Writer's Corner: Free Essay Grading by PastaInhaler

[aaronjw]

This is only worthy of a J. Why did you capitalize elementary school? Ever heard of spell check? I don't even type like this on Facebook with my friends.

 

If you wanna do well on the MCAT, you're gonna have to take it seriously.

 

You should take your C in math, arrogant attitude and stfu already.

 

You are exactly what's wrong with premed peeps and one can only hope between now and your interviews (should you get one) you learn some humility and to be less of an arse because the kind of contempt you have for "lesser" people will easily shine through. That is, unless you are a sociopath which isn't seeming like too much of a stretch.

[Gametime24]

Fourth attempt, done at work.. but it felt better developed and edited than the last.

 

 

Creativity flourishes best in circumstances where freedom of speech is openly permitted.

 

Creativity flourishes best when a strong driving force is present, similar to the development of defensive mechanisms in prey. One must then consider what area of development is being discussed and what the driving force for the development of that area is. If the driving force is the overall well-being of the public then it is likely that openly permitting freedom of speech will facilitate this creativity. This is because the freedom of speech allows the sharing of knowledge which in turn allows groups of people to collaborate on theories. This brings different types of people together allowing the development to be attacked from many different angles, generally leading to a better developed end result. For example, the field of string theory has been greatly advanced by the collaboration of many physicists and having restrictions on the sharing of knowledge would have severely hindered the developments that have been made. An example of this sort of collaboration would be any physics conference as the groups of presenters put their knowledge and expertise on display allowing others to supplement their own research with the ideas presented.

 

There are, however, cases in which the opposite is true. That is, situations where creativity flourishes best when freedom of speech is not openly permitted. These situations arise when the driving force is, in fact, the restrictions placed on the freedom of speech. One might think of the development of new methods of encryption as an exemplar of this. Enhancing the methods of coded communication would be driven by the restrictions and forced to evolve as communication is something humans innately strive for. This drive for the ability to communicate can be seen in many parts of society. For example, the learning of multiple languages displays a want to communicate with a greater amount of people and cultures. This is presumably because as communication increases so too do many aspects of social life and the development of the styles of things discussed in the opening argument. The concept of the driving force allows this argument to stay consistent with the first examples given and can be further supported by the production of weapons and medicine during war times. These are both examples of when conditions that are generally detrimental to society have acted to facilitate creativity in specific areas.

 

It is clear from the previous examples that the regulation of freedom of speech can facilitate creativity in both of its extremes. That is to say that allowing it can act to enhance creativity in some areas; however, restricting it can enhance creativity in other areas. In order to determine whether or not the permittance of the freedom of speech encourages creativity one must consider what area of development is in question and what the driving force for the enhancement of that area is. If the restriction of freedom of speech provides a need for developing the area in question, it follows that creativity in that area will be facilitated by withholding the freedom of speech. In cases where this is not true one can say that allowing freedom of speech will facilitate creativity through the ease of collaboration.

 

 

Thanks again, hopefully you will see some improvements from the last attempt!

[RainSilent]

Thanks a lot to PastaInhaler!!

I would like to ask for your grading for another 2 essays if you have more time. I greatly appreciate it!

[RainSilent]

In times of war, maintaining public support is often the most difficult battle.

 

In democratic countries, starting a war or continuing a war requires public support. Thus it is usually important for a politician to gain enough public support before acting in a war, otherwise the politician himself/herself may risk his/her future career. Sometimes, maintaining this public support is often the most difficult battle. These wars could be civil wars happening within the boarder of the country, or international wars happening far away from the country. And public support could be many things, including majority support in voting, support from the media and public opinions, and support from various classes and parties in the country. It is impossible to please everyone, but if a considerate group of people are against politician’s decision during the war, it may cause social or political instability and may become a threat to the success of the war.

 

However it is not always that difficult to win support from the public. Sometimes the war is unavoidable and citizens have no other choice than supporting the war. Take the World War II as example, the Japanese army intruded China and planned to take over Chinese government. If that happens, China would become a colony of Japan. After intruding, Japanese government killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese in Northeast area of China, and forced Chinese to speak only Japanese as official language. When the traditional culture and even language is in threat, the Chinese has no other choice than fighting for the war, and thus it was not hard at all for the political leaders to gain public support at that time, since the war is what everyone wants and has to do. In this justified unavoidable war fighting for well-being of the citizens, few would be against the war and thus maintaining public support is easy.

 

To determine when maintaining public support in times of war is difficult and when it is not, the purpose of the war needs to be examined. When a war is unavoidable, or started by other nations, public opinions usually believe the war is justifiable and support the idea of “protecting our country and fighting back”, especially if the war is happening on the homeland of a country, when other nations are intruding with political or economic purposes. However, when a country has the option to choose from starting a war or not, especially on the land of other countries, citizens in the country may have various opinions to the war, and may suspect the real purpose of the war, which casts doubt on the intention of the politician wanting to start the war. And this doubt may become public actions against the politician, which may potentially hurt the politician’s career. In this situation, it is not only important for the politician to maintain public support, but also extremely difficult.

 

 

 

Thank you very much!!!!! It means a lot to me.

[RainSilent]

The way to achieve political success is to promise people that their lives will be better.

 

In the 2011 Canadian president election, the New Democratic Party (NDP) promised to Asian immigrants that they will provide better chances for their parents’ immigration so the Asian immigrants could live with and take care of their parents. According to the Asian immigrants, taking care of their parents is of significant importance and being able to take their parents to where they live is a great way to make their lives easier. The NDP achieved great success in provinces with large Asian population such as the British Columbia. This is an example when politicians achieve success by promising people a better life. Promising a better life is appealing to many voters, and becomes an effective marketing strategy for many politicians to succeed. While political success does not only mean winning elections, but also includes other successes such as winning majority support for a particular policy or political decision.

 

However, not all political successes are achieved by promising people that their lives will be better. Of course people care most about their own lives, but in democratic countries, people also consider lives of others as part of the political goal. An example is France leading the international war in Libya in 2011. When the Libya government was fighting against the rebellion in the country, the government decided to attack various areas in the cities, which put lives of innocent citizens in risk. The United Nation decided to interfere and France volunteered to lead the war represents the United Nation. This leadership of the war which protects human rights was considered justifiable and thus supported by French people. And the current president Mr. Sarkozy gained an increasing support during the war from the citizens, which is a great political success.

 

To determine whether or not the way to achieve political success is to promise people that their lives will be better, the political purpose of the action needs to be examined. If the political purpose is to win an election, promising the voters a better life would serve the purpose directly and probably most effectively. People would be most motivated to take action to vote when the voting result will significantly and directly affect their lives. On the other hand, when the political purpose is to win the support of public opinions on a particular issue, there is not always a chance to promise people their lives would be better. In this situation, other strategies to gain support must be developed, including gaining emotional support from the public, behaving justifiably according to the social mainstream or leading the public opinions by effective public educations. Mr. Sarkozy knew this. He made use of this strategy to win support from his citizens and to take advantage of this support to gain his political success.

