Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback

[UBCStudent128]

One of the evolutionary traits of human kind is the ability to share. By providing each other with knowledge and advancements, technologies and living standards of human societies have grown exponentially in the last century. Throughout the countless colonization in the 20th century, invading nations have introduced new infrastructures which were not only beneficial to the invaded countries but served to uplift the scientific standards of other nations to the international standards. For example during the early 1900’s before the colonization of Taiwan by Japan, Taiwan was an impoverished country with scientific accomplishments that were far below the global standards. Japan introduced industrialization technologies such as railroads and other transport systems and implemented sanitation systems which significantly improved the quality of Taiwan’s living standards. Through dissemination of scientific advances such as industrialization and sanitary technologies, Japan has increased Taiwan's living standards and saved millions of lives.

 

 

Despite the benefits of sharing scientific advances among nations, some advancement should be shared only under severe consideration. Nuclear warheads for example are one of the scientific advancements that can be detrimental to the international security if abusively shared. North Korea has gained its nuclear warheads from Russia after the end of the Cold War and now has the potential to cause devastating wars with countries in the eastern Asia. Due to the sharing of dangerous scientific advancements by Russia, North Korea has been persistent in their pursuit of developing a dangerous nuclear warhead to be used for homeland security. It has been one of U.N.'s top priorities to stop further dissemination of the scientific advancements related to nuclear warheads as countries such as North Korea and Iran will abuse the technology to increase tension internationally. For decades North Korea has used its nuclear weapon development as a negotiating asset to forcibly take food aids from countries such as the United States and South Korea. Therefore nations should consider the potential abuse of scientific advancements before sharing with other nations.

 

Scientific advances for the past century have been exponential due to the ability for nations to share ideas and inventions. Scientific advancements that can improve quality of living standards globally should be shared internationally. Such advancements like biofuels should be shared among nations as it serves to provide all nations with better living standards. Not only that, for technologies such as biofuels to be effective, cooperation of biofuel usage among nations is required to reduce green house emissions. However when a scientific advancement has the potential to become abused and cause severe deficit in living standard qualities and life, sharing any scientific advances should be prohibited. Countries that seek technologies for warfare such as North Korea and Iran should be stopped in further sharing of advances involving nuclear warheads. Therefore even if a scientific advancement can be seen to be beneficial to societies, careful considerations must be applied for potential abuse by nations before sharing scientific advancements.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 ST6nq

 

The ultimate goal of advancing science is to reduce inequities between nations. I don't really think this is true. This goal can only be achieved through the dissemination of the products of scientific endeavors on an international scale, which is necessary because many nations do not have access to infrastructure which would otherwise allow them to generate scientific advances independently. For example, scientists in the United States pioneered effective treatments to increase the longevity of those infected with HIV, and through an effort initiated by President George W. Bush, these anti-HIV medications were made available to large populations of HIV-positive people in Africa and consequently, a significant decrease in the number of people dying as a result of the progression of HIV was seen. Run-on sentence. Without the generosity of the United States to share with Africa the benefits of their own scientific advances in HIV research, many more Africans would be dying every year from HIV infections, and this highlights the importance of sharing scientific advances in order to reduce inequities among nations.

Excellent.

 

Conversely, it would be detrimental to the national security of certain nations if they were to share scientific advances with nations who have demonstrated their intent to use those scientific advances for military purposes that are not aligned with international war laws mandated by the United Nations. For example, the United States and Israel have achieved a high level of efficiency in the production of nuclear weapons for the purposes of maintaining homeland security. However, nations such as Iran currently lack the scientific infrastructure necessary to produce functional nuclear weapons. In this case, the United States and Israel are completely justified in not sharing with Iran scientific information on how to construct nuclear weapons, since Iran has indicated that it would use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, a key ally of the United States, which would also be in direct violation of international war laws.

This is great. There are some problems with the italicized ideas. 1) Iran, has indicated it has no intent to build a nuclear weapon. What is presented in the news is mostly political rhetoric. 2) International war laws is not the proper term here.

Therefore, the sharing of scientific advances between nations is dependent upon the intentions of the receiving nations with respect to how they would utilize the scientific advancements. This is vague and ambiguous. How does one objectively tell what the intentions of a nation are? If the sharing of scientific information would lead to the eradication of HIV in Africa and reduce the drastic health inequities that exist in Africa, then the sharing of scientific information is justified. However, if the sharing of scientific information would lead to the potential nuclear armament of a hostile nation such as Iran which intends to use nuclear weapons against Israel, then the priority of maintaining national security amongst nations trumps all other potential benefits of disseminating scientific advances, and would give nations such as the United States or Israel the moral highground to refuse sharing its scientific advancements in nuclear weaponry with Iran. Run-on sentence.

Overall, the resolution paragraph is the weakest part of your essay. The ideas lack depth. You want a clear resolution principle that lays out conditions that addresses the writing task. A strong resolution principle can be applied to other examples not just the ones presented.

Again the premise for your Israel and Iran discussion is based primarily on political rhetoric and speculation.

 

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is completely addressed.Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 Alai

 

Innovation in science and technology is often termed 'discovery'; that is, it is taken to be something which was pre-existing and upon which no one has a particular right of ownership. Awkward phrasing and organization. Historically, scientific knowledge has largely been beneficial and conducive to social progress; however, this is not always the case -- critics of science-fueled progress rightfully argue both the benefits of scientific knowledge and its potential for abuse. As such, they are increasingly justified in their claims that although the sharing of scientific knowledge and discovery can serve as a heuristic policy, reasonable caution should necessary be practiced in every such case.

This discussion is off-topic and does not address the supporting task.

Scientific knowledge, for instance, is not necessarily conducive to progress, and is equally liable to be abused. A particularly relevant case for those alive today is the issue of nuclear proliferation -- the knowledge and means of creating nuclear bombs -- which has resulted in some drastic consequences for global politics. This case also demonstrates the two-fold nature of scientific innovation: for the better and worse; while it may be used as a highly economical solution to the worlds energy problems, it has tremendous potential for harm.

This is off-topic.

 

Those presuppose that scientific advances would always bring progress, take for granted the premise that it will be used by those who themselves uphold our current definition of progression. Those who share such knowledge, then, may be held accountable as being a part of the causal factors for any subsequent abuse of the knowledge they dispersed.

Off-topic.

 

Sharing of scientific knoweldge, even in cases which are seemingly undebatable, must be done with caution. Often, such as in the case of medical knowledge, it is not only ethical, but often obviously beneficial to the society. To withhold such knowledge from the world would almost inarguably case much more harm than good. Even medical knowledge, however, can potentially be abused: a drug developed in the west, for instance, may be crudely reproduced in low-quality in such a manner as to reduce its potency and leads to more harmful side-effects. Such cases demonstrate that, even when the benefit is obvious, utmost caution should be exercised in sharing the knowledge of scientific advances. Factors such as whether a society is prepared for the advance, whether it may be as beneficial to the novel society as it was in the parent society, and all possibilities of its abuse, must all be seriously considered and taken into account before any decision is reached.

Overall, your essay is off-topic and does not address the writing tasks.

 

I can sense that you are new when it comes to the writing sample. I suggest you start with the basics. Do some research on what the writing sample is looking for and the standard template for writing the essay.

 

Please refer to this link:

http://portal.prep101.com/Forum/yaf_postst58_How-to-write-Writing-Sample-essays.aspx

 

Overall Mark: 1/6 (Corresponds to approximately a J )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1 None of the writing tasks are addressed.

