as Apple, have the luxury of already holding a following of customers and good name and so should focus more on making profit. If Apple were to not focus on maximizing profit, the business could not run as smoothly as it does. In contrast, a newer business must first begin the basis for their future success before immediately becoming fiscally successful. The success of Tim Hortons is mainly due to the loyal clientele base it achieved at the beginning and the expansion that follows from having a trusting public. A new business must first prove themselves as trustworthy and quality before success can follow. It is only after they have established this good name, that they should focus on maximizing profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 -clicked- Laws cannot change social values. The laws of a society which are enforced by the police and established by the courts of justice are determined by the values that are held by the average member of that society. As the values of each citizen change, a nation's laws change to accomodate, not the other way around. At least in a democracy, the laws of a society cannot change social values because the people who make up that society are the ones who determine what the laws should be. For instance, gay marriage has been a topic of great debate in the United States as some states have legalized it. The right for gay couples to be wed was only brought about as a result of a shift in the values that are held by Americans. Yet it is also the case that not all members of a particular state agree with their state's decision to legalize gay marriage. The state of California legalized gay marriage for a period of time, but this did not cause voters to accept the notion. In fact, the social values of voters seemed to oppose the rights that they had previously voted for when gay marriage was again made illegal in California. However, in a nation where the laws are determined by the opinions of a dictator, citizens may be forced into conditions that they would not normally have put themselves into. For example, the country of North Korea is led by Kim Jong Il. He has cut off his nation from the outside world, decieved his society into believing that they are much more prosperous than the surrounding nations, and has made many religions illegal. Christians are often sentenced to a life in prison because of their faith. As a result there are very few Christians left in North Korea. Most have renounced their faith out of fear of the laws that oppose it. Because they have not been allowed to attend Christian services or mention the faith, it is very likely that even in their hearts they no longer value the religion. Whether or not a nation's laws change its social values depends on the system of government that rules a nation. In the democratic nation of America, the laws regarding gay marriage did not change the value that voter's placed on it because the nature of democracy allows each citizen to freely decide whether or not they agree with a certain ideal. However in North Korea, a country ruled by a dictator, citizens have no role in creating government laws. They are forced to live by the laws which promote values that they may not accept and eventually begin to have their values changed. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner with some focus. Adequate control of language. The gay marriage and North Korea examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. You may need to clarify the definition of social values before proceeding. Somehow a religion does not seem like a social value. You will need to argue how a religion is a social value to strengthen your counter-argument. Task#3 is sufficiently addressed. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 -clicked- Thanks for your time and feedback! Successful politicians are motivated more by practical considerations than by moral 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 successful politicians might be motivated more by moral values than by practical considerations. Discuss what you think determines whether successful politicians are motivated by practical concerns or by moral values. Leaders of a democratic country are chosen through an electoral system, where all citizens hold equal votes and are able to choose competent people who are able to represent their values and ideals on the world stage. These politicians are considered successful when they are able to convince citizens to not only cast a ballot, but more importantly, to cast a ballot in their favour such that they eventually take office. Since the late 1990’s, Lai Chang Xing, a Chinese businessman and entrepreneur was implicated of countless smuggling and corruption charges, emigrated to Canada. In 1999, he was described by several media organizations as well as the Chinese government as “China’s most wanted fugitive”. The Canadian government allowed him to live in peace in Vancouver, and the lack of judicial action taken by the Canadian government caused a strain in Sino-Canadian relations. The Canadian Prime Minister then was worried of human rights violations should he be handed over to Chinese officials, as he would very likely be given the death sentence without a proper trial. Stephen Harper, the current Prime Minister of Canada, was elected in May 2011 for a second term with his Conservative Party forming a majority government. As of July 2011, the government of Canada, led by Harper, decided to extradite Lai to China despite original concerns. This proactive move as expressed by the Canadian government was beneficial in promoting stronger ties between both nations. In this case, a practical approach is more advantageous to the development of Canada than considering the basic rights of a widely-hunted criminal. On the other hand, there are other successful politicians