 

 

Thank you!!!! I'll try to keep this as the last one so you could have more time for others.

[christinawang1990216]

Every business develops by expanding both in size and in width. Maximizing profit gains makes it possible for companies to acquire the resources to expand. Profits are used to establish branch offices across the country, build more factories and warehouses,and increase the number of employees, thereby increasing the size of a growing company. Profits are also used to attract prospective investors and customers, build buisness networks and possibly expand into related fields,therefore broadening the width of a company's development. So, it is not suprising that growing companies devote most of their resources to maximizing profirs. Facebook clearly shows the advantages doing this. When Facebook first started, it was not a free public website like it is now. Each new account and each access to another person's webpage were charged. Advertisements were also ubiquitious. However, since this idea of worldwide social networking was unprecedented, the number of new account registration increased exorbitantly each day. Mark Zuckenberg and his team of only four Harvard students used the profits to expand Facebook into the social networking giant it is today. Without the initial stratagy of focusing only on profits, Zuckenberg's team could never attract countless experts in website desgin to develop the later hugely popular applications; his team also could not have the credentials to persuade investors into betting their own profits into such a young company like Facebook. Facebook's success illustrates that maximizing profits serves as the foundation for expandsion and should be every growing buisness' priority.

 

On the other hand, for established companies, instead of striving for making profits only, their primary goal should be to maintain current resources and assets. For these comapanies, they already have a stable base of customers and investers,or shareholders. Their material assets, such as factories and equipments are advanced and well maintained. Generating more profits to devote to these areas are only icings on a cake, nice to have but not essential.In other words,further profits will only incur marginal growth for the company. For example,Morgan Stanley is one of the most esablished investment firms in the world. It has branch offices in almost every continent, and only attracts the best investment bankers in the world. Its customers range from oil companies to royal families. For a company like this, with such exensive business connections and a well-established reputation amoung investors,the priority is to secure the investors and shareholders and prevent anything from tarnishing its image. Continuing to utilize every means to rake up more profits will only lead people to perceive the company as greedy and impersonal. Potentially losing investors and shareholders will render all the early efforts made by maximizing profits obsolete. Therefore, for an established company like Morgan Stanley, focusing solely on generating profits is more deleterious rather than beneficial.

 

In conlcusion, whether a company should priorize maximizing profits depend on the stage a company's development is at. If a company is just starting, it should devote most resources to generate profits in order to establish itself in the field. Such business uses profits to expand its size, attract potential employess an investors. These newly acquired assets, whether material or intellectual,will further help the company gain more profits. This positive cycle will push the company to a plateu. Companies at this plateu are well established both in terms of size and width. Devoting many resources to generate profits will only produce disproportionaly small growth and possible harm to the comapanies' image. Therefore, maximizing profits works, but only to a certain stage.

 

Thanks!

[PastaInhaler]

I got a 6/6 (T)... it was marked by an anonymous TPR grader.

 

I am confident that if you were to write your essays at that caliber on a live exam, you would earn nothing lower than an S.

[PastaInhaler]

Hey thanks so much for doing this, you're awsome!

 

A democratic government is never justified in keeping secrets from the voting public.

 

Thomas Jefferson has famously said that "honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom". Whether to tell the truth or to tell a lie has been a basic philosophical question that has been asked numerous times throughout history. A lie can either be providing a false account of something or withholding information. This philosophical question has been especially important in democratic governments, where the democratic representatives are representing the people and making decisions for the nation. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquantly stated, when it comes to a democratic government (whether it be state-wide or federally) it is best to not keep secrets from the people.

For example, the G20 Summit that was held in Toronto, Ontario Canada in 2010 presented a major conflict between the provincial government and the people when a 'secret law' was passed that increased security at the event. This law, known as the "Public Works Protection Act" was a World War Two law that allowed for protection of public buildings like courthouses. The alteration of this law provided more security closer to the G20 summit, resulting in police believing that they had the authority to stop, search and detain anyone near the G20 security zone. This led to over 1,100 arrests from over 20,000 police officers. The scenes that took place at the event raised issues regarding the liberty and security of the people in providing warrantless searches and stopping for identification. This situation was looked at as unfair because the protesters could not obey a law that they did not know existed. In this case, the provincial government was not justified in not making information well known to the public because it led to a huge misunderstanding and left the people feeling that they could not trust their government.

However, there are times where the government is justified in withholding the truth from its people, especially in times of war. Blitzkrieg is a battle tactic that was famously used by the German army in World War Two. The tactic was based on surprise attacks and proceeded in attacking with overwhelming force at high speeds to break through the enemy lines. The term was labeled after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. During the Battle of France, the French were increasingly frustrated with the German troops who had arrived first and would not let the French army reform their defensive lines along the river. Since Blitzkrieg is based on the element of surprise, it is important that the government withhold the information concerning their battle plans with the voting public. If information about a Blitzkrieg was told to the public, information may be leaked to the enemies, resulting in their battle plans being ruined.

This leads to an important philisophical question. When a democratic government is presented with information or a decision, should they tell the truth or withhold it from the voting people? In times of peace, it is not justified for the government to withhold the truth from its people. However, in times of war, the government may be justified in keeping secrets from its people. During the G20 summit, the provincial government was not justified in confusing the peopl with the out of date law they used to increase security measures. The summit should have been a peaceful event, however, it turned into chaos due to the secret the government withheld. In times of war, it is important to keep battle plans secret, in order to surprise the opponent and potentially win based on the element of surprise, as the German's did by using Blitzkrieg. In a world based on trust and honesty, the government should not withhold information from its people in times of peace, however, when secrecy is needed in order to win a battle or a war, withholding the truth may be justified.

 

Although quotations are good writing devices, you must consider the scope and context of these quotations. You create the impression that you are using an American platform to create your essay when using a U.S. president. Some grammar and usage problems. Tasks were adequately addressed. Evidence of clarity of thought, and some depth.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[Tangy]

Hello PastaInhaler,

 

I hope everything is well with you! I did a practice AAMC4 test today and I wanted to get your feedback on my writing sample responses. Thank you for your hard work!! Much appreciated

 

 

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

 

In the past two years, there have been a couple of strikes by the Toronto Transit Comission (TTC) workers. Most people in Toronto were frustrated with these strikes to the extent that some people actually used violence against TTC workers. Transporation is important and people do not want to see their means of getting to work, school or simply from point A to B stopped everytime TTC workers want more previlidges. As a result, in the last strike by TTC workers, there was a discussion of putting the TTC services under the category of "essential services," so that they will not be able to strike in the future. In cases like this, where vital serviecs to citizens are jeopradized, governments should have the responsibility in regulating companies that provide those services. Otherwise, if the workers strike or the company iteslf wants more priviledges, then it can disrupt the services it provides to citizens until the party striking out gets what they want or at least more than what they had before. Disrupting necessary services causes harm to the citizens, depending on the service provided. In order to prevent this, governments should increase their participation in regulating companies that provide services to citizens that are essential to their everyday lives.