[Enviro_4_Medschool]

Scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

Describe a specific situation in which scientific advances should not be shared with all nations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

----

 

Scientific advancements have helped progress many areas of society and improve the quality of life for nations that have become scientifically adept. Those who believe in egalitarian societies would feel that scientific advances should be shared with all nations because it helps improve the quality of life for everyone and creates a more level field of oppurtunity for everyone. This is especially true for nations that are lagging behind in terms of industrialization and scientific advancements in which access to basic necessities and education has been compromised by lack of efficient resource handling that scientific advancements in more industrialized countries have allowed. Furthermore, scientific advanvements, especially in technology, help solve world problems if deployed universally. Currently, nations struggle to control greenhouse gas emissions, and there a debate between what developing countries should do versus developed countries. Canada had invented a nuclear reactor known as a CANDU reactor. This reactor provides a low emission source of energy, thus preventing energy poverty in nations that do not have means to generate electricity. This sharing of technology allows all nations to benefit and improve their quality of life thus can be considered a success story for a more equal society.

 

However, nuclear also has the potential to be extremely destructive especially when enriched uranium is used in the making of war heads. Here because there is one side that is not for equality but dominance there is much trepidation about allowing advancements to come into the hands of certain nations. As a result, internationally there is tension about who should be allowed access to nuclear weapons. It is especially concerning if the country shows themselves to be an aggressor and the use of weapons could be used to destroy people. Iran has recently had a nuclear program that the U.S. and Israel does not want to see to fruition because they do not believe that Iran has this program for energy purposes. Iran and subsequently more extreme Muslim organizations have vocally expressed desire to harm and this leaves little doubt about their intentions with the use of a nuclear weapon. Iran may want nuclear weapons because Israel has nuclear weapons but the proliferation of many nations having nuclear weapons could lead to another Cold War. Hence, even though scientific advancement has allowed us to harness nuclear power, there still needs to be vigilence in areas where advancement has created technologies that could cause significant harm especially when one nation has expressed an intention to harm another.

 

In an ideal world where everyone could be equal, it is extremely beneficial to have an exchange of information regarding scientific advancements. The solutions can help improve the lives of many people, especially when advancements such as CANDU reactors solve long standing problems such as energy poverty. However, if some nations wish to use advancements in ways that could harm others it would not be considered prudent to allow complete disclosure of information. This is true regarding who should be allowed nuclear weapons and why. Certainly, groups like extreme Muslim fractions who wish to promote wars on Terrorism should not have access to knowledge that allows them to produce nuclear weapons. A rule for governing when scientific advances should be given to nations would depend on the outcome the advancement leads to. When the advances benefit the good of everyone, and solve complex international issues, they should be shared but if there is reason to believe that nations will use the technology for malintent than the security of nations will take precedence over the sharing of technology. Lastly, in an increasingly resouce constrained world, there should be sharing of advancements that lead to technologies that do provide everyone with a decent quality of life. This could reduce people who wish to harm out of an ideologically agenda or because of aggressors themselves because they feel increasingly constrained or threatened. Iran may not have wanted their nuclear program if Israel and the U.S. had not so vocally declared that they would come down hard if Iran stepped out of line.

 

---

 

Thanks again Raymond!

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 Dasypus

Scientific advancement is by its nature an enterprise that cuts across national borders. Experimental results from one part of the world can, if valid, be reproduced anywhere that suitable experimental setups can be created. Thus, great scientific discoveries can, in theory, be made anywhere, irrespective of international borders. Sharing between nations can advance science in great leaps by allowing a cross-fertilization of ideas. One such case that was ultimately of great humanitarian value was the discovery of the first antibiotics, circa 1933. The basic research was done in Germany, the human testing that validated the results in England, and the elucidation of the functional group (a sulfa molecule, not a dye as the Germans had thought) was finally completed in France. It was only because of the sharing of each advance across borders that crucial progress in science and medicine was made.

This example would be great. But your discussion of the example is too sparse. It needs more elaboration and focus on addressing the writing task. Some of the ideas in your introduction should be discussed within the context of the example to be directly relevant.

However, it was only a decade after the discovery of sulfa antibiotics that the world saw perhaps the greatest instance in which a scientific advance was not, and must not have, been shared. In the late stages of World War II, the Americans and the Germans were both seeking to create a weapon powered by atomic fission. While the early advances had been shared across that national border -- it was a German who discovered fission -- the American and German scientists worked in great secrecy during the War. Had the American's progress been shared with the Germans -- most crucially, had the Germans been set straight about the feasibility of carbon-rod control of fission -- it is likely that the Allies would not have been the first to get the Bomb. It seems clear that this would have been disasterous; it is ethically questionable whether or not the Allies should have bombed, but beyond doubt that had the Axis been able to do so, they would have, and WWII is the rare case in which the war truly did have 'bad guys'.

This example works very well. The writing style needs to be improved. Your grammatical style leads to a choppiness in the flow of the essay. It also hurts the cohesiveness of the writing.

These two cases are tightly linked in time and location that differ in whether or not a significant scientific advance -- antibiotic therapies and practical nuclear fission -- were and indeed ought to have been shared across national boundaries. Awkward phrasing and organization. There are at least two definitive differences between the two situations; and it seems that either may well have been sufficient on its own. Only one resolution principle is required. First, while the medical advance had great and uniformly positive humanitarian impact wherever it was shared, the nuclear advances were far more easily bent to killing than to any constructive end (it would be decades after Hiroshima before a useful nuclear generator was created). It seems that there is a moral imperative to share such positive advances, while other advances may in fact come with a moral imperative not to use them or share them so that others might do so. You discuss the contrast without expressing it as a principle to address the writing task. In addition, the idea of nuclear advances not being constructive is flawed. It could be argued that quickly ending the worst war in human history was a constructive reason for developing and using nuclear weapons. Second, the medical advance was of no clear strategic value how is being able to treat infections not of strategic value? , while the invention of the Bomb was of critical military importance during a time of war. In wartime, no strategic advantage ought to be given up -- though this is a pragmatic 'ought', not the moral one of the first point. While these determining factors -- moral and strategic value -- are not exhaustive, they do point to two key differences that separate scientific advances that ought to be shared from those that ought not.

Issues:

1) You only need one well developed resolution principle. The excess time and energy could have been better expended in your earlier paragraphs.

2) Your contrast needs to be expressed in the form of a principle/rule.

3) Your resolutions are ambiguous in nature and as a result the contrast will not be clear cut.

 

 

Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3 Grammar issues.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 DaKirbster

 

Science is the process whereby our world is explained and improved through observation and experimentation. Nations typically conduct scientific research in order to create a better society to live in through advances in technology, medicine, and so on. These scientific advances should be shared with all nations so that every nation can benefit from the improvement. This is a common practice in the field of medicinal research, where discoveries and ideas often show word choice no borders. For example, at the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, recent research about treatment of the fatal HIV virus have allowed for groundbreaking advances. These advances have been shared throughout the world; a research institute in China even presented the Canadian research centre with an award of recognition for such outstanding results. Not only does this sharing of advances allow other nations to gain insight on potentially useful information, but it also allows these nations to improve on these results further with cooperative research. In this case, it is beneficial to all nations when these advances are shared - including the nation that supplied it.

Excellent.

 

However, there are some cases when scientific advances should not be shared with all nations. Typically, this is the case when the advances relate to a destructive technology. For example, the United States of America does not share information about military scientific advances with other nations. There are a few reasons behind this. First and foremost for the USA, they do not reveal their military advancements because it could supply potential enemys of the nation with useful intel about the nation's army, as well as allowing the enemy nation to produce the same technology. Another reason, from a more broad perspective, is that sharing advancements in destructive technology will only further increase the potential for destruction across the nations. It's bad enough if one nation has a nuclear warhead capable of wiping out millions of people; if every nation had one, there would be potential for even more extreme catastrophe.

