PastaInhaler Posted August 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Clicked - Thank you so much for taking out the time to do this! Prompt: Education comes not from books but from practical experience Education is a learning process that enables us to gain knowledge and perform the relevant tasks. However, the source of education and of the learning process can be either books or practical experience. When a job or profession entails the use of skills to perform a task, practical experience is essential to learn and display expertise. For instance, a student in training to be a pilot will need books to study the physics, aerodynamics etc involved in flying. However the practical experience of learning to fly a plane gives the pilot skills to master their profession. Appropriate steps required during a dangerous situation can only be learned by physically flying a plane and not by studying and memorizing the appropriate strategies. In times of stress when prompt decision making skills are required, skills learned from hands on experience rather than skills learned from a book are better recalled. Thus education is gained from the numerous flight trips and simulator sessions taken by the student, that enables him to learn how to fly and take the appropriate steps in critical situations. However, it could be argued that books provide the basic knowledge and build the foundation to any profession. For example a medical student cannot learn the anatomy and physiology of the human body by trial and error on a patient. The books provide information required to understand how the body functions and that will enable the medical student to take the relevant steps when treating patient. Thus, in order to master the art of healing and curing, the student needs to know the fundamental processes and physiology of a human, which comes from books. Education could come from a variety of different sources and picking one source as the sole provider of knowledge is not plausible. Different professions require different sources. In order to master the skill of flying and gaining experience to deal with critical situations requires practical experience. On the contrary, when a profession requires a strong foundation built by the knowledge of relevant details and mechanisms, books are apt at providing education. You're welcome, glad to help. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Some issues with depth and integration. Adequate control of language. The first task was sufficient, but could be much more compelling. Usually, most flights don't yield urgent and dangerous situations. And if there is a disaster situation, the co-pilot can consult the operations manual. You will need to take a different approach to this argument. Focus on another aspect of flying, such as getting a feel for the acceleration of getting the plane to speed, flight paths, and safe operation. Flying the plane smoothly, maintaining the systems, understanding the instrument panels, etc., all require hands-on experience. Flight hours are important, you will need to explore this, as well as why they are so important. How is the process of learning different here? When a dangerous situation does occur, why is flight hours so much more important? The second task was sufficient, but you will need to elaborate more. Perhaps if you narrowed the argument a bit and referred to a specific example, you could strengthen that argument more. Why is book learning for a medical student more feasible than a comparable hands-on training? Is there more information that a medical student can process with books? Is information processing faster? Are facts easier to learn through rote memorization from books and notes? These are some of the things you will need to address in the essay. The final task was sufficient, but could be enhanced a little bit. Perhaps, you could argue from a different angle. Is book learning more important at a different stage to learning? I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Clicked! Thanks so much! Prompt:Successful politicians are motivated more by practical considerations than moral values Successful politicians are often the ones who are motivated by practical considerations rather than moral values. When they are confronted with a problem, they approach the issue pragmatically and address the problem in a practical manner, taking all the necessary steps required to fix the situations. Sometimes, this means that some of the ideals and moral values they initially carried into the office take a back seat to the necessary practical actions that are needed to solve the problem. Especially when the politician's jurisdiction faces an urgent crisis, their practical manner of handling the situation ensures that the best result for the greatest number of citizens is attained; this ability to pragmatically solve problems and find the best solution for the greatest number of people is one of the hallmarks of a great and successful politician. During the Communist Revolution in the early 20th century, Lenin proved himself to be a successful politician by addressing the concerns of his people in a practical manner. Fresh after their victory over the former elitist ruling class, Lenin and the rest of the Communists were eager to implement their ideals of publicizing private businesses and spreading wealthy among all people, especially the lower classes who were hungry for food and power. Although the ideal scenario would have been to execute all the moral ideals of the Communist party, Lenin realized that the drastic shift to a centrally planned economy proved to be detrimental to the economy, with centrally commanded economies proving to be less efficient than the previously privatized businesses. As a result, Lenin approached the economic crisis practically and decided that he would need to relinquish some of his Communist morals and values in order to improve the economy and feed his people. Because of his practical considerations, he was able to prevent his country's economy