Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback

[RaymondPrep101]

Effective government in a democracy requires that its citizens be fully informed.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might be effective without its citizens being fully informed. Discuss what you think determines whether or not citizens in a democracy must be fully informed in order for government 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.

 

Deadline

11:59pm Friday, March 16.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Saturday, March 17.

[donna71]

The effectiveness of democratic government relies upon various factors including the citizens that vote in the current government, consequently an effective government could be one that has its citizens informed of its policies and plans. In particular, changes to policies and plans that directly affect the citizens are particularly important as it has consequences for the affected individuals. For example, in Canada there has been a recent recall and replacement for a medication used in treating chronic pain; not only does this affect the thousands who rely on it, but it has ramifications for the government. For the government to effectively manage this change and the consequences of the replacement, it is imperative that the affected citizens to be informed of such changes.

 

On the other hand, a democratic government may still be effective without having to have fully informed citizens. In a given society, various demographic groups exist and individuals will differ in terms of education level, income, and access to resources and media. As a result citizens may not comprehend the intricacies of, for instance, the recent 2008 economic recession or be aware of the extent of its effects. In this case, citizens are reliant upon the government to be knowledgeable and to have a plan in action to rectify the nation’s economic issues. Therefore a government may still be effective even if its citizens are not fully informed about the issues that affect the country.

 

An effective democratic government acquires power through the votes cast by its citizens and whether or not the citizens need to be fully informed is dependent upon how issues affect them, that is, if the issue in question affects them directly or indirectly. For a government to be effective, its citizens must be informed if the issue has direct consequences and requires action by the individual. However the government may be effective without requiring citizens to be informed if the issue affects them indirectly and does not require action on their part. For a government to be effective in handling issues it must be able to distinguish between when to inform its citizens and when it must proactively act on their behalf.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by donna71

 

The effectiveness of democratic government relies upon various factors including the citizens that vote in the current government, consequently an effective government could could is not really a strong enough word when you are trying to put forth an argument in your supporting paragraph be one that has its citizens informed of its policies and plans. In particular, changes to policies and plans that directly affect the citizens are particularly important as it has consequences for the affected individuals. For example, in Canada there has been a recent recall and replacement for a medication used in treating chronic pain; not only does this affect the thousands who rely on it, but it has ramifications for the government. For the government to effectively manage this change and the consequences of the replacement, it is imperative that the affected citizens to be informed of such changes.

This example could work but I feel the discussion here doesn't really get at the heart of the issue. Perhaps additional government related details would make the argument more focused on addressing the writing task.

 

On the other hand, a democratic government may still be effective without having to have fully informed citizens. In a given society, various demographic groups exist and individuals will differ in terms of education level, income, and access to resources and media. As a result citizens may not comprehend the intricacies of, for instance, the recent 2008 economic recession or be aware of the extent of its effects. In this case, citizens are reliant upon the government to be knowledgeable and to have a plan in action to rectify the nation’s economic issues. Therefore a government may still be effective even if its citizens are not fully informed about the issues that affect the country.

Similar to before, I know what you are trying to get at but the way it is explained doesn't adequately address the task. There are two conditions that need to be fulfilled in this paragraph. 1) Provide an example of effective government. 2) Establish that the effective governance did not require fully informed citizens.

 

An effective democratic government acquires power through the votes cast by its citizens and whether or not the citizens need to be fully informed is dependent upon how issues affect them, that is, if the issue in question affects them directly or indirectly. There are two issues here. 1) This idea is different from what the prompt is looking for. The prompt is not about acquiring power. It is about effective governance. 2) Whether issues directly or indirectly affect citizens is vague and ambiguous. It will be difficult to apply this because it is not clear in a lot of cases. For a government to be effective, its citizens must be informed if the issue has direct consequences and requires action by the individual. However the government may be effective without requiring citizens to be informed if the issue affects them indirectly and does not require action on their part. For a government to be effective in handling issues it must be able to distinguish between when to inform its citizens and when it must proactively act on their behalf.

You do not apply your resolution principle to your specific examples. If it was applied you should have found it difficult. For example, the medication recall only affects a small proportion of Canadians so you cannot use this as an issue that directly affects Canadians. It would also be difficult to argue that the economic collapse does not affect Canadians directly. This is the problem with vague resolution principles.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 2.5 Discussion needs to be more focused on what the prompt is looking for.

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[Non-trad hopeful]

Thank you for your remarks on my last post - here is my second attempt:

 

 

A key pillar of an effective government in a democracy is transparency. Without transparency, citizens cannot be informed on the actions of their government and therefore lack the necessary knowledge to make informed decisionsat election time. Transparacy, moreover, is necessary for the effective accountability of politicians. Because democracyis praised for being a form of government that is 'of the people, by the people, for the people', its politicians must be held accountable for their actions and this can only be achieved through open and honest communication between politicians and citizens.

 

An example of a case where transparency was not upheld - and thus, accountability was missing - is the Canadian Federal Sponsorship scandel. Between 1996 and 2004, the Federal Liberal Party mis-used public money to pay for an advertising campaign in the province of Quebec in order to promote their image and calm seperatist sentiments in the province. For several years, taxpayers' money was mis-used in a dishonest manner. It took an investigation from the auditor general to uncover the fact that this mis-use of public funds was occuring and only then could the politicians be held accountable for their actions.

 

However, there are cases when full disclosure of information is in fact detrimental to democracy. Specifically, there are times when full disclosure may result in public panic and result in the detriment of society and its government. For instance, following 9/11, there have been many cases where 'Western' democracies have been the object of terrorist threats. Many of these threats have been credible - in which case it was necessary for the politicians to inform the public in order to help ensure proper

precautions were taken. However, in many cases, these threats were not in fact credible. Informing the public on every reported threat to its safety is more likely to cause unnecessary panic and even public danger. This is an example of a case where discretion is needed as to whether full disclosure is going to benefit the public or in fact cause more harm than good.

 

For a democratic government to be effective, its citizens need to be widely informed. Without proper information, citizens are unable to make effective decisions at election time and their politicians cannot be held to account. The Federal Sponsorship scandel is an example of a case where important information was withheld from the public at the expense of accountability. However, there are cases where it does more harm than good to provide full disclosuse to citizens. Terrorist threats are an example of this -

citizens do not need to be informed on every threat to their country as this would only cause unnecessary panic. Thus, effective government in a democracy requires that its citizens be informed to the extent that this information leads to the accountability of politicians and does not pose unnecesary harm or panic to citizens.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay by Non-trad hopeful

 

I would recommend using the standard 3 paragraph format for the writing sample essay. It is the accepted format because it is the most effective. I have grouped your first two paragraphs together because they constitute your supporting argument.