Excellent.

 

Whether not scientific advances should be shared with all nations depends on whether the advance is constructive or destructive to society and the world at large. This is an ambiguous resolution principle especially in terms of weapons technology. Constructive and beneficial advances, such as groundbreaking research on the deadly HIV virus, should be shared for the benefit of people across the world and to hasten the improvements. Destructive advances, such as military weaponry and nuclear bombs Weapons could be constructive in that they are so powerful that they keep major powers from going to war (mutually assured destruction). What about if weapons are used in wars that overthrow brutal dictators? , should not be shared with all nations to minimize the potential for the use of said destructive technology. This is part of the reason that the USA does not share its military advancements. Ultimately, science has the potential for great good and great evil, but hopefully will make everyone's lives better. This is an odd ending after discussing destructive technology and potential for great evil.

The terms constructive and destructive are ambiguous. You do not want an ambiguous resolution principle.

 

Overall Mark: 4.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a Q )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4.5 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[qszwdxefc]

Scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

Describe a specific situation in which scientific advances should not be shared with all nations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

==================================================================

 

In the modern world, scientific advances are occurring almost every day. These may include new discoveries, modifications of former scientific knowledge, and improving equipment that is used by corporations and the general public alike. By sharing these advancements with all nations, people around the world are able to incorporate the new knowledge into their own works and thus produce a chain reaction of scientific advances, which they can then share with the world to further the mass of knowledge possessed globally. For example, the discovery of green fluorescent protein (GFP) has been greatly beneficial to biochemistry by simply sharing this advancement with all nations. Many people have used the knowledge of GFP to develop markers for experiments with different organisms, which have led to many further experiments such as genetic tests for enhancers and silencers.

 

Although it would seem ideal for all scientific advances to be shared with all nations, sometimes patents and other forms of protecting intellectual property are necessary as well. For example, Apple Computers has hundreds of patents for their iPhone alone, which they have invested countless sums of money into scientific research to make it increasingly better. By protecting their scientific advances, they are able to generate larger amounts of profit since other companies are not able to reproduce what they have. They can then use the profits to maintain their high investment in research and development for the iPhone to continuously put forth a quality product that gets increasingly better.

 

The distribution of scientific advances has always been a matter of preference for the group of people who brought forth the advancement. Anything between top-secret and open-source projects exist, and it usually depends on the vision and goals of the individuals or companies. If the goal of the group is to obtain public funding for research to increase the knowledge of the scientific world, it would be appropriate to share it with all nations like the group who discovered GFP. If the group has a corporate vision and the goal is to earn money by getting consumers to purchase a product or service, it would be appropriate to not share scientific advancements similar to Apple Computers.

 

Thanks for doing this!

[wstntime]

Scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

Describe a specific situation in which scientific advances should not be shared with all nations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

New discoveries which enable more effective and efficient ways of dealing with issues facing humankind should be shared with all nations. A prime example would be to consider new medical discoveries, such as the discovery of insulin by Banting and Best in the early part of the 20th century. Prior to the isolation of the insulin hormone, strategies to manage a diagnosis of diabetes involved archaic methods such as completely restricting carbohydrate intake as a result of the inability to process glucose. Life expectancy was significantly reduced and quality of life was very poor. The isolation of the insulin hormone, and subsequent methods of producing the hormone as an exogenous source for the processing of carbohydrate, significantly increased life expectancy and improved quality of life. Such a medical breakthrough had the potential to have such a huge positive impact on humankind that there was essentially a moral obligation to share such a discovery with the rest of the world, friend or foe.

 

However, there are cases when new discoveries should not be shared with all nations. Consider the work done during the world war II era by the 'manhattan project' in the development of the technology of nuclear fission, and the application of this technology in the creation of the atomic bomb. Such a discovery had the potential to cause a great deal of damage to humankind if this knowledge were to get into the wrong hands. For this reason, this discovery was rightfully kept secret from oppresive miltary states so as to prevent widespread destruction of the human race. Scientific discoveries which have the potential to cause harm to the human race should not be shared with all nations.

 

There are cases when scientific advances should be shared with all nations, but there are also cases when this should not be done. The determining factor in whether or not new discoveries should be shared with all nations is whether or not these discoveries can have a direct impact on improving military operations.

In the case of discoveries in medical science, such as the discovery of insulin, there would be a signicant benefit to humankind but without a direct impact on military force. In this case, the sharing of this discovery would not have the potential to cause widespread destruction, and therefore can be openly shared with all nations for the benefit of humankind.

In the case of the discovery of nuclear fission, while this technology can also be of benefit to humankind by applying this technology to such things as energy development, there is obviously a potential harm to the human race through the use of this technology for military use. As a result, this technolgy could be kept secret from states focused on military oppression, and only shared with nations that would use the technology in beneficial ways. Because of the possibility of the use if this technology for improving military operations, there is a moral obligation to withhold this knowledge from all nations, and only be shared when it is determined there is no threat to humankind.

[sharpshooter]

Scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

Describe a specific situation in which scientific advances should not be shared with all nations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

_________________________________________________________________

 

Science is a constantly changing field that can grow by individuals sharing scientific innovations with others. For example, a scientist who is informed of a new idea may see how the innovation could be even further developed or used in another way. Scientific innovations should usually be shared with all nations since doing so may benefit other countries and help develop the field of science. If a researcher in Canada discovered a drug made from dandelion root extract that could help cure lung cancer and the drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this scientific innovation should be shared to all nations. Sharing this new drug will help save the lives of many individuals globally since lung cancer is one of the most common cancers. By sharing the new drug with other countries, scientists from foreign nations may start getting new ideas of how to synthesize new drugs from natural sources in an effort to cure other forms of cancer. Thus, in most cases, all nations should be informed of scientific advances.

Nonetheless, not all scientific advances should be given to all countries. Some scientific advances could be destructive to a country that discovered the scientific innovation and potentially other nations. For example, if the United States of America (U.S.) created a new nuclear weapon that had the greatest radius of destruction, such an advancement should not be revealed to other countries. If the advancement was provided to other nations, any of the nations that are informed of the advancement could use it against the U.S. and other nations. Ultimately, a nuclear battle couple could be stirred as the result of the U.S. revealing the best nuclear weapon globally. The launching of a nuclear weapon could takes the lives of many innocent individuals and encourage more wars to erupts amongst nations. Thus, such a scientific innovation should not be given to the whole world.

Therefore, scientific advances should only revealed globally if the advances can benefit other countries and the advances cannot be used to harm anyone. A new synthetic drug that could cure lung cancer, for example, should be revealed to all nations to help save many lives as it is one of the leading cancers. Furthermore, the sharing of this drug to other nations may encourage foreign scientists to create similar drugs in order to cure other forms of cancer. However, a scientific advances that could be used to harm others, such as nuclear warheads, should not be revealed globally since it could spark a nuclear war amongst nations. Such a war would result in the death of many innocent individuals and make world peace more difficult to attain.

 

Thanks Raymond!