 

However, there are companies that also provide necessary services to citizens that the government may not have the responsibility in regulating. These companies do not disrupt their services to citizens, unless it is out of their control (e.g. during a weather crisis). In such cases where the service to the citizens is well maintained, then the government may not be responsible to regulate it. For excample, the internet provider company Rogers provides citizens with internte conneciton. There is also Bll, and many other companies that provide internet connection. Nowadays, the internet is a necessary srevice because it provides users with connection to their long distanec family, and a world wide web of information that may be important for their job, among other things. Till today, there has been no well known disruption of the internet service by a provider (e.g. Rogers or Bell). The service is well maintained, and therefore, the government does not have a responsibility in regulating them.

 

All in all, essential services to citizens, like the internet and transportation, should not be disrupted because they rae vital in our day to day lives. If the service is well maintained by a company, then there is no need for governments to regulate it. However, if the service has been disrupted, not once, but for many times and for long periods as well, then governments may have the responsibility to regulate those companies to ensure that the services are not disrupted.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Only those politicians who have learned the art of compromise can achieve their political goals.

 

Many scientists believe that there is some selfishness implied by Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. In order to increase one's fitness, the individual must work for their own good. However, there is another popular theory postulated by W.D Hamilton: Kinship and Altruism. This theory tells us that an individual could sacrifice itself for the good of others. This will also increase their fitness. Similarily in politics there is not only one way of achieving a goal. Sometimes, politicians can cooperate and sometimes it may be better not to. In cases where the ultimate goal of politicians is to increase the economic stability of a country, then it may be wiser to compromise. That is because the other parties will also want to increase their own nation's economic stability. As a result, there may be some policies that one group of politicians may not like and others that the other group may not like. If the politicians do not cooperate, then everyone will segregate and each nation will have to find another group of politicians that share their likes and dislikes. This is hardly likely since countries are now independent and have their own needs and wants. Instead, by compromising with other politicians, the nations involved are a step closer to their economic stability, as trading between the nations will increase and tarrifs will decrease.

 

Conversely, in cases where citizen's lives are at stake, comrpomising may not be the best way to achieve safety for the citizenry. This is exmplified by the Cold War, where politicians in the USA and Russia did not compromise but rather knew that each country is well equipped with nuclear weapons that can be used in war. If used, then both countries would be destroyed and neither would have achieved their goals. Clearly in this case the nation's army and technology - power - was the best way to avoid a potential deadly war. Compromising did not resolve anything because there were spies on both sides of countries. There was no trust, and without trust, cooperating is hardly possible.

 

As a result, sometimes politicians may find that comrpomising is better than power or force to achieve their goals, and sometimes vice versa. Cooperation is possible when the parties involved are trying to increase the economic well being of a country. This is especially the case when a country is neighbouring another one, and both can cooperate to nurture their economies. In this case, just as the saying goes, "Two minds are better than one," two nations working together for economic well being are better than one trying to do so. However, when trust is mutually exclusive between countries, then coopreation is no longer a possible route to achieve a goal. Instead, power may be a wiser choice. This was examplified by the Cold War in the 20th century.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thank you once again!

[PastaInhaler]

An understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of the present.

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 solving a current problem might not require an understanding of the past. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the past should be considered in solving the problems of the present.

 

My response:

 

Learning from our mistakes is encouraged in today’s society as a way to model our behavior and make our choices. Using the past as a tool to guide our future behavior is extremely useful because it provides a template we may use to predict the outcomes of our possible choices, and select the most fruitful choice from these possibilities. Often, to make an informed decision, past experience with a situation may be necessary, as in the case of new technology.

In the case of the American invention of the Atomic bomb, the lack of prior knowledge about the effects of the technology proved tragic. In an effort to put an end to World War II, the Americans dropped an Atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not only causing the deaths of millions of men, women, and children immediately, but also for generation to come due to radiation from the bomb. In this case, the American government had no experience with the bomb and no way to tell how much damage would be caused by the bomb, resulting in a horrific number of casualties. Clearly, in this case, an understanding of the past would have had a profound effect on the American’s decision to drop the bombs in Japan, and likely would not have resulted in such a bad ending.

There are cases, however, in which past experience is not necessary to facilitate problem solving, for example current issues surrounding genetic engineering and cloning in humans. Although history has never seen a situation like this before, North American scientists and government agencies alike are able to make informed, cautious decision in terms of the regulation of this new and potentially dangerous science. Scientific rather than historical knowledge has provided a base for us to make accurate predictions of the future, and from this, we are able to make the best decisions possible.

Although generally making predictions and basing decisions on the outcomes of the past is the most accurate way to solve problems of the present, there are cases in which this information is not available, and we are forced to take an alternative route to make our decisions. The scientific method is a great example of this alternative route: ideas are tested in a safe environment before they are executed in real life situations. Without past examples to support our decisions, we must rely on careful, accurate processes and weighing the options before we come to a conclusion. It is through this method we are able to progress and excel as a species regardless of what boundaries we approach.

 

 

I really appreciate the feedback

 

The tasks were adequately addressed, yet the first example provided creates tension in the essay. It does not fit in with your explanation of the prompt. The first example shows that the line of reasoning in task#2 can cause problems for the world. This will weaken your essay overall and will be remarked as difficulty with integration and focus.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

Thanks PastaInhaler! I appreciate your help very much!

 

The best education teaches students to question authority

 

Henry Thoreau was a highly influential figure who passionately expressed the theory of nonviolent resistance against injustice in his Civil Disobedience essay in 1849. He refused to cooperate with an unjust system and urged “honest men to rebel and revolutionize.” Education often teaches students to challenge authority for the betterment of society. On a national scale' date=' many people including Thoreau consider it a moral obligation to oppose authorities such as unjust laws and state. The Jim Crow Laws were enacted in the United States from 1876-1965, which resulted in racial segregation, and frequent inferior treatment of Black Americans. In his autobiography, Martin Luther King acknowledges Thoreau for his teachings, which inspired the Freedom Riders of 1961 to protest against the discriminatory practices. These Freedom Riders, who were Black, White, men, and women, stood up for human rights and equality. They practiced nonviolent resistance against the unjust authorities. Willing to die for their cause, the Freedom Riders served to challenge status quo and hoped to improve the society in which they and their children would live.

 

Although education often teaches us to challenge authority, there are instances when education in fact teaches students to respect authority. As children, we are taught in school and in our homes to respect and look after one another. In other words, we are taught to protect and serve society. Many services that are provided to citizens in Canada can be considered privileges. For instance, the Canadian government invests billions of dollars annually in the health care system in order to provide universal health care to citizens. Free access to health care, a privilege in society, does not discriminate against age, sex, or socioeconomic status. As a result, citizens are taught to respect authority in order to protect society’s security and welfare.