 

A key pillar of an effective government in a democracy is transparency. Without transparency, citizens cannot be informed on the actions of their government and therefore lack the necessary knowledge to make informed decisionsat election time. Transparacy, moreover, is necessary for the effective accountability of politicians. Because democracyis praised for being a form of government that is 'of the people, by the people, for the people', its politicians must be held accountable for their actions and this can only be achieved through open and honest communication between politicians and citizens.An example of a case where transparency was not upheld - and thus, accountability was missing - is the Canadian Federal Sponsorship scandel. Between 1996 and 2004, the Federal Liberal Party mis-used public money to pay for an advertising campaign in the province of Quebec in order to promote their image and calm seperatist sentiments in the province. For several years, taxpayers' money was mis-used in a dishonest manner. It took an investigation from the auditor general to uncover the fact that this mis-use of public funds was occuring and only then could the politicians be held accountable for their actions.

I really like the transparency idea. However, the way it is presented makes it the focus of the discussion. In this paragraph, addressing the supporting task should be the main focus of the discussion. The main focus is on the relationship between effective governance and informed citizens.To remedy this issue, I would recommend using transparency as a supporting point rather than making it the main focus here because as it is written, this discussion is off-topic.

 

However, there are cases when full disclosure of information is in fact detrimental to democracy. Similar to earlier, transparency and disclosure of information is not the main focus of the prompt.Specifically, there are times when full disclosure may result in public panic and result in the detriment of society and its government. For instance, following 9/11, there have been many cases where 'Western' democracies have been the object of terrorist threats. Many of these threats have been credible - in which case it was necessary for the politicians to inform the public in order to help ensure proper

precautions were taken. This does not add to your argument (it actually undermines your argument). Adding unnecessary points reduces the clarity of your arguments. However, in many cases, these threats were not in fact credible. Informing the public on every reported threat to its safety is more likely to cause unnecessary panic and even public danger. This is an example of a case where discretion is needed as to whether full disclosure is going to benefit the public or in fact cause more harm than good.

This example could work but similar to before, it is off-topic and not focused on addressing the task. There are two points that need to be argued here 1) An example of effective government and 2) that effective government did not require citizens to be fully informed. Furthermore, the argument here is shaky. Citizens can still be considered fully informed without knowing about every reported threat especially if the threats are not credible.

 

For a democratic government to be effective, its citizens need to be widely informed. Without proper information, citizens are unable to make effective decisions at election time and their politicians cannot be held to account. The Federal Sponsorship scandel is an example of a case where important information was withheld from the public at the expense of accountability. However, there are cases where it does more harm than good to provide full disclosuse to citizens. Terrorist threats are an example of this -

citizens do not need to be informed on every threat to their country as this would only cause unnecessary panic. Thus, effective government in a democracy requires that its citizens be informed to the extent that this information leads to the accountability of politicians and does not pose unnecesary harm or panic to citizens. This is not a strong resolution because it is too narrow which makes it lack depth.

 

Just as the writing sample essay has an accepted format. The resolution paragraph also has a standard template that can be followed to more effectively address the writing task.

 

The main issue here is that in this essay, full disclosure and informed citizens are made synonymous when they are different ideas. Just because a government has full disclosure does not mean that the citizens are fully informed and vice versa. The discussion is focused on transparency and full disclosure rather than informed citizens.

 

Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 All of the tasks are only weakly addressed (Mostly because the discussion was off-topic).

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary:4

[xngn8r]

Effective government in a democracy requires that its citizens be fully informed.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might be effective without its citizens being fully informed. Discuss what you think determines whether or not citizens in a democracy must be fully informed in order for government to be effective.

 

Democracy is a form of government where all citizens of a country have an equal opportunity to participate in the decision making process either directly or through electing representatives. There are many forms of democracy; some are more effective than others. One of the clearest forms of democracy is referendum, or direct vote, where every member of electorate makes a decision on a particular issue. In Canada such referendums were conducted in 1980 and 1995 and the issue was a secession of Quebec. It is obvious that for this process to be effective every individual requires to be fully informed about benefits and risks associated with her decision. Decisions made under the influence of emotions, or when information is withheld or distorted will lead to negative outcomes. In less democratic societies government often tries to limit the access of the citizens to information in order to make decisions that may not be popular with people. Often, when truth comes out these policies can result in violent protests and revolts as we have witnessed recently in several countries in the Middle East.

 

On the other hand, a situation can exist when it is beneficial to withhold certain information from the public even for a short time. One of the reasons for withholding information would be to prevent widespread panic in population. For example, in the beginning of the year 2000 computer systems of Pentagon experienced temporary malfunction that lasted for several hours. This information was not immediately disclosed to the public. Given the general mood preceding new millennium and widespread doomsday scenarios, releasing it could predictably lead to panic and mass hysteria. Another example of a situation when releasing information to public is counterproductive would be an ongoing criminal investigation or anti-terrorist operation. In this case informing the public prematurely might undermine a success of such investigation or operation.

 

In the end, the decision whether the information is released to general public and the timing of this release should be determined by analysis of the risk versus benefit of this decision to society. There are advocates of free speech who claim that public should always have access to full information at all times regardless of consequences. However, there are situations, in which releasing certain information can lead to negative consequences. In those cases, it is in public’s interest to withhold or delay the release of this information.

[RaymondPrep101]

xngn8r

 

Democracy is a form of government where all citizens of a country have an equal opportunity to participate in the decision making process either directly or through electing representatives. There are many forms of democracy; some are more effective than others. One of the clearest forms of democracy is referendum, or direct vote, where every member of electorate makes a decision on a particular issue. In Canada such referendums were conducted in 1980 and 1995 and the issue was a secession of Quebec. It is obvious even though it may seem "obvious" you need to explain why it is obvious/necessary that for this process to be effective every individual requires grammar to be fully informed about benefits and risks associated with her decision. Decisions made under the influence of emotions, or when information is withheld or distorted will lead to negative outcomes. In less democratic societies government often tries to limit the access of the citizens to information in order to make decisions that may not be popular with people. Often, when truth comes out these policies can result in violent protests and revolts as we have witnessed recently in several countries in the Middle East.

