Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback (summer 2011)

[anitarama]

Score: 3.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Good example, would have been an even stronger start if you had defined "hunch" for the reader.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): The exploration of the mechanic example detracts from the actual example you used of your grandfather. Focusing on one example to make it strong and well-explained is usually a better route to go than trying to use multiple examples in one paragraph.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Good criteria and explanation. Paragraph would have benefited if you had tied the two examples back into the Resolution Paragraph to directly relate it back to the prompt and the rest of the essay.

 

The profession of a researcher requires a careful balance between the virtues of careful discipline and the use of intuition. A researcher can come from a variety of professions and depending on the task, they may spend the majority of their time collect data or they may search for the solutions to specific problems. Researchers ought to make every effort to gather reliable and relevant information by paying close attention to detail, regardless of the proposed hypothesis. The intent of the research is not to prove the hypothesis, but to find the facts. For example, Stats Canada is the major statistical research in Canada. It gathers information in a variety of ways so that the government will have current statisitics from which to base its decisions. It would not be reasonable for Stats Canada to abandon the methods of careful data collection in an effort to follow a hunch because the information is meant to be objective and based on a representative sample of the population. In such a case the researchers should continue to maintain their discipline and forget about their personal bias and suspicions toward the results of the research.

 

However, when a researcher is in search of a solution for a particular problem, it may be more effective to follow a hunch at the sacrifice of some discipline and thoroughness. A mechanic is not normally considered a researcher, but a large part of their responsibility is to search for the solution to a broken vehicle. Likewise, doctors have the duty to their patients to quickly find the nature of a patient’s illness so that treatment may be provided. When my grandfather was experiencing long-term fatigue the doctor had a hunch that there was a problem with his thyroid gland. Instead of advising my grandfather to a specialist, the doctor directly tested for signs of that condition and as a result treatment was given much more quickly. For researchers who are in search of the solution to a specific problem, it can be acceptable to follow a hunch even it is not the most thorough of methods.

 

Depending on the intention of the researcher it may or may not be advisable to abandon painstaking data collection in an effort to follow a hunch. It is best conduct work throughly, disregarding personal suspicions of the results of research, when the researcher is looking for general knowledge such as that found by a survey or a statistical study. On the other hand, when the purpose of research is to find the answer to a specific problem such as the diagnosis of a patient or the cause of a disease, a researcher would benefit from following a hunch. All researchers want to find facts that will be useful and relevant to to the object of their study. Regardless of what is being studied researchers should make every effort to honestly and objectively complete the study by the most efficient and effective means.

[Alchemist11]

Hi there,

 

Thanks for grading my essay.

 

However I was wondering - after double checking what was asked of us in the first couple posts of this thread (which admittedly I did not read before) I notice that the instructions are not identical to the AAMC prompts. The instructions on this thread mention a supporting example to be placed in the first paragraph. On the other hand, for the AAMC writing prompts, the first paragraph is only described as "Explain what you think the above statement means."

 

I was wondering whether the supporting initial example is an unstated/implied part of the first task? I can understand how it helps bring the essay together and if it's meant to be done on every essay although not explicitly written, I can definitely include it.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

 

 

Score: 2/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Great job defining all of the terms. You have explained the prompt but you have not introduced an example that represents when the statement is true. That is the main task for you to carry out in the Supporting Paragraph and you will be marked down if you do not complete it.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Here you have explained and explored a specific example relating to how a hunch may benefit researchers. This is what should also be done in the Supporting Paragraph.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): A specific criteria separating researchers who are disciplined from those who employ hunches has been explained, but another important aspect of the Resolution Paragraph is to directly relate back to the two examples used in the previous paragraphs to prove the criteria correct. Since you did not give a specific example in the first paragraph, this was not possible and so this detracts from your final paragraph as well.

 

Miscellaneous: Always be certain that you have completed all tasks, as even an average essay can garner some marks if all the tasks have been adequately fulfilled. If they the main criteria for the essay is not met, it brings your essay down.

[anitarama]

It is implied that you will give a supporting example in the first paragraph, as this lends a lot of strength to your essay. It is difficult to make a concrete argument in support of the prompt without a valid and well-explained example to back it up. It is expected that each essay has two examples, which are then brought in once again in the third paragraph to also illustrate the resolution criteria and once again provide concrete evidence.

 

I was wondering whether the supporting initial example is an unstated/implied part of the first task? I can understand how it helps bring the essay together and if it's meant to be done on every essay although not explicitly written, I can definitely include it.

[pacemaker]

Hi Anita,

 

Thanks for grading my essay. I was wondering what you would suggest in the case if I come across a prompt and don't understand what a word means. For example, in this prompt, I wasn't sure what the term hunch meant which made it difficult for me to really have a direct focus in my essay and the examples. Any suggestions on what I should do if something like this happens again with another prompt?

 

Thanks,

 

Pace

[anitarama]

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

Describe a specific situation in which social criticism directed at an individual might be effective. Discuss what you think determines whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective.

 

Instructions

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread.

 

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

 

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the Forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

 

Scorer

Anita Ramakrishna is a medical student at McMaster University

 

Deadline

11:59pm Monday, August 1.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Tuesday, August 2.

[anitarama]

That is a difficult scenario. I would suggest using the other words in the prompt (for example in this case, discipline, thorough, etc.) to try your best to figure out what the word you are unsure of means. What would be the opposite of measured, strict, painstaking research methods? This might help you to better understand any such problem words.

 

In such a situation I would suggest focusing on the main tasks of the three paragraphs. Even if you had defined hunch as something slightly different than its universal meaning, the reader would know your definition and it would be able to run through your entire essay and directly relate to your examples.

 

Remember that completing all tasks is what is most important here in terms of earning more marks and a higher letter score.

 

Thanks for grading my essay. I was wondering what you would suggest in the case if I come across a prompt and don't understand what a word means. For example, in this prompt, I wasn't sure what the term hunch meant which made it difficult for me to really have a direct focus in my essay and the examples. Any suggestions on what I should do if something like this happens again with another prompt?

[pacemaker]

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

Describe a specific situation in which social criticism directed at an individual might be effective. Discuss what you think determines whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective.

 

In a modern society, we live within a social setting where individuals are continuously interacting with one another at various levels. Living within a social setting also comes with various issues related to meeting the needs and ensuring the rights of all or most individuals. The term social criticism refers to critiquing and pointig out flaws or mistakes. As such, in order for social criticism to be effective, it is important that such criticism is directed at issues and not at particular individuals. Social, political and economic issues tend to come about as a result of the work and decisions of many individuals and such issues in turn affect a great number of individuals. Therefore, it is important for one to point out the flaws and mistakes of an issue rather than point fingers at a particular person. For example, in 1955, a woman named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white passenger. At the time of this incident, Black Americans were treated differently due to their skin colour. As such, they were required to follow a different set of rules. Thus, it was considered the norm for a black person to sit in the back of the bus while the seats in the front were reserved for white passengers. During this incident, Rosa Parks was riding the bus to return home from work. She was very tired and decided to sit on a seat towards the front of the bus. When a white passenger entered the bus, she was too tired to move to the back of the bus and as a result, she refused to give up her seat to the white passenger. Her case later led to a large revolution and made a great contribution in attaining equal rights for blacks in North America. During the fight for equal rights for Blacks, individuals pointed out the flaws and mistakes in the system rather than any particular individual. They pointed out that the law itself treats blacks differently by entitling them to a different set of rights. As a result, it has made it impossible for them to obtain acceptance within mainstream America. Thus, it was the system, laws and the issue of unequal rights, leading to unequal treatment that was emphasized in the fight for equal rights.