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 bored

 

It is often heard that "knowledge should be shared". In ancient India for example, there are people whose sole profession was to share the knowledge that has been passed on to them. They found it to be their duty to pass on knowledge. Similarly, scientific knowledge should also be shared among all. Sharing is the activity by which one gives another the knowledge that they have learnt from the research experiments that were conducted. The sharing allows for a more efficient advancement of civilization because it saves time of the other research. Humanity advances as a whole instead of individual nations advancing. When a research scientist conducts word choice a new discovery, the group of scientists get that research published in a journal so that all other scientists around the world can view it and benefit from it. This means that those scientists in the other nations will not have to waste time doing the same research again and discover the same thing. This allows for maximum efficiency in the advancement of our civilization. When a treatment for a type of cancer was first invented, it was published in a journal by american scientists. Other scientists doing similar research around the world perfected the treatment by making changes. Others conducted more research to verify if it indeed works. This is a prime example of a scenario when scientific discovery sharing can be used to advance our civilization as a whole.

The problem with this discussion, similar to your last essay, is that it is too vague. It lacks specifics. Without a specific example, you cannot make a compelling argument. This vague and general discussion also limits the depth.

 

The scientific discoveries that are published in public research journals are the sort of discoveries that are useful for all nations and not intended to harm anyone, such as research that allows efficient production of energy, or a new treatment for cancer. There are however other types of research that can be used to harm people. These are the type of research that nations often don't share with others. In the recent years, virologists in an American University found a dangerous strain of the bird flu virus. These virologists did not publish this research in a public journal. Instead, they called a meeting between all the virologists around america to discuss what they should do with this. The fear of this type of research being abused by terrorists was the issue. The scientists thought this research can be used by other enemy nations to make weapons that can seriously harm America. It was decided in the end that this research would not be published in a public journal and instead will be kept in a hidden library only available to prominent virologists in america.

This example is better. At least it has some specifics. However, the level of language is a bit on the basic side.

 

The rare bird flu virus that was resistant to many of the current vaccines is a type of research that was hidden and not made available to the world. This is because they thought that the chances of this research being abused to make weapons of mass destruction was very high. However, research conducted on treatment of cancer or HIV has no potential to be abused and is freely shared to all. Therefore it is the ethical decision of the scientists whether to share the knowledge or not to share it. This is vague and ambiguous. It really does not address the writing task definitively. When there is the slightest chance that this sort of research can be used to harm many, then that scientific advancement is not shared. This is an oversimplification. On the other hand, if the research does not have any chance of harming anyone, then this should be shared for the efficient advancement of our civilization.

Your resolution principle should be presented at the beginning of your resolution paragraph. It should lay out a clear and applicable rule. The ideas here are vague and ambiguous and don't demonstrate complexity of reasoning. A great deal of research that is shared in the world has some potential for harm. So that idea doesn't really make sense.

 

Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a O)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3 Ideas lack depth.

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 UBCStudent128

 

One of the evolutionary traits of human kind is the ability to share. By providing each other with knowledge and advancements, technologies and living standards of human societies have grown exponentially in the last century. Throughout the countless colonization in the 20th century, invading nations have introduced new infrastructures which were not only beneficial to the invaded countries but served to uplift the scientific standards of other nations to the international standards. For example during the early 1900’s before the colonization of Taiwan by Japan, Taiwan was an impoverished country with scientific accomplishments that were far below the global standards. Japan introduced industrialization technologies such as railroads and other transport systems and implemented sanitation systems which significantly improved the quality of Taiwan’s living standards. Through dissemination of scientific advances such as industrialization and sanitary technologies, Japan has increased Taiwan's living standards and saved millions of lives.

This example is okay. However, the problem with this example is that it doesn't really fit with the theme of sharing. I wouldn't consider colonization of a country's lands sharing. It isn't the intent of a country colonizing another country to share scientific advances. It is for strategic and economic reasons.

 

Despite the benefits of sharing scientific advances among nations, some advancement should be shared only under severe word choice consideration. Nuclear warheads for example are one of the scientific advancements that can be detrimental to the international security if abusively word choice shared. North Korea has gained word choice its nuclear warheads from Russia after the end of the Cold War and now has the potential to cause devastating wars with countries in the eastern grammar Asia. Due to the sharing of dangerous scientific advancements by Russia, North Korea has been persistent in their pursuit of developing a dangerous nuclear warhead to be used for homeland security. It has been one of U.N.'s top priorities to stop further dissemination of the scientific advancements related to nuclear warheads as countries such as North Korea and Iran will abuse the technology to increase tension internationally. For decades North Korea has used its nuclear weapon development as a negotiating asset to forcibly take food aids from countries such as the United States and South Korea. Therefore nations should consider the potential abuse of scientific advancements before sharing with other nations.

This example works well. However, there are a number of questionable word choices.

 

Scientific advances for the past century have been exponential due to the ability for nations to share ideas and inventions. Scientific advancements that can improve quality of living standards globally should be shared internationally. This is vague and ambiguous. For example, nuclear warheads could improve the living standards of a nation by protecting it. Such advancements like biofuels should be shared among nations as it serves to provide all nations with better living standards. Not only that, for technologies such as biofuels to be effective, cooperation of biofuel usage among nations is required to reduce green house emissions. Why do you discuss biofuel rather than the example you provided? However when a scientific advancement has the potential to become abused Again, this is ambiguous. Many advances have the potential to be abused. and cause severe deficit in living standard qualities and life, sharing any scientific advances should be prohibited. Countries that seek technologies for warfare such as North Korea and Iran should be stopped in further sharing of advances involving nuclear warheads. Therefore even if a scientific advancement can be seen to be beneficial to societies, careful considerations must be applied for potential abuse by nations before sharing scientific advancements.

You want a strong and clear cut resolution principle. The ideas here do not work well and lack depth.

 

Overall Mark: 3/6 (Corresponds to approximately a N )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[blue181]

Scientific advances are a major component of what drives the modern world forward. Advances that are intended to help society, and are in the best interest of the world’s population should be shared among all nations. Harnessing the power of nuclear fission as a cleaner source of energy than burning fossil fuels would be an example of such beneficial technology. Since the health of the environment and the depleting amounts of natural resources are issues that involve many nations, any advancement in finding a cleaner, more efficient energy source should be welcome. Shared knowledge about such technology should be received in a mostly positive light by other nations, as it helps make the world a better place to live.

 

However, scientific advances in areas that have a mainly negative intent should not be shared. Though the technology that is used to power a nuclear reactor is also used to create nuclear arms, any advancements on utilizing nuclear energy as a bomb should not be shared as the intent will not be seen as beneficial by other countries. For example, the United States has developed technology to create nuclear warheads, but they do not share their knowledge with the rest of the world for good reason. If other countries knew about the further developments, they may feel threatened by the idea of another country holding so much power. Furthermore, the other nations may feel the need to develop their own nuclear weapons. Both those reasons could potentially increase the risk for war, as well as greatly increase the danger of the wars themselves.

 

So whether or not a scientific advancement should be shared with all nations does not necessarily depend on the nature of the science being pursued, but depends more on the intent of the advancement, and on how the other nations could view or use it– as something beneficial, or as a threat. As an example, though the same principle lies behind the utilization of nuclear energy in a nuclear reactor and a nuclear warhead, any advancements on using the energy as a cleaner way to generate electricity should be shared, as it would be seen as beneficial by other nations. However, advancements on using nuclear energy as a weapon would be seen by other nations as a threat, thus it may be best to not share those kinds of advances, as it could potentially lead to devastating consequences.

