Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback

[DaKirbster]

In business, it takes money to make money.

 

The primary goal of business is to make money. Generally, good and services are provided to a customer in exchange for money. In order for a business to provide these goods and services, they must have first made their product and marketed it to the public, which costs money. This is why most businesses require investors to loan them money to start up their business; it takes money to make money. This is well-exemplified by Apple, an extremely successful technology company. Apple is best known for its Mac computers and iPod mp3 players, which are widely distributed across the world. However, Apple required a large monetary boost to get where it is today. It has put a lot of money into the development of its products in order to keep them top-of-the-line, in order to remain desirable to consumers so that they will continue to purchase them. Similarly, they have put much money into marketing and advertising to get their product known to the public. Apple's large preliminary input of money into development and marketing was necessary for the vast profits it gains today.

 

However, there are some cases wherein money is not required to make money. This is especially applicable in labour-intensive businesses, where the customer is paying for a person's time or expertise rather than a product. For example, many high school or university students create small gardening businesses to make money. This consists of the students going to a customer's home and performing various gardening duties, such as mowing the lawn or tending to the weeds. This usually requires little to no money from the student, as the tools are provided by the customer; instead, the student is exchanging their time and work in exchange for payment. The student will likely be able to return to the customer when they need more work done, and they may even refer them to other potential customers. In this scenario, money is not required for the business to make money.

 

What determines whether it takes money for a business to make money depends on if the business is product or labour based. A company selling a product will usually require an investment, whereas a labour-intensive business often will not. In the first example, Apple is selling a product to its customers, and thus requires money for marketing and development of the product in order to make money. In the gardening business example, the student is selling his time to the customers rather than a product, and thus does not need a monetary investment in order to make money. Ultimately, all business require an investment of some sort in order to thrive, be it in the form of time or money; perhaps this is where the adage 'time is money' came to be.

[medoc]

In order to make money, business owners begin with investing money into their businesses. People want to run a business to make money but in order to make money, they first need to have money. Therefore, many consider to begin a business when they have some money saved up to invest in their business. If a business owner is in need of money but want to start a business, then they approach the banks to apply for loans. Using the money loaned from the banks or saved throughout many years, business owners can buy goods and items they need to start their businesses. For example, a well-trained chef wants to open his own restaurant. Before he opens his restaurant, he needs to buy equipments, furnitures and other things needed by investing money into his business. Throughout the course of operating his restaurant, he will start gaining back what he has invested at the start of his business. This is often the case with running a business, since business owners need to invest money at first to gain money back afterwards.

 

Although some businesses need money to make money, not all businesses need money to make money. If the owner does not need to buy items to run their business, then money does not have to be invested to run the business. In this case, the owner of the business is offering some sort of service to make money rather than selling goods to make money. For instance, a counselling service that charges an hourly rate for counselling troubled relationships will not need money to run their business. The counsellors run their business from the income earned from the clients and not by selling specific items. The counsellors offer services through what they have got training in school and do not need additional money be invested in to operate their businesses. A business that mainly focuses on providing services rather than selling items to make profit would not necessarily need to invest money to make money.

 

It is clear that whether money needs to be invested to make money depends mainly on what the business is offering to their clients. If an initial investment is needed, as in the case of running a store then money is needed to buy the items at first and to sell them to gain profit later on. Without money, items needed to buy goods cannot be purchased and money cannot be made by the business. In the case of offering service, money is not necessarily needed to run their business since they gain profit by providing the service from using the knowledge they have from completing programs in school. Money is the main focus for business owners and it can be earned either by investing money or not depending on what the business has to offer.

[donna71]

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 in order to generate profit or make money; when starting up a new company or business, the entrepreneur must have the necessary resources in order to build and establish his or her business. For instance, the coffee shop founder of Tim Hortons could not have started a cafe without the financial resources necessary to buy a building, pay for the required restaurant equipment and furniture, and compensate the personnel to run his cafe. Therefore before Tim Hortons restaurant could begin to generate revenue from the sale of coffee and other foods, the owner must invest a great deal of money into the business prior to seeing any net gains. When starting up a company such as a restaurant, a great deal of money is required before profit may be earned.

