ByrdPac Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 An understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of the present The famous quote, "history repeats itself" implies that events occurring during the past have resurfaced during the modern era. A lesson can be learned from the former civilizations on what methods have already been attempted what was the consequences of those actions, and how the present is affected today and how the future will be effected. Therefore an understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of not only the present of the future as well. Although many political, economic, and social problems have emerged with particular themes from the past. The current war on terror is an example if a current problem which does not require an understanding of the past but rather of the present and predicting what will occur in the future. For example, cyber-terrorism of computer hackers accessing personal information by infiltrating information technology and online servers has caused an increase in the number of identity thefts each year. The hackers have a major advantage at their disposal and that is the fact that cyber-terrorism is a new issue which as recently emerged in the past decade because of the growing use of computers and proliferation of the internet. Understanding the past to completely resolve the issue would not be relevant in this case because of the reality that the issue is unique to the modern era, and is independent of past experiences. Many factors determine whether or not the past can be considered in solving the problems of the present. The factors including background information such as pervious historical events, if certain people where involved in the situation, and if there was a history, or a timeline that lead a current event or crisis to occur. If an event presents itself that is relatively new in human history then looking back at the past would not help solve the issue or issues at hand. Likewise, if an issue were to present itself and it would have the qualities of a pervious problems then the past can be examined to find the faster and most efficient way to resolve the problem. In conclusion when an issue arise, it should be examined to see whether it occurred in the past, or whether it is a new complication and the resolution should come based on its background information. Much appreciated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 ..............................................Post#659 -clicked- (Ripple's idea is awesome. Thanks Pasta) Students should not have a significant role in determining university policy. Describe a specific situation in which students should have a significant role in determining university policy. Discuss what you think determines whether or not students should have a significant role in determining university policy. In the past few years, university students have actively been involved in their university policies. The methods in which students have tried to influence the universities is through large protests, writing in news papers, and by direct conversations with administrative bodies. University policies are rules and regulations that directly or indirectly students such as tuition fees, accommodations for students on campus, services for disabled students, and many more. There are policies that do not need to be affected by students’ opinions, however. For example, consider University of Toronto’s policy on plagiarism. It is a very strict policy; if a student is caught for plagiarism, he or she can face serious consequences that include failing of a course and in some cases, even expulsion from the university. This policy does not need to be influenced by the students because it sets the university’s ethical standard. There are cases, however, that require students to play an important role. Consider, for example, the rising tuition fees in Ontario universities. For the past couple of years, students from various universities have gathered together to protest against the rising fees under the campaign “Drop Fees”. The protests have received local media attention and have put a significant amount of pressure on the government to halt the rise in tuition fees. Therefore, in this situation, students play a significant role in determining the tuition fees and their opinions should be taken into account. To conclude, there are cases where students’ opinions should not influence university policies and cases where their opinions matter. The determining factor is whether or not the policy affects the students’ ability to attend the university. In the first example, the University of Toronto’s plagiarism policy does not need to be influenced by the students because the policy protects the ethical standards of the university and does not hinder a student’s ability to attend the institute. In the second example, however, a rise in tuition greatly affects students’ ability to attend the universities because some families are not able to afford the high cost of post secondary education. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a unified, focussed, and coherent fashion. Adequate control of language. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. You may wish to put universities in a particular context before starting your arguments. What is so important about universities? Are they only about getting an education? If the students do not create policy, who does? Tasks#2 and #3 are 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 ..............................................Post#660 -clicked- twice Thank you so much for doing this and also, for taking up such a great cause! I shall definitely spread the word about this website - thanks again! Prompt 1: Education comes not from books but from practical experience The education of children and adults alike, is a primary concern for most individuals in today's civilized world. Most children are put into formal education at the age of five and a lot of them continue to study until they are well into their thirties. The curriculum of our education is based primarily on education through textbooks and more importantly, applying the textbook education in the real world. Indeed, if rote memorization was all that was required from students, the lack of understanding of major concepts would be quite prevalent. For example, the education system in India is primarily based on encouraging students to memorize blindly from textbooks without giving them any tools to apply these concepts in the real world. Without learning through application and practical experience, students lack the creative, critical and imaginative qualities that are honed in the western countries like Canada. The education system here emphasizes on developing understanding of key concepts at an early age. The emphasis continues well into the university education whereby the laboratory component, for example, in science undergraduate degrees, is made compulsory. By ensuring that students learn through experiments and apply what they learn from textbooks outside of the classroom, their education is not only complete but also of a better quality than one based on rote memorization and regurgitation. However, the application of knowledge cannot always be attained through practical experience but instead needs to be relied solely upon books. For example, when studying the history of a society such as India, it would be difficult to incorporate experiments or applications that would enhance a student's understanding of the concepts such as 'ahimsa' and in fact, it would rather be unnecessary. Similarly, when studying the philosophy of Sigmund Freud, the textbooks are major resource for learning about his ideas and conclusions regarding the human psychology and subconcious motivations. In such cases, Freud's own writings and other auther's books that comment on his writings are one's sole resource for educating oneself in the philosophy upon which his concepts were built. Through books, one can learn the events that took place in the past and how they shaped the society we have today. Therefore, the defining factor in whether one's education is better achieved through books or practical experience depends on the nature of the education one intends to achieve. In the field of science, the practical experience comes through compulsory laboratory components in one's high school and undergraduate years, co-op terms that can be affiliated with a student's program and one's own curiosity for applying what is learned in books in the real world. On the other hand, when studying history, philosophy or sociology, practical experience fails to help develop the knowledge one hopes to attain in these areas. In such fields, books are one's main resource for the historic events or key ideas that were developed in the past. The study of these ideas and events in books then helps one to understand the society we live in today. Only one essay per post please. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Ideas are somewhat developed. Some issues with organization. Some issues with depth of thought. The first paragraph included two examples, however, they were useful in putting together your argument. The second paragraph also included two examples, yet they were a bit disjointed. It is often best to choose one example and thoroughly explain it and explore its implications in-depth, before you partake on introducing another example for the same task. It is also best not to change details in the end such as introducing labs in high school in your final paragraph. Also, it is best not to introduce new evidence in the end since it reduces focus. The examples may be relevant, but it creates disorganization. The final task however, was sufficient. Examples are very good. Ideas explained well. 