[medhopeful64]

Science has progressed significantly over the past century. The advancement of science however depends on collaboration among scientists; collaboration not only between members of a single lab, but collaboration and sharing of knowledge with scientists all over the world. This is the purpose of international scientific journals, to share scientific advances with all nations. A scientitist who publishes his or her results in a scientific journal can potentially inspire another scientist halfway across the globe to initiate a related but different research project, and eventually lead to a significant finding. In many cases, this is what indeed happens. Take the discovery of insulin for example. In the early 1900s, researchers discovered digestive secretions from the pancreas of a diabetic dog. Although they had found a link between diabetes and the pancreas, the particular secretion was not identified. Several years later, Frederick Banting came across these published papers. After reading them he took the initiative to try a related project himself in the hopes of obtaining this digestive liquid. He and Macleod eventually were able to extract pure insulin and discover its potential use in humans. This discovery led to a Nobel Prize, and, more importantly, the betterment of human lives all over the world. Prior to the discovery of insulin, diabetes was a deadly disease for many patients. When the discovery of insulin was published and made available to the rest of the world, diabetics everywhere were able to live a relatively normal life instead of succumbing to the disease. This was a major breakthrough in the advancement of science and clearly demonstrates the importance and benefits of sharing scientific advances with nations all over the world.

 

However, scientific advances do not always lead to the betterment of society. In many cases, it can do the exact opposite. Take the "Manhatten Project" for example. After Einstein published his paper outlining his infamous equation, E = mc2, this led to experiments involving nuclear fission, which eventually became the basis for the atomic bomb. Einstein's discovery and other discoveries relating to nuclear fission paved way for the construction of a deadly weapon by the German Nazis in WWII - the atomic bomb. Fearing that the Germans may resort to such a weapon during the war, US President Roosevelt decided that America should construct their own atomic bomb, known back then as the Manhatten Project. In a race to build the world's first atomic bomb, the US came out on top and deployed it for use on Japan. The result was undeniably far worse than any country had expected. The atomic bomb led to the destruction of an city, the killing of millions of Japanese civilians, and long-term effects that the Japanese continue to suffer from to this day. Thus, it is clear that Einstein's contribution to science, albeit not intended for use in war, led to deadly consequences. In this case, it would have better for the world for Einstein to not share his scientific discoveries to the rest of the world.

 

Although science has helped the lives of many, it has also destroyed the lives of others. In order to determine if scientific advances should be shared with all nations of the world, one must first determine if it has the potential to be used for global-scale destruction, or for global-scale betterment of human lives. If the scientific discovery can lead to the destruction of society or human lives, as it did in the case of the atomic bomb, then scientific advances are best left in lab notebook of the disoverer (ie Einstein). If however, the scientific discovery can benefit all of humankind, there is no question it should be shared with all nations. The discovery of insulin was one of the most important breakthroughs in the history of science and has led to the betterment of human lives, in all nations.

 

_____________

 

Thank you Raymond.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 Enviro_4_Medschool

 

Scientific advancements have helped progress many areas of society and improve the quality of life for nations that have become scientifically adept. Those who believe in egalitarian societies would feel that scientific advances should be shared with all nations because it helps improve the quality of life for everyone and creates a more level field of oppurtunity for everyone. This is especially true for nations that are lagging behind in terms of industrialization and scientific advancements in which access to basic necessities and education has been compromised by lack of efficient resource handling that scientific advancements in more industrialized countries have allowed. Furthermore, scientific advanvements, especially in technology, help solve world problems if deployed universally. Currently, nations struggle to control greenhouse gas emissions, and there a debate between what developing countries should do versus developed countries. Canada had invented a nuclear reactor known as a CANDU reactor. This reactor provides a low emission source of energy, thus preventing energy poverty in nations that do not have means to generate electricity. This sharing of technology allows all nations to benefit and improve their quality of life thus can be considered a success story for a more equal society.

This discussion is a bit too general and vague. The arguments should be developed within the context of the example. Here, your example seems like a side note rather than the focus of the paragraph. The CANDU reactor is also a nuclear reactor, which is not exactly practical for impoverished nations.

 

However, nuclear also nuclear what? has the potential to be extremely destructive especially when enriched uranium is used in the making of war heads. Here because there is one side that is not for equality but dominance This is confusing. there is much trepidation about allowing advancements to come into the hands of certain nations. As a result, internationally there is tension about who should be allowed access to nuclear weapons. It is especially concerning if the country shows themselves to be an aggressor and the use of weapons could be used to destroy people. Iran has recently had a nuclear program that the U.S. and Israel does not want to see to fruition The nuclear program is already up and running... because they do not believe that Iran has this program for energy purposes. Iran and subsequently more extreme Muslim organizations have vocally expressed desire to harm and this leaves little doubt about their intentions with the use of a nuclear weapon. Iran may want nuclear weapons because Israel has nuclear weapons but the proliferation of many nations having nuclear weapons could lead to another Cold War. Hence, even though scientific advancement has allowed us to harness nuclear power, there still needs to be vigilence in areas where advancement has created technologies that could cause significant harm especially when one nation has expressed an intention to harm another.

This example could work but is poorly described in terms of addressing the writing task. Your discussion is not focused on scientific advances. Furthermore, there are a few points that are not factually accurate here. A lot is written here but a lot of it is unnecessary and does not develop your argument further to address the writing task.

In an ideal world where everyone could be equal, it is extremely beneficial to have an exchange of information regarding scientific advancements. Of course the world is not ideal so this argument does not help to address the writing task. The solutions can help improve the lives of many people, especially when advancements such as CANDU reactors solve long standing problems such as energy poverty. However, if some nations wish to use advancements in ways that could harm others it would not be considered prudent to allow complete disclosure of information. This is true regarding who should be allowed nuclear weapons and why. Certainly, groups like extreme Muslim fractions who wish to promote wars on Terrorism should not have access to knowledge that allows them to produce nuclear weapons. ?? Your previous discussion was about Iran. A rule for governing when scientific advances should be given to nations would depend on the outcome the advancement leads to. This is vague and ambiguous. When the advances benefit the good of everyone, and solve complex international issues, they should be shared but if there is reason to believe that nations will use the technology for malintent than the security of nations will take precedence over the sharing of technology. Basically, what you are saying here is scientific advances should be shared when it is good and scientific advances should not be shared if it is bad. This doesn't demonstrate complexity of reasoning. Lastly, in an increasingly resouce constrained world, there should be sharing of advancements that lead to technologies that do provide everyone with a decent quality of life. This could reduce people who wish to harm out of an ideologically agenda or because of aggressors themselves because they feel increasingly constrained or threatened. Iran may not have wanted their nuclear program if Israel and the U.S. had not so vocally declared that they would come down hard if Iran stepped out of line.

This resolution paragraph is a confusing aggregate of ideas. There is no clear message and argument that is developed. The depth of ideas is also lacking. Try following the standard template for the resolution paragraph. Overall, there are too many ideas that are jammed together to have a focused discussion. More is not always better.

 

Overall Mark: 2/6 (Corresponds to approximately a L)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is poorly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 2.5 The focus of the writing is lacking.

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 blue181

 

Scientific advances are a major component of what drives the modern world forward. Advances that are intended to help society, and are in the best interest of the world’s population should be shared among all nations. This idea is vague and ambiguous. For example, nuclear energy has a lot of risks as well. Look at the meltdown in Japan. What about all of the toxic waste that is generated? Harnessing the power of nuclear fission as a cleaner source of energy than burning fossil fuels would be an example of such beneficial technology. Since the health of the environment and the depleting amounts of natural resources are issues that involve many nations, any advancement in finding a cleaner, more efficient energy source should be welcome. Shared knowledge about such technology should be received in a mostly positive light by other nations, as it helps make the world a better place to live.

The discussion here is a little bit too general and depth. One of the goals of the writing sample is to demonstrate complexity of reasoning.