 

On the other hand, not all businesses initially require money in order to make a financial profit. An example to exemplify this would be to look at successful Youtube partners who create a business out of video-making and who generate millions of views per video uploaded. NigaHiga is a comedian and one of the top most subscribed and viewed channels on Youtube; each video uploaded to the site is compensated in the thousands from companies that pay for advertising with Youtube. Other than requiring a video camera and computer, NigaHiga's business in Youtube can be said to have begun with relatively little to no financial investment. Therefore online businesses that provide the service of entertainment require little to no money in order to make money.

 

Businesses require a great deal of effort and time and some entrepreneurs find themselves facing the need to have a great deal of financial resources while others do not. What determines whether or not businesses initially require money in order to make money is dependent upon whether the services/goods offered are tangible or intangible. In the case of a restaurant that offers food services and dining space, a great deal of financial resources is required to pay for such tangible commodities. On the other hand where the services, such as entertainment, offered are intangible fewer resources are required on the part of the business owner whose services are contingent upon the consumer to have the necessary resources to enjoy or consume such services. Regardless of how a business is started, entrepreneurs must find ways to creatively adapt to the evolving trends and needs of society.

[matgn03]

Successfully starting a business is a diffucult endeavor, with as few as 1 in 10 businesses surviving long enough to become profitable. Becoming one of the select few survivors is not simply a matter of determination or providing a quality product as one might suspect. More often, success is determined by those start up companies that have the most money to begin with. A company or business wiht signifcant financial backing is more likely to weather out economic downturns, poor executive or marketing decisions, and a host of other turbulences pertinent to running a business. Businesses need capital to hire top employees and executives, to make significant investments in infrastructure, and to obtain high quality products and materials. To have a chance in the highly competietive financial markets of modern times, businesses can rarely succeed without the cash flow upfront. For example, Virgin Atlantic is now a multi-faceted corporation dealing with music sales and merchandising, phone contracts, and even air (and potentially space) travel. It is very unlikely that so many different sectors could ahve been successfully tapped into by one company without the signifcant financial backing of its owner and CEO, billionaire Sir Richard Branson. Much of the money he made earlier in his career was used to fuel the further investments and business decisions which resulted in even more profit revenue for the man and his international company. This example as well as many other highlight the important of deep pockets, or at least financial security, early on in the process of creating a successful business.

 

However, there are of course exceptions to every rule, and there are certainly some businesses which became extraordinarily successful despite arising from modest beginnings. In the 1970s and 80s, two graduate students, both engineers and entrepeneurs, created a prototype in their garage which served the become beginnings of what now is the extremely profitable Apple corporation. Steve Wosniack and Steve Jobs, who were self-proclaimed near broke, had the ingenituity and intelligence to create the first compact personal computer almost from scratch. The inspiring example of Apple's humble beginnings shows that there are select cases where a product is of such signifance and so revolutionary that it can make a business successful without much or any significant capital investments to begin with.

 

In conclusion, when economists identify large-scale trends and statistics about successful business and entrepeneurs, the findings are quite pessimistic, with few very few business surviving past their first two years and even fewer staying profitable for long periods of time. WHat is undeniable is the signifcant headstart and advantage that companies which already have some financial capital to rely on and invest with have. It is no coincidence that founders of successful companies are often already very wealthy to begin with, such as the aforementioned Sir Richard Branson, or more recently, Twitter co-founder/CEO Alex Essman. Having this wealth to utilize and fall back on allows for more room for error and for more time to succesfully implement business designs. However, there are some rarer cases where a product or business model is so innovative that it defies many economist's predictions and can spearhead a company towards financial success. Only when a company's product or service is uniquely creative and innovative can the business make money without money to begin with. This caliber of ingenuity is rare but not unheard of, and can be witnessed in companies such as Apple, as well as Facebook. In these select cases, an idea may simply be strong enough on its own that no significant start up money is needed for success. Such situations are the exception to the rule though, and ultimatley potential business owners would be wise to have a suitable amount of money to begin with before embarking on the risky journey that is running a modern business.