 

On the other hand, it is also possible for social criticism to be effective when it is directed at particular individuals. Recently, citizens of Libya took to the street to fight for freedom and liberation from the ruling of President Moummar Gadhafi. Social criticism was pointed towards the way President Gadhafi governed the country. As such, citizens of Libya demanded for his resignation. After days of protest by a huge group of citizens and a great deal of international and media attention, President Gadhafi was forced to resign from his position. This led to a win for the citizens of Libya who are now free and are hoping for a better democratic political state in their country.

 

In conclusion, social crticism plays an important role in our society as it helps to bring attention to the flaws in our social settings. In order for social criticism to be effective, it should be directed at the issue. This is especially true when dealing with an issue where the actions of many people in the society towards others are a result of socially constructed entities. This was clearly illustrated in the example of the unequal treatment of Blacks in the United States, during the early to mid 19th century. Laws in the country provided Blacks with a different set of rights. Since the laws themselves treated Black Americans differently, it also set out an example for other Americans to follow. Therefore, during the 1950’s, when Black Americans faught for equal rights and treatment, they directed their criticism towards the flaws in the legal system rather than towards those individuals who mistreated them. On the other hand, social criticism directed towards an individual can also be effective if the issue is a direct result of an individuals’ actions and decisions. This was clearly illustrated in the exmaple of the fall of President Moummar Gadhafi from his position when unhappy citizen in Libya took to the streets in order to protest against the ruling of their president. Citizens in Libya were unhappy due to the decisions directly made by President Gadhafi and as a result, they pointed out the flaws and mistakes in his leadership abilities. Finally, they were able to achieve freedom and liberty from his ruling as he resigned from his position.

 

Thanks!

[bored]

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

Describe a specific situation in which social criticism directed at an individual might be effective. Discuss what you think determines whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective.

 

 

 

“Be the change you want to see in the work” was said by Gandhi, a freedom fighter. Gandhi understood that to bring freedom to India, he is going to need the support of the already depressed and saddened people of India. He motioned his revolution in the direction that would bring back the moral of the Indian people and he used their combine support to free the nation. At the time of Gandhi, the people of India had been very depressed by the ruling of British government, so much so that they the Indian people had lost many freedom fighters. At this time of grief, Gandhi was able to rise and was able to initiate a revolution that would bring back the nationalism of the Indian people. By doing this, he gained support of everyone. But in order to achieve this task, he had to criticize the issue of India not being British land, and the issue of wrongdoings done by the British government. Social Criticism is when a critic, Gandhi in this case, criticizes an individual or an issue in order to achieve a goal, support of people in this case. Gandhi carefully did not criticize against specific British leaders, but instead the issue of the British Raj and their wrongdoings. By criticizing to an issue, he criticized to something much larger than an individual British leader. He was able to bring back the nationalism of the people very effectively, a task that no other freedom fighter could achieve.

 

In modern era, the issue of smoking has also been socially criticized for years, and it has been very effective as well. Many more young people are choosing not to start smoking. By criticizing the entire issue, the critics were able to gain support of the people and force the government to place tariffs on cigar companies, which decreased the amount of people that smoke. To be effective is to achieve a goal in less time and effort, and this is exactly what was done by critics of cigar companies and by Gandhi.

 

Though the effectiveness of criticizing an issue has already been established, critics sometimes choose to criticize individuals rather then issues.. For example the case of a celebrity called Lindsey Lohan. She has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. She has drug addiction problems, she has problems with her mother, and she has driving problems. In short, she is a bad role model for kids. What critics did by continually criticizing her in public is that they made her lose her credibility. No longer does the average teenage girl see Lindsey Lohan as a role model. By criticizing just Lindsey Lohan’s actions and not saying that all celebrities are like that, the critics are able to achieve a negative stereotype for that actress that many teenagers would not follow. At the same time, the critics allowed teenagers to use other celibrities who are doing positive things for the society to be their role model. If critics had criticized all celebrities, then the teenagers would lose many of their role models.

 

Often times criticizing an issue like smoking is much worse than criticizing the individual. It is used very effectively by critics of cigar companies and also by Gandhi, but one needs to realize that at other times, criticizing individuals might be the better route. If the problem is a multinational, multi-age and multi gender, as are the problems of smoking, then criticizing the issue is the more effective route. When the critics of Lindsey Lohan began, they realized that this is a North American issue, and so criticizing all the celebrities will actually make them less credible and in the end will be less effective, so they stretigically criticized Lohan in order to stop the teens from using her as a role model. Thus, criticism should be used to criticize an issue of the problem is belonging many countries, many people belonging various age, races and genders. But if the issue is only affecting a small group of people and is caused by a single individual source, than criticizing said individual is the effective route.

 

 

 

Thanks a lot for the honest grading, I like your comments on each paragraphs, they are very helpful.

 

question for you: do you think defining after giving an example might be alright like I had to do? we can use that example to aid the definition and go back to it like I did.

 

Thanks

[anitarama]

Score: 4.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Great job defining terms, it set up a good basis for your arguments. Your example was very well-explained and related back to the prompt effectively.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Also a good example and refuting argument for the prompt.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): This was the only paragraph that needs improvement. You use the term "issue" to describe social criticism of both an individual and an overarching problem, which ends up being slightly confusing since the delineation in the prompt is stated as issue vs. individual. Make sure that you are careful about terminology so as not to cause the reader any confusion.

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

Describe a specific situation in which social criticism directed at an individual might be effective. Discuss what you think determines whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective.