who adopt a moral approach as opposed to one based on practicality. A rather controversial case is that of the burial of Osama Bin Laden, the Islamic terrorist and leader of Al-Qaeda, the jihadist organization responsible for the September 11 attacks. Barack Obama, the President of the United States was the one who had ordered the assassination of Bin Laden. Against all odds, Obama became the front-runner in the 2008 presidential campaign and went on to take office in the White House. After Bin Laden was shot and confirmed dead by US special forces, Obama decided to bury Bin Laden at sea, which as he understand, was an Islamic tradition. This was an act of religious thoughtfulness on Obama’s part, that even in dealing with a greatly-despised enemy, he was still able to take moral considerations into account. It is extremely difficult to be a politician, and even more so in being a successful one, one who is responsible for the protection of an entire nation. There are many complicated issues they need to deal with on a daily basis domestically or internationally, issues that would impact the prosperity and security of their country. With that said, there are also many approaches they can adopt in resolving such issues, they can take the pragmatic route or the ethical one, or both at the same time. What determines which route they take depends on how the situation affects their home country. In Harper’s case, being driven by moral values, of course, would serve to preserve the life of a criminal, but would not benefit Canada as a whole in any way. On the flip side, in Obama’s case, adopting a practical approach such as giving Bin Laden a land burial would cause more harm than good as his grave could potentially become a symbol or shrine for his fellow extremists. Ultimately, it is the ability of preserving their country in an effective manner that makes a politician successful. You're welcome. Glad to help. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Evidence of clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner with some focus and utility. Good control of language. Some good examples. Tasks were addressed well. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 -clicked- Lies are often less harmful than the truth. "You can't handle the truth!" The famous line from the Tom Cruise movie effectively outlines an action that seems almost instinctive to some humans. In many cases, when people are put on the spot, their first reaction is to lie. It is not known exactly why people have such an automatice tendency to lie, but one can hazard a guess and simply state that oftentimes, the truth causes more damage than good. Lying to other people is beneficial to the liar, as he/she can then exploit the victim. Through lies, one can convince others of various falsities; this enables the liar to manipulate others. Lies are told on a daily basis, and have often been the cause of horrific events. One need only think of the events surrounding the eruption of World War II and theunderlying cause of it - one very outspokenyet mentally unstable man - Hitler. Hitler single-handedly convinced the entire German nation that the cause of the poverty and economic situation at the time had been brought about by a single group of people - the Jews. Branching from this completely absurd mentality, he began preaching about the "perfect race" or the Aryan race. Gradually, he deceived the German people more and more, forcing them to believe that everyone without blond hair and blue eyes was an enemy and an obstacle to the development of the Aryan race. To the German people at that time, these lies were treated like the words spoken by God himself. Hitler presented a solution to the horrible lifestyle that had developed in many German cities and the people fell for it. To them, these lies were a sort of miracle and helped stregthen their facist state of mind and engulf Europe in War. Although humans seem to have an almost innate ability to lie, it is more often than not, beneficial to the person to tell the truth. In regards to telling people the truth, George W. Bush should have done so when he chose to invade Iraq at the beginning of the 21st century. Looking for "weapons of mass destruction", the American soldiers searchedfor years without finding a single explosive device. By lying to the American nation and the world, Bush painted a very deceitful picture of himself - it may have been to his benefit to tell the truth from the beginning. Lying not only raised people's hopes of apprehending the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks but it also drew doubt into the mind's of skeptics across the world. 10 odd years later, a single "WMD" has yet to be found and the U.S has got a new president. Had Bush been truthful and honest from day one, many thousands of lives would have been spared in search of these imaginary weapons. However, he lied, and many people paid the ultimate price. It is very tempting to lie when under pressure. For some people, it is very tempting to lie even when nothing will come out of the lie. What determines whether or not lies areless harmful than the truth is the severity of the lie and the consequences of finding out the truth. Pathological liars are known to lie pretty much about everythingand this is a special case in which the person does not realize that telling the truth will not harm them in any way. They think that they must lie to other people in order to receive some sort of recognition for their efforts. Small lies are usually not harmful and pose no threat to the liar whereas big lies can have severe repercussionsfor all involved in the lie. For example, lying about where somebody was may not seem harmful but it quickly becomes a serious issue when the whereabouts of that somebody arecrucial to solving a homicide. Under such circumstances, lying may not only get someone into trouble, but it may end up destroying an innocent person's life forever. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner with some focus. Adequate control of language. The first task was not adequately addressed. You will need to show that somehow lies can actually be good, or at least under some circumstances, better than the truth. You have shown that lying is bad, then argued the same in the second paragraph. Because task#1 was not sufficiently addressed, this created problems for task#3. You will need to rework the first task by choosing another example to illustrate your points. When would it be okay to lie as opposed to telling the truth? I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLM/NOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillNye Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 Clicked on Water! Here is my essay: In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective. History serves a critical purpose: it is responsible for shaping the structure and behaviors of current society. Wars, inventions, and revolutions are all part of history that have drastically influenced the world today. The knowledge of history is essential to learning from past mistakes, as well as to application of historical knowledge. History can be passed down from generation to generation through many mediums, including books, movies, and spoken word. Through these recordings of history, objectivity may contrast the main theme of the record, or serve as the central purpose of the recording, depending on the nature of the history being recorded. Discussions of war are seldom accompanied by objectivity. The reason for this is the passion involved and the lasting effects that these events have had on members of current society. World War II, claiming the lives of over 70 million people, has been universally viewed as a devastating tragedy in books, movies, and conversations. Those affected by the deaths directly or indirectly maintain strong emotional connections to the event, which are evident in recordings of this history. Movies such as Schindler's List and Pearl Harbour both deal with aspects of World War II and are delivered in a manner which appeals to the emotions of the viewers. This knowledge, instilled in viewers attached with emotion, which will be passed down from generation to generation in this same manner. The nature by which World War II profoundly affection millions of people is clear in the manner by which this tragedy is portrayed in popular media. This influences the opinions held by those who have been exposed to this media, which in turn influences the way the event is recorded. Although objectivity is impossible to achieve when recording the history of wars, it is necessary when recording the history of science. Seldom are current discoveries made without the knowledge of previous discoveries of a similar nature. In these situations, it is essential to record historical knowledge in an objective manner, so that those wishing to use knowledge as part of their research are uninfluenced by the nature of the record by which the knowledge is communicated, and thus are able to interpret the information effectively. The Human Genome Project was an initiative to sequence the human genome started in 2005. The sequencing of over 25,000 human genes would have been impossible without objective knowledge obtained from previous scientific knowledge. Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly, was the first organism to be completely sequenced years before the beginning of the Human Genome Project. The objective documentation of the materials and methods used in this scientific discovery were undoubtedly critical in the success of the Human Genome Project. If details of this experiment were not delivered objectively, misdirected emphasis or invalid implications may have hindered the efficiency of the Human Genome Project or even prevented a valid gene sequence from being obtained. The objective delivery of historical knowledge is necessary when information must be obtained at face-value, so not to influence future work in a way that may prevent advances in science or technology. Knowledge of our past has contributed in countless ways to the advancement of society, both socially and scientifically. It is the recording of history that has allowed knowledge of tragic events to influence our social behavior, and knowledge of past discoveries to influence our ability to make new discoveries. Thus, it is the nature of the history being recorded that ultimately determines whether objectivity is possible. If recording a major war whose tragedy has affected millions of people, objectivity is impossible. On the other hand, if recording a scientific discovery that may influence future research in the field, it is possible and encouraged to maintain objectivity. It is the mechanism by which history is recorded that determines the public's reponse to past events and their application to present behavior and initiatives. While objectivity is impossible if one wishes to maintain the integrity of some stories, it is essential is one wishes to maintain the validity of others. Thanks for grading this. Also, could you tell me your opinion on the length of the WS? I've heard many people say that longer is better. How long would you say you should aim for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 - Clicked!!