Writer's Corner: Free Essay Grading by PastaInhaler

[mangos]

http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52143&highlight=mcat+strategy

 

I would check out the link I posted above. It is of a youtube station that posts videos with various writing sample prompts with examples for each, which is a big help when your stuck on a synthesis. For this prompt he used:

 

children vs. adults

-the younger the student, the greater the emphasis on values rather than skills

-children enrolled in preschool are taught values that will help them become members of society and help them to function. These values are important to teach at a young age

-in contrast, young adults that attend post-secondary education have a set of values that have been developed while growing up

-most are not particularly interested in being taught values. They pay thousands of dollars a year in order to gain specialized knowledge and skills

 

wow...great! thanks a lot ...that really helps

[pacemaker]

I am also confused about the 3 versus 4 paragraph format....I am taking a prep course right now and spoke with my verbal and writing sample instructor about it....she said that its better to follow the 3 paragraph format due to the standardized nature of the test. Any thoughts on that?

[PastaInhaler]

I am also confused about the 3 versus 4 paragraph format....I am taking a prep course right now and spoke with my verbal and writing sample instructor about it....she said that its better to follow the 3 paragraph format due to the standardized nature of the test. Any thoughts on that?

 

If I were to take the MCAT now, I would personally use a 4 paragraph format. This is my personal preference, and it may or may not work for you. If time permits, I would even go upto 5 paragraphs. Keep in mind that I am just some anonymous guy who is genuinely trying to help people out for free. I could be totally wrong. Besides, I am not paid by Kaplan, or Princeton or anyone, so I am not a professional teacher. However, each major idea or theme should be given it's own paragraph. A wall of text with 16 10-word average sentences is not a paragraph in my view. In the end, it's up to you to decide what you want to use on your test. You have to be comfortable with it, and it has to make sense to you. However...

 

"a paragraph is a sentence or group of sentences that support one main idea."

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/paragraphs.html

 

The long and short of it: Make sure that you complete the 4 tasks, and explain yourself thoroughly so that the AAMC essay reader knows what you are thinking, and knows that what you are thinking is reasonable and is compatible with common sense. Write well as though you were submitting an essay to a university professor. Use a reserved and objective tone as though you were a physician or medical student explaining a treatment to a patient's family.

 

My background: taken a lot of humanities and social sciences courses, and have taken a writing course. I am also aspiring to become a professional writer. But, this does not mean that I know better than your course instructors for Kaplan, Princeton, Prep101. I am a nice guy and I care about helping you do well. But, use your best judgement.

[pacemaker]

If I were to take the MCAT now, I would personally use a 4 paragraph format. This is my personal preference, and it may or may not work for you. If time permits, I would even go upto 5 paragraphs. Keep in mind that I am just some anonymous guy who is genuinely trying to help people out for free. I could be totally wrong. Besides, I am not paid by Kaplan, or Princeton or anyone, so I am not a professional teacher. However, each major idea or theme should be given it's own paragraph. A wall of text with 16 10-word average sentences is not a paragraph in my view. In the end, it's up to you to decide what you want to use on your test. You have to be comfortable with it, and it has to make sense to you. However...

 

"a paragraph is a sentence or group of sentences that support one main idea."

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/paragraphs.html

 

The long and short of it: Make sure that you complete the 4 tasks, and explain yourself thoroughly so that the AAMC essay reader knows what you are thinking, and knows that what you are thinking is reasonable and is compatible with common sense. Write well as though you were submitting an essay to a university professor. Use a reserved and objective tone as though you were a physician or medical student explaining a treatment to a patient's family.

 

My background: taken a lot of humanities and social sciences courses, and have taken a writing course. I am also aspiring to become a professional writer. But, this does not mean that I know better than your course instructors for Kaplan, Princeton, Prep101. I am a nice guy and I care about helping you do well. But, use your best judgement.

 

Thanks for the response! It seemed intuitive to me to write it in 4 paragraphs....one for each task but after talking to my instructor, I switched to using 3 paragraphs but I find that my first paragraph is usually longer than the second and third paragraphs because I am combining 2 tasks into that one paragraph. Personally, I feel that to an MCAT grader, it doesn't really matter whether its 3 or 4 paragraphs as long as the tasks are completed and the writing is good (I may be wrong about this though).

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked-

 

To obey an unjust law is to approve of it.

 

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 obeying an unjust law might not necessarily mean approving of it. Discuss what you think determines when disobeying a law is justified.

 

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

Law is a system of rules that govern how people interact with one another and the environment around them. It ensures safety and security of all citizens by reinforcement and punishment for those who disobey it. The creation of laws are an integral part of creating a safe and civilized society, however, it is an imperfect system. Because laws are made by the government, in a corrupt governmental system laws created are often unjust. An exemplification of this are the Nuremberg Laws created by Hitler's Nazi government in Germany of 1935. These laws were legally discriminatory and anti-Sematic against Jewish German citizens, abolishing their rights they previously had. The Nuremberg laws also concerned Non-Jewish citizens, and called it their duty to report their Jewish neighbours and take part in anti-Sematic discrimination. There were many non-Jewish German citizens who approved of this prejudice and obeyed these unjust laws by outwardly committing hateful acts towards the Jewish population.

 

However, obeying an unjust law does not always mean that one approves of it. During the reign of the Taliban in Afghanistan, laws were created that eradicated the right women had to an education. Girls above the age of eight were banned from receiving instruction to prevent cross-gender contact. Women in Afghanistan who wanted to pursue an education and possibly a career could not do so. Although these women did not approve of the unjust law that took away their right to an education, they had no choice but to obey it due to the punishment they may face if they did not.

 

The question that remains is what would determine when disobeying a law is justified. One is justified in disobeying a law only when the law is discriminatory against a specific group of people by treating them as subordinates and taking away their human rights. Organizations and people who assisted Jews during the Nazi regime in Germany and women during the Taliban reign in Afghanistan were justified in disobeying the unjust laws created by the prejudiced government that ran the nation. When the legal system is discriminatory, it is justifiable to disobey a law if one is doing it in order to rid of the discrimination and to establish a safe and equal society for all.

 

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

 

Thanks for taking the time to do this =)

 

You're welcome.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Evidence of coherence and clarity of thought.

 

The second task#2 could have been explained a bit more.

 

Adequate control of language.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNO/PQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked-

 

 

The introduction of modern technologies is harmful to underdeveloped areas of the world.