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#663 Thank you so much for your previous reviews of my essays. Clicked! Education comes not from books but from practical experience. Our system of education today starting from pre-school years to university level tries to balance the theoretical and practical acquisition of knowledge. Education, in essence, is learning about our world, scientifically and historically, and human development, biologically and culturally, through specific subjects such as the sciences, mathematics and psychology, to name but a few. Our learning can come from theoretical knowledge passed on by experts in a certain topic, most often via the written word, that is, in books. Or, it can come from practical experience that we ourselves gain when we are exposed to the situation we are learning about. An example of the latter is the education of a researcher of science. Although a researcher will have had a basic understanding of the scientific arena they are in, when it comes down to actual experimentation, they cannot learn from textbooks only but rather, must learn from practical experience. They have to see for themselves how to do a PCR and run a gel; they must make mistakes and see their experiments go awry in order to learn from them and they must resort to trial and error in order to find the best ways to achieve the required results. Only these practical experiences can teach a researcher how to do research, in a manner that books cannot. However, there is some learning that must be acquired through books, rather than practical experience. For example, when a student of history is learning about a certain historical event, they have to rely on the information presented in books that have been compiled by experts in the topic based on what evidence was left from the event. This is especially the case because it is not possible to relive a historical event in its entirety and learn from it, because of the very essence of historical studies - dealings with the past. The only method, thus, of learning history is through books rather than the practical experience of witnessing the situation that is being learned. Therefore, there are times when education comes from practical experience and times when it comes from books. Whether from books or through practical experience depends on the availability or possibility of obtaining the practical experience. In the first case, it is easy and in fact, in the very nature of a researcher's role, to obtain practical experience in conducting research. Hence, their education comes primarily from practical experience. On the other hand, in the case of a student of history who cannot re-live the moments in history because they have passed already, the student must rely on textbook information to learn about and analyze the events of interest. To sum it up, practical experience is conducive to learning in cases where it is possible to obtain such, and when it is not possible to obtain practical experience, we resort to relying on books. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. The prompt is meant to be one-sided, and therefore, your explanation of it should be one-sided as well. You may wish to elaborate more on what PCR and running a gel is. A staple to any geneticist's bench work is the polymerase chain reaction... It is a difficult, but necessary technique to master and will require years of practice to become proficient. A researcher may spend many long hours running repeated PCRs carefully honing pipetting skills to ensure accurate concentrations of ingredients are used. Performing a good PCR requires that the researcher pays special attention to very particular details such as DNA fragility, DNA concentrations, primer construction, freezing conditions, and salt concentrations. The ability to master these fine details is what leads to a successful PCR, and it requires sufficient practice and many long bench work hours... The second example is sufficient, but you may wish to zero in on a particular area of history, such as the history of wars, history of science, history of philosophy. Otherwise, you may wish to zero in on history taught at a particular educational institution, or the training of a historian. Be cautious of using flowery language to try to improve your score. If the writing is awkward or unnatural, the AAMC grader will be able to pick up on it straight away. It most cases, it is better to be clear, but concise as opposed to flowery. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKhan33 Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Hi, I would be very thankful if you read over my essay. And what you're doing to help people, and encouraging others to do so is amazing! -clicked- Health care for all is a realistic goal. Describe a specific situation in which health care for all might not be a realistic goal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal. Healthcare is a universal goal for all citizens. It provides security to families in their time of need and ensures that they receive the best care. Without it, most families, without medical insurance, cannot even afford the ride to the hospital. People are constantly in car accidents, getting cancer, having heart attack and too many other problems to names. It is necessary for people to have medical assistance, considering the increasing amount of illnesses. The documentary, Sicko, was created to show the world what life is like without health care. It revolves around people who do not have medical insurance, and due to the lack of health care, cannot afford to get their many ailments taken care of. One man was featured who has accidentally sawed off three fingers on his left hand. This included his ring finger. It would have been realistic for this man to hope that all three of his fingers could be reattached. However, due to the lack of healthcare he was unable to pay for all three fingers; therefore, he ad to pick one. Being married, he picked his ring finger so he would be able to wear his wedding ring. If healthcare was given to the citizens of America, that man would still have three fingers and many other people would have received proper treatment. When President Obama was elected, promised that he would bring healthcare to the citizens of the United States. This shows that everyone is aware that this is not an unrealistic goal, it just has not happened yet. If the government was not in a ridiculous amount of debt due to their presence in the Middle East, this goal might have been achieved. Health care is necessary for people in western or European countries, because these citizens are aware of their government being able to provide it. However, in third world countries such as Tanzania or Somalia, healthcare is a far off hope. People of these countries do not live in the same luxury as us. They do not even have luxury to hope for things such as healthcare. They have the bare minimum when it come to almost anything. When someone is ill, they will most likely not receive medicine and if they are able to, it most likely will not be enough. There are far too many poverty stricken people in these countries for the unstable government to take care of. If the US still has not given their citizens healthcare, how can the government of these countries achieve that? For third world countries, health care is a far off hope. If the government of a country is strong and has the necessary amenities to provide health care for its people, then they should. Because, it is the government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens, since it was these citizens that chose them in the first place. Especially in Western countries, the government should be able to do so. Countries such as the United States, are highly industrialized, have good international relations and have one of the highest production rates in the world. The citizen pay their taxes, follow the rules laid out by the government and therefore, in return, should receive health care. It is not at all an unrealistic goal. However, third world countries do not consist of very strong governments. They are not industrialized, have very low economic growth and contain too many poverty stricken areas to take care of. People of these countries most likely do not even know the concept of health care and that many people have it. To them, health care is unreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 ..............................................Post#664 Clicked again! Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated. Our knowledge of science would have come to a standstill if our human desire to discover were to run dry. As humans, we are progressing every minute and at the core of our progress is scientific inquiry, that is, asking the right questions and seeking their answers through rigorous, meticulous experimentation. Today, we would not have known what we know about diseases today had it not been for Louis Pasteur's desire to discover which he turned into years of scientific inquiry to learn about micro-organisms. And we would not know what we know about gravity had it not been for Newton's desire to discover and his numerous experiments. However, pursuit of science posing a threat to human life may not be tolerated under most circumstances. We have many institutions in place to regulate the extent to which a discoverer can experiment in fields that can affect humans. One such example is Health Canada, the body responsible for approving clinical trials to be conducted. When a new pharmaceutical product has been created, it must be tested on humans to learn more about its effects in order to improve on it or simply to confirm that it is safe enough to launch commercially. However, no matter how important this drug may be - even if it is the cure to AIDS, which has the potential to save millions of lives worldwide - the FDA will still ensure that there is no threat to human life. This is because no matter how important the discovery, the purpose of the drug is to save a life and starting clinical trials without knowing about its dangers could potentially pose a threat to human life, which would be contradictory to the basic purpose of the drug - saving lives. Therefore, a discovery that is a threat to human life will not be tolerated in this case. On the other hand, if we look at the example of Barry Marshall, one of the two researchers who dedicated years to show the world that the H. Pylori bacterium, rather than stress, causes stomach ulcers, we see that he himself posed a threat to his own life for the sake of scientific discovery. When the scientific society was unconvinced by their hypothesis, he decided to