 

Education is an important part of most societies, as it encourages citizens to challenge authority under some circumstances, as well as to respect authority in other contexts. Education should teach students to question unjust laws and state that infringe others fundamental rights as citizens. In contrast, education should teach students to respect authority when we live in a privileged society. The Freedom Riders in 1961 hoped to challenge unjust and discriminatory laws in order to construct a safer society for citizens. When authorities such as the government provide security and welfare for its citizens, education should teach students to respect authority maintain privileges that benefit society.[/quote']

 

You’re welcome.

 

The essay demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. The ideas in task 1 and task 2 are undeveloped. Task 1’s example does not integrate the idea of education with the works of Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

Task 2 does not connect the ideas of teaching at home, and not to question authority and their logical relationship with privilege. Further explanation and clarification will be needed.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[frozenarbitor]

It is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better to change the law than to tolerate minor defects in it. Discuss what you think determines when it is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it and when it is better to change it.

 

Law is a set of codes or guidelines that mandates how the citizens of a country should behave under specific circumstances. It is meant to serve its people by maintaining order in a society. As laws are made by the people, and people are prone to error, some laws will inevitably be flawed. Furthermore, with changing era and changing social setting, a preexisting law may be outdated and hence develop defects. Major defects in the law should be changed. However, it is sometimes better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it because changing the law often requires a great deal of legislative effort than may end up being more costly to the public. For example, the current constitutional law of Canada limites the government's ability to axe certain beauracratic positions in the government in time of austerity. This limitation may be costly to the tax payers; however, to change the constitutional will require a great deal of legislative changes that will affect many other sectors of the government and end up costing the tax payers much more.

 

However, some laws that have minor defects may be changed at a little expense to the tax payers. In these cases, the law should be changed promptly to rid the defects to better serve the people. For example, the new city by-laws in Calgary that charges $2 for parking at the public transport train stations was enacted to fill a hole in the city public transport budget. However, this law ended up costing the system to lose money rather than gaining money as more people opt to drive to work rather than using the transit due to the increased cost of parking. This law was promptly changed as the newly elected Mayor Naheed Nashi took office because the law can be easily changed without much hassle in term of legislation as compared to the Constitution.

 

In conclusion, when a law has a minor defect, it is important to look at the cost-benefit of changing the law to correct the minor defect. For laws that require major costly legislation change, such as that of the Canadian Constituion, the law should be kept unchanged as the cost of changing the law exceeds that of keeping the law as it is. However, for smaller laws such as the Calgary city by-law that posed the $2 fee for transit parking, which can be easily changed little cost and effort, the law should be promptly changed to better serve the people. In all cases, cost-benefit analysis should be done before making changes to a law. If the cost exceeds the benefit for the tax-payers, the law should be changed. Otherwise, laws with minor defects can be tolerated.

 

Thanks!

[scubagirl]

Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction.

 

My response:

 

 

Human interaction is a necessary part of our species’ survival—it provides us with a satisfaction that cannot be replaced by any other. As technology advances, so too can the quality of our relationships proceed in the opposite direction. Gone are the days in which a couple in a rough spot meets up to discuss their issues: they have been replaced by a drawn-out text messaging conversation that confuses emotions and leaves one or both parties with a feeling of unsatisfaction. Some students rely solely on an online curriculum to complete their high school or post-secondary education, never hearing an explanation from a live teacher or forming lifelong friendships with classmates. Physical interaction with others can be severely limited by technology, and one must be mindful of the consequences of losing such a fundamental part of being a human.

But what about the husband who is serving his country in Afghanistan? Are him and his wife truly hindered by the technology that allows them to talk in real time via video chat sessions on programs such as Skype? I think not. It is obvious that these technologies are vital to the maintenance of relationships in the case of the previously mentioned soldier and his wife. It could even be argued that technology has saved many of these relationships from complete failure. So, has technology then enriched the quality of human interaction?

It depends. When technology is used in replacement of physical human interaction, then it is detracting from the quality of relationships. Nobody can argue that a smiley-face sent via text message will make them feel better than a hug and a shoulder to cry on. It is when we are separated by large distances or are unable to be with our loved ones physically that technology plays an irreplaceable role in today’s society. We are able to let our close friends know that we are thinking of them even when we are thousands of miles away, and we are able to see the face of our safe and healthy newborn son even in the middle of a war zone.

[caduceus]

My essay:

 

Moral principles should be absolute, never affected by the circumstances of a given situation.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a person's moral principles might be affected by circumstances. Discuss what you think determines when a person's moral principles should be absolute.

 

Modern society functions on the basis of the values, ethics, and morals of others. Moreover, it has been argued that morality is what separates humans from other living creatures. It is the uniquely human desire to do the "right thing" in any scenario that has enabled us to create such large and complex societies. Moreover, the basis for morality are our moral principles, which represent our core beliefs and stance on moral issues. The statement argues that moral principles should be absolute, never affected by the circumstances of a given situation, which means that disregarding the fact that a more favourable outcome may arise from an amoral action, the moral route is always taken. That is, in any decision, the moral route is always the path taken.

 

However, there are scenarios in which such a strategy is not optimal, and in which case deviation from this rule may be necessary, or would at least create a "grey area" in the decision. For instance, after the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001, the United States of America decided to initiate its 'War on Terror'. The classical moral principles of "do no harm" and "do unto others as you would unto yourself" were not a part of this decision. The United States certainly did inflict harm, exacerbated in the recent announcement of the killing of Osama Bin Laden - one of the main perpetrators of the instigating incident. Thus, in this case, the amoral route was taken. Moreover, while the decision to go to war in Iraq as well as Afghanistan was unpopular, the decision to go to war on terrorism itself was nearly unanimous. In this case, the circumstances surrounding the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were what changed the moral principles adhered to in this situation. Thus, in this example, it is clear that the American government felt the need for retaliation, and in doing so, essentially overrode their moral principles.

 

It is clear, therefore, that in certain situations, moral principles cannot be adhered to absolutely, and in others they can. For instance, in modern society, theft is not the norm. Therefore, the average consumer in a modern society adheres to the moral principle of not stealing, moreover, it is likely that they adhere to this principle absolutely, and that even the thought of stealing is abnormal. In this case, as evidenced by relatively low theft rates in modern society, the moral principle of not stealing and paying others fairly is adhered to absolutely in almost every circumstance. Thus, when the situation is such that making an amoral decision leads to an outcome that is some degree more favourable than the outcome of the moral decision, the amoral route is taken. The degree of the difference may vary for each person, but the principle remains consistent. Applied to the scenario of terrorism in the United States, we see that the predicted outcome of following the moral route would be that terror attacks would not stop, and that the terrorists would have claimed victory. However, the predicted outcome of taking the amoral route would be that terrorism could be quashed or driven away from the United States, and this would serve as revenge for the attacks. Hence, we see that the expected outcome of the amoral route is orders of magnitude more desirable than that of the moral route. So, it is because of this vast difference that the amoral route was taken, whereas in the other scenario, stealing an item would lead to a free item, but would almost certainly lead to some form of prosecution as well. Thus, in this case, the difference between the amoral and moral outcomes was not different enough to warrant not adhering absolutely to moral principles. In summation, we see that it is the degree of the difference between the expected outcomes of the amoral and moral paths that is what determines whether a moral principle is adhered to absolutely or not in a given set of circumstances.