Describe a specific situation in which the introduction of modern technologies might not be harmful to an underdeveloped area of the world. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the introduction of modern technologies is harmful to underdeveloped areas of the world

 

 

In today's world, the rapid development of technologies is something most people take pride in. Historians are often baffled when discussing the huge advances in technology within a ten-year span in the 20th century compared to the 15th century. The above prompt regarding technology uses the phrase "underdeveloped areas of the world" in a rather vague manor. However, the phrase can be best defined as "third world countries" that are not as prosperous as larger and richer countries. At times, the introduction of modern technologies is indeed harmful to third world countries. A prime example is Nicaragua. Nicaragua is listed as the 3rd poorest country in the world having an estimated 100,000 homeless and even more jobless. Because the country's economic poverty, politians typically come from wealthy background due to the high cost of campaigning. Such is the case with the country's 81st president Arnoldo Alemen who was born in a family of bankers and investers. Five years into his presidency, Arnoldo Aleman was charged with embezzlement and money laundering of the 100 million dollars of government treasury money. It was reported that he used the Internet to track money and place funds into bank accounts worldwide. By stealing such huge amounts of money, Nicaragua has never been the same because citizens are now extremely cautious about who they vote for during elections. The result is many citizens not bothering to vote. In this case, the advancement of the Internet was harmful to Nicaragua.

 

However, technology is not always harmful. Take the Twitter Revolution in Iran for example. During the country's elections in 2009, reports surfaced that the election was rigged. Citizens began to protest in the streets and because of Iran's strict rules of press coverage, the main source of reporting the new was Twitter. In fact, Twitter was so important in the delevlopment of news in Iran that the US congress even asked Twitter to delay a upgrade to their system in order to allow updates from Iran's riots to continue. In this case, the Internet was not harmful to Iran; rather it was useful.

 

So a distinct line can be drawn between when technology is harmful and when it is helpful. When technology is used as a method of furthering the betterment of the country as a whole, technology is indeed helpful. However, when technology is used to further the betterment of an individual, technology is harmful.

 

Thanks for clicking.

 

The ideas in paragraph #2 could be developed more.

Adequate control of language.

 

There was some difficulty in responding to task#3. It is unclear from your explanation what determines whether introduction of modern technologies is harmful to underdeveloped areas of the world. You will need to explain task#3 more, or take a different approach, i.e. if there is pre-existing corruption in the government, etc...

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLM/NOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked-

 

thanks for doing this, you rock

 

 

Education comes not from books but from practical experience

 

What is education? It can be said that education is a learning process that has the goal of providing enlightenment and a greater understanding of the world to an individual. An understanding of the world may be achieved by being a part of the world and experiencing it. By participating in the activities of society, one can get a grasp of how individuals within a society interact, the societal norms, and why they exist, and how one can communicate with others in the world and find his or her own place in it. This understanding of the world based on those around us can help us integrate ourselves better into society, and thus this practical education is critical for understanding the world and how we all fit into it. Take the case of Genie, a commonly cited case in the world of psychology. Genie was a girl, who from a young age, was confined to a single room by her father, tied to a chair, and denied any social interaction for the early years of her life. Even after her Genie was discovered by authorities and placed in foster care, she was unable to communicate properly. Due to the lack of practical world experience in her early life, even rigorous attempts to teach her could not help her with language acquisition, and for the remainder of her life, she remained unable to communicate effectively. This example shows how a lack of practical experience denied Genie the education required to get a firm grasp on effectively communicating with others and being a part of society.

 

On the other hand, there are times when book learning is also necessary for education. For example, a psychologist wishing to properly analyze and help a patient needs to draw on experiences out of his or her own life. As in the case of Genie, psychologists wishing to assist people cannot simply depend on their own life experiences to guide them. They require the background knowledge presented in literature so they can have all the information necessary to be able to sufficiently do their jobs. In such cases, without learning from books, an individual would not have the collective knowledge required to be an asset to society.

 

Thus, it can be concluded that education based on practical experiences is sufficient when it comes to socializing and integrating into society, but when it comes to performing jobs that require specific knowledge, book education is necessary. In the example of Genie, no amount of formal book education after her captivity could overcome the effects of a lack of 'personal experience' education for the first thirteen years of her life. However, for someone that need specific information to do a job, like a psychologist drawing on various theories and cases from the past, formal book learning is important.

 

Thank-you.

 

And thank-you for clicking.

 

Adequate control of language.

Task#2 does not seem adequately addressed. It's often not a good idea to use the same example, and argue from a different perspective to oppose another interpretation of the same example, or to use it and argue from another angle.

 

Also, a reader may have issues with your placement of, "needs to draw on experiences out of his or her own life," in your second paragraph to expand on the idea of book knowledge. It creates more tension in the essay. It also decreases on something the AAMC looks for, focus and coherence.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked- (lots of times )

 

 

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

Describe a specific situation in which the government of a democracy might be justified in keeping a secret from the voters. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a democratic government is justified in keeping secrets from the voters.

 

In a democracy, the government is is granted power by the voting public. As such, the public has a right to be included in the decisions that the government makes and to be privy to the knowledge that the government has. In Canada, members of the public can be present at the parliamentary sessions of the federal and provincial governments. All aspects of the federal budget are public knowledge. Indeed, whenever evidence of a government secret comes to light, there is a great public outcry. In recent years, the Liberal Party of Canada was found to have dishonestly allocated funding in a scheme known as the sponsorship scandal. When this secret was made revealed, the public was outraged. This sponsorship scandal violated the widely held belief that democratically elected governments are to be accountable to the public, and as such are never justified in keeping secrets.

 

However, at times the public interest is best served when the government hides certain decisions and operations. Many aspects of military strategy are kept secret from non-military personel. Indeed, if the fine details of these military operations were public knowledge, the operation would unlikely to succeed and many lives could be lost. In World War II, both the Axis and the Allied forces kept many secrets from each other. This was partially accomplished by keeping keeping secrets from their respective civilian populations. The Manhattan Project was the official name of the nuclear weapons program of the Allied forces. In order to have a tactical advantage and to hopefully end the war, the details of the Manhattan Project had to be kept from the Axis forces at all costs. As such, the Manhattan Project was kept secret by the government from it's citizens. This deception was in the best interest of the government and the citizens. The Manhattan Project led to the successful development of the atomic bomb. The dropping of the atomic bomb effectively ended the deadly war and prevented further bloodshed.

 

Indeed, there are some situations in which the government is justified in keeping secrets from the public. However, since democratic governments are granted their powers by the voting public, the government should be open and honest as often as possible. To determine if secrecy can be justified, costs and benefits should be weighed in terms of public interest. If the public is best served through secrecy, as was the case in WWII, then secrecy can be justified. Government secrecy can be most justified in instances of compromised national security. At war time, the government has much more leeway to keep secrets. In contrast, during times of peace, the government is obligated to be transparent with the voting public.

 

 

 

Thanks for this, I really appreciate the help! I really hope this is an improvement on the previous work I have posted. This is my 10th practice essay.