 

In a modern society, we live within a social setting where individuals are continuously interacting with one another at various levels. Living within a social setting also comes with various issues related to meeting the needs and ensuring the rights of all or most individuals. The term social criticism refers to critiquing and pointig out flaws or mistakes. As such, in order for social criticism to be effective, it is important that such criticism is directed at issues and not at particular individuals. Social, political and economic issues tend to come about as a result of the work and decisions of many individuals and such issues in turn affect a great number of individuals. Therefore, it is important for one to point out the flaws and mistakes of an issue rather than point fingers at a particular person. For example, in 1955, a woman named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white passenger. At the time of this incident, Black Americans were treated differently due to their skin colour. As such, they were required to follow a different set of rules. Thus, it was considered the norm for a black person to sit in the back of the bus while the seats in the front were reserved for white passengers. During this incident, Rosa Parks was riding the bus to return home from work. She was very tired and decided to sit on a seat towards the front of the bus. When a white passenger entered the bus, she was too tired to move to the back of the bus and as a result, she refused to give up her seat to the white passenger. Her case later led to a large revolution and made a great contribution in attaining equal rights for blacks in North America. During the fight for equal rights for Blacks, individuals pointed out the flaws and mistakes in the system rather than any particular individual. They pointed out that the law itself treats blacks differently by entitling them to a different set of rights. As a result, it has made it impossible for them to obtain acceptance within mainstream America. Thus, it was the system, laws and the issue of unequal rights, leading to unequal treatment that was emphasized in the fight for equal rights.

 

On the other hand, it is also possible for social criticism to be effective when it is directed at particular individuals. Recently, citizens of Libya took to the street to fight for freedom and liberation from the ruling of President Moummar Gadhafi. Social criticism was pointed towards the way President Gadhafi governed the country. As such, citizens of Libya demanded for his resignation. After days of protest by a huge group of citizens and a great deal of international and media attention, President Gadhafi was forced to resign from his position. This led to a win for the citizens of Libya who are now free and are hoping for a better democratic political state in their country.

 

In conclusion, social crticism plays an important role in our society as it helps to bring attention to the flaws in our social settings. In order for social criticism to be effective, it should be directed at the issue. This is especially true when dealing with an issue where the actions of many people in the society towards others are a result of socially constructed entities. This was clearly illustrated in the example of the unequal treatment of Blacks in the United States, during the early to mid 19th century. Laws in the country provided Blacks with a different set of rights. Since the laws themselves treated Black Americans differently, it also set out an example for other Americans to follow. Therefore, during the 1950’s, when Black Americans faught for equal rights and treatment, they directed their criticism towards the flaws in the legal system rather than towards those individuals who mistreated them. On the other hand, social criticism directed towards an individual can also be effective if the issue is a direct result of an individuals’ actions and decisions. This was clearly illustrated in the exmaple of the fall of President Moummar Gadhafi from his position when unhappy citizen in Libya took to the streets in order to protest against the ruling of their president. Citizens in Libya were unhappy due to the decisions directly made by President Gadhafi and as a result, they pointed out the flaws and mistakes in his leadership abilities. Finally, they were able to achieve freedom and liberty from his ruling as he resigned from his position.

 

Thanks!

[anitarama]

Score: 3.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Be sure to give yourself a few minutes at the end to proofread, especially your introductory sentences, as these are the first impression your reader will get. Your Gandhi misquote immediately threw me off and it's a very small mistake that takes very little effort to fix but will change the impression of the marker.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): The example here could have been stronger, but the Lindsay Lohan one is acceptable.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Good criteria resolution. It may have been more effective to just have one supporting example when explaining the resolution, as the Gandhi example was much stronger and better developed than the smoking example.

 

Miscellaneous: I still would recommend that you define the terms right at the beginning of the Supporting Paragraph, as it allows you to do so in generic terms before any example has been introduced. I feel it strengthens your example if the reader already knows how you define social criticism etc.

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

Describe a specific situation in which social criticism directed at an individual might be effective. Discuss what you think determines whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective.

 

 

 

“Be the change you want to see in the work” was said by Gandhi, a freedom fighter. Gandhi understood that to bring freedom to India, he is going to need the support of the already depressed and saddened people of India. He motioned his revolution in the direction that would bring back the moral of the Indian people and he used their combine support to free the nation. At the time of Gandhi, the people of India had been very depressed by the ruling of British government, so much so that they the Indian people had lost many freedom fighters. At this time of grief, Gandhi was able to rise and was able to initiate a revolution that would bring back the nationalism of the Indian people. By doing this, he gained support of everyone. But in order to achieve this task, he had to criticize the issue of India not being British land, and the issue of wrongdoings done by the British government. Social Criticism is when a critic, Gandhi in this case, criticizes an individual or an issue in order to achieve a goal, support of people in this case. Gandhi carefully did not criticize against specific British leaders, but instead the issue of the British Raj and their wrongdoings. By criticizing to an issue, he criticized to something much larger than an individual British leader. He was able to bring back the nationalism of the people very effectively, a task that no other freedom fighter could achieve.

 

In modern era, the issue of smoking has also been socially criticized for years, and it has been very effective as well. Many more young people are choosing not to start smoking. By criticizing the entire issue, the critics were able to gain support of the people and force the government to place tariffs on cigar companies, which decreased the amount of people that smoke. To be effective is to achieve a goal in less time and effort, and this is exactly what was done by critics of cigar companies and by Gandhi.

 

Though the effectiveness of criticizing an issue has already been established, critics sometimes choose to criticize individuals rather then issues.. For example the case of a celebrity called Lindsey Lohan. She has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. She has drug addiction problems, she has problems with her mother, and she has driving problems. In short, she is a bad role model for kids. What critics did by continually criticizing her in public is that they made her lose her credibility. No longer does the average teenage girl see Lindsey Lohan as a role model. By criticizing just Lindsey Lohan’s actions and not saying that all celebrities are like that, the critics are able to achieve a negative stereotype for that actress that many teenagers would not follow. At the same time, the critics allowed teenagers to use other celibrities who are doing positive things for the society to be their role model. If critics had criticized all celebrities, then the teenagers would lose many of their role models.

 

Often times criticizing an issue like smoking is much worse than criticizing the individual. It is used very effectively by critics of cigar companies and also by Gandhi, but one needs to realize that at other times, criticizing individuals might be the better route. If the problem is a multinational, multi-age and multi gender, as are the problems of smoking, then criticizing the issue is the more effective route. When the critics of Lindsey Lohan began, they realized that this is a North American issue, and so criticizing all the celebrities will actually make them less credible and in the end will be less effective, so they stretigically criticized Lohan in order to stop the teens from using her as a role model. Thus, criticism should be used to criticize an issue of the problem is belonging many countries, many people belonging various age, races and genders. But if the issue is only affecting a small group of people and is caused by a single individual source, than criticizing said individual is the effective route.

 

 

 

Thanks a lot for the honest grading, I like your comments on each paragraphs, they are very helpful.

 

question for you: do you think defining after giving an example might be alright like I had to do? we can use that example to aid the definition and go back to it like I did.

 

Thanks

[Alchemist11]

Thanks in advance!