 

 

Thank you so much!

[PastaInhaler]

Teachers must accept partial responsibility for the failures of any of their students.

 

All students have unique and distinct forms of learning, so it is part of the teacher’s responsibility to identify the appropriate method of conveying the content to the students in the most effective way. The teacher is partially accountable for a student’s failure to grasp the information if the teacher refuses to either introduce new teaching approaches to correspond to the needs of the students or to initiate an after school additional help session. Every subject in school is subject to criticism by the students, usually relating to its difficulty or dullness, but the teacher must attempt to appeal to the interest of the students. Many science teachers incorporate exciting science experiments into the curriculum to reinforce scientific principles, and this allows the student to grasp the information and relate it back to tangible or observable applications. If a science teacher failed to acknowledge that the students learned more effectively with fun experiments than monotonously taking down notes, then the teacher is at fault to a certain extent if the students do not achieve an acceptable grade.

 

Under several circumstances however, despite the teacher’s innovative teaching methods and integration of new techniques, students cannot or unwilling to learn the material at hand. Although the teacher can effectively convey and explain the material to the majority of the children, one cannot expect the teacher to teach students motivation. If a student has deemed math is a useless subject and display pure indifference for a poor mark, it should not be the teacher’s responsibility to change a student’s complete outlook. The student’s failure are all brought upon by his or hers unwillingness to learn, not ability to learn; therefore, the teacher is not responsible for the student’s poor marks if the option for extra help is offered.

 

The person who should be blamed for a student’s failures is circumstantial and dependent on how both the teacher and student approach their respective roles. If the teacher is not creative and flexible, then they are to blame for their inability to spark interest and inspiration in their students. However, if a student is rejects the notion of learning and the concept of motivation, the child will failure regardless of a teacher’s efforts. If both parties are aiming for the student’s success of understanding the content and achieving an exceptional mark, then there are no failures, just improvements to be made.

 

Tasks were adequately addressed. While reading the essay, it seems that the argument in task#2 could be used to directly undermine your argument in task#1. This creates tension within the essay.

 

To improve, you will have to change the way you approach task#2. This will broaden your essay, and will create less logical tension within it. Can you think of other examples where a student may fail where you really can't fault the teacher? i.e. student has a learning disability, student is abused at home and can't study, etc...

 

This will help you develop task#3 better, and will certainly improve your score.

 

You should strive to process ideas carefully, but quickly in order that you have extra time at the end to think through your essay, and check for grammatical errors.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

Fourth attempt, done at work.. but it felt better developed and edited than the last.

 

 

Creativity flourishes best in circumstances where freedom of speech is openly permitted.

 

Creativity flourishes best when a strong driving force is present, similar to the development of defensive mechanisms in prey. One must then consider what area of development is being discussed and what the driving force for the development of that area is. If the driving force is the overall well-being of the public then it is likely that openly permitting freedom of speech will facilitate this creativity. This is because the freedom of speech allows the sharing of knowledge which in turn allows groups of people to collaborate on theories. This brings different types of people together allowing the development to be attacked from many different angles, generally leading to a better developed end result. For example, the field of string theory has been greatly advanced by the collaboration of many physicists and having restrictions on the sharing of knowledge would have severely hindered the developments that have been made. An example of this sort of collaboration would be any physics conference as the groups of presenters put their knowledge and expertise on display allowing others to supplement their own research with the ideas presented.

 

There are, however, cases in which the opposite is true. That is, situations where creativity flourishes best when freedom of speech is not openly permitted. These situations arise when the driving force is, in fact, the restrictions placed on the freedom of speech. One might think of the development of new methods of encryption as an exemplar of this. Enhancing the methods of coded communication would be driven by the restrictions and forced to evolve as communication is something humans innately strive for. This drive for the ability to communicate can be seen in many parts of society. For example, the learning of multiple languages displays a want to communicate with a greater amount of people and cultures. This is presumably because as communication increases so too do many aspects of social life and the development of the styles of things discussed in the opening argument. The concept of the driving force allows this argument to stay consistent with the first examples given and can be further supported by the production of weapons and medicine during war times. These are both examples of when conditions that are generally detrimental to society have acted to facilitate creativity in specific areas.

 

It is clear from the previous examples that the regulation of freedom of speech can facilitate creativity in both of its extremes. That is to say that allowing it can act to enhance creativity in some areas; however, restricting it can enhance creativity in other areas. In order to determine whether or not the permittance of the freedom of speech encourages creativity one must consider what area of development is in question and what the driving force for the enhancement of that area is. If the restriction of freedom of speech provides a need for developing the area in question, it follows that creativity in that area will be facilitated by withholding the freedom of speech. In cases where this is not true one can say that allowing freedom of speech will facilitate creativity through the ease of collaboration.

 

 

Thanks again, hopefully you will see some improvements from the last attempt!

 

 

You're welcome.

 

There were issues with clarity of thought and coherence. As well, the essay showed difficulty in responding to the tasks. You may need a little more expansion and explanation in the first example, and how it relates to the prompt. As well, the counter-example was a little unclear (how does the learning of new languages fit in with task#2: when are people really smart, innovative, cool and creative when there are restrictions to freedom of speech?) There was another idea that was introduced in the second paragraph, but it was not explained well enough. It should probably be given its own paragraph and explanation.

 

The opening was a little distracting. You start with an analogy with defence mechanisms in prey, and it is altogether abandoned. The analogy may be confusing to an essay reader who only has a minimal understanding of evolutionary biology, if any. There were some grammatical errors and usage problems that detracted from the overall purpose of your sentences.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

In times of war, maintaining public support is often the most difficult battle.

 

In democratic countries, starting a war or continuing a war requires public support. Thus it is usually important for a politician to gain enough public support before acting in a war, otherwise the politician himself/herself may risk his/her future career. Sometimes, maintaining this public support is often the most difficult battle. These wars could be civil wars happening within the boarder of the country, or international wars happening far away from the country. And public support could be many things, including majority support in voting, support from the media and public opinions, and support from various classes and parties in the country. It is impossible to please everyone, but if a considerate group of people are against politician’s decision during the war, it may cause social or political instability and may become a threat to the success of the war.

 

However it is not always that difficult to win support from the public. Sometimes the war is unavoidable and citizens have no other choice than supporting the war. Take the World War II as example, the Japanese army intruded China and planned to take over Chinese government. If that happens, China would become a colony of Japan. After intruding, Japanese government killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese in Northeast area of China, and forced Chinese to speak only Japanese as official language. When the traditional culture and even language is in threat, the Chinese has no other choice than fighting for the war, and thus it was not hard at all for the political leaders to gain public support at that time, since the war is what everyone wants and has to do. In this justified unavoidable war fighting for well-being of the citizens, few would be against the war and thus maintaining public support is easy.