The discussion started out well but then got off track. Especially the last part. You should have elaborated upon your example which could have been excellent. Furthermore, in the Middle East, many of the uprisings are not in formerly democratic countries.

 

On the other hand, a situation can exist when it is beneficial to withhold certain information from the public even for a short time. One of the reasons for withholding information would be to prevent widespread panic in the population. For example, in the beginning of the year 2000 computer systems of the Pentagon experienced temporary malfunction that lasted for several hours. This information was not immediately disclosed to the public. Given the general mood preceding the new millennium and widespread doomsday scenarios, releasing it could predictably lead to panic and mass hysteria. Another example of a situation when releasing information to public is counterproductive would be an ongoing criminal investigation or anti-terrorist operation. In this case informing the public prematurely might undermine a success of such investigation or operation.

You are only required to have one well developed example. One well developed example is much better than multiple examples. Multiple examples actually hurt your essay because there is less depth and it makes your resolution harder.

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

 

In the end, the decision whether the information is released to general public and the timing of this release should be determined by analysis of the risk versus benefit of this decision to society. This is not what the prompt is about. There are advocates of free speech who claim that public should always have access to full information at all times regardless of consequences. However, there are situations, in which releasing certain information can lead to negative consequences. In those cases, it is in public’s interest to withhold or delay the release of this information.

This resolution paragraph is off-topic. Furthermore, in your resolution paragraphs you are required to discuss your examples within the context of the resolution principle.

This is a challenging prompt and it is important when you are writing to explicitly address the writing tasks. Once the essay goes a little off-course, the rest of the essay is going to be affected.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is poorly addressed. Resolution task is not addressed.

Depth: 1.5

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[DaKirbster]

Effective government in a democracy requires that its citizens be fully informed.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might be effective without its citizens being fully informed. Discuss what you think determines whether or not citizens in a democracy must be fully informed in order for government to be effective.

 

Every society must have an effective government in order to completely functional. By definition, a democratic government is one wherein every participating member of that society has an equal vote and decisions are based on the option chosen by the majority. Therefore, it follows that every citizen in a democracy must be fully informed in order for the government to be effective, since every citizen contributes to governmental proceedings to some degree. Informed citizens make informed decisions; informed decisions lead to thoughtful and favourable outcomes. For example, a scandal arose in the early 1900's of Saskatchewan when the premier, William Goodacre, was caught flaundering provincial money for his personal expenses, and his incompetence was causing deficits across the province. This issue was highly publicized such that most of the citizens of Saskatchewan became informed on the scandal, and Goodacre received minimal votes during the next election. The man elected by the now-informed citizens was fully capable and managed to successfully sweep up the mess made by Goodacre and lead Saskatchewan to prosperity. In this scenario, an effective government was produced because the citizens were fully informed.

 

However, there are some scenarios when a democratic government can be effective without its citizens being fully informed. For example, Barack Obama was elected as the President of the United States a few years ago and currently runs an effective government. However, many citizens (but not all, by any means) were not fully informed during the election period, and voted for Obama because of his outstanding charisma. His speeches and manner of conduct easily wooed many voters who were not aware of actual political platforms. It is possible that some voted for him simply because he is African American, and they were eager to see an African American enter the White House in the US. While these may be noble sentiments, they are not based on political backgrounds and thus these votes were not made by informed citizens. Luckily for them, Obama turned out to be a successful President and is aiding the US to solve many issues to this day.

 

What determines whether or not an effective democratic government requires fully informed citizens depends on whether the citizens, informed or not, vote for a good candidate. The informed citizens will vote for an appropriate candidate because they have done their research and know what is good for their countries, and thus this will lead to an effective government. This correlates to the first example given wherein the residents of Saskatchewan ousted a scandal and, by becoming informed, elected a suitable candidate for the good of the province. On the other hand, citizens who are not fully informed are likely to base their votes upon superficial qualities, and thus their elected official may or may not lead the society to an effective democracy. This is exemplified by the election of Obama, who received many votes for non-political reasons, yet turned out to be an effective leader nonetheless. Ultimately, a true democracy should have active participation from all of its members, who should be informed for their own good.

 

 

 

 

 

----

 

 

 

 

 

Post-essay question:

Would you advise against making up examples in a writing sample? If the premises are vague enough, I feel like the grader wouldn't know whether or not the story is true anyway and undoubtedly would not go out of their way to look it up, though I can understand it being risky. However, I often find the hardest part of the writing sample is thinking of good examples!

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted DaKirbster

 

Every society must have an effective government in order to completely grammar functional. By definition, a democratic government is one wherein every participating member of that society has an equal vote and decisions are based on the option chosen by the majority. Therefore, it follows that every citizen in a democracy must be fully informed in order for the government to be effective, since every citizen contributes to governmental proceedings to some degree. Solid introduction. Informed citizens make informed decisions; informed decisions lead to thoughtful and favourable outcomes. For example, a scandal arose in the early 1900's of Saskatchewan when the premier, William Goodacre, was caught flaundering ? provincial money for his personal expenses, and his incompetence was causing deficits across the province. This issue was highly publicized such that most of the citizens of Saskatchewan became informed on the scandal, and Goodacre received minimal votes during the next election. The man elected by the now-informed citizens was fully capable and managed to successfully sweep up the mess made by Goodacre and lead Saskatchewan to prosperity. In this scenario, an effective government was produced because the citizens were fully informed.

This example is very good. The writing style could use some improvement to make it excellent.

 

However, there are some scenarios when a democratic government can be effective without its citizens being fully informed. For example, Barack Obama was elected as the President of the United States a few years ago and currently runs an effective government. You are going to have to provide evidence for this. However, many citizens (but not all, by any means) were not fully informed during the election period, and voted for Obama because of his outstanding charisma. His speeches and manner of conduct easily wooed many voters who were not aware of actual political platforms. It is possible that some voted for him simply because he is African American, and they were eager to see an African American enter the White House in the US. While these may be noble sentiments, they are not based on political backgrounds and thus these votes were not made by informed citizens. Luckily for them, Obama turned out to be a successful President and is aiding the US to solve many issues to this day.