from completely falling apart. On the other hand, there are also successful politicians whose actions are motivated by moral values. These politicians abide by their morals and improve society by using their position of power to perpetuate what in their mind is "right" and "just". In the early 20th century when homosexuality was met with violence and humiliation, one politician dared to challenge society's status quo and share with the world his moral values. His name was Harvey Milk. Although it would be easier and more practical to win office with an anti-homosexual viewpoint, Harvey Milk stuck by his moral values and used his position and voice to improve living conditions and rights for homosexuals. By using his position to promote his moral values and beliefs in equality among all people, Harvey Milk was able to make his state a better place to live in for homosexuals, and paved the way for other politicians to do the same. When, then, are successful politicians motivated by practical considerations, and when are they motivated by moral value? Successful politicians are generally able to effectively adapt their actions to any situation, with practical considerations taking the front seat when the country is having a crisis; on the other hand, moral values are important to improve society when there isn't a crisis. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Some issues with depth. Adequate control of language. The first example lost some coherence. You will need to elaborate further on the moral issues that were overridden in order to appease practical concerns. Exactly, what was so wrong with Lenin's economic plan? It seems that Lenin cared about his people and their needs. You will need to take a different approach to explaining how practicality was emphasized over moral values. The second example was sufficient. However, the third task will have to be explained a bit better and in more detail. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Clicked! Prompt: An understanding of the past if necessary for solving the problems of the present This statement represents one of the fundamental principles of learning which is learning by example. This type of learning has its benefits and its fall backs. One clear benefit is that if a new problem arises that has the same elements as a problem that has arose in the past less time has to be spent thinking of a solution because a well established one already exists. A clear example would be mathematics, if you wanted to find the length of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle while knowing the adjacent and opposite side length you would use the hypotenuse theorem. This is an example of a problem with clear elements that can be "plugged" into a strategy to get a solution. If you did not know this theorem it could take a long time to derive it from other principles, or you might not be able to solve it all. A situation where an understanding of the past is not needed to solve a problem would be when a problem arises that have novel elements which have not been accounted for before. A good example would be during WWI. This was the first war fought with tanks and artillery, thus generals were unsure of how to lead soldiers into battle. At first they attempted to revert to the old ways of fighting trench warfare where soldiers would just run out and attack the opposing trench. However this lead to many deaths because the automatic gun fire could easily eliminate the threat. This example amplifies the fact that not only was a knowledge of the past not required but rather it seriously harmed the ability for generals to solve the problem of winning. One could theorize that if they had not fought in that manner in previous wars the generals would have developed more appropriate means to attack and many lives would have been save. In conclusion, the need for past knowledge in solving problems of today depends entire on the novelty of the problem. If the problem is a clear cut replication of something that has happened in the past that is easily fit into a formula, like a math problem, then prior knowledge greatly accelerates problem solving. However if a novel problem arises that has novel elements, prior knowledge of a similar problem doesn't really help solve it and might even be detrimental. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Some issues with complexity. Adequate control of language. The first example, while sufficient, is quite limited. The underlying task is to take a historical approach to exploring the issues. Therefore, you may wish to focus on the historical development of the theorem. You may also wish to talk about mathematical ideas in general and how they develop through time. Perhaps, certain mathematical ideas in the present can be modelled after those of past mathematicians. The second example was sufficient. Task#3 was sufficient. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 Clicked again Prompt: Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please the voters, not on what is best for the country. Politicians will often make a decision in order please the voters which will ultimately lead to voter support. This voter support can be used to win elections. However, these decisions can be detrimental for a country. A clear example of this is the promise not to raise taxes. A lot of politicians, from Steven Harper to John McCain, have election platforms which revolve around keeping taxes low, or cutting taxes. This is very appealing to the voters because it means more money in their pockets. However this can be detrimental to the country since it needs money to operate things like schools and hospitals. In opposition to this, sometimes decisions need to have the good of the country at their core goal rather than voter approval. An example of this would be cutting government funded programs in order to reducing spending and help reduce deficit in a country. This was at the heart of recent debates in the USA house of commons because they needed to reduce the deficit. The cutting of the programs are not viewed favourably by the public because this means they have less access to services for free, however it help the country in the longer term because it has more free capital to pay debts. In conclusion, politicians should only make decisions that have voter support as their core goal only if the result of them getting the support of the voters will allow them to be elected and than use the power gained to do something that benefits the country. This could be promising lower taxes during their election campaign to get voter support, then eventually cutting social programs during their term to ensure the country will not have large amounts of debt. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Some issues with clarity and depth. Adequate control of language. You will need to explore the initial themes in more depth as well as examples in task#1 and task#2. For task#3, you will also need to explore the idea in more depth. It may be best to take some time out at the end to review the essay for grammatical mistakes. There were some issues with sentence structure and run-on sentences that made your points hard to follow. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 - 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. You're welcome, glad to help. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. For the first example, you will need to elaborate more on why television was more influential than any other medium such as the internet. Why is television so much more effective in that case against competing media like video websites, like youtube, or fashion forums. Also, you will need to emphasize public opinion more in your essay. The second example was sufficient. The third task was sufficient as well. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 - 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. The first example was sufficient. The example for task#2 may not be entirely sufficient. The example doesn't fit well with the intent of the second task. Describe a specific situation in which citizens in a democracy might justifiably not be dependent upon one another. Dependence is irrelevant for your example. You will need to think of something that someone may do that would not depend on another person. Is there anything innately individualistic in democratic society? Though, your example may be correct, but you will have to revise your argument to better reflect how wearing a hajib does not rely on the support of other hajib wearers, or something along those lines. Either way, you will need to explore the nature of dependence in a democratic society. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2011 -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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. Some issues with clarity and depth. Adequate control of language. You have failed to refer to the second part of the prompt regarding the newspaper editorial. The essay seems to focus too much on cultural influences of television than the revealing of a nation through TV shows, or a newspaper editorial. For task#2, you are to: Describe a specific situation in which a popular television show might not reveal more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper would. Task#3 also was not adequately accomplished: Discuss what you think determines whether or not a popular television show reveals more about a nation than the editorial page of a newspaper does. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLM/NOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 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! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Some issues with clarity and depth of thought. Some issues with integration and organization. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. Some issues with responding to the tasks. For the first paragraph, it may be best to illustrate your argument by presenting one example, and fully exploring and explaining the idea behind it. Task#2 was not adequately addressed, and the example in the second paragraph does not accurately: describe a specific situation in which a government might not have a responsibility to regulate a company that provides a necessary service to citizens. Task#3 was adequate, but begins to lose focus. It is not a good strategy to introduce new examples and ideas in the arbitration step. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLM/NOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Some issues with integration and organization. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. The first argument was a bit harder to follow. You will need to establish whether the Dalai Lama is an elected political official or not. Your argument seems to point to him being unelected. It would be best to argue from the perspective of a person who is a political official as opposed to the drawbacks of someone who is unelected. Otherwise, the two other tasks are fine. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 -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. You're welcome, glad to help out. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. Good examples. Task#1 and #2 are sufficient. You would best accomplish task#1 by emphasizing the human side of corporations and politicians. CEOs want to keep their boards happy and investors happy. Their investors invest to make money. Profit is important and being self-less will affect their profit. Self-interest will help their profits, etc. You may wish to explore the selfless aspect of the Engineers Without Boarders example. Are the engineers and volunteers being selfless in someway? Are they making a sacrifice? How do sacrifices related to self-interest? Are they opposites? You may wish to revise task#3. The needs vs. want rule may be okay, but there is another way of arbitrating here. Largely, it depends on who you are talking about: corporations/politicians, or charities and non-profits. Needs vs. want is a good strategy, but even corporations can make money off people's need of water, food, shelter, jobs, and education. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 -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 Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Adequate control of language. The tasks are sufficiently completed. It would be best to take some time out at the end to re-read your essay, checking for mechanical errors. These are some of the largest impediments to flow. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 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. You're welcome, glad to help. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Ideas are well developed. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. Adequate control of language. Good examples. In paragraph one, you may wish to delete the rhetorical question since the wording is awkward: "since for what purpose would one own a business if not to make money?" Also, you may wish to explore some of the possible consequences of Apple not focussing their efforts on maximizing profits. Tasks#2 and #3 are well-done. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQ/RST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 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? You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. The word count of this essay is 669 words. This length is sufficient for a great score. However, quality counts more than quantity to a degree. You must write well, but also enough to thoroughly explore your points. Responds to tasks in a superior manner. Ideas are substantially developed. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. Ideas presented in a unified and coherent fashion. Your examples are sufficient in illustrating and supporting your points. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQR/ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 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! Je vous en prie. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Adequate control of language. It may be best not to introduce a new example in the final paragraph, but mention George W. Bush in the first paragraph where it would be most fitting. The line: "however, this is not always the best method for garnering votes." should be deleted. Other than that, the other tasks were sufficient. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 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. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. The essay would benefit from your definition and illustration of 'skills' and 'values.' You may wish to explore the prompt a little more in the first paragraph. You will have to further clarify how a CEO is educated in values, and how he uses these values to bring about success in business. Also, try to be specific about a couple of particular values and not talk about values in general. Task#3 was sufficient. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 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! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. The examples you used are sufficient, however the essay may benefit from more specific examples for paragraph#1 and paragraph#2. Task#3 is sufficient. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 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! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner, with some focus and utility. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. You may wish to outline the outcome of the wall and Germany. You may also explain what hope is and what it means to have hope. Why is it important, and why is it important that politicians specifically need to instill it in their people? The second example was good. The final task was sufficient as well. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 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. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner with some focus. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. The examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. They can however, be a little more specific which will make for more compelling arguments. Task#3 was sufficient, but you have to remain focussed on your arbitration. When you describe phone companies in the final paragraph, you went off track a little bit, adding a secondary idea to your primary rule that arbitrates the two examples. Try to stick to the one you've created: whether the company's services are life-saving. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 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 You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Some issues with organization. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. However, the essay can seem unbalanced by having two specific counter-examples, and having a general example for the first task. It will be best if you removed the Lincoln example, then take the Gandhi example and expand on it so that you add more depth to your argument and your essay. The final task was sufficient, but there may be a stronger rule of arbitration given your examples. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 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! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. For the first example, it may be best if you took one of the cyber crimes and expanded upon it covering its implications in-depth. Perhaps, you could also come up with a specific example for task#2. Could you name a specific county, or geographic region where the laws in place are sufficient, and the town is prospering? This will strengthen your point. Task#3 was sufficient. Although it is a unique approach to incorporate analogies into your essay, at times it can be a little distracting. So, it would not be a good idea to utilize this technique until you have time to sufficiently explore what the analogy means and you are able to introduce the analogy properly. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Clicked. And thank you In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen A politician is also just a member of the population and often those who are successful politicians will resemble the ordinary citizen of a democratic nation. A democratic nation is one in which every citizen has a say in the running of their country, often through a voting system. The success of a politician is reliant on the extent to which he or she manages to convey his/her messages and achieve his/her political agenda. An ordinary citizen in a country is a non-politician who does not have power in their hands to actually implement their political desires. One example of a successful politician who resembled the ordinary citizen was Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the Indian National Congress. He played an essential role in the revolution for India's independence from British East India rule in 1947. He used non-violent civil disobedience to protest the British rule. One of his methods of protesting the British power was to advocate using personal spinning wheels to make garments to wear, in order to cut down on economic gain by the British. He did not just advocate doing this, but he himself practiced it for many years, wearing a simple garment out of yarn that he had hand-spun. Unlike many other politicians, he also did not separate himself from the ordinary citizen through means such as luxury, or extra security. Instead he had a very simple lifestyle that was like that of an ordinary Indian at that time, in spite of the fact that he was educated and was also a lawyer. In this way, Gandhi 'practiced what he preached', lived side by side with his fellow protesters - ordinary citizens - with the lifestyle of a commoner, and shared the same political goals with his subjects. His success is apparent in the fact that India was freed from colonial rule in 1947. On the other hand, some successful politicians do not resemble the ordinary citizen. One example would be Iran's Mahmoud Ahmedijanab, whose success can be seen in the fact that he is running the Republic in a manner that he deems fit, in spite of both local and international calls for reform. He has also been elected to power twice, to the great dissatisfaction of the majority of the Irani population. Ahmedinejab does not resemble the ordinary citizen in that his wishes and their wishes differ greatly in most issues of economic and social importance to the country. In fact, he disregards the rights of the ordinary citizens of Iran, and has often been known to imprison those who speak up against him, thus denying them their freedom of speech. In these ways and others, Ahmedinejab, who is a successful politician in that he is running the country according to his own political agenda, does not resemble the ordinary citizen, in their views or lifestyle, as Gandhi had. Thus, a successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen in a democracy when both politician and citizen are striving towards the same common goal. In the first example, Gandhi and his followers were both protesting against the British rule of India and working towards an independent India. In the second example, Ahmedinejab opposes general citizens' wishes in most of his decisions, such as his disregard for human rights, the gas rationing plan that he launched and his support for a nuclear energy program. Thus, a successful politician may or may not resemble the ordinary citizen, depending on if their political agenda matches the will of the citizens in the country. This essay was already posted, post#587. Please do not double post your essays. http://www.premed101.com/forums/showpost.php?p=622179&postcount=587 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Clicked again! Advancement in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction. Advancements in technology have been phenomenal in our world today and it has come to the point where we cannot live without the internet, or our Blackberry. On the downside, advancements in communication technology have in face reduced the quality of human interaction. Advancements in communication technology in essence involves progressing towards a world in which we are all better connected to each other. Hence, the Blackberry Messenger which allows for people to stay in touch no matter where they are and no matter what the time. The quality of human interaction has been reduced in the sense that often with these technological gadgets, we cannot convey our real emotions through our facial expressions and hand gestures. Even though we now have video calling technology, it cannot mirror an in-person interaction because of many reasons, such as not being able to touch one another or see entire body movements, etc. One example of an advancement in communication technology that has decreased the quality of human interaction is the phenomenon of matrimonial or dating sites on the World Wide Web. In conventional dating situations, two people will normally meet, and get to see what their partner actually looks like, what kind of clothes they wear, the smell of their perfume, the sound of their voice, any odd or likable habits they have, etc. However, on dating sites, a person looking to get involved can exhibit themselves in any way they want, even falsify their personality. When two people start talking to each other online, they miss out on all the things that a real dating experience can give. In this way, although dating sites have been able to come about due to the advancement of the internet, they have undermined the dating experience for many. On the other hand, it can also be argued that advancements in communication technology have improved the quality of human interaction. During the days of the world wars, families would separate and if lucky, they would be able to keep in touch by mail. Even then, receipt of mails sent was uncertain, not to mention the lengthy process involved. Today, families that separate when a member is deployed for military duty outside the country can keep in touch regularly, conveniently