 

To determine when maintaining public support in times of war is difficult and when it is not, the purpose of the war needs to be examined. When a war is unavoidable, or started by other nations, public opinions usually believe the war is justifiable and support the idea of “protecting our country and fighting back”, especially if the war is happening on the homeland of a country, when other nations are intruding with political or economic purposes. However, when a country has the option to choose from starting a war or not, especially on the land of other countries, citizens in the country may have various opinions to the war, and may suspect the real purpose of the war, which casts doubt on the intention of the politician wanting to start the war. And this doubt may become public actions against the politician, which may potentially hurt the politician’s career. In this situation, it is not only important for the politician to maintain public support, but also extremely difficult.

 

 

 

Thank you very much!!!!! It means a lot to me.

 

You're welcome.

 

Responds well to the tasks. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. The example in paragraph 2 was sufficient in illustrating your point, and the associated explanation was sufficient. Adequate control of language with some grammatical or usage problems.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

The way to achieve political success is to promise people that their lives will be better.

 

In the 2011 Canadian president election, the New Democratic Party (NDP) promised to Asian immigrants that they will provide better chances for their parents’ immigration so the Asian immigrants could live with and take care of their parents. According to the Asian immigrants, taking care of their parents is of significant importance and being able to take their parents to where they live is a great way to make their lives easier. The NDP achieved great success in provinces with large Asian population such as the British Columbia. This is an example when politicians achieve success by promising people a better life. Promising a better life is appealing to many voters, and becomes an effective marketing strategy for many politicians to succeed. While political success does not only mean winning elections, but also includes other successes such as winning majority support for a particular policy or political decision.

 

However, not all political successes are achieved by promising people that their lives will be better. Of course people care most about their own lives, but in democratic countries, people also consider lives of others as part of the political goal. An example is France leading the international war in Libya in 2011. When the Libya government was fighting against the rebellion in the country, the government decided to attack various areas in the cities, which put lives of innocent citizens in risk. The United Nation decided to interfere and France volunteered to lead the war represents the United Nation. This leadership of the war which protects human rights was considered justifiable and thus supported by French people. And the current president Mr. Sarkozy gained an increasing support during the war from the citizens, which is a great political success.

 

To determine whether or not the way to achieve political success is to promise people that their lives will be better, the political purpose of the action needs to be examined. If the political purpose is to win an election, promising the voters a better life would serve the purpose directly and probably most effectively. People would be most motivated to take action to vote when the voting result will significantly and directly affect their lives. On the other hand, when the political purpose is to win the support of public opinions on a particular issue, there is not always a chance to promise people their lives would be better. In this situation, other strategies to gain support must be developed, including gaining emotional support from the public, behaving justifiably according to the social mainstream or leading the public opinions by effective public educations. Mr. Sarkozy knew this. He made use of this strategy to win support from his citizens and to take advantage of this support to gain his political success.

 

 

Thank you!!!! I'll try to keep this as the last one so you could have more time for others.

 

You're welcome, please feel free to post more when you are ready. This essay responds adequately to the tasks. Clarity of thought and organization could be improved upon. There were some issues with grammar and usage that detracted from your ideas.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNO/PQRST

[PastaInhaler]

Every business develops by expanding both in size and in width. Maximizing profit gains makes it possible for companies to acquire the resources to expand. Profits are used to establish branch offices across the country, build more factories and warehouses,and increase the number of employees, thereby increasing the size of a growing company. Profits are also used to attract prospective investors and customers, build buisness networks and possibly expand into related fields,therefore broadening the width of a company's development. So, it is not suprising that growing companies devote most of their resources to maximizing profirs. Facebook clearly shows the advantages doing this. When Facebook first started, it was not a free public website like it is now. Each new account and each access to another person's webpage were charged. Advertisements were also ubiquitious. However, since this idea of worldwide social networking was unprecedented, the number of new account registration increased exorbitantly each day. Mark Zuckenberg and his team of only four Harvard students used the profits to expand Facebook into the social networking giant it is today. Without the initial stratagy of focusing only on profits, Zuckenberg's team could never attract countless experts in website desgin to develop the later hugely popular applications; his team also could not have the credentials to persuade investors into betting their own profits into such a young company like Facebook. Facebook's success illustrates that maximizing profits serves as the foundation for expandsion and should be every growing buisness' priority.

 

On the other hand, for established companies, instead of striving for making profits only, their primary goal should be to maintain current resources and assets. For these comapanies, they already have a stable base of customers and investers,or shareholders. Their material assets, such as factories and equipments are advanced and well maintained. Generating more profits to devote to these areas are only icings on a cake, nice to have but not essential.In other words,further profits will only incur marginal growth for the company. For example,Morgan Stanley is one of the most esablished investment firms in the world. It has branch offices in almost every continent, and only attracts the best investment bankers in the world. Its customers range from oil companies to royal families. For a company like this, with such exensive business connections and a well-established reputation amoung investors,the priority is to secure the investors and shareholders and prevent anything from tarnishing its image. Continuing to utilize every means to rake up more profits will only lead people to perceive the company as greedy and impersonal. Potentially losing investors and shareholders will render all the early efforts made by maximizing profits obsolete. Therefore, for an established company like Morgan Stanley, focusing solely on generating profits is more deleterious rather than beneficial.

 

In conlcusion, whether a company should priorize maximizing profits depend on the stage a company's development is at. If a company is just starting, it should devote most resources to generate profits in order to establish itself in the field. Such business uses profits to expand its size, attract potential employess an investors. These newly acquired assets, whether material or intellectual,will further help the company gain more profits. This positive cycle will push the company to a plateu. Companies at this plateu are well established both in terms of size and width. Devoting many resources to generate profits will only produce disproportionaly small growth and possible harm to the comapanies' image. Therefore, maximizing profits works, but only to a certain stage.

 

Thanks!

 

You're welcome. In the future, please include the prompt with the essay.

 

There were some problems with grammar and usage. Ideas are somewhat developed. Tasks#1 and #2 are adequately addressed, although task#3 is not adequately addressed and will need further explanation.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNO/PQRST

[meager]

The abundance of information on the internet limits its usefulness.

 

The World Wide Web serves as a source of continuous and immediate inflow of information, and provides the answers to virtually every question. One cannot deny the usefulness of the internet, however, the abundance at which this information is offered acts to undermine its validity and limit its usefulness. High schools and universities are prohibiting the use of Wikipedia as a legitimate resource for research projects and papers. Although it is a search engine which offers immediate and concise information about countless topics, the content can be modified by anyone, rendering this excessive amount of information useless. The overwhelming amount of information that can be obtained via a click of the mouse makes one question the legitimacy of the material, so the quantity is completely weakened by the disputed quality.