- Thanks The strength of a democracy depends upon each citizen's respect for the ideas of others. Describe a specific situation in which the strength of a democracy might not depend upon its citizens' respect for the ideas of others. Discuss what you think determines when the strength of a democracy depends upon its citizens' respect for the ideas of others. The very foundation of a democracy rests on the mutual respect citizens have for each other. In a democratic society, the governing body consists of elected officials acting in the interest of its citizens. Oftentimes, the respective interests of the citizens are variable and diverse. As such, the representatives must factor everyone's opinion into consideration and come to a consensus that appeals to the majority with the protection of minority rights. A healthy democratic climate is one which nurtures a safe environment where people can freely voice their ideals and beliefs without fear of discrimination or condemnation. In Canada, a country that prides itself in multiculturalism and diversity, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protects individuals of different faiths, sexual orientations, age, gender, and race from discrimination. It also ensures the protection of freedom of speech. Such a legislature was passed with the understanding that the strength of a democracy can only be maintained when people, who are undeniably different and hold different interests, can freely express their thoughts without fear of repercussions. There is, however, a difference between expressing one's opinion and spreading malicious hate messages that serves to undermine the very framework of democracy. The former facilitates a healthy environment of mutual understanding and respect, whereas the latter encourages bigotry and ethnocentrism. If such an ideal is respected by the general public, it send the wrong message to other citizens and can even initiate a drift towards hatred of minority groups or the alienation of people with different beliefs, undermining the very foundation of a democratic society. Salman Hossain was a student at University of Toronto who posted hate messages against the Jewish population calling for genocide on the Jewish population of North America and Europe. He has since been charged as Canada's hate crime law prohibits promotion of genocide or hatred against an identifiable group. Although Salman expressed his opinion on the existence of the Jewish population, the public cannot respect his opinion as his ideals serve to undermine the stability of a democratic society. Only by disregarding and even persecuting such outlandish perpetration against other groups can a democracy maintain its stability and foster a safe environment that encourages civil discourse and mutual respect. Democracy depends on citizens' respect for each other's ideas unless the very nature of the idea is destructive towards the existence of a democratic society. In most cases, people are entitled to different beliefs and should not be discriminated or persecuted for their opinions. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects people from such discrimination and fosters a respecting environment for people to freely express their ideas. However, in the case of Salman Hossain, viscious hate messages intended for the persecution of an identifiable group garners public outcry and legal action instead of respect. Such a reaction is necessary for the maintenance of an accepting society that values every member's opinion. Although it may seem counter-intuitive to censor radical opinions such as those of Mr. Hossain's when democracy encourages freedom of speech. Yet, the situation becomes sensible when the effect of the idea is examined. When citizens opinions serve to increase diversity and multiculturalism, it strengthens a democracy, while opinions that discriminate against specific groups serve to undermine the very stability of a free society. I know my antithesis was weak. Later on I thought about respecting others' ideas to ensure minority rights, while respect of others' opinions isn't necessary for majority rule/decisions. Essentially, the necessity of respect is to protect minority groups from having their rights infringed by the majority (e.g. respecting different beliefs/same sex marriage). However, majority rules the rest of the time as most people are satisfied with the result. Any suggestion is appreciated! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. I agree, the essay may benefit from a stronger counter-example for task#2. Otherwise, the structure of the essay was good, and the arguments were sufficient. Good approach with using the Charter. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 -clicked- Thanks! Government regulation of scientific research can take many forms. For example, legislation may prohibit scientific research on a specific topic, or put restrictions on certain experimental procedures. Many argue that such regulation stifles scientific research, and that the government's role should not be to regulate scientific research. One area of research where government regulation of research has become a prominent issue is in stem cell research. Some researchers have claimed that American laws have placed restrictions on stem cell research that slow or halt American researchers' progress in the field, particularly in comparison to their contemporaries in countries like India, where there is less regulation in place. Being held back, researchers say, can hurt the competitiveness of the American economy, and result in American citizens not having access to the latest treatments. However, it is important to consider the original motivation behind these laws, which was primarily an ethical one. American lawmakers drafted and implemented regulation on stem cell research out of concern of the ethical implications. For example, one point of contention was (and still is) research on human embryos. On one hand, experiments involving human embryos would provide valuable insight into the development of stem cell tissues; but ethically, at what point do we decide that the embryo should be considered a "person" and cannot be experimented on? This question has spurred many passionate debates and has resulted in the current complex state of regulations regarding stem cell research. Overall, governments must take into account the nature of research in a field when determining whether to implement regulations or not. In the case of stem cell research, the potential moral and ethical implications of certain experiments certainly calls for government regulation. On the other hand, regulation also has the potential to impede scientific progress; thus, it should be applied sparingly, and regulations already in place should be reviewed periodically. Personally I'm not happy with this one, as I feel it's fairly shallow. Had trouble with this prompt. Was this the prompt? The government should not regulate scientific research. Describe a specific situation in which the government should regulate scientific research. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the government should regulate scientific research. Please remember to include the prompt with your essay. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. It's appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. The examples of stem cell research and human embryo research are sufficient for your arguments. One idea you may wish to address is why would the prompt indicate that it is upto the government to step in to regulate scientific research? What is so special about the government? Is there some inherent trust with the government and not some private organization? I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 Clicked! Thanks so much for your amazing service. Governments have a responsibility for regulating companies that provide necessary services to citizens. Our world today is heavily service-sector oriented and there are times when the government must regulate these service-providing companies in order to ensure that the necessary services are properly provided to the citizens. Regulating a company, is in essence ensuring that they are fulfilling their duties to their clients appropriately, that is, they are providing the necessary services to the citizens in a proper fashion. Necessary services to citizens include those services which we, as citizens, cannot function daily without - such as food, healthcare, education, postal services, clothing, etc. Governments have a duty to regulate our food and drugs industries in order to ensure that they are providing food and drugs of utmost quality. For example, the Food and Drugs Administration in the United States is responsible for clearing any new pharmaceutical or nutritive product that is launched, in order to make sure that it is completely safe for use by the public population and to test it for any possible side effects or problems if the dosage is not correct. On the other hand, governments do not have to regulate retail businesses, even though certain commodities such as clothing are definitely necessary for functioning of a daily citizen. Stores such as Forever 21 and Aeropostale in North America are free to launch new products, change product pricing and conduct marketing for their products as they wish, without any governmental interference. It can thus be said that governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens, when any problems arising with the provision of that service could cause tangible harm to the citizens. For example, if our regular pharmacies were not regulated by governmental bodies, and they happened to provide their patients with overdoses of particular medication, the patient could suffer physical consequences that may even be life threatening. On the other hand, if Forever 21 sells a torn shirt to a consumer, it does not affect the consumer in any permanent, physical manner. Therefore, the government is responsible for regulating companies providing services that can impact the livelihood of their citizens (physically or mentally) but are not responsible for regulating companies that provide services which are essential but which, if mistakes happen, would not cause any kinds of permanent, physical or mental damage to the consumers, i.e. the citizens. Note: I don't think this is a great essay. I finished 10 minutes ahead of time. I should have used specific examples but couldn't think of any :S You're welcome. Glad to provide this service. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Despite finishing with a lot of time left over, you didn't do too bad. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. Your two examples are good, however, you may wish to elaborate more on the clothing store example. Do they have some other form of regulation? Is it self-regulating, or regulated by some other external and non-governmental group? Task#3 was good. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samd681 Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 Clicked!! In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. … Representative democracies, such as that of the United States, are based upon the principle of electing individuals to fight for legislation that benefit the voters' interests. To many in American culture, where drama and triviality have taken front-stage in public discourse, personality is a more important trait in a politician than their fundamental beliefs. Thus, there is a conflict between choosing a politician who is an "ordinary Joe" or one who is a messiah of sorts. Many politicians believe that resembling their constituents as an "ordinary citizen" represents the most efficient path to getting elected; however, this is not always the best method for garnering votes. Many politicians have been elected who do not symbolize a typical individual. For instance, the election of Barrack Obama in the US was widely thought of as the ushering-in of a new era in American politics. With his vibrant gestures, his confident tone, and his cries for "change," Mr. Obama was