 

However, scientific advances in areas that have a mainly negative intent should not be shared. This is another ambiguous idea that lacks depth. Though the technology that is used to power a nuclear reactor is also used to create nuclear arms, any advancements on utilizing nuclear energy as a bomb should not be shared as the intent will not be seen as beneficial by other countries. For example, the United States has developed technology to create nuclear warheads, but they do not share their knowledge with the rest of the world for good reason. If other countries knew about the further developments, they may feel threatened by the idea of another country holding so much power. Furthermore, the other nations may feel the need to develop their own nuclear weapons. Both those reasons could potentially increase the risk for war, as well as greatly increase the danger of the wars themselves.

This example works better. Some of the arguments need to be developed further.

 

So whether or not a scientific advancement should be shared with all nations does not necessarily depend on the nature of the science being pursued, but depends more on the intent of the advancement, and on how the other nations could view or use it– as something beneficial, or as a threat. This sentence is written in a confusing manner. As an example, though the same principle lies behind the utilization of nuclear energy in a nuclear reactor and a nuclear warhead, any advancements on using the energy as a cleaner way to generate electricity should be shared, as it would be seen as beneficial by other nations. However, advancements on using nuclear energy as a weapon would be seen by other nations as a threat, thus it may be best to not share those kinds of advances, as it could potentially lead to devastating consequences.

Issues:

1) By having both your examples related to nuclear energy, it is hard to create a strong contrast between the two.

2) Your resolution principle works but lacks depth because it is too narrow. A strong resolution principle can be applied to other examples and situations.

 

Overall, the depth of the ideas is lacking. Whether something is positive or negative is not a clear argument because whether something is positive or negative depends on perspective.

 

Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed.Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 qszwdxefc

In the modern world, scientific advances are occurring almost every day. These may include new discoveries, modifications of former scientific knowledge, and improving equipment that is used by corporations and the general public alike. By sharing these advancements with all nations, people around the world are able to incorporate the new knowledge into their own works and thus produce a chain reaction of scientific advances, which they can then share with the world to further the mass of knowledge possessed globally. This is a run-on sentence. For example, the discovery of green fluorescent protein (GFP) has been greatly beneficial to biochemistry by simply sharing this advancement with all nations. Many people have used the knowledge of GFP to develop markers for experiments with different organisms, which have led to many further experiments such as genetic tests for enhancers and silencers.

This example could work well but there just isn't enough here. The discussion of your example is too sparse. Some of the earlier points need to be discussed within the context of your example to make them stronger.

 

Although it would seem ideal for all scientific advances to be shared with all nations, sometimes patents and other forms of protecting intellectual property are necessary as well. For example, Apple Computers has hundreds of patents for their iPhone alone, which they have invested countless sums of money into scientific research to make it increasingly better. By protecting their scientific advances, they are able to generate larger amounts of profit since other companies are not able to reproduce what they have. They can then use the profits to maintain their high investment in research and development for the iPhone to continuously put forth a quality product that gets increasingly better.

This example is excellent. The writing style is a bit repetitive which affects clarity. Otherwise, I like the idea very much. Similar to before, some further elaboration and development would be helpful.

 

 

The distribution of scientific advances has always been a matter of preference for the group of people who brought forth the advancement. This is not a good resolution principle because it does not provide a clear rule to address the writing task. Anything between top-secret and open-source projects exist, and it usually depends on the vision and goals of the individuals or companies. If the goal of the group is to obtain public funding for research to increase the knowledge of the scientific world, it would be appropriate to share it with all nations like the group who discovered GFP. If the group has a corporate vision and the goal is to earn money by getting consumers to purchase a product or service, it would be appropriate to not share scientific advancements similar to Apple Computers.

You have some decent ideas here. You just need to take those ideas and formulate them into a clear and easy to apply principle.

 

Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 4.5 Some good ideas present, but the execution requires improvement.

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 durabol

New discoveries which enable more effective and efficient ways of dealing with issues facing humankind should be shared with all nations. This is vague and ambiguous. A prime example would be to consider new medical discoveries, such as the discovery of insulin by Banting and Best in the early part of the 20th century. Prior to the isolation of the insulin hormone, strategies to manage a diagnosis of diabetes involved archaic methods such as completely restricting carbohydrate intake as a result of the inability to process glucose. Life expectancy was significantly reduced and quality of life was very poor. The isolation of the insulin hormone, and subsequent methods of producing the hormone as an exogenous source for the processing of carbohydrate, significantly increased life expectancy and improved quality of life. Such a medical breakthrough had the potential to have such a huge positive impact on humankind that there was essentially a moral obligation to share such a discovery with the rest of the world, friend or foe.

This works well.

However, there are cases when new discoveries should not be shared with all nations. Consider the work done during the world war II era by the 'manhattan project' in the development of the technology of nuclear fission, and the application of this technology in the creation of the atomic bomb. Such a discovery had the potential to cause a great deal of damage to humankind if this knowledge were to get into the wrong hands. For this reason, this discovery was rightfully kept secret from oppresive miltary states so as to prevent widespread destruction of the human race.

I'm confused as to why you discussed the Manhattan project but did not discuss that the US was at war with Germany, Japan, etc. Scientific discoveries which have the potential to cause harm to the human race should not be shared with all nations. This is vague and ambiguous. Lots of discoveries are shared that have the potential to harm the human race.

 

There are cases when scientific advances should be shared with all nations, but there are also cases when this should not be done. The determining factor in whether or not new discoveries should be shared with all nations is whether or not these discoveries can have a direct impact on improving military operations. This resolution principle is better than most of the other essays. At least it is specific. It could be expressed in a more concise manner to improve impact and clarity.

In the case of discoveries in medical science, such as the discovery of insulin, there would be a signicant benefit to humankind but without a direct impact on military force. In this case, the sharing of this discovery would not have the potential to cause widespread destruction, and therefore can be openly shared with all nations for the benefit of humankind.

In the case of the discovery of nuclear fission, while this technology can also be of benefit to humankind by applying this technology to such things as energy development Why would you have this sentence here. It is unnecessary and weakens your argument., there is obviously a potential harm to the human race through the use of this technology for military use. But its military use could also bring benefit to the human race. For example, the atomic bomb did provide a quick end to world war II. As a result, this technolgy could be kept secret from states focused on military oppression, and only shared with nations that would use the technology in beneficial ways. Because of the possibility of the use if this technology for improving military operations, there is a moral obligation to withhold this knowledge from all nations, and only be shared when it is determined there is no threat to humankind.

Your resolution principle was good. The application to the insulin example was okay. Your application to your refuting example was poor. This is in part due to you introducing the "what is good for humanity" idea. What is good for humanity is often not clear and depends on perspective. For these reasons, it makes for a shaky foundation to build an argument on.

Overall, a step in the right direction for your essays. Although there are some improvements to go, this is by far your best essay out of the ones you have submitted. Well done.

 

Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 sharpshooter

 

Science is a constantly changing field that can grow by individuals sharing scientific innovations with others. For example, a scientist who is informed of a new idea may see how the innovation could be even further developed or used in another way. Scientific innovations should usually be shared with all nations since doing so may benefit other countries and help develop the field of science. If a researcher in Canada discovered a drug made from dandelion root extract that could help cure lung cancer and the drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this scientific innovation should be shared to all nations. Sharing this new drug will help save the lives of many individuals globally since lung cancer is one of the most common cancers. By sharing the new drug with other countries, scientists from foreign nations may start getting new ideas of how to synthesize new drugs from natural sources in an effort to cure other forms of cancer. Thus, in most cases, all nations should be informed of scientific advances.