drink the bacteria himself in order to get stomach ulcers and he used antibiotics to cure the ulcers and therefore, prove his hypothesis in a human subject - himself. In this case, the subject being affected by the research (Barry Marshall himself) knew what he was doing and the dangers of his situation, and still did it willingly. Therefore, in some cases scientific discovery may require posing a threat to human life. In this case, Marshall proved that he was correct and ultimately, won the Nobel Prize along with his colleague Warren. In conclusion, it is not usually okay to pose a danger to human life for the sake of scientific inquiry because the purpose of science is progression of human society and any danger to human society is a contradiction to this purpose. In the first case, we see how institutions such as Health Canada rigorously monitor pharmaceutical companies seeking approval for a clinical trial of a new drug, in order to ensure that it is completely safe to the participants of the trial. This shows that we do not tolerate scientific inquiries that may be dangerous to humans. On the other hand, Barry Marshall chose to risk his life in order to prove and subsequently, found the cure for stomach ulcers, relieving a great social and economic burden since this is a very common condition. It may therefore be said that as long as the human subject that may be affected the scientific inquiry has full knowledge of the consequences of the experimentation and willingly chooses to take part in it, then it is alright to proceed with the inquiry. It must be mentioned that only an expert in the relevant field would have "full knowledge" of the consequences. To sum up, scientific inquiry that poses a threat to human life should not be allowed to proceed, unless the human subject who will be affected is completely aware of the situation and the consequences. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Evidence of clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Examples are very good. Ideas explained well. You may also wish to show how ulcers can be potentially life-threatening, or how drinking a dish of bacteria that could cause ulcers is potentially life-threatening. 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 ..............................................Post#671 - clicked on water- History is the record of humanity's wars. Describe a specific situation in which history might be the record of something other than humanity's wars. Discuss what you think determines when history should be the record of humanity's wars and when it should be something else. History is composed of several events and the most memorable part of history is humanity wars. A war could be either war with ammunitions and several soldiers fighting a battle, or an individual or a group of people protesting against an entity. Humanity’s war is a war undertaken by people to set up peace and benevolence in society; to preserve the human race. Whether it is the civil war in America to abolish slavery in attempts to bring justice to people of colour or the series of Middle Eastern revolutions against unjust leaders such as Mubarak or Ghadhafi, history is a record of wars undertaken by civilians to restore peace and justice. Nevertheless, there have been incidents in the past where a war was raged for restoring anything but peace and justice for the human race. Hitler’s fanatic move to rage a war against a particular race of people observed during the Holocaust is the record of a war undertaken solely to destabilize the peace and sanctity of the world and the human race. Another record of such a war is the one undertaken by the editors and the owner of the newspaper News of the World, against its fellow citizens by unlawfully tapping their phone lines and eves dropping on private and sensitive conversations. History isn’t black and white, and thus there will be evidence of events taken place that would’ve completely shaken the basic foundation of being human. Thus, the record of history is based on the presence of certain type of people who are responsible for conducting wars and not just one type of a war. Wars such as the civil war and the war of the rebels of Libya fighting against Ghadafi go down in history as humanity’s war; but the presence of people like Hitler with motives such as attempting to erase a race, which is completely inhumane are also a record of history. Thanks a lot! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. Ideas are undeveloped. Problems with integration and coherence of ideas. You will need to explain how history is a record of humanity's wars. You will also need to clearly show how history isn't a record of humanity's wars. Then you must: Discuss what you think determines when history should be the record of humanity's wars and when it should be something else. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKL/MNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj123 Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 - Clicked on water - Scientific Inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated. It is said that the purpose of history is so mankind can learn from the mistakes of its past. If so the bombing of Hiroshima should serve as a stark reminder to the dangers of scientific inquiry. The atomic bomb was built by a collection of the greatest minds ever assembled, consisting of past and future Nobel prize winners. These scientists were united by their desire to discover the secrets of the atom and unleash its power. In doing so however these scientists placed their desire for discovery over the lives of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens when the atomic bomb were dropped on Hiroshima. Therefore the risk to human life must be paramount in considering the dangers of scientific inquiry. However, scientists must not be afraid to pursue scientific discoveries over potential threats to human life. When Jonas Salk first discovered the polio vaccine, he was among the first people inoculated with the vaccine. Jonas Salk risked his life in pursuit of discovery. In doing so he saved the lives of millions of people around the world. Jonas Salk's actions show that scientists must be prepared to potentially risk human life in order to serve the greater good. Scientific inquiry is essential to the advancement of society and the creation of a better world. Sometimes in the pursuit of discovery, human life must be risked in order to save countless others, as was the case with Jonas Salk. However, scientists must remain cognizant of the potential dangers of their research. They must consider whether the potential benefits of their scientific inquiry outweigh the potential dangers to human life. Thank you very much for your help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 ..............................................Post#672 - clicked - To obey an unjust law is to approve of it. Describe a specific situation in which obeying an unjust law might not necessarily mean approving of it. Discuss what you think determines when disobeying a law is justified. In a democratic government, citizens are entitled to the right to freedom of speech. Thus, they also have the duty to acknowledge and take a stand against an unjust law and make their opinions public. For instance, the passing of the HST tax law by Stephen Harper’s government was not taken warmly by the majority of the citizens. Introduction of more taxes during a time of economic recession and increasing unemployment rates resulted in rage amongst the citizens. This initiated the campaign against HST. Thus protesting of the citizens against this unjust law exemplifies their disapproval to the HST tax law. However, certain countries don’t have the luxury of having a government that carefully listens to the thoughts and disapprovals of its citizens. In a dictatorship government for instance, the laws passed by the dictator are absolute and any defiance demonstrated by the citizens against an unjust law is dealt with severe and cruel punishments. Under such a situation, even if the citizens disapprove of a law, they are not able to disobey it as the fear of punishment is overpowering. Therefore, to obey or disobey an unjust law is contingent upon the government. If the government will permit the citizens to vocalize their thoughts and disapprovals, the citizens will not be forced to obey an unjust law. On the contrary if the government serves severe punishment to people if they take a stand against an unjust law, the citizens are compelled to not display their disapproval because of fear. Thus they are forced to obey an unjust law even though they disapprove of it. Thanks! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. Ideas are undeveloped. Problems with integration and coherence of ideas. You will need to explain how obeying an unjust law is to approve of it. Then you will need to provide an example of people obeying and unjust law, but not necessarily approving of it. Your example kinda leads into that idea, but your explanation of the example does not match this idea. Your response to task#3 is not sufficient. You will have to provide the rule for when disobeying the law is justifiable. When is someone 'right' when disobeying the law? i.e. when is it kinda okay to disobey the law? when is it not okay? I feel this essay will be scored an: JKL/MNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 ..............................................Post#673 - clicked food - The primary goal of a buisness is always to maximize profits. Whenever you hear about a buisness in the market for the first time, the first question that comes to mind is always "How much is the buisness worth?" A buisness' value comes from solely how much that buisness is earning/profiting. Profits of a buisness are correlated generally with how much monetary funding the buisness receives for the product they supply. The product which buisnesses supply may be a material good or a service. The tendency is for private buisnesses is to produce material goods which are set to increase in price and provide high income profits. For example, Apple as a private buisness launches various products such as the iMac, iPod, and iPhone, all of which are products which