[jcbarnes]

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.

 

 

The established free market model employed by capitalist society is predicated upon the exchange of goods and services. In order to facilitate this system, monetary currency is used to remove the need for a direct barter system. National currencies are based upon established federal reserves of valued commodities, such as the United States' gold reserve in Fort Knox. In this way, transactions revolving around this currency is still based on tangible goods, where the money serves to act as a representation of value. Accordingly, business is based upon a single goal: to maximize the ratio of currency obtained to currency spent. This goal necessitates that businesses acquire commodities to provide to the customer in exchange for money, and it logically follows that the acquisition of commodities requires money.

 

Yet the original ideals of capitalism, where a working man could make his own fortune, suggest that it may be possible to make money without having money in the first place. In business, every transaction involving the exchange of currency will either result in a net gain of currency by one party, with a corresponding net loss of currency by the other, or no net change. The former is where fortunes are made. If every transaction for a businessman results in a net gain, one can easily follow that the amount of money gained should steadily increase. In order to start from a net zero, the first transaction, where the businessman has no starting capital, must involve the exchange of a good that either has no cost to the businessman, or through a service that the businessman can provide at no cost to himself.

 

But for every story where a man starts from nothing to build an empire of riches, there are ten more stories of those who tried and failed. This returns to the nature of capitalism; for one to gain, another must lose. Being that there is only a finite amount of currency available at any one point in time, it is fairly obvious that only some may profit in the world of business. Through the trends of the business world, it becomes abundantly clear that those who profit are those who have the most desired commodities. Creating a desired commodity, be it tangible good or service, requires forethought, effort and a little bit of luck. For the businessman who has none of these, it may be necessary to pay others who do have these traits to create the commodity for him. In such a case, he would need money to make money.

[RaymondPrep101]

kylamonkey

 

Many businesses require a financial outlay word choice 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.

This example is fine. It is on the simple side but it works.

 

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.

Same as before. This example is fine. It is on the simple side but it works.

 

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. I'm not sure why you add more examples here. 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!

This discussion does not address the resolution task: Discuss what you think determines when it takes money to make money in business and when it does not.

 

Overall Mark: 2.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a M)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is not addressed.

Depth: 2.5 Ideas are a bit too simple and lack depth.

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

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.

You can use first person but it is generally not recommended. You want your examples to be real life examples that have more depth and personal examples lack that.

 

-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.

These types of phrases and sayings are best used for the introduction or the conclusion. I don't find them to be particularly effective in the middle of a discussion.

 

-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.

Spelling counts. I haven't written the MCAT in about 4 years. There was no spell checker then. There is no spell checker now as far as I know.

 

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

Dashes are fine but there is a tendency for people to use them improperly and their usage often results in run-on sentences.

You can use exclamation points if you want. However, I personally don't like exclamation marks for this kind of formal essay.

 

-Are UK/Canadian spellings OK?

I'd assume so. I don't have a definite answer for you on this one.

 

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

There is a computer essay marking software that will be one of your markers. I have done a little bit of reading on this kind of software. They use sample essays with different scores from writers and feed that information into the software. The software can take your essay and break it down to dozens of variables (average word length, word count, key words, etc.). Then it uses an algorithm to assign a grade. It is suppose to be pretty accurate. The exact workings of it is of course proprietary information.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by KatMatt

 

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. This is a massive run-on sentence. Quite simply, he wouldn’t be making the income he is today without a previous monetary investment.

This is fine. Personal examples have less depth than national or international examples. For the writing sample, it is better to use examples that have more depth.

 

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!

This is a much better example. 2-3 more points of elaboration and development would have made it excellent.

 

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.