This example has some decent points. However, you need to provide evidence that Obama has run the government effectively. Many would argue otherwise. Instead of making a blanket statement which is unlikely to be true, you should focus in on a specific event/decision and discuss the outcome. You can't say that he runs an effective government without further elaboration.

 

What determines whether or not an effective democratic government requires fully informed citizens depends on whether the citizens, informed or not, vote for a good candidate. This is vague and ambiguous. What exactly is a good candidate. The idea is also flawed because people will not know if a candidate is good until after the fact. People are not going to vote for a bad candidate. The informed citizens will vote for an appropriate candidate because they have done their research and know what is good for their countries, and thus this will lead to an effective government. This correlates to the first example given wherein the residents of Saskatchewan ousted word choice a scandal and, by becoming informed, elected a suitable candidate for the good of the province. On the other hand, citizens who are not fully informed are likely to base their votes upon superficial qualities, and thus their elected official may or may not lead the society to an effective democracy. This is exemplified by the election of Obama, who received many votes for non-political reasons, yet turned out to be an effective leader nonetheless. Ultimately, a true democracy should have active participation from all of its members, who should be informed for their own good.

This resolution principle is ineffective because it lacks depth. There is not a convincing argument put forth. This discussion is essentially that it depends on luck.

 

The structure of the essay is fine. The quality of ideas needs to be improved.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

 

 

 

 

Post-essay question:

Would you advise against making up examples in a writing sample? If the premises are vague enough, I feel like the grader wouldn't know whether or not the story is true anyway and undoubtedly would not go out of their way to look it up, though I can understand it being risky. However, I often find the hardest part of the writing sample is thinking of good examples!

 

Coming up with examples is one of the primary challenges for the writing sample. That is why it is useful to have an examples database, a collection of examples that can be used for the various prompts.

Making up an example can be done but it needs to be properly done. A lot of the times, it is painfully obvious when something is made up which hurts the essay.

[souljaboy]

In a democracy, the politicians are representing the will of the people who elected them. The citizens' opinions directly affect the status of elected officials, and elected officials must appeal to the people for the votes. However, when the citizens are not fully informed as to how the government is operating, the government can cease to be effective at governing and dictating policies. The current economic crisis in Greece is a direct result of Greeks not being fully informed on the various problems in their government. Over the past 20 years, the government made many changes, such as allowing many people to retire in their 50s, that caused a massive debt to be accumulated. Most citizens only see the benefits of these changes but are not fully informed as to the possible ramifications in the future. The government gave the people a false sense of security, and the inevitable economic crash came into reality, resulting in bankrupcy and unemployment. The downfall of the Greek government is its inability to keep its citizens fully informed, which directly led to the economic crash of Greece.

 

There are some occasions, however, where effective democratic governments would need to keep the general populace uninformed for the greater good of the nation. During World War II, the Manhattan project was conducted in utter secrecy for several years. The American population were not made aware of the atomic bomb and its powers until after the war. Many people would have preferred that the government allowed its citizens to know that a weapon with such power was being created, but the secrecy in this situation is a necessity. If the Manhattan project was revealed before or during the war, the result would have been very different. The Axis powers would have known that the US is attempting to create a weapon that would have the power to end the war and therefore would have done everything they could to either sabotage the project or develop their own. Many Americans would also be in fear of the project and could have had it shut down. It will never be possible to know what could have happened if the Manhattan project was revealed prior to completion, but the government's decision in keeping the project in utter secrecy is in the greater good of the nation.

 

An effective democratic government need its people to know about the major issues in the country in order for the people to make the correct decisions in regards to electing officials that represent them. If the Greek population had been informed enough to know the ramifications of the many perceived positive changes the government made, they would have had the powers to avert the current economic crisis. However, there are situations where it is necessary for the government to keep important information from the people if it is for the greater good, and elected officials are the ones who are trusted to make these decisions. Aside from situations where secrecy is a necessity for the good of the nation, it is a democratic government's duty to keep its citizen fully informed since the government is representing the people's will.

[RaymondPrep101]

Submitted by souljaboy

 

In a democracy, the politicians are representing the will of the people who elected them. The citizens' opinions directly affect the status of elected officials, and elected officials must appeal to the people for the votes. However, when the citizens are not fully informed as to how the government is operating, the government can cease to be effective at governing and dictating policies. The current economic crisis in Greece is a direct result of Greeks not being fully informed on the various problems in their government. Over the past 20 years, the government made many changes, such as allowing many people to retire in their 50s, that caused a massive debt to be accumulated. Most citizens only see the benefits of these changes but are not fully informed as to the possible ramifications in the future. The government gave the people a false sense of security, and the inevitable economic crash came into reality, resulting in bankrupcy and unemployment. The downfall of the Greek government is its inability to keep its citizens fully informed, which directly led to the economic crash of Greece.

This example is good. However, the example only indirectly supports the writing task and is not as strong as an example that directly supports the writing task (an example where citizens were fully informed and there was effective government).

 

There are some occasions, however, where effective democratic governments would need to keep the general populace uninformed for the greater good of the nation. During World War II, the Manhattan project was conducted in utter secrecy for several years. The American population were not made aware of the atomic bomb and its powers until after the war. Many people would have preferred that the government allowed its citizens to know that a weapon with such power was being created, but the secrecy in this situation is a necessity. If the Manhattan project was revealed before or during the war, the result would have been very different. The Axis powers would have known that the US is attempting to create a weapon that would have the power to end the war and therefore would have done everything they could to either sabotage the project or develop their own. Many Americans would also be in fear of the project and could have had it shut down. It will never be possible to know what could have happened if the Manhattan project was revealed prior to completion, but the government's decision in keeping the project in utter secrecy is in the greater good of the nation.

This example is not very effective. The example is only loosely connected to effective government. The alternative, where citizens were told about the development of a powerful weapon that could end the war is unrealistic. Just because citizens are not told about the development of a secret weapon does not mean that they are not fully informed. It would have probably been better if instead of the development of the atomic bomb, you talked about something broader and more general that the public realistically could be informed about.