 

You're welcome, thanks for clicking lots of times.

 

Adequate control of language with few grammatical errors.

Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks.

Evidence of some clarity, depth, and complexity of thought.

 

I feel this essay will be scored a:

JKLMNOPQRST

[lychee]

Have a good weekend!

 

 

A country needs enemies, real or imagined, in order to maintain its identity.

 

 

 

Taking a principled stand against assaults to shared values is what meld many individuals into one nation. In this way, it does not matter whether the common enemy is figurative (like the war on drugs) or literal (like the war on terrorism). Rather, it is only important for an individual to "This is what I believe and this is what I will fight for" and have this echoed by his government. When the fight - again figurative or literal - is in both the streets and in government, the nation is not only defined, but united.

And yet, a nation can be united by more than than what it fights for and its definition is greater than the injustices it stands against. Norway is one of the most easily identifiable nations among all others for expounding values of compassion, equity, and tolerance. This is shown in Norway's welcoming treatment to immigrants and refugees, its tremendous support for minorities through legislation, and it support for international initiatives that improve the quality of life for the entire global community. In this way, this sentiment is a symbol of the dangers of the fatalistic thinking that has, perhaps, gotten a nation like the United States that defines herself by her fights and galvanizes her people by pitting them against her enemies into disrepute. Instead, as Norway so elegantly demonstrates, we live in an era where service for humanity trumps crimes against humanity and demonstrations of tolerance trump demonstrations of violence. Perhaps a nation need not define herself by what she stands against, but rather what she stands for.

Just as a nation is more than a single person, its identity is more than a single definition. The United States uses its military for both force and liberating oppressed peoples. Norway accomplishes its many humanitarian ventures because she is so strongly opposed to injustice. In this way, a nation maintains its identity by what it strives for and what it fights against.

[swimming_in_the_rain]

-clicked-

 

Thanks for doing this!

 

______________

 

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

 

The government of any country has a two-fold responsibilty: two ensure the proper functioning of the state and the well-being of its constituents. By electing politicians to represent them, citizens expect the government to protect the people's interst. One of these interests is provisions of necessary services. Necessary services are those that are required for the proper functioning of society, such as waste management, water treatment, and postal service. Disruption in such services would result in wide-spread problems for the numerous citizens in a society. Many of these services are contracted or administered by private non-government companies. When it comes to the safety of citizens, it is imperative for the government to regulate companies that provide necessary services. Following the E. coli outbreak in Walkerton, Ontario and other more recent outbreaks, the government was held responsible for not sufficient regulating these water treatment facilities. The outbreak resulted in many hospitalizations and even a few deaths. Regulation of companies becomes essential where public safety is concerned.

 

On the other hand, when a necessary service providing company does not affect aspects of public safety, the government does not have a responsibity to regulate companies. Companies may make changes that are necessary for its growth and development and government regulation may at times hinder this development. For the past several weeks, workers of Canada Post, the nations postal service, have been on strike in order to have the company meet their demands. Although this has caused major disruptions in this essential service for hundreds of thousands of citizens, the government has not pressured the company to give in to the demands and resume service. Though disruptions in the postal service has caused a great deal inconveniences for society, it does not pose significant risks to public safety. Thus, it such a situation it is not the government’s responisbilty to regulate the company.

 

The government has a responsibity to ensure the well-being of its citizens. But it also has the responsibility to promote the development of the nation’s economy. When non-government companies provide necessary services to citizens, sometimes the government bears the responsibity to regulate them. This is generally the case when the company provides services that have a direct impact on the health and wellbeing of the public. Disruption in services such as water treatment and waste managed may pose a significant threat to public safety and so companies providing these services need to be regulated. On the other hand, disruption in postal service, does not pose a risk to public and so is not the responsibility of the government to regulate them. Thus, the government should regulate companies that provide necessary service when the safety of the public is involved.

[TheBoss]

...Make sure that you complete the 4 tasks, and explain yourself thoroughly so that the AAMC essay reader knows what you are thinking, and knows that what you are thinking is reasonable and is compatible with common sense...

 

Four tasks? I thought there were only three, what are the four tasks?

[swimming_in_the_rain]

-clicked-

 

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

Describe a specific situation in which a politician might achieve a political goal without compromising. Discuss what you think determines when politicians should compromise to achieve a political goal.

 

In a democratic society, politicians are elected by citizens of the country to represent them. Once elected politicians must perform their duties well and maintain a positive public image in order to re-elected in the next term. In order for politicians to achieve their political goals, they must learn to be able to compromise in certain situations. Politicians must be able to appease their constituents if they are to are to achieve their goals. Since politicians are held accountable to their constituents who often have diverse expectations it is important to be diplomatic and have an understanding for compromise. Indeed, when President Obama introduced the Healthcare Reform Act, there was severe backlash by the Republicans and without compromise this change would not have been possible. In the democratic society, where the politicians must balance demands of many, compromise is essential.

 

However, there are times when a politician may achieve their political goals without compromise. In societies governed by dictators, who do not hold themselves accountable to their constituents, indeed one'a political goal can be accomplised by an iron fist as opposed to compromise. A prime example is evident in the recent crisis of the Middle East. Libyian President Omar Khaddifi has ruled the country with for numerous years, clearly without having to compromise. In a society, where the leader does not hold himself accountable to the people, they can acheive their goals without compromise. Nonetheless it is important to realize, such politicians will sooner or later fall. As what happened to Egypt's President Mubarak shows that dictators who do not compromise will achieve their goal but only for a certain time.

 

Whether politicians must compromise to achieve their goals depends on the type of society they live in. If it is a democratic society where they are held accountable to the public than indeed compromise is essential. However, in a dictatorship, the politicians can achieve their goals without compromise. Nonetheless it is important to understand that although a dictator can forcibly achieve their goal in the short run, in the long run it cannot be sustained and sooner of later they will fall from their position of power.

[mangos]

-clicked-

 

Of all the forms of media, television has the strongest influence on public opinion.

 

Media is a vital part of society as it connects citizens to each other by allowing us to pass on information from one person to another. It comes in a variety of forms such as newsprints, books, radio, and most importantly, television. Television is by far the most popular form of media nowadays and thus, has a global audience. As such, it has the strongest influence on public opinion. With this knowledge, it is of no surprise that politicians, during times of election, make use of television advertisements in favour of their platform. The ability to convey a message to thousands around the world is a powerful and effective form of communication to influence public opinion. In fact, this is the primary reason why early election results are broadcasted on tv before any other form of media. For example, in the Canadian Federal election of 2011, early poll results broadcasted on television showed that the Liberal party had lost several seats and were falling behind to the ever growing popularity of the NDP. Thus, it can be expected that citizens who had supported the Liberal party and now witnessing the poor poll results of their party may be swayed to vote for their “second best choice.” If this scenario were to be extrapolated to hundreds of citizens, election results may take drastic turns. It is in this way that television can affect public opinion.