This discussion does not address the resolution task: Discuss what you think determines when it takes money to make money in business and when it does not.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is not addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

DaKirbster

 

The primary goal of business is to make money. Generally, good and services are provided to a customer in exchange for money. In order for a business to provide these goods and services, they must have first made their product and marketed it to the public, which costs money. This is why most businesses require investors to loan them money to start up their business; it takes money to make money. This is well-exemplified by Apple, an extremely successful technology company. Apple is best known for its Mac computers and iPod mp3 players, which are widely distributed across the world. However, Apple required a large monetary boost to get it where it is today. It has put a lot of money into the development of its products in order to keep them top-of-the-line, in order to remain desirable to consumers so that they will continue to purchase them. Similarly, they have put much money into marketing and advertising to get their product known to the public. Apple's large preliminary input of money into development and marketing was necessary for the vast profits it gains today.

Excellent.

 

However, there are some cases wherein money is not required to make money. This is especially applicable in labour-intensive businesses, where the customer is paying for a person's time or expertise rather than a product. This should be saved for the resolution paragraph. For example, many high school or university students create small gardening businesses to make money. This consists of the students going to a customer's home and performing various gardening duties, such as mowing the lawn or tending to the weeds. This usually requires little to no money from the student, as the tools are provided by the customer; instead, the student is exchanging their time and work in exchange for payment. The student will likely be able to return to the customer when they need more work done This needs to be written the other way around., and they may even refer them to other potential customers. In this scenario, money is not required for the business to make money.

This is okay but lacks depth.

 

What determines whether it takes money for a business to make money depends on if the business is product or labour based. Excellent. A company selling a product will usually require an investment, whereas a labour-intensive business often will not. In the first example, Apple is selling a product to its customers, and thus requires money for marketing and development of the product in order to make money. In the gardening business example, the student is selling his time to the customers rather than a product, and thus does not need a monetary investment in order to make money. Ultimately, all business require an investment of some sort in order to thrive, be it in the form of time or money; perhaps this is where the adage 'time is money' came to be.

Excellent

Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 5 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is completely addressed.

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

medoc

 

In order to make money, business owners begin with investing money into their businesses. People want to run a business to make money but in order to make money, they first need to have money. Therefore, many consider to begin grammara business when they have some money saved up to invest in their business. If a business owner is in need of money but want to start a business, then they approach the banks to apply for loans. Using the money loaned from the banks or saved throughout many years, business owners can buy goods and items they need to start their businesses. The past few sentences are not directly related to addressing the writing task. For example, a well-trained chef wants to open his own restaurant. Before he opens his restaurant, he needs to buy equipments, furnitures and other things needed by investing money into his business. Throughout the course of operating his restaurant, he will start gaining back what he has invested at the start of his business. This is often the case with running a business, since business owners need to invest money at first to gain money back afterwards.

This example is okay. However, it lacks depth.

 

Although some businesses need money to make money, not all businesses need money to make money. Revise this to improve flow. If the owner does not need to buy items to run their business, then money does not have to be invested to run the business. In this case, the owner of the business is offering some sort of service to make money rather than selling goods to make money. For instance, a counselling service that charges an hourly rate for counselling troubled relationships will not need money to run their business. The counsellors run their business from the income earned from the clients and not by selling specific items. The counsellors offer services through what they have got training in school awkward phrasing and do not need additional money be invested in to operate their businesses. A business that mainly focuses on providing services rather than selling items to make profit would not necessarily need to invest money to make money. This is better reserved for the resolution paragraph.

Similar to earlier, it is okay but lacks depth.

 

It is clear that whether money needs to be invested to make money depends mainly on what the business is offering to their clients. This is good, but you need to be specific (goods vs. services). If an initial investment is needed, as in the case of running a store then money is needed to buy the items at first and to sell them to gain profit later on. Without money, items needed to buy goods ?? cannot be purchased and money cannot be made by the business. In the case of offering service, money is not necessarily by "not necessarily" you weaken the strength of your argument. needed to run their business since they gain profit by providing the service from using the knowledge they have from completing programs in school. Money is the main focus for business owners and it can be earned either by investing money or not depending on what the business has to offer.