An effective democratic government need its people to know about the major issues in the country in order for the people to make the correct decisions in regards to electing officials that represent them. This does not address the writing task because it does not specify what determines whether or not citizens in a democracy must be fully informed in order for government to be effective. If the Greek population had been informed enough to know the ramifications of the many perceived positive changes the government made, they would have had the powers to avert the current economic crisis. However, there are situations where it is necessary for the government to keep important information from the people if it is for the greater good, and elected officials are the ones who are trusted to make these decisions. Greater good is vague and ambiguous. It is not clear and this kind of resolution principle should be avoided. What politicians consider to be for the greater good may not be the greater good. Aside from situations where secrecy is a necessity for the good of the nation, it is a democratic government's duty to keep its citizen fully informed since the government is representing the people's will. This last sentence is off-topic.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[wstntime]

Effective government in a democracy requires that its citizens be fully informed.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might be effective without its citizens being fully informed. Discuss what you think determines whether or not citizens in a democracy must be fully informed in order for government to be effective.

 

 

The statement implies that the effectiveness of a democratic government is defined by how informed its citizens are in the development of policy. It can be argued that this is possibly the most important measurable in judging government effectiveness if it's primary role is to preserve the fundamental values and principles of that society. An example of this would be in the creation of annual budgets which are primarily concerned with how the tax dollars of its citizens are going to be spent, and where will be the focus of this spending. By fully informing its citizens, and fostering debate around where to place resources, elected officials can focus spending on where its citizens collectively place the most value, such as on healthcare or education. In this case, the effectiveness of the government can be measured on how well it's policies relect the fundamental values of its citizens.

On the other hand, the developent of monetary policy by the bank of canada, a crown-owned corporation that is overseen by government, is primarily focused on promoting the economic and financial welfare of Canada. The effectiveness of decisions by the bank of Canada on monetary policy are clearly not measured by how informed its citizens are in policy development, but rather on whether it has fulfilled its primary responsibility of creating economic growth and preserving the financial welfare, and standard of living of its citizens.

Therefore, whether or not the effectiveness of a democratic government can be measured by how informed its citizens are, can be determined by the extent to which policy decisions challenge the fundamental morals and values of its citizens.

[wstntime]

Its not hard to tell I'm a science geek. I don't have an artsy bone in my body.

 

If I did, it would probably be the distal phalanx off of the 5th metatarsal, hehe.

 

 

 

ooops, probably should have just edited the previous post instead of making a new one. sorry

[medoc]

Effective government in a democracy requires that its citizens be fully informed.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might be effective without its citizens being fully informed. Discuss what you think determines whether or not citizens in a democracy must be fully informed in order for government to be effective.

 

In a democratic government, people as a whole choose what is best for their nation and elect members of the parliament accordingly. For a government to be effective, the decisions made by the government should reflect what the majority of its citizens prefer and want. When a democratic government proposes a change to an older policy or develops a new regulation, it is important to inform the citizens of their proposals. This way the government can get feedbacks from those who voted them to run the country. By announcing the changes and keeping the citizens up to date, many become aware of what is considered legal and what is not. Lets consider an example of a government which decides to restrict smoking in public places, and gives fines to those who trespass the law. If citizens are not informed of this change in their smoking laws, then many of them will learn about the change after getting fines from the police. If citizens are not well informed of the changes, the expected results in reducing smoking in public areas will not occur. Many citizens may also begin to feel that they are being ignored by the government and develop disbelief in the democratic government they all voted for.

 

On the other hand, being a democratic government does not necessarily mean to announce every changes that happens in their policies to the citizens to be an effective government. There are many rules and regulations that many of us are unaware of that the officials in the government constantly review and make changes to. If there is a change to a policy that does not affect the citizens or involve citizens' activities then there is no need for the government to inform them. For instance, if there is a change to a policy that involves how parliament meetings should be held and the government informs all the members of the parliament. In this case, a change in parliament meeting policy does not affect or interfere with citizens, and the citizens are not required to be informed of this change since it has little or no effect in their lives. Not informing the citizens in this case does not make the government less effective.

 

An effective government in a democracy can decide what needs to be announced and what does not based on the changes and who they involve. If informing the citizens of a change that has no effect in the citizens' lives then there it is pointless informing them. If the change does involve the citizens then the government should inform all citizens of the changes and request them to follow it. If the change involves citizens' attention then it is important to keep all citizens informed so that they all start following them once the change is implemented.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by durabol

 

 

The statement implies that the effectiveness of a democratic government is defined by how informed its citizens are in the development of policy. This is different from the prompt idea. It can be argued that this is possibly the most important measurable word choice in judging government effectiveness if it's primary role is to preserve the fundamental values and principles of that society. Again, this is different from what the prompt is looking for. You have changed it here to using how informed citizens are as a measure for the effectiveness of government when the prompt is looking for informed citizens as a prerequisite for effective government. An example of this would be in the creation of annual budgets which are primarily concerned with how the tax dollars of its citizens are going to be spent, and where will be the focus of this spending. By fully informing its citizens, and fostering debate around where to place resources, elected officials can focus spending on where its citizens collectively place the most value, such as on healthcare or education. In this case, the effectiveness of the government can be measured on how well it's policies relect the fundamental values of its citizens.

This example is okay but is too simple and lacks depth. Furthermore, concrete real world examples are always better.

 

 

On the other hand, the developent of monetary policy by the bank of canada, a crown-owned corporation that is overseen by government, is primarily focused on promoting the economic and financial welfare of Canada. The effectiveness of decisions by the bank of Canada on monetary policy are clearly not measured by how informed its citizens are in policy development, but rather on whether it has fulfilled its primary responsibility of creating economic growth and preserving the financial welfare, and standard of living of its citizens.

This misses the point of the prompt and does not address what the writing task is looking for.

 

Therefore, whether or not the effectiveness of a democratic government can be measured by how informed its citizens are, can be determined by the extent to which policy decisions challenge the fundamental morals and values of its citizens. Off-topic. There is a standard template for the resolution paragraph that should be followed.

Be careful that you do not change the focus of the prompt. Make sure you understand what the prompt is looking for.

 

I would recommend starting with the basics. Learn about what the writing tasks are, and follow the standard template of the paragraphs in your essays.

 

It is okay to not be an artsy person. The writing sample has a set format and style. Writing a solid essay does not require artistic talent.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting and resolution tasks are not addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 1 Essay's focus was changed.