 

In order for television to convey an influential message, it must be broadcasted at the correct time so as to impact a greater audience. Primetime shows are aired at specific times to target a specific group of people. For example, cooking shows such as Rachel Ray are aired prior to dinner time to target stay at home mothers, while major news channels air during dinner to target the family, while still others, such as mature comedy talk shows air later at night to target the older population as opposed to children. Without proper broadcasting times, influential messages will not be conveyed effectively and the intended influence to the public will be greatly diminished. This case was evident during the Stanley Cup Playoffs. During the playoffs, millions of fans tuned in to watch it on television during the specific air times. During these times, activity among other channels such as late night news decreased substantially. As a result, intended messages to be conveyed during those times were drowned out due to the conflicting air times with the Stanley Cup.

 

As can be seen, television is the strongest forms of media in todays society and as such, harbours great influence on public opinion. However, this impact is dependenant on the time the message is broadcasted. Television will have its strongest impact when it is aired during peak times of interest such as broadcasting campaign advertisements during times of election. However, it will have the least impact when it is aired at a time conflicting with other forms of media that attract greater interest from the audience, such as a Stanely Cup final. It is for this reason, the goal of attracting and influencing a greater audience, that various shows pay big money for specific air times.

[mangos]

--clicked

 

A business that creates a great product is sure to succeed.

 

It can be said that the main goal of any business is to make profit. As a result, success of a business is a measure of how much profit they gain and this profit is directly related to how great of a product they sell. The greatness of a product can be defined by various criteria such as, but not limited to, its practicality, price, and look. The more appealing a product is to the public, the more revenue a business will gain and thus the more successful it will be in its market. A prime example of this is the introduction of Apple’s first 3G iPhone into the cellular phone market. This product was one of the first smartphones to have been made and allowed individuals who owned it to be able to perform various tasks from their phone alone simultaneously. Email, online browsing, gaming, reading, and watching movies were among the few things that this product could do. Its ability to perform so many functions and multitask , yet still perform its basic role as a phone, appealed to the market. Apple’s stock rose dramatically while other cellular companies such as Research In Motion fell behind. As can be seen, a great product such as Apple’s iPhone generated lots of profit for Apple and thus, is one of the main products that results in Apple’s success.

 

However, a great product does not always lead to success of a business. For example, in the recent episode of Dragon’s Den, a television show in which entrepreneurs pitch their product to 5 self-made multi-millionaires in hopes of receiving funding from them to take their product to a greater market for more profit, a product known as Kick-Spike received great praise from the “Dragons.” Kick-Spike was the first golf shoe every made to have retractable spikes on the bottom of the shoes as opposed to the permanent metal spikes that are on golf shoes nowadays. The inventors were asking 1 million dollars in funding in return for 10% of the profit. Funding was granted due to the uniqueness and attractibility of the product for golfers. Unfortunately, this product never took off due to problems in negotiations with other endorsers in addition to the high costs of producing the product. As can be seen, despite the great appeal of this product, it never succeeded due to factors such as feasibility.

 

Evidently,to determine whether a great product will be successful or not does not depend entirely on the product itself. Instead, various other factors must be taken into account such as feasibility. Large companies, such as Apple, can afford to make great products without the risk of economic feasibility due to its large revenue from other products. However, new businesses that want to enter the market are limited by economic feasibility as can be seen by the Kick-Spike example. Despite its great appeal as a product, the costs to produce it out weighted the profits it could gain. Thus, this business would not be successful.

 

thanks alot

[Caliver]

-clicked-

 

The primary concern of a business is to maximize the physical safety of its employees.

 

Since industrial revolution in 19th century, people have been able to enjoy a plethora of new products with new techniques and manufacturing machines. This eventually has led to increased demand for labour. In many cases, employers did not initially realize the adverse effect of the work and this resulted in harming their employees. Nowadays, the main responsibility of a business is to maximize and secure the overall health of its employees. In Japan during 1960s, workers in a chemical factory started to develop unusual symptoms. Their bones started to deform and their newborn babies had numerous birth defects. The employers of the company were not aware of the adverse effect of chemicals that workers inhaled everyday and therefore were not concerned with shielding the workers from the harm. After scientific analysis on the chemicals, employees were given masks and other protection equipment. Thus, a business should assure the physical safety of its employees when the harm is clearly known.

 

However, there are other instances where the primary concern of business is not guarding physical safety of its employees. The primary duty of a security company, for example, is to protect its clients’ safety at the expense of its employees’ safety. If the safety of the employees were to be the primary concern, the business would not attract the clients and would fail as a result. The voluntary nature and the purpose of the job let the company set its primary goal to maximize its clients’ overall health rather than its employees’.

 

Therefore, whether or not the primary concern of a business is to secure its employees’ physical safety depends on the awareness of the harm caused by the work and the inherent nature of the job. If the harm is known and the purpose of the job does not involve putting the employees at risk, like in manufacturing factories, the physical safety of the employees should be assured by the employers. However, there will always be certain professions, such as security guards and police officers in which the safety of the workers must be put at risk due to inherent nature of the job. It is only with the inherent nature of the job that putting physical safety of employees at risk is justified.

 

Thank you!

[Asta]

-Clicked-

 

...trying a slightly different format. Hopefully it went okay. I really appreciate the feedback!

 

 

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.

*

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks.* Explain what you think the above statements means.* Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life.

 

 

 

A key feature of a scientific mind is a sense of curiosity and a strong desire to understand the world. Indeed, scientific inquiry has led to innumerable achievements and advancements in fields that touch every area of human life. Unfortunately, many atrocities have been committed in the pursuit of scientific inquiry. During WWII, Nazi scientists experimented on concentration camp prisoners. The scientists had little regard for their subjects lives. The experiments were often very painful and frequently lethal. When these experiments can to light after the war, there was a public outrage. This led to the formation of rigorous ethical guidelines for scientific experiments. The key feature of these ethical guidelines is the sanctity of human life. Today, human experimental participants can be assured of their safety. Indeed, in science today, human safety takes prescendence over scientific inquiry.

 

However, life is fragile and many activities contain a certain element of risk. Human curiosity has led to the exploration of many dangerous areas. The exploration of space can be seen as a key example of human scientific inquiry. Much has been learned through the space program. Unfortunately, space exploration is very risky and there can be deadly consequences. Indeed, the space shuttle Challenger explosion resulted in the instantaneous death of the entire crew. Despite this risk, the space program continues. In this situation, the threat to human life is an unfortunate, but acceptable component of scientific inquiry.