 

In order to determine the meaning of the above statement, the words "effective", "social criticism" and "issues" should be analyzed. The word effective in this situation means generating an improvement. If criticism is effective it will lead to a better situation in the future because it clearly identifies possible problems and ways to fix them. Social criticism is based on identifying problems and possible solutions based on humans as a group. For example, social criticism could be focused on identifying problems within a country or a government. In this context, "issues" refers to any problematic events, laws, or otherwise a detrimental aspect of society. Thus, overall, the statement is asserting that the identification and resolution of problems in society should be focusing on particular events and laws, as opposed particular people. This would yield the optimal improvement in society. An example showing that social criticism is more effective when based on issues can be seen by considering the recent healthcare reform proposed by President Obama. In this case, if someone did not agree with the reform, they would be better suited to critique the actual reform rather than criticize Obama's presidency. This would be more relevant to the matter at hand, and also would allow possible changes to be made to the reform in order to improve it. Simply blaming Obama and berating him would be less likely to provide any effective results. Donald Trump seemed to solely criticize Obama's presidency rather than focus on his proposed changes and Trump was arguably not very successful in gathering support and trying to make change in society. Thus in this situation, focusing on key social issues is more likely to generate change compared to focusing on particular individuals.

 

However, in some cases social criticism may be more effective when singling out an individual rather than being directed at broad issues. For example, consider Anthony Weiner's recent scandal. Mr. Weiner texted inappropriate pictures to teenager(s) and if the teenagers were under 18 it might even have been illegal. In this situation, people decided to criticize Mr. Weiner himself rather than focus on the broader issues he was working on. They presumably did this because Mr. Weiner was acting inappropriately and possibly illegally, and critics decided that the most effective way to promote change was to force Mr. Weiner to resign rather than simply combating his views on certain social issues. Assuming that the critics also want to see an improvement in society, their strategy of focusing on an individual who had done something morally wrong or illegal was quite effective in this situation.

 

The recent actions of an individual are influencial in determining whether social criticism would be more effective when directed at broad issues or not. For example, in Obama's case, he had done nothing wrong legally or morally, and therefore critiquing him personally would not be highly effective in promoting change. On the other hand, looking at Mr. Weiner, he had clearly done something wrong in terms of the law or at least in morality. Thus, social criticism would be more effective based on Mr. Weiner as opposed to his views or what he stands for. Critics who are interested in improving society should focus on issues when the individual promoting them has done nothing morally wrong or nothing illegal. Conversely, critics should focus on individuals when they have done something that society deems morally wrong or against the law. These would be the optimal strategies to enact change in society and therefore "be effective" by using social criticism.

[hc6]

When we see unjust acts being committed in the world, naturally we express outrage and often we demand justice and have those responsible punished. This can be a form of social criticism. It is the criticism of behaviour which the civilized society has deemed unacceptable. For the criticism to have its intended effects, most of the time the criticism should be on the deviant behaviour itself, rather than the criticism of any single person, thus discouraging any party that wishes to participate in the deviant behaviour. For example, there are set of recognized human rights, one of which is the freedom of press and freedom of speech. When we see censorship around the world, such as in China, in the Middle East, during the Arab Spring Revolution, in Egypt, in Tunisia, we criticise the censorship of individual expression as well as of the press. No individual is criticised for the censorship, rather, most of the criticism is directed towards the act of censorship itself, and it reminds us of our own fortunate situation as well as reminding us the importance of the freedom of speech.

 

However, there are times where social criticism directed towards an individual is effective. During the Iraq war, many soldiers were criticised for the unethical treatment of captured Iraqi forces. In particular, Lynndie England was convicted of her horrific treatment of the prisoners, which included torture, humilation, and sadistic treatment of more than ten Iraqi prisoners. Soldiers like her create hostile relationship between the Western forces and the endogenous people. It is this hostile relationship that motivate insurgent forces to fight against Western troops and ultimately costing lives. Thus extreme criticism must be directed towards individuals like her to show our disapproval. Lynndie England is currently being convicted of committing war crimes, and many others like her are facing the same treatment. In this case, social criticism directed towards the few deviant individuals is the most effective method of preventing such crimes from being committed in the future.

 

In both cases, a behaviour which was deemed unacceptable was committed. If it was crime that was committed by many parties, it is difficult to direct social criticism against all individuals involved. Rather it is more effective if the social criticism was directed towards the act itself. However in the cases where the crime was committed by a select few individuals, social critism directed towards them will be the most effective and will prevent others from repeating their mistakes.

[amalwa12]

Thank you so much Anita for marking my previous essay and thanks in advance for marking this one too!!

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

In this day and age, it has become increasingly important for us, as members of society, to have our voices heard about the things that matter to us. Social criticisms include our judgement of the merits and flaws of our society, country, or the global village as a whole. In order to convey our message effectively, we have to, for the most part, address social criticisms at the issues at hand. This is opposed to directing criticism at the individuals who may be associated with or directly/indirectly behind the development of the particular issue, which may be a social, economic or political concern that members of society share. The effectiveness of social criticism mostly depends on whether the critics’ voices have been heard publicly and if a shift in opinion is observed. An example that demonstrates the effectiveness of speaking up against an issue, rather than against particular individuals, is the case of women in Saudi Arabia who are actively protesting for their right to drive in the country. Saudi women are not allowed to legally drive and if caught driving, can face serious penalties. Women have long been fighting for this right, which they see as something that does not defy culture or religion. However, instead of revolting against any one person, despite the country being a kingdom and having a monarch who is responsible for decision-making, Saudi women have been directing their criticism at the issue itself. They are trying to change the viewpoint of society that women should not drive from its core. Their social criticisms have been effective in bringing this issue which was previously stigmatized out into the open and swaying the opinions of many government officials, including men. Although the law against women being able to drive has yet to be repealed, the voices of these women speaking out against the issue have been heard, both nationally and internationally, and progress is being made towards a future where women in Saudi Arabia are given their right to drive.

 

On the other hand, the recent youth revolution in Egypt is an example of the effectiveness of directing social criticisms at a particular individual, who is widely seen as responsible for the issues at hand. Earlier this year, thousands of Egyptians, mostly youth, joined the non-violent civilian uprising protesting against their then-President Hosni Mubarak. Hosni Mubarak and his political party were held responsible for various legal and political mishaps in the country, including cases of police brutality, lack of free elections and freedom of speech, high unemployment rates and food price inflations. The Egyptians took to the streets and protested for several weeks against Mubarak and his running of the country and this revolution was met with success on the 11th of February this year when Mubarak resigned from office.

 

What determines whether social criticisms should target the issue or particular individuals is the root of the issue itself. In the first case, the issue of Saudi women not being allowed to drive had its root in traditions and customs followed by that society. No one person or group of people could be held responsible for an ideology that has been customary for centuries. In the second case, it appeared that Hosni Mubarak’s own actions and decisions were bringing unrest to the country and therefore, the criticism was aimed at him. Therefore, social criticism should be directed at issues when their roots stretch beyond the actions of one person or a few people, and they should be directed at an individual or a few individuals if these individuals are responsible for the issue at hand.