 

While there are many websites that do not provide the most accurate information, many other websites have proved to be reliable and informative. The abundance of information available to the public is unprecedented due to the internet, and when one knows when to filter out the incorrect data, the wide range of information is incredibly useful. If the internet did not expand its boundaries to incorporate all the information possible, it would not contain databases which allow for electronic access to scientific journals and textbooks. These databases contain valid information printed in newspapers, books, and journals; therefore, this abundance of information is useful to students, professors, and the general public alike. With so much information to access within the internet, it is important to weed out the flawed information to retrieve the undeniably useful.

 

In recent years, people have turned to search engines like Google and Yahoo to find answers to their questions. With the vast quantity of information out there, it is difficult to grasp when it is appropriate to believe the information on the screen. The key factor to bear in mind when determining if the considerable amount of information limits its usefulness is, which part of the internet is being used to obtain the information. Although databases provide a substantial amount of information, the public understands and expects the information to be accurate and useful. Unfortunately, however, if people are depending on sources where data can be altered by a non-expert such as Wikipedia, then the information, regardless if it is true or not, is deemed questionable.

[PastaInhaler]

Hello PastaInhaler,

 

I hope everything is well with you! I did a practice AAMC4 test today and I wanted to get your feedback on my writing sample responses. Thank you for your hard work!! Much appreciated

 

 

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

 

In the past two years, there have been a couple of strikes by the Toronto Transit Comission (TTC) workers. Most people in Toronto were frustrated with these strikes to the extent that some people actually used violence against TTC workers. Transporation is important and people do not want to see their means of getting to work, school or simply from point A to B stopped everytime TTC workers want more previlidges. As a result, in the last strike by TTC workers, there was a discussion of putting the TTC services under the category of "essential services," so that they will not be able to strike in the future. In cases like this, where vital serviecs to citizens are jeopradized, governments should have the responsibility in regulating companies that provide those services. Otherwise, if the workers strike or the company iteslf wants more priviledges, then it can disrupt the services it provides to citizens until the party striking out gets what they want or at least more than what they had before. Disrupting necessary services causes harm to the citizens, depending on the service provided. In order to prevent this, governments should increase their participation in regulating companies that provide services to citizens that are essential to their everyday lives.

 

However, there are companies that also provide necessary services to citizens that the government may not have the responsibility in regulating. These companies do not disrupt their services to citizens, unless it is out of their control (e.g. during a weather crisis). In such cases where the service to the citizens is well maintained, then the government may not be responsible to regulate it. For excample, the internet provider company Rogers provides citizens with internte conneciton. There is also Bll, and many other companies that provide internet connection. Nowadays, the internet is a necessary srevice because it provides users with connection to their long distanec family, and a world wide web of information that may be important for their job, among other things. Till today, there has been no well known disruption of the internet service by a provider (e.g. Rogers or Bell). The service is well maintained, and therefore, the government does not have a responsibility in regulating them.

 

All in all, essential services to citizens, like the internet and transportation, should not be disrupted because they rae vital in our day to day lives. If the service is well maintained by a company, then there is no need for governments to regulate it. However, if the service has been disrupted, not once, but for many times and for long periods as well, then governments may have the responsibility to regulate those companies to ensure that the services are not disrupted.

 

You're welcome, I'm well, thanks.

 

Some good points, and the tasks were adequately addressed.

You could expand upon the idea presented in paragraph #2, and expand more upon task #3.

 

Adequate control of language with some grammatical or usage problem.

Evidence of clarity of thought.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNO/PQRST

[PastaInhaler]

 

Only those politicians who have learned the art of compromise can achieve their political goals.

 

Many scientists believe that there is some selfishness implied by Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. In order to increase one's fitness, the individual must work for their own good. However, there is another popular theory postulated by W.D Hamilton: Kinship and Altruism. This theory tells us that an individual could sacrifice itself for the good of others. This will also increase their fitness. Similarily in politics there is not only one way of achieving a goal. Sometimes, politicians can cooperate and sometimes it may be better not to. In cases where the ultimate goal of politicians is to increase the economic stability of a country, then it may be wiser to compromise. That is because the other parties will also want to increase their own nation's economic stability. As a result, there may be some policies that one group of politicians may not like and others that the other group may not like. If the politicians do not cooperate, then everyone will segregate and each nation will have to find another group of politicians that share their likes and dislikes. This is hardly likely since countries are now independent and have their own needs and wants. Instead, by compromising with other politicians, the nations involved are a step closer to their economic stability, as trading between the nations will increase and tarrifs will decrease.

 

Conversely, in cases where citizen's lives are at stake, comrpomising may not be the best way to achieve safety for the citizenry. This is exmplified by the Cold War, where politicians in the USA and Russia did not compromise but rather knew that each country is well equipped with nuclear weapons that can be used in war. If used, then both countries would be destroyed and neither would have achieved their goals. Clearly in this case the nation's army and technology - power - was the best way to avoid a potential deadly war. Compromising did not resolve anything because there were spies on both sides of countries. There was no trust, and without trust, cooperating is hardly possible.

 

As a result, sometimes politicians may find that comrpomising is better than power or force to achieve their goals, and sometimes vice versa. Cooperation is possible when the parties involved are trying to increase the economic well being of a country. This is especially the case when a country is neighbouring another one, and both can cooperate to nurture their economies. In this case, just as the saying goes, "Two minds are better than one," two nations working together for economic well being are better than one trying to do so. However, when trust is mutually exclusive between countries, then coopreation is no longer a possible route to achieve a goal. Instead, power may be a wiser choice. This was examplified by the Cold War in the 20th century.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thank you once again!

 

You're welcome.

 

The essay shows problems with clarity of thought and organization. Adequate control of language with some grammatical or usage problem.

 

The tasks were not adequately addressed. Compromise does not necessarily equal cooperation, although cooperation may be an aspect of compromise. You will need to demonstrate how, by abandoning one's interests, a political objective can be achieved. Afterwards, for task#2, you must use an example that demonstrates how a political objective can be achieved by not abandoning one's interests. This was not found in task#2's example. You had further mentioned: "Compromise did not resolve anything..." which is opposite to what you should be concluding for task#2.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

It is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better to change the law than to tolerate minor defects in it. Discuss what you think determines when it is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it and when it is better to change it.

 

Law is a set of codes or guidelines that mandates how the citizens of a country should behave under specific circumstances. It is meant to serve its people by maintaining order in a society. As laws are made by the people, and people are prone to error, some laws will inevitably be flawed. Furthermore, with changing era and changing social setting, a preexisting law may be outdated and hence develop defects. Major defects in the law should be changed. However, it is sometimes better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it because changing the law often requires a great deal of legislative effort than may end up being more costly to the public. For example, the current constitutional law of Canada limites the government's ability to axe certain beauracratic positions in the government in time of austerity. This limitation may be costly to the tax payers; however, to change the constitutional will require a great deal of legislative changes that will affect many other sectors of the government and end up costing the tax payers much more.