This is very good. It would have been excellent if the principle was stated at the very beginning.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is well addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

donna71

 

In business it takes money in order to generate profit or make money. When starting up a new company or business, the entrepreneur must have the necessary resources in order to build and establish his or her business. For instance, the coffee shop founder of Tim Hortons could not have started a cafe without the financial resources necessary to buy a building, pay for the required restaurant equipment and furniture, and compensate the personnel to run his cafe. Therefore before Tim Hortons restaurant could begin to generate revenue from the sale of coffee and other foods, the owner must invest a great deal of money into the business prior to seeing any net gains. When starting up a company such as a restaurant, a great deal of money is required before profit may be earned.

This example is good. However, there are two parts to the task that need to be fulfilled. You establish here that it took money to start Tim Hortons, but you do not focus on Tim Hortons making money.

On the other hand, not all businesses initially require money in order to make a financial profit. An example to exemplify this would be to look at successful Youtube partners who create a business out of video-making and who generate millions of views per video uploaded. NigaHiga is a comedian and one of the top most subscribed and viewed channels on Youtube. Each video uploaded to the site is compensated in the thousands from companies that pay for advertising with Youtube. Other than requiring a video camera and computer, NigaHiga's business in Youtube can be said to have begun with relatively little to no financial investment. Therefore online businesses that provide the service of entertainment require little to no money in order to make money. This last sentence is better saved for your resolution paragraph.

This example is excellent.

 

Businesses require a great deal of effort and time and some entrepreneurs find themselves facing the need to have a great deal of financial resources while others do not. What determines whether or not businesses initially require money in order to make money is dependent upon whether the services/goods offered are tangible or intangible. Excellent. In the case of a restaurant that offers food services and dining space, a great deal of financial resources is required to pay for such tangible commodities. A little bit more elaboration would be nice. On the other hand where the services, such as entertainment, offered are intangible fewer resources are required on the part of the business owner whose services are contingent upon the consumer to have the necessary resources to enjoy or consume such services. Regardless of how a business is started, entrepreneurs must find ways to creatively adapt to the evolving trends and needs of society.

Excellent.

 

Well done. This would have been an S or T if there was a sentence or two about Tim Hortons making money included in your supporting paragraph.

 

Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is completely addressed.

Depth: 5

Focus and coherence: 5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5 Be careful of run-on sentences especially where you use semi-colons.

[RaymondPrep101]

matgn03

Successfully starting a business is a diffucult endeavor, with as few as 1 in 10 businesses surviving long enough to become profitable. Becoming one of the select few survivors is not simply a matter of determination or providing a quality product as one might suspect. More often, success is determined by those start up companies that have the most money to begin with. A company or business wiht signifcant financial backing is more likely to weather out economic downturns, poor executive or marketing decisions, and a host of other turbulences pertinent to running a business. Businesses need capital to hire top employees and executives, to make significant investments in infrastructure, and to obtain high quality products and materials. To have a chance in the highly competietive financial markets of modern times, businesses can rarely succeed without the cash flow upfront. These points would be excellent if discussed within the context of your example. As it stands, it takes you too long to get to the discussion of your example. Discussing these points in a vacuum is less effective than incorporating them into your example. For example, Virgin Atlantic is now a multi-faceted corporation dealing with music sales and merchandising, phone contracts, and even air (and potentially space) travel. It is very unlikely that so many different sectors could ahve been successfully tapped into by one company without the signifcant financial backing of its owner and CEO, billionaire Sir Richard Branson. Much of the money he made earlier in his career was used to fuel the further investments and business decisions which resulted in even more profit revenue for the man and his international company. This example as well as many other highlight the important of deep pockets, or at least financial security, early on in the process of creating a successful business.

This is well done. It would have been excellent if the points you made earlier were incorporated into your example.