[medhopeful64]

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

In order for society to be effective, it needs to be criticised. However, social criticism - the act of pointing out flaws in certain social structures or practices in an attempt to reform or change them - is often directed towards the wrong target. Often, social criticism is directed at individuals. This seldom works well in achieving the goal of social reform. To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals. The current AIDS pandemic provides such an example. Whenever the issue of AIDS is brought up in Africa, where the disease has ravaged the continent, the thought of drug dealers, prostitutes, and gay men often comes to mind. As the disease continued to ravage the nation, people began laying blame on the prostitutes and drug dealers for spreading the disease so maliciously. The fact that Africa was being destroyed by AIDS shamed the people of the nation, helping to breed the negative stigma associated with it. Pointing fingers at the sex and drug workers was not helping the country fight the ubiquitous disease. The underlying issue needed to be addressed, not certain individuals. Leaders such as Nelson Mandela realized this, and tried to remove the shame and negative stigma associated with AIDS by being open about it. He openly stated that his son`s death had been caused by AIDS, and that this issue needed to be addressed. Helping remove the negative stigma was attempted by educating the public about safe sex practices. This did help remove common myths such as the idea that AIDS could be spread by touching an infected individual. By addressing the underlying issue of the nature of AIDS and how to prevent it, the African nation helped slow the wave of AIDS down to a trickle. Though the problem is still serious, it has subsided because the underlying issue was targeted instead of certain individuals such as prostitutes.

 

However, it could very well be argued that sometimes, social criticism should actually be targeted at an individual in order to be effective. Take the modeling industry in North America for example. The business CEOs of modeling companies do not accept female models who are heavier than a certain size, or are shorter than a certain height. Often, the standards required by modeling agencies dangerously reach weights nearing those of anorexic patients. These standards are unhealthy, and dangerous not only to the physical body but to the minds of young girls and women. The heads of these modeling agencies propagate the idea that beauty equals anorexia. This is supported by the increasingly alarming rates of anorexia among western women, and the popular notion that thinner is better. Surveys have found that girls as young as eight years old are unhappy with their bodies, and girls as young as twelve are regularly dieting to lose weight. Schools in Canada and the US have attempted to curb this disturbing trend by educating children that beauty is only skin deep, and encouraging girls and boys to accept themselves for who they are and what they look like, that they are already beautiful. Despite these attempts, eating disorders are still rising among young women. The idea that beauty means starving oneself and looking dangerously thin has been pinpointed to media, particularly modeling agencies. The CEOs and heads of these large businesses are the ones that need to be targeted and addressed with in order for social criticism (that women do not have to be extremely thin to be beautiful) to be effective. Thus, in this case, the underlying problem or current standard of beauty is not what needs to be targeted; it is the perpetuators of this idea.

 

Whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective can be difficult to resolve. However a key factor in making this decision is to determine who or what is the underlying problem or cause of the issue. If the underlying root of the issue is due to the actions of a few individuals, then the criticism should indeed be directed towards these individuals. For example, the modeling industry has strict rules and regulations on the size and statures of the models working for the companies. The rules are shaped by the heads of these modeling industries, causing a shift in the way men and women perceive beauty. The underlying issues of anorexia, low self esteem in girls, etc, would be better addressed by targeting the business heads of modeling companies. If however, the underlying cause of the issue is not a certain individual, then efforts are better spent towards attempting to reform people`s attitudes in order to address the issue. Such was the case with AIDS, where education combined with increasing openness about the disease helped combat the issue in Africa.

 

 

 

Hi Anita, thanks for taking a look. This one was tough for me, and I realized as I was writing that my resolution principle was actually going in circles! Yikes...Is this resolution principle better: if education could reform people's attitude toward the issue, then social criticism should be directed towards the issue and not the individual (ie, attitude change towards AIDS helped curb the issue, therefore social criticism should be directed towards the actual issue, whereas in my modeling example, education did not change attitudes (that thin = beauty) and therefore should address certain individuals, not the issue). Hope that one made more sense. Thanks in advance.

[Kovah]

Thank you Anita!!!

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

Describe a specific situation in which social criticism directed at an individual might be effective. Discuss what you think determines whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective

 

The act of social criticism is difficult to execute and those who undertake such a task should tread lightly. Social criticism can be defined as the act of suggesting problems with a mentality or opinion that is held by a group of people. When the great majority of society holds one viewpoint toward a social or political issue, it can be difficult to effectively criticise their view. To be effective, social criticism should be directed at the issue itself, rather than the individuals who take a stance on the issue. Only a few decades ago, racism was common in developed nations. Nelson Mandela, a black political leader in South Africa, stands out as a example of effective social criticism. Mandela’s leadership patiently endured through harsh treatment and imprisonment as he attempted to end social discrimination against blacks. A key feature of his methods was his refusal to point at one particular individual and blame them for the discrimination. Because he distanced himself from any personal attacks he maintained a persona of great integrity with the public. In turn, racial discrimination was eventually broken and Mandela led a new and equitable government for South Africa.

 

However, other social issues may require a different approach in order to be effective. Harold Camping is the president of a Christian radio show. He made nationwide announcements that the end of the world would arrive on May 11, 2011, and a small minority of Christians believed him. Many of his followers donated much of their possessions to his cause, and when the end did not come they were left with little money. Effective social criticism against such abandonment to one teacher should not be directed at the issue he stood for. To critisize Biblical prophecies in general would miss the target because many Christians believe the Bible. To be effective, criticism should have been directed at Mr. Camping’s interpretation of the Bible.

 

What determines whether or not social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals depends on how widely accepted the a viewpoint is on the particular issue. Racism was quite common in South Africa and Nelson Mandela learned to fight it by attacking the viewpoint itself. He argued that all people are equal rather than pointing out particular acts of racism and condemning those who did them. On the other hand, to criticise a minority viewpoint about Biblical prophecy, it would be more effective to direct such arguments at the leader and originator of that viewpoint. If his arguments can be undermined, there should be no reason for a person to continue following his advice. Social criticism should try to maintain a balance of respect towards those it is directed against, but not fail to address the problems that the issue creates.

[bpp]

thanks for grading these! for some reason I had a hard time figuring out what was meant by "social criticism". kept myself withing the 1/2 hour limit though, so hopefully this isn't too bad.

 

 

Criticism related to social problems may take the form of suggesting changes to government policy, healthcare, and individual actions and attitudes. Social criticism directed at issues could include a researcher proposing a new program to reduce poverty, or a more efficient way of helping those with mental health problems. Social criticism directed at the individual could involve saying that impoverished people are living in poverty because they do not work hard enough. The latter approach generally is not very effective, and is not fair to the individual, because a variety of factors beyond the individual's control work to influence their susceptibility to social issues. Addressing the issues themselves, whether through assistance directed to the individual or addressing the root cause of social issues, generally produces much better results. For example, some individuals believe that those with addiction problems should deal with their issues themselves; they may believe that because the person made a choice, they should be responsible for it. However, this is generally an ineffective approach because of the underlying social problems and individual susceptibility related to addiction. Criticism of addiction treatment and the environmental conditions that lead to addiction is a more effective solution.