 

A key determinant of whether the risks from scientific inquiry to human life are acceptable is the source of the threat or harm. Clearly, it is unacceptable to have safety compromised by a human agent, as was the case with the Nazi scientists. A modern experiment would be unable to gain the approval of the ethics board if the participants were subject to bodily harm or excessive risk. If, however, the threat comes from an external agent, such as a potential deadly equipment malfunction, the risk to human life is more acceptable.

 

Human beings are very curious, and this drive to explore and understand is one of greatest features of the species. This exploration carries with it a certain risk. The thirst for scientific inquiry needs to be tempered with a respect for human life. With this in mind, experiments should be ethically governed and no unnecessary risks should be taken in quests of exploration and discovery.

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked-

 

Thanks for your help! Greatly appreciate your time!

 

 

To master technology is to become enslaved by it.

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 mastering a new technology might not mean becoming enslaved by it. Discuss what you think determines whether or not mastering technology means becoming enslaved by it.

 

Our world has experienced significant technological advances in the 20th and 21st centuries. Technology not only enables us to perform tasks with greater efficiency and accuracy' date=' but also allows us to achieve ideas that were considered impossible only a few decades ago. The Information Age is marked by the use of technology to communicate with one another and to access and share information. Many children today grow up learning to manipulate simple technological devices, becoming dependent on or enslaved by their use in order to accomplish daily tasks. Moreover, many jobs cannot be performed without the use of technology, which is particularly significant in medicine. Health care providers use various forms of scans to image the inner workings of the body for diagnostic purposes. Additionally, recent research is exploring the use of minimally-invasive technologies in surgeries to reduce post-surgical trauma on the patient. Technology in this case is a pivotal tool utilized in professions and is considered a necessity that enhances the quality of our lives. Our reliance on the use of advanced technology to perform some jobs can be deemed becoming enslaved by it.

 

Although mastering and using technology can often mean becoming enslaved by it, there are instances in which a new technology may not dominate how we live our lives. In 2010, Microsoft developed a controller-free gaming and entertainment experience for the Xbox 360 video game platform called Kinect. It has become very popular among children and teens, as it not only provides entertainment in video games but also promotes exercise and physical activity. The importance and contributions of this technology notwithstanding, its use is not a necessity and thus we are not enslaved by it. In other words, the use of this technology does not dictate how we live our lives, as there are many alternatives to the technology. For instance, many people prefer the outdoors despite having the ability to engage in a simulated gaming environment at home. As a result, the advent of some technology may enhance our lives but does not become a necessity for living our daily lives.

 

The world has witnessed significant advances in technology in the past few decades. Some technology is invented in response to an absolute need, and thus affects how we live our lives. For instance, the use of medical technology has become a vital part of health care, and its use is crucial for improving the quality of lives of individuals. As such, some forms of technology not only enhance but also become an integral part of our lives. Consequently, our dependence on its mastery and use becomes in essence, involuntary. On the other hand, many forms of technology simply enhance our lives and do not become a necessity in order to perform our daily tasks, such as the use of Kinect for an entertainment experience. Hence, the use of such form of technology is in essence, voluntary. We can live our lives without it, and not be affected by it significantly. As a result, whether or not we become enslaved by technology depends on if its use may be considered voluntary or involuntary.[/quote']

 

You're welcome.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Adequate control of language.

 

There was a bit of trouble with coherence and organization in the first paragraph. You seem to introduce a major point about children, then quickly and abruptly switch topics to jobs and the use of technology in healthcare. It seems a wiser course of action to stick with one of the two ideas and expand upon it. It will improve upon organization and coherence, and the paragraph will become more focussed.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOPQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-Clicked-

 

 

A government has not only the right, but also the responsibility, to regulate what is broadcast over the public airwaves.

 

[Missing Article: The/A] Government is a socailly [socially-spelling error=almost a non-issue] constructed group of individuals that are responsible for making decisions on behalf of the masses. The government has the power as well as the responsibility to make decisions that are likely to affect a great number of individuals in the general public. Public broadcasting is a way that is used to convey many different forms of information to a huge audience. This audience includes many individuals that can be from different age groups, ethnic backgrounds and social class [should be social classes/pl. form]. Since public broadcasting is targetted towards a huge group of individuals from the general public, it is the responsibility of the government to regulate its content. This is especially important in situations where young children are involved as viewers. For example, TVO (TV Ontario) is a channel that provides children friendly [child-friendly]broadcasting with many educational programs, cartoons and appropriate advertising. This is the form of television that most parents would prefer to have for their children. Inappropriate content can be detremental [detrimental=almost a non-issue] for the the psychological development of future generations. Children are naive [naïve-has a trema-not a big issue as it cannot be used on the MCAT-spelling error=almost a non-issue] and are not at a stage to be able to make decisions for themselves. Young children are unaware of what is considered to be good versus bad in the real world. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the society as a whole to ensure a safe, positive and motivating environment for the youngters [youngsters-spelling error=almost a non-issue]. In such situations, it is the responsibility of the government to regulate the content being broadcasted over public airwaves to ensure age appropriate content if being shown on kids television channels.

 

In contrast, it is not the responsibility of the government to regulate what is broadcasted over the public airwaves on adult television channels. Individuals in the broadcasting field should be allowed with ["with" should be deleted] the freedom of speech and expression to be able to show whatever they like. Similarly, members of the audience should be given the freedom to choose whether or not they wish to watch the content being broadcasted. For example, shows such as Special Victims Unit depict fictional characters in crime settings and may have some disturbing scenes. As long as these shows explicitly provide a warning at the beginning of the show to allow a given individual to make an informed decision, there is no need for the government to intervene. Adults are capable of making decisions for themselves and should be allowed to do so in the case of viewing content that is broadcasted over public airwaves.

 

In conclusion, [missing "the" or "a"/article] government consists of a group of individuals that are given the power to make decisions on the behalf of the public. Thus, the government has been given the tremendous responsibility to make decisions that are likely to affect a huge group of individuals. In the case of regulation of the content being broadcasted over public airwaves, it is the responsibility of the government to regulate the content being shown on kids’ channels since they are unable to make decisions for themselves. On the other hand, it is not the responsibility of the government to regulate the content being shown on adult channels since adults are capable of making decisions for themselves.

 

Thanks!

 

-Clicked-

 

Thanks PastaInhaler for grading my other essays! I really appreciate the help.

 

Here is another one:

 

It is never justified for a citizen to break the law.