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by medoc

 

In a democratic government, people as a whole choose what is best for their nation and elect members of the parliament accordingly. For a government to be effective, the decisions made by the government should reflect what the majority of its citizens prefer and want. This is different from the writing prompt idea. When a democratic government proposes a change to an older policy or develops a new regulation, it is important to inform the citizens of their proposals. This way the government can get feedbacks from those who voted them to run the country. By announcing the changes and keeping the citizens up to date, many become aware of what is considered legal and what is not. Lets consider an example of a government which decides to restrict smoking in public places, and gives fines to those who trespass the law. If citizens are not informed of this change in their smoking laws, then many of them will learn about the change after getting fines from the police. If citizens are not well informed of the changes, the expected results in reducing smoking in public areas will not occur. Many citizens may also begin to feel that they are being ignored by the government and develop disbelief in the democratic government they all voted for.

This example is okay. The idea is a bit basic and requires more depth.

 

On the other hand, being a democratic government does not necessarily mean to announce grammar every changes that happens in their policies to the citizens to be an effective government. This is a common issue that has come up with multiple essays so far. The term fully informed is taken too literally and too far. A citizen can be considered fully informed even if they do not know every single policy and every detail of every policy (this just isn't possible). There are many rules and regulations that many of us are unaware of that the officials in the government constantly review and make changes to. If there is a change to a policy that does not affect the citizens or involve citizens' activities then there is no need for the government to inform them. This is more of an idea for the resolution paragraph. For instance, if there is a change to a policy that involves how parliament meetings should be held and the government informs all the members of the parliament. In this case, a change in parliament meeting policy does not affect or interfere with citizens, and the citizens are not required to be informed of this change since it has little or no effect in their lives. Not informing the citizens in this case does not make the government less effective.

Similar to before, the interpretation of fully informed is taken a bit too far here.

The idea here is very basic and lacks depth. The example is also not convincing. If there is a change to a policy involving how parliament meetings are held then this is a change that affects how the government is run which does affect citizens.

 

An effective government in a democracy can decide what needs to be announced and what does not based on the changes and who they involve. Issues: 1) This idea is different from what the writing task is looking for. 2) This is very vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution to be clear and easy to apply. If informing the citizens of a change that has no effect in the citizens' lives then there it is pointless informing them. This is a weak argument. If the change does involve the citizens then the government should inform all citizens of the changes and request them to follow it. If the change involves citizens' attention then it is important to keep all citizens informed so that they all start following them once the change is implemented.

Overall, this is a very challenging prompt and the quality of ideas was lacking here.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

In business, it takes money to make money.

Describe a specific situation in business where it might not take money to make money. Discuss what you think determines when it takes money to make money in business and when it does not.

 

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 Wednesday, March 21.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Thursday, March 22.

[Non-trad hopeful]

Starting a business is often thought to be a very expensive task. 'Start-up' costs for businesses can be very large and often include product development, renting a physical space for the business, paying for advertising, and often paying employees. Furthermore, beyond the initial start-up fees, it can be very expensive to expand or even maintain a successful business. An example of a business that required money to make money is the coffee company, Starbucks. Starbucks represents what might be called a 'traditional' type of business model, where start-up fees would include the development of the 'product' (coffee), but also the physical space for the coffee shop, paid employees and design and branding. The expansion of starbucks into an international coffee 'brand' would have required further monetary resourses for advertising, product and brand development etc.

 

However, there are many businesses that become sucessful off the back of very little initial monetary investment. An example of a type of business that did not require significant money to make money is Facebook. Facebook was developed as an idea from a college student, Mark Zuckerburg, who saw potential for a sort of 'business' of an online social community for college students. This is an example of a businees which used the power of the internet to create a succesful business not through expensive advertising but through a small idea that become 'viral'. Facebook is now one of the most widely recognized 'brands' with an almost world-wide presence. It now makes money primarily through selling advertising space on its website, and has expanded to one of the most profitable businesses today.

 

Whether it takes money to make money in businues is contigent upon the type of business in question. Specifically, it is contigent upon whether the business requires start up costs such as rental space, product development, paid advertising, and paid employees. In the case of Starbucks, it took money to not only set up the initial coffee shop but to also expand to the mass 'money-making' phenomenon it is today. This can be applied to many businesses that must rent out a physical space, pay employees, produce a product, and pay for advertising to expand. On the other hand, many internet businesses can succeed but starting with very little actual capital. In the example of Facebook, we see a case where a college student was able to create a successful business that has subsequently flourised virtually world-wide with little initial capital. With a great deal of creativity and resoursefullness, Mark Zuckerberg was able to develop an enourmously succesful business using the power of the internet. Thus, the statement 'in business, it takes money to make money', reflects a common but not universal condition.

[wstntime]

Thanks a lot for the feedback on that last one. Looks like I have a large hole to climb out of.

 

In business, it takes money to make money

Describe a specific situation in business where it might not take money to make money. Discuss what you think determines when it takes money to make money in business and when it does not.

 

It is implied by the statement that in any successful business model, there is a minimum amount of financial resources required in order to eventually see a return on that investment. It is widely accepted that the concept of return on investment is a fundamental principle of any business model. To support this concept we can look at the business of retail pharmacy, one example of which would be Shoppers Drug Mart Ltd., Canada’s number one retail pharmacy chain, from the perspective of market share and profitability. The pharmacy retail business requires a large initial investment in infrastructure, training, and the purchasing of goods before any return can be seen in the form of a retail price mark-up above the cost of goods, in this case pharmaceutical products. Shoppers Drug Mart raises this initial capital through a combination of issuing debt or equity to shareholders.

Conversely, there are cases where a business model can be developed that will show capital returns without any initial investment of financial resources. Consider the example of Samer Group, Ltd., an Ontario group that provides relief pharmacist services in the retail setting. In this example, there is relatively no initial investment of financial resources, as compared to the retail pharmacy business model. Aside from the costs associated with obtaining pharmacist licensure in the province of Ontario, and paying the relatively small fees associated with simply registering a business in the province of Ontario, there is no initial input of financial resources. The relief pharmacist group offers their services at a specific hourly rate, and is essentially making money, or seeing capital returns, without an initial financial investment. Samer Group, Ltd. was able to grow this business, by incorporating sub-contractors into his model, to see multi-million dollar annual revenues.

It is clear that these two perspectives show that an initial investment of financial resources is not necessarily a requirement to make money. Considering this, it can be concluded that an initial investment of financial resources is required to make money if the business model is built around the selling of goods, as in the example of a retail pharmacy that must purchase product at a certain price and then only make money by selling that product at a higher price. On the other hand, a business that is built around providing services can make money with relatively no initial investment, as is evident by the service-based business model of Samer Group, Ltd. Therefore, whether or not it takes money to make money is determined by the nature of the business model, and whether it is a goods-based or services-based model.