 

However, there are of course exceptions to every rule, and there are certainly some businesses which became extraordinarily successful despite arising from modest beginnings. In the 1970s and 80s, two graduate students, both engineers and entrepeneurs, created a prototype in their garage which served the become grammar beginnings of what now is the extremely profitable Apple corporation. Steve Wosniack and Steve Jobs, who were self-proclaimed near broke, had the ingenituity and intelligence to create the first compact personal computer almost from scratch. The inspiring example of Apple's humble beginnings shows that there are select cases where a product is of such signifance and so revolutionary that it can make a business successful without much or any significant capital investments to begin with. This is better saved for the resolution paragraph.

Well done. Could use one or two more supporting details.

 

In conclusion, when economists identify large-scale trends and statistics about successful business and entrepeneurs, the findings are quite pessimistic, with few very few business surviving past their first two years and even fewer staying profitable for long periods of time. This is somewhat off-topic. WHat is undeniable is the signifcant headstart and advantage that companies which already have some financial capital to rely on and invest with have. It is no coincidence that founders of successful companies are often already very wealthy to begin with, such as the aforementioned Sir Richard Branson, or more recently, Twitter co-founder/CEO Alex Essman. Having this wealth to utilize and fall back on allows for more room for error and for more time to succesfully implement business designs. However, there are some rarer cases where a product or business model is so innovative that it defies many economist's predictions and can spearhead a company towards financial success. Only when a company's product or service is uniquely creative and innovative can the business make money without money to begin with. This caliber of ingenuity is rare but not unheard of, and can be witnessed in companies such as Apple, as well as Facebook. In these select cases, an idea may simply be strong enough on its own that no significant start up money is needed for success. Such situations are the exception to the rule though, and ultimatley potential business owners would be wise to have a suitable amount of money to begin with before embarking on the risky journey that is running a modern business.

The resolution principle of whether a product is innovative/unique is a strong one. However, you do not state this principle at the beginning of your resolution paragraph. Furthermore, you do not apply it to your first example. The application to your second example is excellent but without application to the supporting example, the resolution task is not addressed.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[RaymondPrep101]

jcbarnes

 

The established free market model employed by capitalist society is predicated upon the exchange of goods and services. In order to facilitate this system, monetary currency is used to remove the need for a direct barter system. National currencies are based upon established federal reserves of valued commodities, such as the United States' gold reserve in Fort Knox. In this way, transactions revolving around this currency is still based on tangible goods, where the money serves to act as a representation of value. The discussion so far is off-topic and not directly related to addressing the writing task. Accordingly, business is based upon a single goal: to maximize the ratio of currency obtained to currency spent. This goal necessitates that businesses acquire commodities to provide to the customer in exchange for money, and it logically follows that the acquisition of commodities requires money.

This discussion is not focused on addressing the writing task. You should also use a specific example to address the writing task.

 

Yet the original ideals of capitalism, where a working man could make his own fortune, suggest that it may be possible to make money without having money in the first place. In business, every transaction involving the exchange of currency will either result in a net gain of currency by one party, with a corresponding net loss of currency by the other, or no net change. The former is where fortunes are made. If every transaction for a businessman results in a net gain, one can easily follow that the amount of money gained should steadily increase. In order to start from a net zero, the first transaction, where the businessman has no starting capital, must involve the exchange of a good that either has no cost to the businessman, or through a service that the businessman can provide at no cost to himself.

Again, this discussion is too abstract. You want concrete and focused arguments that are more tangible.

 

But for every story where a man starts from nothing to build an empire of riches, there are ten more stories of those who tried and failed. This returns to the nature of capitalism; for one to gain, another must lose. Being that there is only a finite amount of currency available at any one point in time, it is fairly obvious that only some may profit in the world of business. Through the trends of the business world, it becomes abundantly clear that those who profit are those who have the most desired commodities. Creating a desired commodity, be it tangible good or service, requires forethought, effort and a little bit of luck. For the businessman who has none of these, it may be necessary to pay others who do have these traits to create the commodity for him. In such a case, he would need money to make money.

This discussion is almost entirely off-topic and not directed at addressing the writing task.