 

Laws are designed to protect the rights of others by imposing restrictions on ones’ actions. Laws are created while keeping the citizen’s viewpoints in mind. As such, they reflect what a majority of people in society would prefer. The term citizen refers to individuals who belong to a group. This could be a group of individuals on an international, national, provincial or municipal level. As humans, we can be considered as citizens of the global community. At the same time, we can also be citizens of a given country, province/state or city/town. As citizens, we have certain priviledges and resposibilities. One such responsibility is to obey the law and to respect the rights of others. Therefore, it is not right for a citizen to break the law from a moral, ethical or legal standpoint. When someone breaks the law, it has the potential to harm that person or another citizen. At the same time, if that citizen is not adequately punished, it may set a bad example for others, further triggering others to try to break the law. For example, as citizens, we have the right to work in a given nation. If an individual decides to exercise that right and makes attempts to earn a living, the law of most countries including Canada and the United States requires that individual to file an income tax return. The individual is required to claim the income that he/she earned and to pay their due for the income tax. In Canada, this money is then used to fund the public education and health care systems among many others. Therefore, by following the law and paying ones’ share of the income tax, we as citizens can ensure that essential services such as education and health care are available to everyone. This will to lead to benefits for all citizens as a collective whole.

 

On the other hand, it is not always unjust for a citizen to break the law. More specifically, it depends on the context in which the law was broken, the reasons behind it and the potential of harm or costs to others. For example, it a man is driving his pregnant wife to the hospital while she is in labor, it is justified for the man to drive at a faster speed and break the driving law. If this man is not able to get his wife to the hospital in time, it may lead to harm to his wife or the baby or both. Therefore, it is highly important to look at a comparison between the harm caused by either obeying or breaking the law in a given situation.

 

Finally, laws are designed to ensure the benefits and safety of all citizens of a given nation. As citizens of a country, it is our responsibility to follow the law and by doing so, we show respect for the rights of other citizens. Generally speaking, obeying the law is expected to lead to benefits and safety of the collective whole in the long run. However, whether or not it is justified for one to break the law highly depends on the context, reasons for breaking the law and harm/costs incurred by breaking the law. If the law is broken to benefit another citizen, under good intentions and the harm/costs of obeying the law would have been greater than breaking it in a given context, it may be justified for one to break the law.

 

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

- In your comments on my other essays thus far, you mentioned that there were some grammatical mistakes etc...do you mind pointing out a few either on this one or the previous ones I had posted. I would like to know what kind of mistakes I am making so that I can avoid them in the future. I do know that I have a tendency to used run on sentences and I am working on that. Any other things you could point out would be great.

 

Thanks!

 

 

You're welcome.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

I've included some examples of grammatical and spelling errors one of your previous essays. Spelling errors are a minor issue on the MCAT. It becomes an issue when too many spelling errors make it hard to follow your points. The grammatical and usage errors are minor.

 

Adequate control of language.

 

Examples are adequate in supporting your arguments.

If you used a more far-reaching example, that affects many more people, in task#2, your essay will be stronger.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNOP/QRST

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked!-

 

Television almost always distorts the way we see the world.

 

A television is occasionally called as a “fool-making box”, meaning that watching television makes someone foolish. The statement is sometimes held true. Media influence via television may distort an individual’s opinions about certain matters. Distortion is defined as a deviation from the general opinion across the world. For example, in North Korea, propaganda regime continues to have successful effects on its people. Although the lifestyles of common North Koreans are not exactly known, North Korea is said to have its own television channels that it utilizes to convey messages to many North Koreans. Kim Jong-ll is almost defined as a god-like figure in North Korea. The enemies of North Korea are depicted as cruel, threatening, and those who pose an immediate threat to their survival. In turn, people of North Korea seek support from its leader Kim Jong-ll. While the rest of the world sees Kim as a dictator who is in turn, imposing threats to its people through continued famine while he enjoys a high-class luxury. Media effect, mainly via television in North Korea, can cause a great difference in people’s opinion about their situation.

 

In contrast, television influence may not necessarily distort one’s opinion. An example would be the massive earthquake in Japan that caused the country to be under a great sadness and despair. As the earthquake hit Japan, many medias across the world were reporting the news as breaking and urgent. When general public heard the news, many were worried, and were praying for Japan as a whole. They already had sympathizing emotions and worrying thoughts. Continued reports of Japan earthquake crisis only augmented their sympathizing thoughts about such a devastating event. All the eyes of the world were turned to Japan and many monetary and emotional supports were passed onto Japan. Television did not change people’s opinion, but rather enforced it.

 

The determining factor of whether television would distort an individual’s opinion about a certain matter is the understanding of the matter beforehand. As an individual does not have enough knowledge about the matter, then he/she could be easily swayed and their view could be distorted. For example, North Koreans are not exposed to how the outside world operates. It makes them vulnerable to the propaganda regime that North Korea practices on its people, mainly via television channels; distorting their opinion to be polar from those of the people outside North Korea. However, when people have enough previous knowledge, then television does not necessarily distort the way they think. The earthquake crisis in Japan was treated as breaking news and the progresses were reported via television across the world. People knew about environmental disasters; this earthquake was not the first that people experienced, directly or indirectly. Because people had an idea of what it is to experience such a devastating event, the televisions were not able to distort the public’s opinion.

 

 

 

THANK YOU!!

 

You're welcome.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

Adequate control of language.

 

Proficiency in responding to the tasks.

Examples are adequate in supporting your arguments.

 

The idea in task#3 may need to be explained a bit better. One of the main factors is that in North Korea, the majority of the citizens have extremely limited access to other information via other media like the internet. This idea could also be included with task#1 to strengthen the argument.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMNO/PQRST

[PastaInhaler]

-clicked-

 

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

 

The introduction of modern technologies is harmful to underdeveloped areas of the world.

Describe a specific situation in which the introduction of modern technologies might not be harmful to an underdeveloped area of the world. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the introduction of modern technologies is harmful to underdeveloped areas of the world.

 

Countries witch suffer from economical weakness and low standards of living are often said to be underdeveloped. Economical strength is directly correlated with a country’s gross domestic product (GDP), a value of goods and services produced by a country. Countries with large GDP are said to be economically strong and subsequently developed. When new technologies are introduced in countries that are said to be underdeveloped these technologies can further cripple the economy by decreasing the national GDP. This is perfectly exemplified by the introduction of modern oil drilling equipment by American companies to economically inferior South American nations. These American companies purchased significant shares of South American oil companies and introduced new technologies in order to increase the yield of oil. Although, this had a positive effect on the American economy, by creating new jobs and increasing the value of their shares, this had a crippling effect on the host nation. By producing their technology in the United States, the American companies have taken away jobs from the locals, who could have potentially manufactured this equipment at home. The companies have also brought their own personnel from the United States to manage and service the new equipment. This increased the national unemployment rate of the host nation, which caused a decrease in spending power and demand for goods and services. Consequently, this caused local businesses to reduce the supply of their goods and services, reducing the overall national GDP.