and with more certainty compared to a time before the internet was widely in use. This has resulted in improving the quality of human interaction because now, families can keep in touch more often and therefore, familial ties can be strengthened and maintained. What determines the effect that technological advancements have had on human interaction is the way things would be in the case of particular events had that technology not existed. In the first example with dating sites versus conventional in-person dating, dating sites have made the experience of dating a lot more impersonal and untrustworthy because the person you read about or chat with online may be very different from their real-life persona. Therefore, had the dating sites not existed and people using them were obliged to go on real dates, the quality of human interaction would substantially be greater. In the second example with families separating in war times and being able to keep in touch faster and more efficiently because of the internet, in the absence of the internet, they would not be able to maintain and strengthen their family ties as well using snail mail. Therefore, by comparing how things were in the case of particular events prior to and after the advancement of technology, we can say whether or not the technology has reduced the quality of human interaction. Therefore, specific scenarios would have to be analyzed in order to make a judgement. Double post http://www.premed101.com/forums/showpost.php?p=622180&postcount=588 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 ..............................................Post#656 Clickage! Thanks again. Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction. … Our era has been termed the "Technological Revolution." Advancements in all areas of life are fundamentally altering how we interact with the world. Developments in communications between humans radically has radically changed from the face-to-face speech or handwritten notes of our ancestors to the e-mails, text messages, and Facebook posts of today. However, as with any significant change in the human experience, a conflict has erupted concenring the benefits of this progression in communication. Many decry these new technologies as defacing the uniqueness of human interaction. For example, text messaging is commonly attacked by these "humanists" as an impersonal, synthetic, emoticon-poisened form of communication compared to normal speech. The media is constantly publishing stories about teens becoming obsessed with constantly texting their friends and missing out on the experience of real human interaction. Text messages fail to convey the smaller messages that a certain change in tone, a flutter of the eyes, or a positioning of the body can express. The humanists believe that this is just another aspect of humanity that is losing its authenticity in the face of artificiality. "Technologists," however, will argue the opposite: that human interaction has, in face been substantially benefitted by these new communications tools. For instance, the advent of social media services such as Facebook and Twitter has affected a revolution in the sharing of information, thoughts, and feelings in the most efficient way possible. It is not only younger people but also an older demographic that is discovering new ways of keeping in touch with friends for a lifetime. Distance may no longer limit the ties of friendship, these technologists argue. With the majority of American citizens now carrying a mobile device in their pockets everywhere they go, miscommunication is eradicated. Soldiers in Afghanistan may see their families at home grow up; children sick in the hospital may have a virtual presence in the classroom; and those long-distance relationships no longer seem so impractical. Arguments on both sides of the humanist/technologist debate have their merits. Fundamentally, I believe the most important indicator of healthy human interaction is a truly emotional experience. The human experience is based on feelings; your brain's ability to maintain a representation of a person's character relies on the emotional imprint they left on you. Replacing real human interaction with a technological facade, such as having an "Internet persona," subtracts from the human experience of expressing one's self to others. Utilizing communication technologies to further develop relationships with others is a boon to the need for societal interaction. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. Examples for task#1 and #2 are fine. I think you should adopt a different style, and make the arguments your own and not those of humanists or technologists. The WS is a measurement of how you reason things out and it is not so fitting that you present opposing views from others then step in to offer your opinion. Task#3 was not adequately completed. You failed to describe how one can arbitrate whether technology improves or hinders the quality of human interaction. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 ..............................................Post#657 -Clicked on education-Thank you so much for your help Political freedoms are best appreciated in those countries where they do not exist. Chetan Bhagat was correct when he said that people do not value what they have. He meant to say that if a person has not struggled to get something, he/she won’t consider is as valuable. Right to vote can be considered as political freedom, which unfortunately is not enjoyed by everyone in this world. People from democratic country may not understand the importance of this freedom, while the opposite is true in countries where rulers are not elected by people. Rulers or king can be cruel and they make their own laws without consulting to public, so they understand that if they had the right to vote then, they would have chosen better leader for them. One such example is the king of Burma, named Junta who has been found to violate human rights in his country. Burma doesn’t have democracy and