 

However, some laws that have minor defects may be changed at a little expense to the tax payers. In these cases, the law should be changed promptly to rid the defects to better serve the people. For example, the new city by-laws in Calgary that charges $2 for parking at the public transport train stations was enacted to fill a hole in the city public transport budget. However, this law ended up costing the system to lose money rather than gaining money as more people opt to drive to work rather than using the transit due to the increased cost of parking. This law was promptly changed as the newly elected Mayor Naheed Nashi took office because the law can be easily changed without much hassle in term of legislation as compared to the Constitution.

 

In conclusion, when a law has a minor defect, it is important to look at the cost-benefit of changing the law to correct the minor defect. For laws that require major costly legislation change, such as that of the Canadian Constituion, the law should be kept unchanged as the cost of changing the law exceeds that of keeping the law as it is. However, for smaller laws such as the Calgary city by-law that posed the $2 fee for transit parking, which can be easily changed little cost and effort, the law should be promptly changed to better serve the people. In all cases, cost-benefit analysis should be done before making changes to a law. If the cost exceeds the benefit for the tax-payers, the law should be changed. Otherwise, laws with minor defects can be tolerated.

 

Thanks!

 

Adequate control of language with some grammatical or usage problem.

Some problems with organization, but there is evidence of some clarity of thought.

 

Some ideas are underdeveloped. For the first example, the idea that the example is used to illustrate will need to be explained further. You will need to make the issue of a defect in the law, and how the law can be tolerated more apparent. The idea, albeit a good one, is not immediately clear to the reader. The reader must be able to discern your intentions in a single pass.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMN/OPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction.

 

My response:

 

 

Human interaction is a necessary part of our species’ survival—it provides us with a satisfaction that cannot be replaced by any other. As technology advances, so too can the quality of our relationships proceed in the opposite direction. Gone are the days in which a couple in a rough spot meets up to discuss their issues: they have been replaced by a drawn-out text messaging conversation that confuses emotions and leaves one or both parties with a feeling of unsatisfaction. Some students rely solely on an online curriculum to complete their high school or post-secondary education, never hearing an explanation from a live teacher or forming lifelong friendships with classmates. Physical interaction with others can be severely limited by technology, and one must be mindful of the consequences of losing such a fundamental part of being a human.

But what about the husband who is serving his country in Afghanistan? Are him and his wife truly hindered by the technology that allows them to talk in real time via video chat sessions on programs such as Skype? I think not. It is obvious that these technologies are vital to the maintenance of relationships in the case of the previously mentioned soldier and his wife. It could even be argued that technology has saved many of these relationships from complete failure. So, has technology then enriched the quality of human interaction?

It depends. When technology is used in replacement of physical human interaction, then it is detracting from the quality of relationships. Nobody can argue that a smiley-face sent via text message will make them feel better than a hug and a shoulder to cry on. It is when we are separated by large distances or are unable to be with our loved ones physically that technology plays an irreplaceable role in today’s society. We are able to let our close friends know that we are thinking of them even when we are thousands of miles away, and we are able to see the face of our safe and healthy newborn son even in the middle of a war zone.

 

Demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. Ideas are undeveloped.

There are problems with clarity and complexity of thought in the essay.

Some grammatical or usage problem.

 

Using technology to save relationships cannot be equated with an improvement in the quality of human interaction. You will need to argue from a different angle. As well, task#3 was not adequately addressed, and it seems like a conclusion to the idea presented in task#2.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

My essay:

 

Moral principles should be absolute, never affected by the circumstances of a given situation.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a person's moral principles might be affected by circumstances. Discuss what you think determines when a person's moral principles should be absolute.

 

Modern society functions on the basis of the values, ethics, and morals of others. Moreover, it has been argued that morality is what separates humans from other living creatures. It is the uniquely human desire to do the "right thing" in any scenario that has enabled us to create such large and complex societies. Moreover, the basis for morality are our moral principles, which represent our core beliefs and stance on moral issues. The statement argues that moral principles should be absolute, never affected by the circumstances of a given situation, which means that disregarding the fact that a more favourable outcome may arise from an amoral action, the moral route is always taken. That is, in any decision, the moral route is always the path taken.

 

However, there are scenarios in which such a strategy is not optimal, and in which case deviation from this rule may be necessary, or would at least create a "grey area" in the decision. For instance, after the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001, the United States of America decided to initiate its 'War on Terror'. The classical moral principles of "do no harm" and "do unto others as you would unto yourself" were not a part of this decision. The United States certainly did inflict harm, exacerbated in the recent announcement of the killing of Osama Bin Laden - one of the main perpetrators of the instigating incident. Thus, in this case, the amoral route was taken. Moreover, while the decision to go to war in Iraq as well as Afghanistan was unpopular, the decision to go to war on terrorism itself was nearly unanimous. In this case, the circumstances surrounding the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were what changed the moral principles adhered to in this situation. Thus, in this example, it is clear that the American government felt the need for retaliation, and in doing so, essentially overrode their moral principles.

 

It is clear, therefore, that in certain situations, moral principles cannot be adhered to absolutely, and in others they can. For instance, in modern society, theft is not the norm. Therefore, the average consumer in a modern society adheres to the moral principle of not stealing, moreover, it is likely that they adhere to this principle absolutely, and that even the thought of stealing is abnormal. In this case, as evidenced by relatively low theft rates in modern society, the moral principle of not stealing and paying others fairly is adhered to absolutely in almost every circumstance. Thus, when the situation is such that making an amoral decision leads to an outcome that is some degree more favourable than the outcome of the moral decision, the amoral route is taken. The degree of the difference may vary for each person, but the principle remains consistent. Applied to the scenario of terrorism in the United States, we see that the predicted outcome of following the moral route would be that terror attacks would not stop, and that the terrorists would have claimed victory. However, the predicted outcome of taking the amoral route would be that terrorism could be quashed or driven away from the United States, and this would serve as revenge for the attacks. Hence, we see that the expected outcome of the amoral route is orders of magnitude more desirable than that of the moral route. So, it is because of this vast difference that the amoral route was taken, whereas in the other scenario, stealing an item would lead to a free item, but would almost certainly lead to some form of prosecution as well. Thus, in this case, the difference between the amoral and moral outcomes was not different enough to warrant not adhering absolutely to moral principles. In summation, we see that it is the degree of the difference between the expected outcomes of the amoral and moral paths that is what determines whether a moral principle is adhered to absolutely or not in a given set of circumstances.

 

 

Thank you so much!

 

Ideas are somewhat developed. There may be some issues with clarity and coherence, and there are issues with integration and organization.

 

A new example was introduced in the final paragraph that explains the idea in the first paragraph. It would best serve the essay to have this example introduced after the explanation of the prompt in the first paragraph. Furthermore, the essay began to lose cohesion in the final paragraph as there were quite a few ideas introduced. Reducing the number of ideas, while being more detailed in the explanation of each idea will improve coherence and clarity as well as depth.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMN/OPQRST