seen by not only the public but also much of the American media as a superpowerful being, capable of righting all the wrongs done by previous administrations, and completely changing the course of the United States. Mr. Obama was not only revered at home but around the world, where he was greeted with extraordinary crowds chanting for a new American image. An individual aiming for an "ordinary citizen" characterization would not have generated such star status, and may not have won the election as Mr. Obama eventually did. Mr. Obama was the perfect "super-citizen" personality to be elected at the time. The political environment of the United States was seething at the apparent inability of previous administrations to make significant changes. It was because of this desire for a new direction that he was successful; therefore, it is the societal mood that determines whether or not a policitian must be ordinary or extraordinary in their campaign. In times when the political climate seethes at the thought of a presumptive force in the executive chair, the "ordinary Joe" may step in as the elected representative. Ironically, the election of George W. Bush, just prior to Mr. Obama, largely revolved around his character as a "normal Texan," who had served in the military and had the Southern accent that many consider typically American. The political landscape was a different world than today's, where the US was still seen as the predominant global power and the majority derided any talk of change. Who knows which path politicians will take in the future, as the friendly neighbor or the decisive leader. Politics is a constantly evolving environment; the opinions of voters will never be consistent as long as society is changing. Merci beaucoup! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm1234 Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 -clicked- Thanks for doing this! Prompt : The object of education should be to teach skills, not values. Education is the acquisition of knowledge and skills which enables an individual to be skilled at a profession. Consider a civil engineer, he utilizes his skills to build structures that are utilized by his fellow citizens in their daily experiences. For example, a bridge built by a civil engineer would be used by individuals to commute back and forth from home to work. Thus, education gained by the engineer teaches him skills to excel at his job and build a safe and long – lasting bridge with a good foundation. Hence, the object of education should be skills, as numerous people depend on his skills and knowledge to build safe structures that will be utilized by them on a daily basis. Contrary to the prior example, it can also be stated that values learned should be the primary object of education. When businessmen employ people to work under them, they expect the employees to work to the best of their ability to benefit their business. Since the founder or CEO of a company‘s primary goal is to take his business to unattainable height of success, the object of his education should be values. Values acquired via education will enable him to work in the realm of his good values so he can run the company smoothly and treat all the employees justly. Thus the object of education is contingent upon the profession of the individual and the goal of his services. An engineer is working to provide services to numerous people and since people depend on the services provided by him, he needs to have a strong demand of his skills. Hence the object of education in this instance should be skills, as his utmost responsibility is to provide individuals with a safe structure for use. However, when a profession demands hard work from employees to benefit one’s self or one’s interest such as a CEO/founder of a business, values should be the object of education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm1234 Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 - clicked on education - Prompt: The nature of democracy requires that its citizens be dependent upon one another. A democratic government enables citizens to act freely to benefits one’s own or other’s interest. However, the nature of such form of a government requires that the citizens work in co-operation with each other and display inter-dependence. Such an act creates a harmonious environment, which is the goal of a democratic government. In order to assist the impoverished citizens in a society, they need to depend on the financially stable citizens. Charities run and the money donated by the well to do citizens, allows the accumulation of funds to help bring to assist some people in living above the poverty line, provide them with basic amenities such as clean water, food, shelter and provide them with a future of opportunities. Accomplishments of such tasks requires the financial assistance from the well to do citizens, and it also requires the responsibility of the people using these services to work to the best of their ability to make the best use of the services provided; thus demonstrating an interdependent relationship. Conversely, it can also be stated that democracy doesn’t require citizens to be dependent on each other. A citizen who doesn’t agree with the motto and beliefs of a particular political candidate running in an election, can demonstrate his right to not agree with that candidate and not vote for him. To accomplish this task, he doesn’t require any one’s assistance and is capable of making the decision of who to vote for single-handily using his own judgement. Thus this demonstrates that in order for a democratic government to run smoothly, citizens can act and make decisions independent of other citizens. Thus it can be concluded that the dependency or independency of citizens depends on the task at hand. An impoverished individual needs to depend on