 

For many social issues, the individual does bear some responsibility. For example, socioeconomic conditions may lead to an increased risk of committing a crime for an individual,but the individual must bear responsibility in attempting to be rehabilitated. If a convict is repeatedly incarcerated and released, but makes no attempt to change his or her lifestyle or make use of rehabilitation programs because they believe themselves to be a victim of their social conditions, then social criticism directedat the individual may be appropriate and effective.

 

Factors that influence whether social criticism should be directed at individuals or issues include the level of control an individual has over a social issue,and whether the individual has made any effort to overcome the issue themselves, if they have the capacity to do so. For some issues, such as addiction, individuals may have had some control when their addiction developed, but have lost control due to the nature of the social issue. Social criticism should not be directed at these individuals, but rather at the issues. If an individual has made no effort to overcome a social issue that affects them, assuming they have the capacity to do so, then social criticism may be effective if directed at them.

[anitarama]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Wonderful job defining relevant terms. Great example as well, this is a strong paragraph.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Another good example. Try to use more definite terms rather than "might" and "possibly" to make your argument more direct.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Good job relating your resolution back to the prompt.

 

In order to determine the meaning of the above statement, the words "effective", "social criticism" and "issues" should be analyzed. The word effective in this situation means generating an improvement. If criticism is effective it will lead to a better situation in the future because it clearly identifies possible problems and ways to fix them. Social criticism is based on identifying problems and possible solutions based on humans as a group. For example, social criticism could be focused on identifying problems within a country or a government. In this context, "issues" refers to any problematic events, laws, or otherwise a detrimental aspect of society. Thus, overall, the statement is asserting that the identification and resolution of problems in society should be focusing on particular events and laws, as opposed particular people. This would yield the optimal improvement in society. An example showing that social criticism is more effective when based on issues can be seen by considering the recent healthcare reform proposed by President Obama. In this case, if someone did not agree with the reform, they would be better suited to critique the actual reform rather than criticize Obama's presidency. This would be more relevant to the matter at hand, and also would allow possible changes to be made to the reform in order to improve it. Simply blaming Obama and berating him would be less likely to provide any effective results. Donald Trump seemed to solely criticize Obama's presidency rather than focus on his proposed changes and Trump was arguably not very successful in gathering support and trying to make change in society. Thus in this situation, focusing on key social issues is more likely to generate change compared to focusing on particular individuals.

 

However, in some cases social criticism may be more effective when singling out an individual rather than being directed at broad issues. For example, consider Anthony Weiner's recent scandal. Mr. Weiner texted inappropriate pictures to teenager(s) and if the teenagers were under 18 it might even have been illegal. In this situation, people decided to criticize Mr. Weiner himself rather than focus on the broader issues he was working on. They presumably did this because Mr. Weiner was acting inappropriately and possibly illegally, and critics decided that the most effective way to promote change was to force Mr. Weiner to resign rather than simply combating his views on certain social issues. Assuming that the critics also want to see an improvement in society, their strategy of focusing on an individual who had done something morally wrong or illegal was quite effective in this situation.

 

The recent actions of an individual are influencial in determining whether social criticism would be more effective when directed at broad issues or not. For example, in Obama's case, he had done nothing wrong legally or morally, and therefore critiquing him personally would not be highly effective in promoting change. On the other hand, looking at Mr. Weiner, he had clearly done something wrong in terms of the law or at least in morality. Thus, social criticism would be more effective based on Mr. Weiner as opposed to his views or what he stands for. Critics who are interested in improving society should focus on issues when the individual promoting them has done nothing morally wrong or nothing illegal. Conversely, critics should focus on individuals when they have done something that society deems morally wrong or against the law. These would be the optimal strategies to enact change in society and therefore "be effective" by using social criticism.

[anitarama]

Score: 4/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Social criticism was well-explained. Would have been an even stronger paragraph if you had chosen one of the many examples you had listed and developed it further by explaining which individual was not criticized, etc.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Well-explained example, good job!

 

Task 3 (Resolution): You should have expanded this paragraph to specifically relate the prompt back to your two examples.

 

When we see unjust acts being committed in the world, naturally we express outrage and often we demand justice and have those responsible punished. This can be a form of social criticism. It is the criticism of behaviour which the civilized society has deemed unacceptable. For the criticism to have its intended effects, most of the time the criticism should be on the deviant behaviour itself, rather than the criticism of any single person, thus discouraging any party that wishes to participate in the deviant behaviour. For example, there are set of recognized human rights, one of which is the freedom of press and freedom of speech. When we see censorship around the world, such as in China, in the Middle East, during the Arab Spring Revolution, in Egypt, in Tunisia, we criticise the censorship of individual expression as well as of the press. No individual is criticised for the censorship, rather, most of the criticism is directed towards the act of censorship itself, and it reminds us of our own fortunate situation as well as reminding us the importance of the freedom of speech.

 

However, there are times where social criticism directed towards an individual is effective. During the Iraq war, many soldiers were criticised for the unethical treatment of captured Iraqi forces. In particular, Lynndie England was convicted of her horrific treatment of the prisoners, which included torture, humilation, and sadistic treatment of more than ten Iraqi prisoners. Soldiers like her create hostile relationship between the Western forces and the endogenous people. It is this hostile relationship that motivate insurgent forces to fight against Western troops and ultimately costing lives. Thus extreme criticism must be directed towards individuals like her to show our disapproval. Lynndie England is currently being convicted of committing war crimes, and many others like her are facing the same treatment. In this case, social criticism directed towards the few deviant individuals is the most effective method of preventing such crimes from being committed in the future.

 

In both cases, a behaviour which was deemed unacceptable was committed. If it was crime that was committed by many parties, it is difficult to direct social criticism against all individuals involved. Rather it is more effective if the social criticism was directed towards the act itself. However in the cases where the crime was committed by a select few individuals, social critism directed towards them will be the most effective and will prevent others from repeating their mistakes.

[anitarama]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Great introduction and definition of social criticism. Well-explained example.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Strong Refuting Paragraph, good job!

 

Task 3 (Resolution): The "root" of the issue could have been further developed before linking back to the examples used.

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

In this day and age, it has become increasingly important for us, as members of society, to have our voices heard about the things that matter to us. Social criticisms include our judgement of the merits and flaws of our society, country, or the global village as a whole. In order to convey our message effectively, we have to, for the most part, address social criticisms at the issues at hand. This is opposed to directing criticism at the individuals who may be associated with or directly/indirectly behind the development of the particular issue, which may be a social, economic or political concern that members of society share. The effectiveness of social criticism mostly depends on whether the critics’ voices have been heard publicly and if a shift in opinion is observed. An example that demonstrates the effectiveness of speaking up against an issue, rather than against particular individuals, is the case of women in Saudi Arabia who are actively protesting for their right to drive in the country. Saudi women are not allowed to legally drive and if caught driving, can face serious penalties. Women have long been fighting for this right, which they see as something that does not defy culture or religion. However, instead of revolting against any one person, despite the country being a kingdom and having a monarch who is responsible for decision-making, Saudi women have been directing their criticism at the issue itself. They are trying to change the viewpoint of society that women should not drive from its core. Their social criticisms have been effective in bringing this issue which was previously stigmatized out into the open and swaying the opinions of many government officials, including men. Although the law against women being able to drive has yet to be repealed, the voices of these women speaking out against the issue have been heard, both nationally and internationally, and progress is being made towards a future where women in Saudi Arabia are given their right to drive.