they want to sell to the consumer and gain a profit from doing so. Last week Apple launched the release of their new operating system Lion OSX which can be purchased online or directly from Itunes. This operating system which contains minimal upgrades from the last verison requires Apple product users to pay a fee of sixty dollars, and allows Apple as a private buisness to maximize their own profits. It is the private buisness such as apple whos primary goal is to maximize the amount of moetary funds which it receives over the year for the products they supply. As seen from the above example something as small as an upgrade by Apple which costs roughly sixty dollars a piece is created for the sole purpose of increasing profits. For these reasons it is usually the primary goal of private buisness such as Apple, to maximize profits. Although a large majority of buisness prey on the fact of increasing profits, not all are equally alike. Most publicly owned buisness' primary goal is not to reap the largest amount of monetary funds by rather provide a service to the general public at a minimalistic cost basis. These public buisnesses are often ran by government agencies which try to provide services for society. London Transport Corporation is a prime example of a public buisness which tries readily not to maximize profit but increase service to their customers. In 2010, the LTC added various expanding busses routes into the North ends of London, Ontario and increased their running hours till 2am in the morning after listening to feedback from their customers. Although they implemented such changes, the price of transportation fare in London, Ontario didn't increase showing that this public buisness was not interested in generating sizable profits from the integration of the change. Here you can see that a public owned buisness made changes to increase the service they provide to society while not acting solely based upon maximizing profits. Generally it is not always the primary goal of publicly owned buisnesses such as London Transport Corporation to maximize profits. All in all the primary goal of most buisnesses is to always increase its monetary income value to raise it's profits. What determines whether this is the primary goal at most times, is whether the buisness is privately or publicly owned. In privately owned cases such as Apple, it is often seen that minor changes such as an upgrade, are listed at high prices to consumers with the main goal of increasing profits. As in the example above a great cost of such an upgrade may cost an individual sixty dollars. On the contrary, most publicly owned buisnesses tend to focus on the service they provide customers without having thoughts of maximizing profits in mind. As was shown by the London Transport Corporation, they implemented various services for better service in 2010 without charging consumers a single penny more. For these reasons it is the private vs public ideology which determines whether or not the primary goal of a buisness will be to maximize profits. THANK YOU You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Errors in mechanics with numerous spelling errors. I am not normally concerned with these items, however, if there are too many such errors, it can make your essay hard to follow. As well, the word business was integral to your essay, but was spelled incorrectly repeatedly throughout. Be sure to take time out at the end to correct for grammatical and spelling errors. Ideas are somewhat developed. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Your examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Interesting approach to task#3, but it is sufficient. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 ..............................................Post#708 Hi, I would be very thankful if you read over my essay. And what you're doing to help people, and encouraging others to do so is amazing! -clicked- Health care for all is a realistic goal. Describe a specific situation in which health care for all might not be a realistic goal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal. Healthcare is a universal goal for all citizens. It provides security to families in their time of need and ensures that they receive the best care. Without it, most families, without medical insurance, cannot even afford the ride to the hospital. People are constantly in car accidents, getting cancer, having heart attack and too many other problems to names. It is necessary for people to have medical assistance, considering the increasing amount of illnesses. The documentary, Sicko, was created to show the world what life is like without health care. It revolves around people who do not have medical insurance, and due to the lack of health care, cannot afford to get their many ailments taken care of. One man was featured who has accidentally sawed off three fingers on his left hand. This included his ring finger. It would have been realistic for this man to hope that all three of his fingers could be reattached. However, due to the lack of healthcare he was unable to pay for all three fingers; therefore, he ad to pick one. Being married, he picked his ring finger so he would be able to wear his wedding ring. If healthcare was given to the citizens of America, that man would still have three fingers and many other people would have received proper treatment. When President Obama was elected, promised that he would bring healthcare to the citizens of the United States. This shows that everyone is aware that this is not an unrealistic goal, it just has not happened yet. If the government was not in a ridiculous amount of debt due to their presence in the Middle East, this goal might have been achieved. Health care is necessary for people in western or European countries, because these citizens are aware of their government being able to provide it. However, in third world countries such as Tanzania or Somalia, healthcare is a far off hope. People of these countries do not live in the same luxury as us. They do not even have luxury to hope for things such as healthcare. They have the bare minimum when it come to almost anything. When someone is ill, they will most likely not receive medicine and if they are able to, it most likely will not be enough. There are far too many poverty stricken people in these countries for the unstable government to take care of. If the US still has not given their citizens healthcare, how can the government of these countries achieve that? For third world countries, health care is a far off hope. If the government of a country is strong and has the necessary amenities to provide health care for its people, then they should. Because, it is the government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens, since it was these citizens that chose them in the first place. Especially in Western countries, the government should be able to do so. Countries such as the United States, are highly industrialized, have good international relations and have one of the highest production rates in the world. The citizen pay their taxes, follow the rules laid out by the government and therefore, in return, should receive health care. It is not at all an unrealistic goal. However, third world countries do not consist of very strong governments. They are not industrialized, have very low economic growth and contain too many poverty stricken areas to take care of. People of these countries most likely do not even know the concept of health care and that many people have it. To them, health care is unreal. You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some depth of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. You will need to provide stronger and better arguments for task#1. The example of the man with the severed finger opposes the requirements of the task. The example of the presence in the Middle East may seem to support your argument, but it actually further opposes your argument. The argument about Obama is a little helpful, but the argument is weak. Task#1 was not adequately completed. Task#2 is okay. Task#3 is decent, however, it is a little bit weakened by the treatment of task#1. Also, it is best to avoid double negatives. They are logically the same as the corresponding affirmative, but harder for the grader to read through, thereby interrupting the flow of your essay. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 ..............................................Post#711 - Clicked on water - Scientific Inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated. It is said that the purpose of history is so mankind can learn from the mistakes of its past. If so the bombing of Hiroshima should serve as a stark reminder to the dangers of scientific inquiry. The atomic bomb was built by a collection of the greatest minds ever assembled, consisting of past and future Nobel prize winners. These scientists were united by their desire to discover the secrets of the atom and unleash its power. In doing so however these scientists placed their desire for discovery over the lives of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens when the atomic bomb were dropped on Hiroshima. Therefore the risk to human life must be paramount in considering the dangers of scientific inquiry. However, scientists must not be afraid to pursue scientific discoveries over potential threats to human life. When Jonas Salk first discovered the polio vaccine, he was among the first people inoculated with the vaccine. Jonas Salk risked his life in pursuit of discovery. In doing so he saved the lives of millions of people around the world. Jonas Salk's actions show that scientists must be prepared to potentially risk human life in order to serve the greater good. Scientific inquiry is essential to the advancement of society and the creation of a better world. Sometimes in the pursuit of discovery, human life must be risked in order to save countless others, as was the case with Jonas Salk. However, scientists must remain cognizant of the potential dangers of their research. They must consider whether the potential benefits of their scientific inquiry outweigh the potential dangers to human life. Thank you very much for your help. You're welcome, glad to help out. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. The first task was not sufficiently addressed. You will need to clearly explain how in scientific inquiry, human life must not be jeopardized. Perhaps, you could mention something about ethics, or ethics approval, and where there is scientific inquiry that risks the safety of the experimenters or subjects, then such inquiry will not be allowed to go forward. The example of the atom bomb is not sufficient. It would be sufficient if the scientists were researching the atom for some other reason, and an explosion occurred killing the scientists. However, the atomic bomb was a result of weapons research, and its intent was to cause harm. Scientific inquiry was more just a side effect of this intent. The example for task#2 was sufficient. Task#3 was sufficient as well. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