[kylamonkey]

In business, it takes money to make money

Describe a specific situation in business where it might not take money to make money. Discuss what you think determines when it takes money to make money in business and when it does not.

********************

 

Many businesses require a financial outlay from the beginning simply to open their doors. This is especially true with the common brick-and-mortar shops that often come to mind when people think of businesses. An auto repair shop, for example, needs to buy lifts, tools, office equipment and much more just to open the doors. They need to find a large workspace with space to grow, and hire employees. After that, there's a period of time of acquiring customers and building a client base, where employees, business taxes and rent need to be paid regardless of the company finances. This type of business often loses money during the first few months or years of operation- in fact, some analysts state that if a business makes its first profit after 3 years, it's doing well.

 

There are some situations where a successful business does not require a lot of money to start. Businesses where a person draws on a pastime or area where they already have skills (and equipment) can still ultimately become successful even without a significant initial investment. A long-time runner in a small town starting a running clinic from her basement only requires a pair of running shoes and a whiteboard to teach her class. A man with a lifelong passion for photography may already have the equipment he needs to start printing and selling his photographs for a profit. In these cases, there may be spending that the entrepreneur wants to do, but those things aren't necessary to make money.

 

Some cases of very successful business with little capital outlay seem to be somewhat rare, but are also well-publicised. These businesses, like Facebook, Apple, or Craigslist seem to also require a large amount of time initially on the part of the founder. For situations like this, we would all do well to remember that the time investment is also important- that "time is money"! The founders of these companies invested significant time in their fledgling businesses, time they could have spent working at a conventional job.

In all cases of starting a business, there is some sort of investment, whether it is in the form of time or money. The photographer and the runner above, it could be argued, have both made significant investments already (of time and/or money) in pursuing their hobbies. When working on a business model, the entrepreneur needs to remember that some sort of investment is required on their end, and in addition, sometimes success takes a little bit of luck too!

[kylamonkey]

A few questions, if you don't mind?

 

-Is it ever OK to use first-person? I did start a business (an auto-repair shop) and I wish I could have used first person to talk about that example.

-can we use casual phrases in the WS, like "time is money"? Or should we put it in quotes as I did above? Or is it best to avoid colloquial phrases altogether.

-is spelling ever checked? I seem to remember from when I wrote last time (it was 5-6yrs ago) that there was a rudimentary spell-checker.

-I like using exclamation points and dashes in writing. Are they OK?

-Are UK/Canadian spellings OK?

-any insights on how a computer marks an essay? There is a computer marking it, right? Or am I totally misinformed?

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by Non-trad hopeful

 

Starting a business is often thought Take out the word thought. You are making an argument and adding thought almost implies that you are going to refute that point. You need to make sure your writing is strong. to be a very expensive task. 'Start-up' costs for businesses can be very large and often include product development, renting a physical space for the business, paying for advertising, and often paying employees. Furthermore, beyond the initial start-up fees, it can be very expensive to expand or even maintain a successful business. An example of a business that required money to make money is the coffee company, Starbucks. Starbucks represents what might be called a 'traditional' type of business model, where start-up fees would include the development of the 'product' (coffee), but also the physical space for the coffee shop, paid employees and design and branding. The expansion of starbucks into an international coffee 'brand' would have required further monetary resourses for advertising, product and brand development etc.

For your supporting paragraph, you need to establish 1) that the business makes money and 2) that it required money.

Here you make a convincing argument that Starbucks requires money but you do not address the point of them making money. Your ideas are also repetitive, you go through the general expenditures in your introduction then talk about pretty much the same expenditures later on.

 

However, there are many businesses that become sucessful off the back of very little initial monetary investment. Good. An example of a type of business that did not require significant money grammar to make money is Facebook. Facebook was developed as an idea from a college student, Mark Zuckerburg, who saw potential for a sort of 'business' of an online social community awkward phrasing for college students. This is an example of a businees which used the power of the internet to create a succesful business not through expensive advertising but through a small idea that become 'viral'. Facebook is now one of the most widely recognized 'brands' with an almost world-wide presence. It now makes money primarily through selling advertising space on its website, and has expanded to one of the most profitable businesses today.

This is well done. One or two more strong points would have made it excellent.

 

Whether it takes money to make money in businues is contigent upon the type of business in question. Specifically, it is contigent upon whether the business requires start up costs such as rental space, product development, paid advertising, and paid employees. This resolution principle is not strong because you want your resolution principle to be simple and easy to apply. If you can boil it down to the one key factor, that is the best type of principle. The simpler the resolution principle, the more elegant. I can also foresee some of these factors applying to facebook as well. In the case of Starbucks, it took money to not only set up the initial coffee shop but to also expand to the mass 'money-making' phenomenon it is today. Your application needs more elaboration. This can be applied to many businesses that must rent out a physical space, pay employees, produce a product, and pay for advertising to expand. Why are you talking about many businesses when you have not thoroughly applied the principle to your Starbucks example? On the other hand, many internet businesses can succeed but starting with very little actual capital. In the example of Facebook, we see a case where a college student was able to create a successful business that has subsequently flourised virtually world-wide with little initial capital. With a great deal of creativity and resoursefullness, Mark Zuckerberg was able to develop an enourmously succesful business using the power of the internet. Thus, the statement 'in business, it takes money to make money', reflects a common but not universal condition. This is not a good concluding sentence for your resolution paragraph.

Your application of the resolution principle to your facebook example is non-existent.

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 poorly addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[KatMatt]

In business, it takes money to make money.

Describe a specific situation in business where it might not take money to make money. Discuss what you think determines when it takes money to make money in business and when it does not.

 

 

 

 

In business, it takes money to make money. This is true for people from all walks of life and in all types of businesses. Stay-at-home moms who wish to start a home-based business, self-employed consultants, and real estate moguls who want to develop a new commercial property must all overcome the same obstacle – that is, start-up costs -- before their business can grow, survive, and thrive. My brother, for example, is a successful, self-employed professional photographer. Although he is successful today, it took years of monetary investment before he achieved his current level of success: he invested thousands of dollars in his education to achieve a high degree of technical skill and develop a finely tuned artistic sensibility; tens of thousands of dollars on camera, lighting, and computer equipment necessary to run his business; and, hundreds of dollars on coffees and lunches to build relationships with potential business partners and clients. Quite simply, he wouldn’t be making the income he is today without a previous monetary investment.