the financially well off individuals for monetary help so he can control and improve his problematic situation at hand. However, when a citizen is deciding on whom he wants to be a representative of his views, he can make the decision by himself, without the interference or the need to be dependent upon another citizen. - thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMUBC_04 Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 -clicked- Prompt: Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction Communication technology has seen an exponential progress in the last decade compared previous decades and centuries. Many may argue that it has reduced the quality of human interaction while others may argue the opposite. What determines whether it has reduced or enhanced it is how one defines the quality of human interaction. If one agrees with the definition of quality human interaction is determined by the requirement of two or more physical human beings who are able to physically sense each other, whether it be seeing or hearing, through no technological medium, then one may argue that it has reduced such the quality significantly. For example, in modern times, one could argue that the majority of communication happens via devices such as cellphones or computers. Therefore, no physical interaction, as previously defined, occurs. In comparison to period of time in which communication did not involve different mediums, such as cellphones, the amount of physical human interaction has decreased significantly. This means that the quality of human interaction has reduced due to the advancements in communication technology. If an individual believes that the quality of human interaction is proportional to the feasibility of communication between two or more individuals and the various ways of communication, he or she would be in agree with the statement that the advancements in communication technology has enhanced the quality of human interaction. For example, currently there is no essentially no limitation to whom one can communicate with. No matter how far away two individuals are, they can communicate over a cell phone. If they wish to see each other while speaking, they can engage in a video call over a cellphone or a computer in a matter of seconds, this of course, is assuming that everyone has a cellphone or access to a computer. If you compare this to times where cellphone or computer communication did not exist. In which an individual could not contact whoever they desired to communicate with, it is clear that communication advancement have enhanced the quality of human interaction. The advancement in communication technology is always in progress. The availability of medium to communicate through are always getting faster and more people are having access to these mediums. What determines whether the quality of human interaction is being enhanced or reduced depends on how you define the quality of human interaction. Therefore one can view the constant advancements in communication technology as either constantly enhancing human interaction or reducing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BourdonBee Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 (Clicked On Water) The surest way to political success is to offer hope to the voters. Hope is a powerful tool, and if a politician can inspire hope, he will gain adamant followers. With adamant followers supporting and voting for a politician success can be anticipated. In 1963 John F. Kennedy made an influential speech entitled "Ich bin ein Berliner". It gave hope to West Berliners, who lived inside East Germany and feared occupation. Kennedy applauded the Berliners for their ideological stand that even though a wall was erected to contain them no man could build a wall that would contain their beliefs. This offered hope to Berliners as well as other countries fighting against the establishment of communist governments. Kennedy's speech was a morale boost because it let the Berliners know that they were not alone in their struggle to maintain democratic government and that their efforts and struggles were acknowledged by the world. Kennedy inspired hope to the people of Berlin. While politician may see dramatic result when they inspire hope, if that hope is not actualized it can be a politician's downfall. The surest way to political disaster is to offer unfulfilled hope. President Obama took the world by storm by promising health care for all. This is a hope that has not seen fruition. The United States is now facing a financial crisis with Obama's promise of health for all becoming increasingly unrealistic. If Obama had delivered health care to the United States his term would have been hailed as a success. Due to Obama being unable to deliver what he promised the adamant followers that Obama had garnered are dwindling. When politicians don't actualize their promises voters can feel a sense of betrayal and start to believe that particular politician does not possess the capabilities or does not have the integrity required. When voters don't believe in the leaders of their country they select different leaders. Offering hope will gain you followers, but it will not maintain those followers unless you can maintain that hope by delivering on those promises. John F. Kennedy continued to delivered hope, but Obama has thus far been unable to deliver. While hope is an effective strategy it is not an end. Action must be taken. Hope is powerful tool in a politicians hand, but it is a double edged weapon that must be used with care. Political success is achieved by delivering on the hope that was offered. While political disaster is achieved by offering hope unfulfilled. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdincale Posted August 22, 2011 Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 -Clicked! Prompt: Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services. This implies that in some capacity the government controls how the companies provides it services. A clear example of this would in the United States healthcare system. In this system the government requires that all patients, regardless of financial status, must receive emergency care upon admission to the emergency depart. The government has a responsibility to impose this guideline because if hospitals where allowed to function autonomously, they might instate a policy which requires payment first. This could lead to death in some cases where a patient does not have the means to pay. In contrast to the above service, one necessary service that has no death related consequences is telephone communication. This service is required because people need to be in-contact with each other for work or personal reasons. The government does not need to regulate the quality of the service because the free market conditions in which the company offers it services allows for competition. Therefore if one company offered poor voice quality, consumers could just switch to another. This health care system cannot offer the same type of competition because if you are injured and show up to a hospital emergency department, you cannot always go to another hospital in a timely manner. Overall governments have a responsibility to regulate a company if it provides services that are life saving, like a hospital, because poor business practices can lead to death. It does not need to regulate a company if there is competition because this competition will lead to best service possible being offered by the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm1234 Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 - clicked on food - Prompt: Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representations to all the people Politicians are usually of a good socio-economic standing and are well respected by most of the people they encounter. Even though they’ve been elected by citizens as a representative of their views, their higher financial status does not allow for the bridging of their views and that of their fellow citizens. For instance, a politician living in a reputed neighbourhood with a stable family and economic conditions will find it difficult to understand the problems faced by homeless people seeking shelter, will be unable to gauge the power of facilities such as food banks on their users or the difficulties faced by AIDS victims in getting incorporated into society and being accepted by their family and friends. The politician can make intellectual assumptions of the problems faced by the impoverished, but he won’t be a fair representative as he hasn’t experienced such tough life conditions himself. However, there are a few examples from history of individuals who have succeeded at representing their people despite their financial standing. Abraham Lincoln, despite being at a reputable and well paid post as a president, he understood the problems and difficulties of slavery faced by African Americans. He supported their movement in fighting for their civil rights and abolished slavery. Mahatma Gandhi, who belonged to a well-to-do family and originally lived in South African, moved back to his native country India. His move was solely catalyzed by this need to represent and assist his fellow people in overthrowing the British rule over India. These politicians besides being wealthy represented their people and assisted them in overcoming their problems and difficulties. A politician’s fair representation of people depends on the individual and not on his financial standing. Politician`s need to motivate themselves to try to understand the problems of people and put themselves in their shoes, as Lincoln and Gandhi did. Politicians, who are to self-absorbed and not willing to take out the time to understand the problematic situations, will not be a fair representative to the people despite their socio-economic status. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm1234 Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 - clicked on water - Prompt: In a free society, laws must be subject to change. Evolution is an essential part of nature, be it evolution of organisms or evolution of a society. In order to meet changing requirements of a society, the laws must be changed accordingly. The crime rate for instance, has increased drastically in metropolitan cities and this increase demands for a change in the crime enforcement laws and tactics. Advances in technology have given rise to certain crimes that did not exist 20 years ago. Cyber crimes such as identity theft, targeting and attacking young children via online chat rooms etc have forced a change in the crime enforcement laws so they can tackle such situations. However, the creationist theory of all organisms being perfect and existing in the same form as they did thousands of years ago can be used to counteract the above statement. If a country is working on unchanged laws is developing and prospering, that is it`s law`s are perfect as they are, there is no need to change the laws. This country is a free society, but doesn`t need to change its laws unnecessarily. Why bother fixing something that doesn`t need to be fixed. Thus, the changing of laws in a free society is contingent upon the present situations in society. If a change in present situations is inflicting harm on the fellow citizens of the society, then this demands a change of laws to deal with problem. However, if there is no change in conditions or if situations change for the benefit of the people, laws don’t require a change, as the unaltered laws don’t seem to be neglecting or harming anyone. Thanks again for doing this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.