 

On the other hand, the recent youth revolution in Egypt is an example of the effectiveness of directing social criticisms at a particular individual, who is widely seen as responsible for the issues at hand. Earlier this year, thousands of Egyptians, mostly youth, joined the non-violent civilian uprising protesting against their then-President Hosni Mubarak. Hosni Mubarak and his political party were held responsible for various legal and political mishaps in the country, including cases of police brutality, lack of free elections and freedom of speech, high unemployment rates and food price inflations. The Egyptians took to the streets and protested for several weeks against Mubarak and his running of the country and this revolution was met with success on the 11th of February this year when Mubarak resigned from office.

 

What determines whether social criticisms should target the issue or particular individuals is the root of the issue itself. In the first case, the issue of Saudi women not being allowed to drive had its root in traditions and customs followed by that society. No one person or group of people could be held responsible for an ideology that has been customary for centuries. In the second case, it appeared that Hosni Mubarak’s own actions and decisions were bringing unrest to the country and therefore, the criticism was aimed at him. Therefore, social criticism should be directed at issues when their roots stretch beyond the actions of one person or a few people, and they should be directed at an individual or a few individuals if these individuals are responsible for the issue at hand.

[anitarama]

Score: 4/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Great job defining terms and strong introduction.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): This was a weaker argument, since you did explore the issue but did not truly describe an example where criticism was directed at individuals and not the issue as a whole.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): It could be argued that the body image issues of the modelling world are caused by more than simply the company heads, so this example itself is not as strong.

 

Miscellaneous: The second resolution that you mentioned may have worked had it been integrated throughout the essay and explained in relation to each example. I don't think the resolution you wrote was bad, more so that the second example could have been stronger.

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

In order for society to be effective, it needs to be criticised. However, social criticism - the act of pointing out flaws in certain social structures or practices in an attempt to reform or change them - is often directed towards the wrong target. Often, social criticism is directed at individuals. This seldom works well in achieving the goal of social reform. To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals. The current AIDS pandemic provides such an example. Whenever the issue of AIDS is brought up in Africa, where the disease has ravaged the continent, the thought of drug dealers, prostitutes, and gay men often comes to mind. As the disease continued to ravage the nation, people began laying blame on the prostitutes and drug dealers for spreading the disease so maliciously. The fact that Africa was being destroyed by AIDS shamed the people of the nation, helping to breed the negative stigma associated with it. Pointing fingers at the sex and drug workers was not helping the country fight the ubiquitous disease. The underlying issue needed to be addressed, not certain individuals. Leaders such as Nelson Mandela realized this, and tried to remove the shame and negative stigma associated with AIDS by being open about it. He openly stated that his son`s death had been caused by AIDS, and that this issue needed to be addressed. Helping remove the negative stigma was attempted by educating the public about safe sex practices. This did help remove common myths such as the idea that AIDS could be spread by touching an infected individual. By addressing the underlying issue of the nature of AIDS and how to prevent it, the African nation helped slow the wave of AIDS down to a trickle. Though the problem is still serious, it has subsided because the underlying issue was targeted instead of certain individuals such as prostitutes.

 

However, it could very well be argued that sometimes, social criticism should actually be targeted at an individual in order to be effective. Take the modeling industry in North America for example. The business CEOs of modeling companies do not accept female models who are heavier than a certain size, or are shorter than a certain height. Often, the standards required by modeling agencies dangerously reach weights nearing those of anorexic patients. These standards are unhealthy, and dangerous not only to the physical body but to the minds of young girls and women. The heads of these modeling agencies propagate the idea that beauty equals anorexia. This is supported by the increasingly alarming rates of anorexia among western women, and the popular notion that thinner is better. Surveys have found that girls as young as eight years old are unhappy with their bodies, and girls as young as twelve are regularly dieting to lose weight. Schools in Canada and the US have attempted to curb this disturbing trend by educating children that beauty is only skin deep, and encouraging girls and boys to accept themselves for who they are and what they look like, that they are already beautiful. Despite these attempts, eating disorders are still rising among young women. The idea that beauty means starving oneself and looking dangerously thin has been pinpointed to media, particularly modeling agencies. The CEOs and heads of these large businesses are the ones that need to be targeted and addressed with in order for social criticism (that women do not have to be extremely thin to be beautiful) to be effective. Thus, in this case, the underlying problem or current standard of beauty is not what needs to be targeted; it is the perpetuators of this idea.

 

Whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective can be difficult to resolve. However a key factor in making this decision is to determine who or what is the underlying problem or cause of the issue. If the underlying root of the issue is due to the actions of a few individuals, then the criticism should indeed be directed towards these individuals. For example, the modeling industry has strict rules and regulations on the size and statures of the models working for the companies. The rules are shaped by the heads of these modeling industries, causing a shift in the way men and women perceive beauty. The underlying issues of anorexia, low self esteem in girls, etc, would be better addressed by targeting the business heads of modeling companies. If however, the underlying cause of the issue is not a certain individual, then efforts are better spent towards attempting to reform people`s attitudes in order to address the issue. Such was the case with AIDS, where education combined with increasing openness about the disease helped combat the issue in Africa.

 

 

 

Hi Anita, thanks for taking a look. This one was tough for me, and I realized as I was writing that my resolution principle was actually going in circles! Yikes...Is this resolution principle better: if education could reform people's attitude toward the issue, then social criticism should be directed towards the issue and not the individual (ie, attitude change towards AIDS helped curb the issue, therefore social criticism should be directed towards the actual issue, whereas in my modeling example, education did not change attitudes (that thin = beauty) and therefore should address certain individuals, not the issue). Hope that one made more sense. Thanks in advance.

[anitarama]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Excellent example and definitions, great Supporting Paragraph.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Less effective example, but still well-explained.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Good job identifying a resolution criteria.

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

Describe a specific situation in which social criticism directed at an individual might be effective. Discuss what you think determines whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective

 

The act of social criticism is difficult to execute and those who undertake such a task should tread lightly. Social criticism can be defined as the act of suggesting problems with a mentality or opinion that is held by a group of people. When the great majority of society holds one viewpoint toward a social or political issue, it can be difficult to effectively criticise their view. To be effective, social criticism should be directed at the issue itself, rather than the individuals who take a stance on the issue. Only a few decades ago, racism was common in developed nations. Nelson Mandela, a black political leader in South Africa, stands out as a example of effective social criticism. Mandela’s leadership patiently endured through harsh treatment and imprisonment as he attempted to end social discrimination against blacks. A key feature of his methods was his refusal to point at one particular individual and blame them for the discrimination. Because he distanced himself from any personal attacks he maintained a persona of great integrity with the public. In turn, racial discrimination was eventually broken and Mandela led a new and equitable government for South Africa.