 

There are instances when modern equipment that is introduced to underdeveloped nations cannot have a harmful effect. For instance in recent years the introduction of cell phones to African nations has had a positive effect on the GDP of these countries. Although cell phones are imported to Africa by other nations they provide people with increased capacity to engage in various types of businesses. In Niger, farmers utilize cell phones in order to find the best prices and highest demand for their goods. This allows farmers to bring their products where there is most demand and subsequently where farmers could gain the highest profit. As a result, the introduction of cell phone technology has contributed to the increase in nation GDP and strengthened Niger’s economy.

 

In order to determine whether modern technologies have a negative effect on the underdeveloped nation its important to establish what affect this technology has on the national GDP. Since underdeveloped nations already struggle economically and have lower GDP than developed nations, a new technology that could potentially reduce the national GDP could be very destructive to the nation’s economy. On the contrary, if the new technology offers features that sustain or promote the nation GDP, harmful effects can be avoided.

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

 

Thank you for your help! Do you by any chance offer any private tutoring (online or in person)? I read about the Guild, but it looks like there are already a lot of people who signed up for it...

 

You're welcome.

 

Thanks for clicking. Appreciated.

 

I won't be able to allocate the time for private tutoring, as I will be extremely busy in the next few months. You can continue to practise writing essays since the more practice that your schedule allows, the better it will be for your writing skills. Admission to the Guild is a little competitive at this point since there has been a lot of demand. I can try to create other drills and exercises as much as my schedule allows for guests of the Guild. Aside from that, I recommend that you continue to practise writing essays and building a database of examples.

 

Regarding the current essay:

Adequate control of language.

 

Be cautious of using words like "perfectly" [perfectly exemplified by the introduction...] when you are introducing an example. It sets up a logical inconsistency. You claim that the example is perfect, and it becomes an issue when the example is not perfect. In the case of this essay, the example provided seems confusing. You will need to explain it better. If new jobs are created, and these jobs are taken by Americans, it is not sufficient enough to entail that the unemployment rate in South America will increase. Further, you will need to show how the purchasing of shares (Americans putting money into the South American companies) is detrimental to the South American country's GDP, or at the very least, minimally beneficial.

 

I feel this essay will be scored an:

JKLMN/OPQRST

[Grey's Anatomy]

-clicked-

 

Thanks PastaInhaler!

 

 

Voters should not be concerned about a political candidate’s personal life.

In a democracy, voters are often interested in electing a political candidate with whom they are able to relate and connect, as well as share similar goals and hopes for the nation. Voters, who are citizens of the nation, should make informed decisions when voting for a political leader. As a result, it is important to understand the politician's views and goals. However, political candidates' personal lives often should not play a role in judging their competence. As voters and citizens of a nation, we should not focus on qualities or values that have minimal external influence on the welfare of citizenry. For instance, the personal beliefs and spirituality of a leader are unique to each individual and should therefore not be a concern for citizens. Tony McGuire, while running for 2007 Ontario General Elections, did not affiliate with a religious faith. His personal belief and spirituality does not influence the way in which he would lead the province and make decisions. As a result, this should be a minimal concern for voters during elections.

 

Although voters should often not be concerned about a political candidate's personal life, there are instances when citizens should in fact assess a candidate's personal life. Qualities that reflect a leader's competence, such as responsibility, trustworthiness and other values shared by society, should play a role in judging a candidate. For instance, Barack Obama, as a president of a powerful nation, is often praised for his publicly-exposed family life, which demonstrates that he is a loving and caring individual. As citizens and voters, we often appreciate these qualities because they reflect socially desirable behavior. Society generally agrees upon such beliefs. Consequently, voters should be concerned about a political candidate's personal life when it reflects their qualities of a representative of the nation.

 

People often argue whether or not a political candidate's personal life should play a role in voters' decisions during elections. Under certain circumstances, such as the personal beliefs and spirituality of a candidate, should not a concern for citizens. Each individual has the right to their beliefs that have no external influence on the nation's welfare and prosperity. However, when the candidate's personal life, such as family life, reflects their qualities as a leader and someone whom citizens trust, voters are justified in considering personal life as a measure of competency. Therefore, voters should not be concerned about a political candidate's personal life when it does not dictate how the leader would govern the country. Conversely, qualities that reflect how the nation would be led should be a concern.

[Grey's Anatomy]

-clicked

 

Thanks again! Greatly appreciate your help

 

Great leaders are born, not made.

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 great leaders are made, not born. Discuss what you think determines whether great leaders are born or made.

 

In a democratic nation, politicians are often considered leaders and role models who govern a country and ensure its welfare and prosperity. Some politicians are portrayed as being "natural" leaders, or possessing innate qualities of a leader. In other words, some great leaders are deemed to have been born with characteristics that define a leader. As representatives of a nation, citizens often rely on political leaders to act in the country's best interests, even if this means challenging the status quo. Pierre Trudeau, Canada's 15th Prime Minister, may be considered to have been born a great leader. He not only transformed the nation's political system, but also fought for equality and human rights that had been neglected for many years. Being innovative and challenging society's norms in hopes of ensuring better living conditions for all citizens, Trudeau helped establish the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These rights have now become an integral aspect of Canadian culture. As a result, Trudeau can be considered to be born a great leader as he pursued positive change against society's existing circumstances.

 

Although some leaders may be considered to be born, some influential figures in fact suggest that great leaders are made. The "making" of a leader can be thought of as being shaped by society while growing up following the existing norms. In cases where political leaders try to govern and maintain a nation's current values and welfare, they can be regarded as following the traditional rules. Stephen Harper, Canada's current Prime Minister, is a great example of maintaining the nation's current status, and representing a leader who was not born but rather made. He has been shaped by society in that he follows the existent values and does not challenge status quo. As a result, he is a leader who has been made by society, as opposed to a figure who constantly strives for positive change and thus be considered born a leader.

 

Political leaders represent the nation as well as its citizenry. Some leaders challenge the existing conditions of a nation and strive to shape a more successful and secure nation. In other words, they may be considered innovative. Such leaders,, such as Trudeau, may be considered to be born great, rather than made great by society. Conversely, some leaders try to maintain the current status of a nation and do not challenge present circumstances. These figures may be regarded as following the existing rules and norms, who have been shaped by society. As a result, great leaders who question and oppose existing conditions and strive for positive change in order to improve the overall welfare of a nation suggests that they are born great. On the other hand, leaders who merely obey the existing situation, yet hope to maintain the welfare of a nation, are considered to be made great.