This example and discussion are okay. Your example is still hypothetical which is a limitation but at least it works and is well developed.

 

Nonetheless, not all scientific advances should be given to all countries. Some scientific advances could be destructive to a country that discovered the scientific innovation and potentially other nations. For example, if the United States of America (U.S.) created a new nuclear weapon that had the greatest radius of destruction, such an advancement should not be revealed to other countries. If the advancement was provided to other nations, any of the nations that are informed of the advancement could use it against the U.S. and other nations. Ultimately, a nuclear battle couple couple? could be stirred as the result of the U.S. revealing the best nuclear weapon globally. The launching of a nuclear weapon could takes the lives of many innocent individuals and encourage more wars to erupts amongst nations. Thus, such a scientific innovation should not be given to the whole world.

This again is a hypothetical example. This is not as well developed as your last example because some of the ideas are not as convincing.

 

Therefore, scientific advances should only revealed grammar globally if the advances can benefit other countries and the advances cannot be used to harm anyone. This is vague and ambiguous. Many advances can both harm and benefit. A new synthetic drug that could cure lung cancer, for example, should be revealed to all nations to help save many lives as it is one of the leading cancers. Furthermore, the sharing of this drug to other nations may encourage foreign scientists to create similar drugs in order to cure other forms of cancer. However, a scientific advances grammar that could be used to harm others The flip side is that nuclear warheads could be used to protect. Whether something is harmful is dependent on perspective. This is why the argument doesn't work well. , such as nuclear warheads, should not be revealed globally since it could spark a nuclear war amongst nations. Such a war would result in the death of many innocent individuals and make world peace more difficult to attain. One could argue that the threat of nuclear weapons has actually contributed to the maintenance of peace on a global scale (principle of mutually assured destruction).

 

Overall Mark: 3/6 (Corresponds to approximately a N )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 18 medhopeful64

 

Science has progressed significantly over the past century. The advancement of science however depends on collaboration among scientists; collaboration not only between members of a single lab, but collaboration and sharing of knowledge with scientists all over the world. This is the purpose of international scientific journals, to share scientific advances with all nations. A scientitist who publishes his or her results in a scientific journal can potentially inspire another scientist halfway across the globe to initiate a related but different research project, and eventually lead to a significant finding. In many cases, this is what indeed happens. Take the discovery of insulin for example. In the early 1900s, researchers discovered digestive secretions from the pancreas of a diabetic dog. Although they had found a link between diabetes and the pancreas, the particular secretion was not identified. Several years later, Frederick Banting came across these published papers. After reading them he took the initiative to try a related project himself in the hopes of obtaining this digestive liquid. He and Macleod eventually were able to extract pure insulin and discover its potential use in humans. This discovery led to a Nobel Prize, and, more importantly, the betterment of human lives all over the world. Prior to the discovery of insulin, diabetes was a deadly disease for many patients. When the discovery of insulin was published and made available to the rest of the world, diabetics everywhere were able to live a relatively normal life instead of succumbing to the disease. This was a major breakthrough in the advancement of science and clearly demonstrates the importance and benefits of sharing scientific advances with nations all over the world.

Excellent. Some of your ideas could be rearranged for better organization but that is a small point.

However, scientific advances do not always lead to the betterment of society. The betterment of society is an ambiguous concept. In many cases, it can do the exact opposite. Take the "Manhatten Project" for example. After Einstein published his paper outlining his infamous equation, E = mc2, this led to experiments involving nuclear fission, which eventually became the basis for the atomic bomb. Einstein's discovery and other discoveries relating to nuclear fission paved way for the construction of a deadly weapon by the German Nazis in WWII - the atomic bomb. Fearing that the Germans may resort to such a weapon during the war, US President Roosevelt decided that America should construct their own atomic bomb, known back then as the Manhatten Project. In a race to build the world's first atomic bomb, the US came out on top and deployed it for use on Japan. The result was undeniably far worse than any country had expected. The atomic bomb led to the destruction of an city two cities, the killing of millions of Japanese civilians, and long-term effects that the Japanese continue to suffer from to this day. Thus, it is clear that Einstein's contribution to science, albeit not intended for use in war, led to deadly consequences. In this case, it would have better grammar for the world for Einstein to not share his scientific discoveries to the rest of the world. Grammar.

Some issues:

1) Your description of the example has some factual issues.

2) The betterment of society is not a good basis for an argument because it depends on the perspective and is not clear cut. For example, if the atomic bombs were not developed and used, the world war could have continued on for much longer resulting in an even greater loss of human life. Don't get me wrong, the use of the atomic bomb is a dark part of human history but it could be argued that the alternative could have been worse.

 

Although science has helped the lives of many, it has also destroyed the lives of others. In order to determine if scientific advances should be shared with all nations of the world, one must first determine if it has the potential to be used for global-scale destruction, or for global-scale betterment of human lives. This is vague and ambiguous. Why does it matter if it is global scale or not. If the scientific discovery can lead to the destruction of society or human lives, as it did in the case of the atomic bomb, then scientific advances are best left in lab notebook of the disoverer (ie Einstein). This argument is weak because how could Einstein have known that his formula would contribute to the development of the atomic bomb? If however, the scientific discovery can benefit all of humankind, there is no question it should be shared with all nations. The discovery of insulin was one of the most important breakthroughs in the history of science and has led to the betterment of human lives, in all nations.

Overall, the idea that if something brings about positive change or negative change is a weak resolution principle because whether something is positive or negative depends on the perspective. How about if a discovery promises great positive change but instead backfires and brings about dire consequences?

 

Overall Mark: 3/6 (Corresponds to approximately a N)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

Describe a specific situation in which visual images might not convey reality more accurately than words do. Discuss what you think determines whether or not visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

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.

 

Deadline

11:59pm Thursday, May 10.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Friday, May 11.

[Enviro_4_Medschool]

Visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

Describe a specific situation in which visual images might not convey reality more accurately than words do. Discuss what you think determines whether or not visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

----

 

Visual images have been used to convey a variety of ideas and sentiments about someone's view of the world. Since images can be abstract and have intangible aspects allowing for the expression of many ideas they can be viewed as reflecting reality. Moreover, the universal aspect of some images, such as a smiling face or devastation from bombing, can mirror reality in ways that everyone can relate to. This universality is useful in illiterate populations, populations in countries where they are not familiar with the language or early childhood where the images can still paint a reality and aid in the comprehension of the world. The accuracy of reality in simplistic images is that they can be mirrored in ways that reflect all realities and thus encompass aspects that are common to all realities in ways that a particular word choice or phrasing may be to constrained. Also to these people to which written words have no meaning the visual image is the best representation of reality and could be considered the most accurate to those populations.

 

However, universal images tend to be somewhat abstract and simplistic and may not reflect the particular reality of a complicated situation. Furthermore, there are limitations in time and space because the image is a snapshot of a particular time and place. Words are another way in which a reality may be described and when strung together in sentences form more specific and intricate understandings of situations. Here the conveyance of reality is through logical statements that impart a perception of reality. Moreover, tangible elements and specifics about a situation can be reflected upon. The image may reflect a landscape, but the words describe the circumstances around that landscape. In this sense because the words have explained the purpose they have more accurately described the reality because they have imparted tangible and more complicated aspects that are not possible with the screenshot nature of an image. So while words may not always reflect universal realities in ways that can be understood by all they can provide more detailed and accurate descriptions of specific realities.