 

However, other social issues may require a different approach in order to be effective. Harold Camping is the president of a Christian radio show. He made nationwide announcements that the end of the world would arrive on May 11, 2011, and a small minority of Christians believed him. Many of his followers donated much of their possessions to his cause, and when the end did not come they were left with little money. Effective social criticism against such abandonment to one teacher should not be directed at the issue he stood for. To critisize Biblical prophecies in general would miss the target because many Christians believe the Bible. To be effective, criticism should have been directed at Mr. Camping’s interpretation of the Bible.

 

What determines whether or not social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals depends on how widely accepted the a viewpoint is on the particular issue. Racism was quite common in South Africa and Nelson Mandela learned to fight it by attacking the viewpoint itself. He argued that all people are equal rather than pointing out particular acts of racism and condemning those who did them. On the other hand, to criticise a minority viewpoint about Biblical prophecy, it would be more effective to direct such arguments at the leader and originator of that viewpoint. If his arguments can be undermined, there should be no reason for a person to continue following his advice. Social criticism should try to maintain a balance of respect towards those it is directed against, but not fail to address the problems that the issue creates.

[anitarama]

Score: 3.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): You need a more focused approach in this paragraph. If addiction is your example, then introduce it earlier or use more than a couple of lines to explain it. The more concrete your example, the stronger your argument is.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Once again, this paragraph would be even stronger if you had perhaps discussed a specific convict that was individually criticized, etc.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): You have used many vague phrases and terms in this essay as well as this final paragraph. The more direct and straightforward you are, the better.

 

Criticism related to social problems may take the form of suggesting changes to government policy, healthcare, and individual actions and attitudes. Social criticism directed at issues could include a researcher proposing a new program to reduce poverty, or a more efficient way of helping those with mental health problems. Social criticism directed at the individual could involve saying that impoverished people are living in poverty because they do not work hard enough. The latter approach generally is not very effective, and is not fair to the individual, because a variety of factors beyond the individual's control work to influence their susceptibility to social issues. Addressing the issues themselves, whether through assistance directed to the individual or addressing the root cause of social issues, generally produces much better results. For example, some individuals believe that those with addiction problems should deal with their issues themselves; they may believe that because the person made a choice, they should be responsible for it. However, this is generally an ineffective approach because of the underlying social problems and individual susceptibility related to addiction. Criticism of addiction treatment and the environmental conditions that lead to addiction is a more effective solution.

 

For many social issues, the individual does bear some responsibility. For example, socioeconomic conditions may lead to an increased risk of committing a crime for an individual,but the individual must bear responsibility in attempting to be rehabilitated. If a convict is repeatedly incarcerated and released, but makes no attempt to change his or her lifestyle or make use of rehabilitation programs because they believe themselves to be a victim of their social conditions, then social criticism directedat the individual may be appropriate and effective.

 

Factors that influence whether social criticism should be directed at individuals or issues include the level of control an individual has over a social issue,and whether the individual has made any effort to overcome the issue themselves, if they have the capacity to do so. For some issues, such as addiction, individuals may have had some control when their addiction developed, but have lost control due to the nature of the social issue. Social criticism should not be directed at these individuals, but rather at the issues. If an individual has made no effort to overcome a social issue that affects them, assuming they have the capacity to do so, then social criticism may be effective if directed at them.

[medhopeful64]

Score: 4/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Great job defining terms and strong introduction.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): This was a weaker argument, since you did explore the issue but did not truly describe an example where criticism was directed at individuals and not the issue as a whole.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): It could be argued that the body image issues of the modelling world are caused by more than simply the company heads, so this example itself is not as strong.

 

Miscellaneous: The second resolution that you mentioned may have worked had it been integrated throughout the essay and explained in relation to each example. I don't think the resolution you wrote was bad, more so that the second example could have been stronger.

 

Alright then, thanks a lot for the quick feedback!!

[amalwa12]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Great introduction and definition of social criticism. Well-explained example.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Strong Refuting Paragraph, good job!

 

Task 3 (Resolution): The "root" of the issue could have been further developed before linking back to the examples used.

 

Thanks for the review again Anita! I agree with you that my Task 3 could have been further developed. Will watch out for that in the next essay:)

[Caliver]

Thank you!

 

In a society, there are many problems of various origins including cultures and economy. To deal with these problems and improve the society upon weaknesses shown by the problems, social criticism is essential. Social criticism can be defined as evaluation of faults of one's social actions in areas such as economy. In a socially stable society, where citizens can make rational decisions, social criticism should be pinpointed at certain issues rather than individuals to be effective. Effectiveness in this case can be measured by integration of people's opinions. For example, in South Korea, currently a stable developed nation, economic polarization, which essentially is an enlarged gap between the rich and the poor, had been constantly raised. Many critics including university professors argued that the system, which only enforces low tax to the rich and not redistributes the wealth to the poor enough were the major problems with plausible evidence. The evidence included comparing the social system of Korea with that of European nations. This caused major demonstrations by citizens, even including some of the rich people, in Seoul and eventually the government dealt with the issue. If the criticism were directed at solely the rich people, it would not have been able to gain support from the rich, thereby decreasing its effectiveness. Therefore, in a stable society, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals to be effective.

 

However, there are occasions where directing social criticism at individuals might be more effective. In a socially unstable nation, citizens demand a quick clear solution to the stability and have tendency to be easily swayed. Germany after World War I would be an example. Germany after losing in World War I was in a desperate shape. Not only did it have to compensate for damages sustained by its neighbouring nations, but it also had to deal with its own shaking economy. In fact, it experienced one of the highest inflation in the history, with which people had to pay millions of "Mark" to buy a potato. Therefore, it is safe to say that the German society at that time was unstable. Germans desperately wanted a clear tangible solution at that time; they were not able to assess evidence rationally because of their immediate need of a solution to the unstability. In fact, when Hitler came in power and blamed Jews for stealing all the wealth without any evidence, Germans were easily swayed by the quick easy solution of targeting Jews, certain individuals. This social criticism blamed at Jews was effective because most Germans agreed to it and followed Hitler to put Jews away. Therefore, in an unstable society where a swift solution is demanded, social criticism directed at individuals can be very effective.

 

Whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective depends on the stability of the society. If the society is stable, like in the case of modern South Korea, citizens can make rational decisions and assess the situation based on plausible evidence. Therefore, it is more effective to criticize at issues like the tax system. On the other hand, if the society is relatively unstable, like in the case of Germany after World War I during the era of Hitler, citizens want a quick tangible solution and tend not to consider any evidence. Therefore, it is more effective to direct social criticism at individuals like Jews rather than complex time-consuming process involving social issues.