king’s successor will take over his position after him. People of Burma consider them unlucky and believe that if they had the right to choose their leaders, then things would have been different and value the freedom of vote. Right to vote is also valued in the country where this right already exist. For instance, in the state of Gujarat, in India only 60% of the Muslim people showed up for voting. Muslim people were target in the riots of 2002 in Gujarat as they were the minority, and these riots were supported by the chief minister of the state, Narendra Modi. After the riots of 2002, Muslims in Gujarat realized the importance of voting and in election of 2005 almost 90% of the Muslims showed up for the voting. They appreciated the freedom of right to vote and thought that in order to prevent something like this from happening in future, they need to raise their voice and choose a better leader. It is hard to say that political freedoms are not appreciated where they already exist. Regret of not being able to choose the leader determines the appreciation of these rights in country where it does not exist while an unpleasant experience with government determines the appreciation of these rights where they already exist. People of Burma value it because they can’t choose their leader, while Muslims in Gujarat value it because injustice had been done to them. After considering these scenarios, Chetan Bhagat may be forced to put an exception in what he said about people who do not value what they have. You're welcome, glad to provide assistance. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Ideas are somewhat developed. Errors in mechanics and usage. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. But, it would be helpful to clarify who Chetan Bhagat is to the grader. The final task was also sufficient. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 ..............................................Post#658 -Clicked!- Thanks again! So helpful when TPR is not working. In politics, the most popular course of action is usually the correct course of action. Describe a specific political situation in which the most popular course of action might not be the correct course of action. Discuss what you think determines when the most popular course of action will be the correct course of action. The role of a democratic government is to serve its citizens as best it can. The decisions made by the government should be in the best intentions of its public so as to fulfill this duty. When a government carries out a new action plan or law, it should be to the benefit of the greater part of the population. They should be looking to the needs and wants of the citizens and basing their actions off of that. The plans most supported by the public will be the ones that most benefit or suit their current needs. This means that the most popular course of action is usually the correct course of action for the government to take. Take for example, the Canada Health Act. This act states that all Canadians have access to medical care. Almost all Canadians would agree that free health care is important and highly beneficial to them. The creation of this act was highly popular because it addressed a certain need of the Canadians and therefore was the correct course of action to take. If the Canada Health Act did not have a lot of support it would most likely be because it was not deemed important in Canadian lives and so would be unlikely to be the correct course of action. On the other hand, there do come situations in which the most popular course of action is not the correct one. In a situation when the safety of citizens is endangered by the popular opinion, it is the government’s responsibility to go against the popular opinion. In 1970 in Quebec, Canada, two government officials were kidnapped by the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ). The Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau used the War Measures Act and had the widespread deployment of Canadian troops throughout Quebec. During this time, civil rights of citizens were disbanded and some police misconduct was reported, leading to criticism of the actions of the government. Due to the extreme acts of the government though, one of the hostages was safely returned home. This shows that although the public was not strongly in support of the actions of the government in this situation, it was the correct thing to do to ensure safety of certain citizens. If the government had not gone against popular opinion, the hostage may never have returned home safely. When deciding when the best course of action for the government to take it the most supported action, one must determine whether or not the safety of citizens is endangered. If safety is not an issue, it is more often than not that the most popular course of action is the correct one, since it will most accurately address the needs of the public. If though, the most popular action will jeopardize the safety of other citizens, it is not the correct course to make. This is shown by the contrast of the Canadian Health Act and the use of the War Measures Act in 1970. Following through with the Canada Health Act was correct because the support of the public showed that it correctly addressed their current needs. Furthermore, the Health Act had no detrimental action towards the safety of Canadians. The War Measures Act on the other hand was not the most popular course of action, but following the popular vote would have endangered the safety of the hostages taken. Overall, it is the safety of the citizens that is the deciding factor. You're welcome, glad to help. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Ideas are well developed. Evidence of clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Ideas presented in a unified, focussed, and coherent fashion. Strong control of language. Examples are very good. Ideas explained well. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQR/ST 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.