globy321 Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 -clicked- Thank you for doing this!! Successful politicians are motivated more by practical considerations than by moral values. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which successful politicians might be motivated more by moral values than by practical considerations. Discuss what you think determines whether successful politicians are motivated more by practical concerns or by moral values. Politicians are elected representative in public office. The role of politicians is to present the needs of the majority to the government. Politicians’ goal is to stay in office as long as possible. Therefore, their goal is to please their consitutents by listening to them and giving them what they need. This may include making decisions based on moral values and practical considerations. The majority of the constituents may request a decision that a politician may view as against their moral values or practically impossible. Moral values of a politician may guide their decision making process that affects the lives of many people that elected them. France’s President Sarkozy made the decision of calling upon the United Nations on drawing a resolution on intervening in Libya where Colonel Muhamed Gadafi was using force against his own people. Although the economy of France was struggling from the global economic recession, moral values were more important than practical consideration. The economic recession hit France hard, however ignoring the genocide that colonel Gadaffi was carrying out against his own people was morally wrong. Therefore, France with the help of the United Nations intervened with air strikes on Gadaffi’s forces preventing attacks of Gadafi’s forces on civilians. The practical considerations are carefully thought when politicians make decisions that effects the lives of the people that elected them in office. Harper rejected the Koyoto agreement of setting limits for Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because of the decline in economy that would cause. Stephen Harper refused to agree to such low levels of greenhouse gases because the country’s economy was in middle of a recession and further changes would destabilized the economy. This would lead to people losing jobs and the quality of living would therefore go down. Stephen Harper agreed to reduce a fraction of greenhouse gases that was set out by the Koyoto agreement because it was practically impossible to do so without destabilizing the economy leading to high rate of unemployment. When the safety and survivability of people are in question, politicians are motivated more by moral values than practical considerations. However, when the safety of people are not at stake politicians carefully think about practical considerations which may have negative effects. France’s president Sarkozy took military intervention in Libya because his moral values dictated that a human genocide should have higher value than practical considerations of going to war in the middle of economic recession. Harper refused to destabilize the economy leading to high unemployment rate by setting low limits to greenhouse emissions. Harper understood the fact that it was practically impossible to agree to the greenhouse limits in such a short period of time without effecting the economy negatively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sticky1 Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 -clicked- Thank you!!! A person’s first priority in life should be financial security. 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 person’s first priority in life might not be financial security. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person’s first priority in life should be financial security. Financial security can be defined as the ability to meet one’s basic needs of living such as food, shelter, and clothing into the future. Financial security may have a different meaning to different people. One person may view financial security as being able to afford to travel the world, live in million dollar mansion and drive a Ferrari. Another person may view financial security as having enough money to provide a roof over the head for their family, provide food, and other basics necessities of life. People priorities financial security different depending on their upbringing and social circle. The priority of a person in life may not be financial security. Princess of Protugal, Mary-Chaex Duboi, gave her fortune worth billions of dollars away to charity and family in order to marry the love of her life, Frank Debjak who worked a low paying job as a librarian. Princess Mary-Chaex could not legally marry Frank Debjak without giving away her fortune because of her family ties. Princess Mary-Chaex priority in life was love life and not her financial security. Her children were busy raising their own families, and since her husband died she did not have anyone to feel close to. Her wealth did not provide her with a good sense of security but the man who she fell in love gave her a better sense of security. The priority of a college student in the process of developing their career is financial security. Micheal Tremble at the Kingston College gave up his dream of becoming a basketball player for the purpose of pursuing his passion in medicine. Micheal Tremble wanted to have a stable career that would provide a stable job with financial security. As a result he gave his chance of trying out for Toronto Raptors because of his acceptance to medical school. Whether a person’s first priority in life is financial security depends on the time of their age. If the person is young looking to develop their career as in the case of Micheal Tremble, then financial security is the first priority. If a person is in the old age and does not require financial security then they may choose someone to pass their time with instead of fortune. People in old age may prioritize companionship, love and friendship higher than financial security. Their time is limited and therefore, their priority is to spend the time with the people they love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdawso23 Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 -clicked- Thanks again! Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. A successful business requires certain things: a strong clientele basis, competent employees and a high income of money. Financial success stems from increased sales of their product at an increased price. To be as fiscally successful as possible, oftentimes the business will take advantage of the weaknesses of their consumers to sell more of their product. In our current society, media and advertising has caused many people to evaluate their self-worth based off of their appearance or the image they present to the world. This desire to appear a certain way through dress or body shape, can be used by a business to increase profit by catering their product or advertisements to this want. Take for example, the Axe cologne commercials. In the commercial, a young man is depicted as attracting many beautiful women simply by using the Axe cologne. This highly unlikely situation appeals to the desire of young boys everywhere to be considered attractive and be able to attract women. The Axe company takes advantage of this weakness to cause people to associate their product with this desired outcome and so purchase the cologne. Axe has enjoyed a lot of success through these advertisements. If they had chosen to use a more honest approach and not taken advantage of their consumers' weaknesses, they would not have enjoyed such fiscal success because people would not associate their product with such a desired outcome. On the other hand, when a business' main goal is not to make as much money as possible, they may find success in a way other than taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. Certain businesses are formed for the purpose of providing a service to the public and so would be less influenced by fiscal success as by providing the best service possible. The London Transit Company (LTC), for example, must provide bus transport to the citizen's of London in an affordable manner. There is no need for the business to take advantage of consumer weakness because it is not trying to maximize profit. In fact, if the LTC did try to maximize profit by increasing bus fare, they may exclude certain people from affording the bus and thus not be achieving their main purpose. Furthermore, the LTC would most likely not even have much of a way to take advantage of consumer weaknesses since the main weakness of the public stems from their self-image which is generally unaffected by bus transport. Overall, the deciding factor of whether or not a business will succeed through taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses is the type of business it is and thus the type of service it provides. A business that caters to the weaknesses of the consumers, such as ones that sell beauty products or clothing, will sell more and thus make more money by taking advantages of these weaknesses. Contrastingly, if the service provided by the business does not affect the weaknesses of the consumers, it will not see much success by trying to exploit their weaknesses. Also, if the business' main goal is to provide a service to the public, it will have greater success through simply giving the best service it can without taking advantage of the customer. The examples of the Axe company and the LTC show this difference. Axe is selling a product to the public and has greatest success through increasing sales. It makes sense then for Axe to use the consumers' weaknesses to its advantage. The LTC on the other hand, is providing a public service and so has greatest success not through profit but through the quality of the service given to the public. The LTC then, can succeed without taking advantage of consumer weaknesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 ..............................................Post#715 -clicked- Thank you for doing this!! Successful politicians are motivated more by practical considerations than by moral values. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which successful politicians might be motivated more by moral values than by practical considerations. Discuss what you think determines whether successful politicians are motivated more by practical concerns or by moral values. Politicians are elected representative in public office. The role of politicians is to present the needs of the majority to the government. Politicians’ goal is to stay in office as long as possible. Therefore, their goal is to please their consitutents by listening to them and giving them what they need. This may include making decisions based on moral values and practical considerations. The majority of the constituents may request a decision that a politician may view as against their moral values or practically impossible. Moral values of a politician may guide their decision making process that affects the lives of many people that elected them. France’s President Sarkozy made the decision of calling upon the United Nations on drawing a resolution on intervening in Libya where Colonel Muhamed Gadafi was using force against his own people. Although the economy of France was struggling from the global economic recession, moral values were more important than practical consideration. The economic recession hit France hard, however ignoring the genocide that colonel Gadaffi was carrying out against his own people was morally wrong. Therefore, France with the help of the United Nations intervened with air strikes on Gadaffi’s forces preventing attacks of Gadafi’s forces on civilians. The practical considerations are carefully thought when politicians make decisions that effects the lives of the people that elected them in office. Harper rejected the Koyoto agreement of setting limits for Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because of the decline in economy that would cause. Stephen Harper refused to agree to such low levels of greenhouse gases because the country’s economy was in middle of a recession and further changes would destabilized the economy. This would lead to people losing jobs and the quality of living would therefore go down. Stephen Harper agreed to reduce a fraction of greenhouse gases that was set out by the Koyoto agreement because it was practically impossible to do so without destabilizing the economy leading to high rate of unemployment. When the safety and survivability of people are in question, politicians are motivated more by moral values than practical considerations. However, when the safety of people are not at stake politicians carefully think about practical considerations which may have negative effects. France’s president Sarkozy took military intervention in Libya because his moral values dictated that a human genocide should have higher value than practical considerations of going to war in the middle of economic recession. Harper refused to destabilize the economy leading to high unemployment rate by setting low limits to greenhouse emissions. Harper understood the fact that it was practically impossible to agree to the greenhouse limits in such a short period of time without effecting the economy negatively. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Problems with clarity of thought. Problems with organization and integration of ideas. Task#1 was not sufficiently completed. The Harper example should be placed after the first paragraph. This example is also not explained well enough. Your position is unclear, and the argument is incomplete. Your conclusion must coincide with the prompt. Task#2 was sufficient. Yet, you must be mindful of the spelling of your example. The spelling of Gaddafi keeps changing in your paragraph. 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...
bored Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 -clicked- Lies are often less harmful than the truth. Describe a specific situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth. “A little white lie never hurts a fly” is a proverb often repeated to us by our parents when we catch them lying. A lie is when a person is knowingly spreading out false information, this is often less harmful to the greater good than the truth. A discussion on lies and truths often comes down the individual ethics on the matter of greater good. When looking at an ethical dilemma, one of the ways of assessing the situation is by assessing the greater good. This method states that if the greater good out weights the wrong doings done to achieve the greater good, then that is worth the wrong doings. If however the greater good does not outweigh the wrong doings necessary to get to that good, then the good is not worth perusing. Often times, when I was younger my parents had said many lies to me. One such lie was of Santa Clause. They said that there was a man sitting in the heavens and he was counting all my good deeds and all my bad deeds. They told me that at the end of the year, that person will come down from the sky and gift me with what I deserve. As I grew older, I started questioning my parents on this matter. In the end, they told me that it was only a white lie, intended for the good of the childhood me. They were protecting me from doing bad deeds to the society by telling me that there was a greater power monitoring my activities. This issue is very similar to that of man and religion. When man was very young, when civilizations were just forming, organization was very important. One theory according to many historians is that the scholars of this early era realized that organization is at the utmost importance of a civilization. Therefore they decided to create religion. Because of these religions, our human race united under one umbrella, they began working together to solve their problems. Man organized themselves into hierarchy so that better governing can be conducted. Man worked together in fear of a being watching their actions. In this context, the potential lie created by these scholars was for the greater good and in the end has definitely been the foundation of today’s society. Without religion, man would never have united and would never have cooperated with their fellow. The reason why religion can be seen as a white lie is because there is no proof that god actually exists in the world, yet people still follow the religion. Religion helped achieve the greater good that is our society today. This little lie created by scholars of the ancient times has definitely outweighed its wrong doings, and still helps mankind today. The power of religion in today’s world is slowly decreasing. Today, man is given the truth instead of the lie. This truth comes into form of science. Man is told all that he needs to know to make proper decisions and he is able to use that truth to a much greater extent than he would be able to use religion. As time has gone by, the power of religion has slowly decreased, and the power of science has increased. People are rejecting religion and using Science to build their societies. In this case, the truth, science is much more useful then the lie of religion. The reason why science is more beneficial compared to religion is because there are many religions whereas there is only one science. The wars and problems caused by religion slowly go away as the power of science increases. Therefore, in today’s modern world, the use of science was more influential and efficient than the use of religion. The line between truth and lie is drawn by the greater good achieved from those actions. If a lie is helping civilization as religion has, than it definitely is worth it because the greater good outweighs the wrong doings conducted by the lie. We are able to have a civilization which we would not have if religion was not invented. However, as we start learning about the truth, it is beneficial to bring the truth out because if we did not, than man would never evolve. The same wars of the past between religions would go on forever, the same problems will continue. Thus if the truth exists, than it is much more beneficial compared to a lie. For the longest time, Science was not able to answer much of the questions that were answerable by religion, therefore in that time scholars saw fit to use religion to answer question that the mankind asked. But as time passed, and science grew, it was able to answer a lot of the questions that religion once did. At this time, scholars decided to leave religion behind and follow the path of science. It is always more beneficial to follow the truth if the truth is available, however, when the truth is not available, a white lie can be used to answer the questions of mankind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 ..............................................Post#716 -clicked- Thank you!!! A person’s first priority in life should be financial security. 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 person’s first priority in life might not be financial security. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person’s first priority in life should be financial security. Financial security can be defined as the ability to meet one’s basic needs of living such as food, shelter, and clothing into the future. Financial security may have a different meaning to different people. One person may view financial security as being able to afford to travel the world, live in million dollar mansion and drive a Ferrari. Another person may view financial security as having enough money to provide a roof over the head for their family, provide food, and other basics necessities of life. People priorities financial security different depending on their upbringing and social circle. The priority of a person in life may not be financial security. Princess of Protugal, Mary-Chaex Duboi, gave her fortune worth billions of dollars away to charity and family in order to marry the love of her life, Frank Debjak who worked a low paying job as a librarian. Princess Mary-Chaex could not legally marry Frank Debjak without giving away her fortune because of her family ties. Princess Mary-Chaex priority in life was love life and not her financial security. Her children were busy raising their own families, and since her husband died she did not have anyone to feel close to. Her wealth did not provide her with a good sense of security but the man who she fell in love gave her a better sense of security. The priority of a college student in the process of developing their career is financial security. Micheal Tremble at the Kingston College gave up his dream of becoming a basketball player for the purpose of pursuing his passion in medicine. Micheal Tremble wanted to have a stable career that would provide a stable job with financial security. As a result he gave his chance of trying out for Toronto Raptors because of his acceptance to medical school. Whether a person’s first priority in life is financial security depends on the time of their age. If the person is young looking to develop their career as in the case of Micheal Tremble, then financial security is the first priority. If a person is in the old age and does not require financial security then they may choose someone to pass their time with instead of fortune. People in old age may prioritize companionship, love and friendship higher than financial security. Their time is limited and therefore, their priority is to spend the time with the people they love. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Adequate control of language. Good example for task#1. The example for task#2 was sufficient, however, you will need to elaborate more to add depth. Was playing basketball just a pipe dream or was he really good? 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...
Iluvsoccer Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 -clicked- You are awesome - thank you Prompt 2: Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated. One of the most striking features of the human race, as some scientists believe, is the creativity and curiosity humans possess for their surroundings. The need to understand and comprehend the world around us has always been of great importance to us. This desire to discover and understand our world has been reflected in scientists like Isaac Newton and Galileo. Throughout the human civilization, scientific pioneers such as these individuals have pushed the frontiers of science in order to better understand and answer questions about our world. This need to discover is also reflected in J.F. Kennedy's push for the Space program and his desire to 'land a man on the moon' before the end of the decade (before 1970). Although the space program had many inherent risks to human life, the program was funded and developed until its success in 1969. In this case, the risk to human life was acceptable as the program promised new discoveries and a major 'leap for the mankind', as stated by Neil Armstrong. Therefore, in such cases, the threat to human life can be tolerated when the result of such risks is a historic landmark for mankind as a whole. One the other hand, the threat to human life cannot always be acceptable despite the burning desire for scientists to discover the 'truth'. An example of this is the tight regulation and ban of laboratory experiments on humans. Although, via experimenting directly on human subjects, the questions scientists ask regarding drug side effects would be answered accurately, the practice of such experiments is prohibited. The primary reason for such prohibitiion is the possible harm to the human life, such as physical or emotional pain, disability or death. Also, there are certainly alternatives to experimenting on humans such as using mice models and in some cases, using primates for experimentation. When such alternatives are available, allowing harm to human life is considered unacceptable and morally wrong. Thus, despite the possible benefits of human experimentation, which can help answer a number of questions regarding drug interactions, side effects etc, it is not acceptable to carry out such experiments due to the possible harm to the human life. In such cases, the pursuit for discovery does not triumph the value of human life. Thus, the defining factor of whether the pursuit of discovery triumphs the value of human life depends upon the nature of the discovery itself. In the case of developing the Space program, at the time there were no alternatives to sending humans on the moon. The technological advancements weren't where they are today and hence, it was deemed important to develop the Space Program and take the risks it might pose on the humans that are aboard that flight. The program was a promising and major frontier in the human understanding of the world beyond ours. On the other hand, the ban on human experimentation reflects our moral values for preserving the sanctity of human life and ensuring no human undergoes any physical pain or stress at the expense of fulfilling one's scientific inquiry. Moreover, unlike the Space program which did not allow for alternatives to the humans in space, the experiments for determining drug effects and treatments can easily be done on mice and chimpanzees. Thus, the very nature of the scientific inquiry determines whether a threat to human life can be tolerated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iluvsoccer Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Dear Pastainhaler, Ripple is now my homepage and I intend to use its search engine on a frequent basis. Thank you for doing this and for spreading the word about such a great website...who knew doing good in this world could be so easy? Cheers, S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peppermint5039 Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 -clicked- Thanks for the help PastaInhaler! It's very generous of you to offer this feedback! Everyone who commits a crime in our society should be held equally responsible under the law. Describe a specific situation in which someone who commits a crime might justifiably not be held legally responsible in the same way as others who commit crimes. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person should be held legally responsible for committing a crime. A society consists of a group of people who live under a common set of rules and regulations. These laws are set in place in order to preserve order within a society and to protect its citizens from crime. As part of a society, every individual is expected to obey these rules and face the consequences if they decide to break the law. Accordingly, the law should not discriminate by race, gender, or social status and should apply to everyone equally. For example, if a man and woman were caught stealing from a convenience store, both of them would receive punishment in the form of a fine or incarceration. In Canada, men and women hold equal rights in terms of voting, working, and participating in society. Therefore, it is only fair if they are treated equally by the justice system as well. On the other hand, there are times when not all citizens should be held equally responsible for their actions. In the case where the offender is a youth, it may be more appropriate to make an exception to the law and provide an opportunity for rehabilitation rather than punishment. The Canadian Youth Justice Act ensure that the names of any criminal under the age of 18 are censored from the public. This precaution was established in order to protect the identities of these young offenders and to provide them with a chance to learn from their mistakes. Instead of spending time behind bars, young criminals are given the opportunity to change their perspective and learn about their moral values through rehabilitative programs. Whether all citizens of a society should be held equally accountable for illegal actions is highly circumstantial. The determining factor lies in the age of the offender. Adults have had more time to form their moral values and are better informed in regards to the consequences of their actions. Thus, it should be expected that all adult criminals be treated in an equal manner under the law. However, a young criminal may have not had the chance to develop their moral values and may not know the severity and consequences of their actions. As a result, youths should not face the same punishment as an adult and instead, should be given a chance to learn from their mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samd681 Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 Clicked! Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies. ... The human condition represents a constant desire to understand the world in which we live. Through scientific thought and experimentation, we have been able to answer many of the questions that plagued our ancestors, as well as denounce many of their fundamental beliefs. It can be said, however, that much scientific investigation, while ideally answering the initial hypothesis, generates several new unertainties about a natural phenomenon. Since the sum total of scientific research denotes progress, this would imply that progress in fact complicates at least as much as it simplifies how we view the natural world. For instance, the Bohr model of the atom initially seemed to be the ultimate answer to what makes up matter: electrons circling around a nucleus of protons and neutrons. This seemingly simple theory was praised as the support upon which future discoveries could be mounted; however, recent investigation into atomic structure has complicated matters. Even smaller particles, called quarks, have been discovered, and the mechanism of their forming atoms has so far eluded even the advanced technologies of the Hadron Collider. Yet again, we are left adrift in a world where we barely understand our own substance, and our ability to understand it remains limited. On the other hand, progress does not always lead to a total confounding of current beliefs; indeed, it can provide concrete answers to previously intangible questions. This is exemplified in the work of Louis Pasteur. During his time, there was a widespread belief in spontaneous generation, where life seemed to magically appear. This left little room for scientific proof, and thus was an exceedingly complicated proposition. Ideas as to how this occurred were only limited by the creative abilities of the human mind. Pasteur aimed to disprove this theory, and did so in a substantially successful fashion. With a simple method, he was able to demonstrate both the inability of life to spontaneously arise and the importance of bacteria. This discovery vastly improved the explanation of how life came to be, in that it relied entirely upon previous life. The scientific community could no longer be impeded in its progress due to the limitless complications of spontaneous generation. Consequently, the impact of progress cannot always be judged as wholly complicating or simplifying. In the case of discovereies where the initial theories are severely confounded, such as that with the discovery of quarks and other subatomic levels of organization, progress has led to more questions than answers. Alternatively, with scientific inquiry that replaces an exceedingly complicated and unanswerable belief with a new, more humanly perceivable theory has simplified current thought. Indeed, the delicate balance between these two forces will undoubtedly lead us to continue pursuing knowledge about our world in the future. Thank you very much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samd681 Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 Clicked! Laws cannot social values. ... Laws and society are inextricably linked. Without laws, society cannot function in a cohesive and orderly manner. However, there is a fundamental difference between adhering to laws and carrying a personal set of social values. The argument that laws cannot change social values relies on a separation between what is mandated by the government and what one believes in. This belief is inherent in the separation of Church and State, as is attempted in the United States. There, the law states that specific religious beliefs cannot play into the governing of the nation, as this should only rely upon what is best for the entire country. This would seem to downplay the importance of religion, and encourage members of society to retain a view of the world that is not determined by their religious beliefs. However, religion has not diminished in the United States, and remains an important part of the social values (including a belief in God, the need to attend Church, etc.) that make up a significant proportion of the population. It has persisted due to the absolute importance of religious freedom to these peoples. Thus, although the law demands a separation of government, which ideally symbolizes the values of a nation, and religion, the latter remains a powerful factor in the social attitudes and beliefs of many Americans. Alternatively, there are some instances where the influence of the law is strong enough to completely change a societal value. For instance, many States are now passing laws legalizing same-sex marriages and giving them equal status to heterosexual marriages. While this still contradicts the personal beliefs of many citizens, a gradual movement away from more fundamental and conservative views towards liberalism can be seen in this instance. In the early twentieth century, even the thought of such a law would generate civil chaos; many proponents of such legislation were labeled as "Communists" or otherwise branded as un-American. In today's world, however, the law in many States does not discriminate against sexual preference, and society is slowing coming to accept it as a moral right. While religious freedom is still considered important, other civil rights such as freedom of expression are gaining ground in laws, and promoting changes in social consciousness such as this. Consequently, the social values of society, no matter how fundamental, can be influenced by the law. Thus, whether or not the law can change social values depends upon how necessary those social values are to the citizens. In the former case, where religious beliefs were not phased by the division of Church and State, the desire to believe in the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. won over the need to conform to the law. As is their civil right, these people choose to continue believing in something that is not also officially upheld by the government. The latter case, however, demonstrates an instance where the desire to conform to the law and uphold expressive freedoms outweighed the previous social values that had prevented such legislation. Preventing same-sex marriages was not seen as fundamental enough to completely denounce the introduction of new legislation. In conclusion, society will likely continue to exhibit a balance between upholding social values in the face of new laws and welcoming legislation in the stead of old beliefs. Thanks again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilly11 Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 clicked again Thanks for your help A student's academic success depends more on hard work than on intelligence. Thomas Edison once said that “Success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration”. By this he meant that although intelligence is necessary, person cannot become successful without combining intelligence and hard work. Academic success means to become successful in your studies and getting good grades and it can be achieved through hard work or through god gifted intelligence. If success depends only on intelligence and not hard work, then people like Bill Gates, a high school drop out, would not have been successful. An instance when academic success depends more on hard work than on intelligence, is passing and getting good grades in organic chemistry. Although organic chemistry is very analytical, one can only master is through practising reaction mechanisms and memorizing different reactions. Although a person can be genius, but he/she cannot pass organic chemistry without memorizing reactions. Although hard work is important, academic success sometimes depend more on intelligence. Success depends more on intelligence on courses that involves more hands on and practical work such as lab courses or surgery. Ben Carson a famous Neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins is considered as one of the best Neurosurgeon in the country. He was the first Surgeon to be successful in performing a surgery on Crainophagus twins. He has performed many miracle surgeries and has saved many people’s life. Although, Dr. Carson was an average student in medical school, he is successful in his field due to his excellent hand-eye coordination while performing surgery. The debate on whether hard work or intelligence determines academic success is never ending. But, academic success depends more on hard work in courses that requires practise and memorization while academic success depends more on intelligence in courses that are practical and are involved with hands on work. Success in organic chemistry depends more on hard work than intelligence while success in surgical courses in medical courses depends more on intelligence and god’s gift of excellent hand-eye coordination than on hard work, which was the case with Dr. Ben Carson. Based on these scenarios, Thomas Edison may have been forced to change his statement to “Success is 50 % inspiration and 50 % perspiration.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilly11 Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 clicked again on water Thanks again In politics, one's friends and one's enemies are often the same Ann Richards once said, “In politics, your enemy cannot harm you, but your friend can kill you.” By this, Richards meant to say that the members of your party who support you, but are internally planning an attack to take over your position. In politics, your friend can be your relatives or the other member of the party who support the same organization as yours. But if you are on the higher position then your friends or are leading the organization or party, your friends may try to harm or kill you in order to take your position, although they still appear friendly from outside. For instance Asif Ali Zardari the current president of Pakistan has been accused of being involved in the murder of Benizir Bhutto who was the leader of Pakistan People’s Party and his legal wife. It is believed that Asif may have murdered Benizir in order to take over PPP and run for the presidential election. In politics, person’s friend and enemy are not always the same. Person’s enemy in politics can be someone who might not agree with other person’s or that person’s organization’s philosophy. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi who was a leader of Congress and was fighting for the independence of India was killed by Nathuram Godsay. Although, Gandhi’s ideology of nonviolence was different from others at that time, he was still supported by other leaders of congress, but Nathuram Godsay of Pune based political party did not support his idea of nonviolence and believed that this may lead to becoming enslaved and other religion and countries, so he decided to kill Gandhi. It is hard to say that your enemy is always your friend in politics. Friend is your enemy in politics when they want to take over your position or are jealous of you, but when a person tries to dethrone you as he/she dosen’t agree with you, he/she is your enemy but not your friend. Thus, Zardari killed Bhutto because he wanted to take over PPP, but Godsay killed Gandhi because he didn’t believe in his philosophy. Thus in politics, friend is not always the friend you think and enemy is not always visible. 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.