 

For people who have no understanding of words, images are the only way to convey reality to them, as people progress and learn a language words can be used to describe reality with accuracy as well. Words and images can also complement each other to portray a reality in that the image could capture an intangible universal aspect, or highlight a specific aspect in time and space of a reality and the words could help clarify or impart a deeper meaning to the image that would can accurately depict the reality. In the end it is probably not useful to depict one as being more accurate than the other since both are forms of expression and will convey a sense of reality.

 

----

 

Thanks again Raymond

[Nasket]

Visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

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

 

There is reasoning behind the philosophy, "a picture speaks a thousand words". Even as infants, we are born with the ability to recognize visual images. Visual imagery has been strong wired into most mammalian species and is therefore more conducive to recognition and reality than modern day language. With words, it is common to perceive wrong meaning or miss out on critical details, but visual imagery capture reality in its entirety. With present day technology, it is common for miscommunication to happen due to a email or text message being understood wrongly.

 

There is reason, however, to also give credit to a human's higher learning order which allows one to understand more than just what is seen. For instance, if a visual image shows a mother crying, one cannot immediately perceive if it is a mother crying over a loss of a dear one or if it is because her first born just said her/his first word. Words give humans the unique ability to convey hidden messages that visual images may hide. Visual images lack adjectives and adverbs that offer pivotal information about reality.

 

As time goes on, one must be able to understand reality through a variety of media. As professionals, one should feel comfortable using visual information or words in order to comprehend reality. For example, a physician should be equally competent diagnosing a condition through an MRI, than if he/she had a case report. With proper care and attention, reality can be deciphered from the most primitive form of communication. Through time and experience, a human gains the ability to fine tune their ability to become receptive to their surroundings, and should be able to use all forms in order to paint out their reality.

 

 

 

Thank you so much, Raymond!

[MusqMan]

Visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

To evoke the information pertaining to an event towards another individual, it is often advantageous to avoid any biases that arise in the process of interpretation into language. For this sake, it may be said that a description presented in an image provides a more detailed and uninterpreted version of the information. If a photojournalist's documentation of D-Day is considered, images would contain a visual depiction of the despair and sacrifice in the battle that is shown in the desolation of the beach and the scattered casualities. To describe this in words would be a subjective simplification and it would be difficult to provide the correct words that stimulate the same emotions as the image.

 

Although the interpretation of an image into words may introduce biases, words may be required as a communication tool to convey the information and prevent inaccuracies when the audience is not capable. For instance, the complex event of global warming may not be easily understood by a non-expert, so a scientist may be required to explain the details of the situation and the important implications to the future of the earth. Since the scientist understands the important background information about the event and is able to assess the situation, he can use words to ensure that the audience reacts properly to the situation.

 

If reality must be described accurately, one must determine if the audience is capable to interpret the information correctly. In the case of global warming, one may be confused about the situation and may require an expert to provide a conversion into language such that the receiver properly understands the information. However in the case of an image of D-Day, the observer may already grasp the nature of the war and in this case the image is used to evoke more personalized emotions. We may very well live in the "information age", and it is through the proper use of our communication tools that we remain a functioning society.

[Dasypus]

Visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which visual images might not convey reality more accurately than words do. Discuss what you think determines whether or not visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

In attempting to convey the nature of reality across a barrier of space or time to the absent other, people have two basic modes of communication available to them: visual and oral. Of course, these two modes are not exclusive of each other; yet usually a communication of the facts comes predominantly in one form or the other, with bare compementary support, as in the illustration of a newspaper article or the captioning of a photograph. Thus, it is reasonable to compare the merits of each mode against the other. Some would argue that visual images are the more powerful and more accurate medium for portraying reality to the recipient. Certainly, in some circumstances, an image can have an impact that no written account can have. A particularly forceful example of this was the video coverage, much of it amateur, of the Japanese tsunami. The blackness of the water, the extraordinary force of its impact, its unrelenting rise: while journalists used such words, it seems that only once one has seen the footage that they bring the appropriate level of awe and horror. It is the visual that can convey the true nature of the disaster.

 

Saying that the visual is always more accurate and more powerful than words is, however, a statement with more rhetorical force than accuracy. In many cases, no image can capture the reality of a situation, yet the telling by a well-informed observer can clearly convey to the reader or listener the facts and import of a situation. One strange and interesting example of this is the only existing photograph of one of the most curous and dangerous objects created during the Manhattan Project, the so-called Demon Core. In it, all one can see is a double hemisphere of metal, with a gap of perhaps a centimeter separating each half. It is only in the words of the two men killed by it that one discovers the nature and horror of the thing: each half is plutonium, and in the two cases that they were accidentally dropped together, a burst of radiation came forth that killed the unlucky scientist who knocked away their separation. By its very nature, this radiation is invisible, the power of the object un-photographable. It is only the story that can convey the reality.

 

What then determines when an image or a verbal account can more accurately convey reality? It seems that one simple, crucial distinction is the nature of the situation, what the reality that must be conveyed consists in. For those situations like the tsunami, where the question is one of scale or of physical effect, the mind boggles at mere description. Cases like this, in which the imaginations of absent viewers may be insufficient to recreate the reality, the image is the better medium. However, for those situations in which the reality is for some reason invisible, and it is only through an act of imagination that the reality can be understood, a verbal account is better. Note that this 'invisiblility' need not be so literal as the radiation from the 'Demon Core'. The emotions of others, the causal relationships between objects and events: these too must be recreated in the mind, since they cannot be presented in images. Thus, while the visual image has its place where imagination is insufficent for appreciation of reality, words have their place where imagination is not just sufficient but necessary to understand what the distant reality consists in.

[qszwdxefc]

Visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

Describe a specific situation in which visual images might not convey reality more accurately than words do. Discuss what you think determines whether or not visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

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

 

“A picture means a thousand words.” Many of us have heard this saying constantly being used, and this shows that the majority of humans prefer seeing visual images over reading words. One of the reasons is because these images are able to show what words have difficulty describing, such as emotion and detail. When I was a child, I remember coming back from a trip to Taiwan and immediately hearing my parents talk about the September 11 terrorist attacks. Although they did a very good job of describing to me what had happened, I felt that it was not a very severe problem and continued to enjoy my day. When I went home and turned on the TV, the terrorist attack was all that was covered in the news. As soon as I saw videos and pictures of the situation, I immediately felt nauseous and understood how serious the event was. The images of families crying over their loved ones and video clips of planes flying into the World Trade Centre causing huge infernos could never have been described to me using words with the same level of effectiveness. Even after my dad read some news articles to me in the following week, none of the reporters were able to describe the pain of those affected and the process of the attacks as well as that one news clip I watched on TV.

 

Although pictures are able to express many aspects of reality which are difficult to describe otherwise, many objects in computing are mysterious to those without knowledge in the subject area. For example, if one is shown a picture of a microchip without previous knowledge they would not know that this black rectangular square has the capability to perform millions of mathematical procedures per second. In this case, words would be able to convey reality more accurately since words are able to go above and beyond what is shown in the picture. Words are able to describe the microchip in terms of what it does, how it works, or even technical details such as processing speed. All of these would be difficult to describe using pictures since there is too much information beyond what is shown.

 

Everyone’s experience throughout life is unique, and whether an individual is able to relate to the reality being shown based on past experiences is what determines if visual images convey reality more accurately than words do. If one has experienced a similar situation before in their life, a visual image will allow them to relate to what the image is showing. For example, I was personally able to relate to the images of the September 11 terrorist attacks because I have cried and had personal belongings destroyed by fire before. On the other hand, words will allow people to learn about a new aspect of reality that they have not experienced before, such as microchips in computing.