[swimming_in_the_rain]

-clicked-

Thanks for doing this! I have been having trouble with this section and really appreciate your help.

 

The essential aim of law should not be to punish, but to assure fairness for all.

Describe a specific situation in which the essential aim of law might be to punish rather than assure fairness for all. Discuss what you think determines whether the essential aim of law should be to punish or to assure fairness for all.

 

Historically, the law was administered by a ruler who heard the complaints and quarrels of his citizens and provided a ruling on the matter. Nowadays, the law is administered by a legal system, which involves lawyers, judges, witnesses, and various levels of courts. Similar to its historical roots, the modern legal system allows individuals to bring forth their complaints or problems with fellow citizens and have an unbiased judge settle the matter. Although the law administers fines and penalties, the primary aim of the law should not be to punish but rather to provide fair and equal opportunity. In Ontario, if the police fine a person for improper driving, the individual has the right to take matters to the court if they believe they are innocent. The individual has the opportunity to present their case to an unbiased judge who can then decides who is correct in the matter. If the purpose of the law was simply to punish then there would be no opportunity to present your case. Thus the purpose of the law is not to punish but to assure fairness.

 

However, sometimes the law is administered in order to punish the individual. When a crime against humanity has been committed, the law is used to punish the perpetrator. For those affected by such crimes, punishment is the only the means of providing justice. For example, the execution of Sadaam Hussain, was conducted as an act of justice for the thousands of Iraqi citizens he killed as part of his regime. For many of the victim’s families, this was the only means of providing a sense of justice and closure. In cases of serious crimes where there is little ambiguity in regards to the perpetrator of the crime, the law’s primary function is to punish the perpetrator.

 

Ideally, the law should be administered to provide fairness in the system and the opportunity to bring one’s case to an unbiased judge. Hence in day-to-day civil cases, the law functions to be fair to all parties. However when the legal system is faced with a crimes against humanity, it primary function becomes to punish the criminal and provide justice to the victim’s families.

[pacemaker]

-Clicked-

 

Thanks PastaInhaler for marking my essays. Your comments and feedback have been really helpful.

 

Any radical social transformation has long term negative effects.

 

Social transformations tend to occur when a huge group of individuals agree on a different ideology than the one held in the past. Additionally, it also has the potential to affect a huge group of individuals. The term radical refers to a form of change that is large scale or greatly significant. Therefore, a radical social transformation would be one that results in a large scale, significant change within a social context. As such, any significant social change tends to result in long term negative effects. For example, in the early 1900’s, thousands of Chinese men were recruited to Canada as a form of cheap labor for the establishment of the Canadian Railroads. These hard working men left their own country and family behind with the hope of being able to earn a decent living and to later reunite with their family. However, soon after the completion of the railroad, this large subgroup of Chinese men was seen as competition and threat for the white men in Canada, with regards to the job market. As a result, those that decided to stay in Canada were required to pay a head tax for their family members staying in China. Moreover, early laws also made family reunification exteremely difficult for these individuals. Thus, such social transformations in traditional Canadian thinking that took place between the start and finish of the Canadian railroad has led to long term negative effects for the families of these Chinese workers. As such, radical social transformations can result in long term negative effects.

 

In contrast, it is not always necessary for radical social transformations to lead to long term negative effects. Gandhi and the independence of India is an excellent example where radical social transformations took place, resulting in long term positive effects. Major changes were seen in the way in which citizens of India were governed. This change was of a positive nature as it allowed freedom and independence for citizens to further pursue their lives. In other words, they were no longer oppressed by the British authorities and were free to make their own decisions. As such, they were also able to prosper and flourish in various different sectors and fields including research, education, science, engineering, industry and many others. Today, more than 60 years after its independence, India is considered to be one of the major countries and economic hotspots in the world. This illustrates that Gandhi’s non-violent revolution served as a catalyst that led to radical social transformation within India and this change later triggerred long term positive effects that are still evident today.

 

In conclusion, a significant social transformation has the potential to affect a great number of individuals. A radical social transformation may lead to long term negative effects if such changes take place against the views and interests of society. This was evident in the example of the Chinese railroad workers that were forced to pay head tax for their relatives in their homeland and the Canadian law at the time prevented family reunification for these workers. On the other hand, a radical social transformation would not necessarily lead to a long term negative effect if it takes place in accordance with the viewpoints of the individuals within the given social context and is intended to be for the interest of the society. This was clearly seen in the example of the Gandhi’s revolution and independence of India where a radical social transformation took place within the country and resulted in long term positive effects.

 

Thanks once again

[slumdogMD]

<clicked>

 

In politics, one's friends and one's enemies are often the same.

Describe a specific political situation in which one's friends and one's enemies might not be the same. Discuss what you think determines whether or not one's friends in politics are also one's enemies.

 

For most countries in the world, it is indeed true that one's enemies and one's friends are the same but there are some exceptions. In the above prompt however, the term enemies is described in a vague manor. An enemy is best defined as a country that is seen to be a threat to another. Furthermore, the prompt is summerized to say that a country can be initially seen as enemy and later seen as a friend.

 

In the case of the british empire, many countries were colonialized under british rule. Often, laws were passed in britian and inforced in the colonies with little or no say in how the laws affected the colonies. Additionally, the colonies were taxed heavily by the empire leading to the acts of the british being called "taxation without reputation". Over time, the coloniies grew tired of the mistreatment and began to take the british empire as a common enemy. They began a fight for independance and after deligent effort, were free from british rule and took the name as the United States. Ironically, decades later, after the attacks of 9/11, Britian and the United States acted as allies in the fight again terrorism. President Bush was heavily supported by Tony Blair in going into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction. In this case, the British were seen initally as enemy but later as a friend.

 

However, in the case of neutrality, this is not true. A neutral country is one that has no enemies at all, They are restricted from forgeign war and often are mediators of peace. An example is Swedean. Sweaden is a country known for being neutral from many decades and has mediated talks of peace keeping and has allowed for places where treaties can be signed. Sweadan has no enemies because it has no oppinion or stance when it comes to inposing foreign policy on other countries. Neutral counties are to refran from even having a military and therefore, the dichotomy of enemies and friends often being the same is unraveled. Sweadan has no enemies, only friends.

 

So a distinct line can be drawn between when a country has enemies and friends that are the same. For most counties, such as in the case of the US and Britian, enemies can flip flop between being an allie and being a fo. Often it depends of foreign policy and international relationships that become sour. However, if a country is neutral, it has no international postion other than as peacekeeper. Sweadan has no enemies and has never gone into war against another country. Overall, it is indeed natural for the impression of an enemy to change and to be seen as a friend later. But if a country as no enemies at all, then there is no changing of impression.

 

 

 

Thanks pastaman.