 

One notable exception to this rule is the blogosphere. Free websites such as Word Press and Blogger make it possible for people to make money without ever spending a dime. Steve Pavlina, a well-known blogger who writes on topics such as productivity, creativity, and personal finance, is a great example of this. Steve began his blog for free, began writing high quality and interesting content, and, when he found that many people were interested in his website, he started selling advertising space on his website. He now earns a healthy income from those advertisements. Indeed, Steve was able to start, grow, and maintain his business without a monetary investment!

 

While in most cases it’s true that it takes money to make money, it isn’t always the case. Further, while money is necessary in many cases to start and grow a successful business, it’s never sufficient. In the absence of effort, planning, careful management and commitment, money alone will not catapult one to riches.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay by durabol

 

It is implied by the statement that in any successful business model, there is a minimum amount of financial resources required in order to eventually see a return on that investment. Issues: 1) Implied is not a strong enough word. You are making an argument and your writing style should be convincing. 2) You do not need to make explicit reference to the statement. Just paraphrase the statement. 3) This sentence is not strong enough in its style. It is widely accepted that the concept of return on investment is a fundamental principle of any business model. To support this concept we can look at the business of retail pharmacy, one example of which would be Shoppers Drug Mart Ltd., Canada’s number one retail pharmacy chain, from the perspective of market share and profitability. This is a run-on sentence. The pharmacy retail business requires a large initial investment in infrastructure, training, and the purchasing of goods before any return can be seen in the form of a retail price mark-up above the cost of goods, in this case pharmaceutical products. Shoppers Drug Mart raises this initial capital through a combination of issuing debt or equity to shareholders.

This example is good. However, your argument is a bit sparse. You should have more points.

Conversely, there are cases where a business model can be developed that will show capital returns without any initial investment of financial resources. Consider the example of Samer Group, Ltd., an Ontario group that provides relief pharmacist services in the retail setting I don't know what this actually is and your marker is unlikely to either. In this example, there is relatively no initial investment of financial resources, as compared to the retail pharmacy business model. Why? Elaborate. Aside from the costs associated with obtaining pharmacist licensure in the province of Ontario, and paying the relatively small fees associated with simply registering a business in the province of Ontario, there is no initial input of financial resources. The relief pharmacist group offers their services at a specific hourly rate, and is essentially making money, or seeing capital returns, without an initial financial investment. Samer Group, Ltd. was able to grow this business, by incorporating sub-contractors into his model, to see multi-million dollar annual revenues.

This example could work but there needs to be a better explanation. I get a rough idea but the clarity needs to be improved. There needs to be more details and better organization of the ideas.

It is clear that these two perspectives show that an initial investment of financial resources is not necessarily a requirement to make money. This is not a good paraphrasing of the resolution task. Considering this, it can be concluded that an initial investment of financial resources is required to make money if the business model is built around the selling of goods, as in the example of a retail pharmacy that must purchase product at a certain price and then only make money by selling that product at a higher price. On the other hand, a business that is built around providing services can make money with relatively no initial investment, as is evident by the service-based business model of Samer Group, Ltd. Therefore, whether or not it takes money to make money is determined by the nature of the business model, and whether it is a goods-based or services-based model. This should be at the beginning of your resolution paragraph.

This is very well done. The resolution principle of goods vs. services is excellent. A little bit more elaboration when applying your principle to your second example would have made the discussion excellent.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[ch3wbacca1991]

Effective government in a democracy requires that its citizens be fully informed.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might be effective without its citizens being fully informed. Discuss what you think determines whether or not citizens in a democracy must be fully informed in order for government to be effective.

 

Every society must have an effective government in order to completely functional. By definition, a democratic government is one wherein every participating member of that society has an equal vote and decisions are based on the option chosen by the majority. Therefore, it follows that every citizen in a democracy must be fully informed in order for the government to be effective, since every citizen contributes to governmental proceedings to some degree. Informed citizens make informed decisions; informed decisions lead to thoughtful and favourable outcomes. For example, a scandal arose in the early 1900's of Saskatchewan when the premier, William Goodacre, was caught flaundering provincial money for his personal expenses, and his incompetence was causing deficits across the province. This issue was highly publicized such that most of the citizens of Saskatchewan became informed on the scandal, and Goodacre received minimal votes during the next election. The man elected by the now-informed citizens was fully capable and managed to successfully sweep up the mess made by Goodacre and lead Saskatchewan to prosperity. In this scenario, an effective government was produced because the citizens were fully informed.

 

However, there are some scenarios when a democratic government can be effective without its citizens being fully informed. For example, Barack Obama was elected as the President of the United States a few years ago and currently runs an effective government. However, many citizens (but not all, by any means) were not fully informed during the election period, and voted for Obama because of his outstanding charisma. His speeches and manner of conduct easily wooed many voters who were not aware of actual political platforms. It is possible that some voted for him simply because he is African American, and they were eager to see an African American enter the White House in the US. While these may be noble sentiments, they are not based on political backgrounds and thus these votes were not made by informed citizens. Luckily for them, Obama turned out to be a successful President and is aiding the US to solve many issues to this day.

 

What determines whether or not an effective democratic government requires fully informed citizens depends on whether the citizens, informed or not, vote for a good candidate. The informed citizens will vote for an appropriate candidate because they have done their research and know what is good for their countries, and thus this will lead to an effective government. This correlates to the first example given wherein the residents of Saskatchewan ousted a scandal and, by becoming informed, elected a suitable candidate for the good of the province. On the other hand, citizens who are not fully informed are likely to base their votes upon superficial qualities, and thus their elected official may or may not lead the society to an effective democracy. This is exemplified by the election of Obama, who received many votes for non-political reasons, yet turned out to be an effective leader nonetheless. Ultimately, a true democracy should have active participation from all of its members, who should be informed for their own good.

 

 

 

 

 

----

 

 

 

 

 

Post-essay question:

Would you advise against making up examples in a writing sample? If the premises are vague enough, I feel like the grader wouldn't know whether or not the story is true anyway and undoubtedly would not go out of their way to look it up, though I can understand it being risky. However, I often find the hardest part of the writing sample is thinking of good examples!

didn't read your whole thing but your statements are simply not true!