 

I would recommend starting from basics. It is clear that you have the writing skills and knowledge but are inexperienced with the specific format and requirements of the writing sample essay.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 1

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

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

 

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

 

Instructions

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

 

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

 

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

 

Deadline

11:59pm Monday, March 26.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Tuesday, March 27.

[jcbarnes]

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

 

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

 

Effective critiques of socioeconomic hierarchy and structure are often bogged down by the ad hominem attacks. In order to promote change, logical and impersonal arguments should be presented as reasons for revolution, rather than assaults on individuals who personify the problems at hand. For example, the corruption that ran rampant and unchecked throughout the Enron executive staff, and the subsequent devastating repercussions on both the workers and the stock market, can be identified as a strong motive for changing the laws governing transparency in the corporate sector. In contrast, lambasting Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron, for being greedy and immoral neither identifies a problem to be resolved nor a resolution for current issues. Therefore, social criticism should generally be directed at issues rather than individuals.

 

However, there are cases in which criticism of the individual can be highly effective. In October of 2011, Lamar Smith proposed the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) to the United States House of Congress. This act, which would strongly enforce copyright laws that have been largely flouted on the internet, had a number of far-reaching implications. By granting corporations the ability to temporarily shut down websites at will, regardless of content, the balance of power shifted away from an individual's freedom of speech and towards a company's copyright. In response, a great amount of backlash was generated. A number of congressmen identified Smith's previous ties to the Recording Industry Association of America, and questioned his expertise in designing such a piece of legislation. It was suggested that Smith's familiarity with the structure and intricacies of the internet were not sufficient to effectively target copyright violation. By doing so, the validity of SOPA was compromised, and this legislation was eventually discarded.

 

It becomes clear then that the target of social criticism may change depending on the circumstances. As a general rule, criticism should be leveraged in such a way that social change may come into effect. Presenting valid and coherent arguments against clear issues is often highly effective, as these general critiques can be readily adapted to finding solutions for the problems at hand. Directing ire against individuals will depend on what the outcome of the critique will be: if a personal attack only serves to besmirch the person's reputation, then the criticism becomes a pointless emotional exercise. However, if the individual in question stands in a position to directly affect the direction of the social order, then criticism of specific faults or shortcomings is an effective, and possibly necessary, way to quickly make a point.

[KatMatt]

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

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

 

 

It is sometimes necessary to criticize someone in order for him or her to achieve personal and/or professional growth. However, there is a difference between criticizing someone on an individual level, and directing criticism towards an issue or behavior. Reputable art schools are notorious for teaching methods that incorporate group critiques of a person’s artwork and ideas. For example, students at Emily Carr School of Art and Design in Vancouver, Canada must present their concepts and final artwork to a group of their peers and their teacher. After the presentation, these people provide feedback to the student: sometimes this feedback is positive, but often it is negative. Further, the feedback is often directed at the individual’s ideas and concepts, both of which are distinctly personal and likely inseparable from their self-concept as an individual. In this example and pedagogical approach, criticisms are directed at individuals in order to help artists improve their depth of thinking.

 

In contrast, discussions around politics often focus on ideas, rather than individuals. I am able to disagree with and criticize my husband’s opinion on union rights, while at the same time keeping his opinion separate from his worth and identity as an individual. Similarly, many politicians hold spirited debate in the Canadian House of Commons over issues tied to their individual or party ideology, without resorting to personally attacking or criticizing members of the other party. An excellent recent example of this is the outpouring of respect and admiration for Jack Layton, the recently deceased leader of Canada’s NDP party. While Mr. Layton’s opinions and platforms were often quite contrary to those of the ruling conservative party, many members of the conservative party expressed their admiration for Mr. Layton as an individual and committed politician upon his death. Indeed, they were able to separate him from his political opinions and ideology.

 

For criticism to be effective, it’s important to consider the end goal. Often, the goal is to help an individual improve their skill or competency in some way or another. For example, criticism offered to artists, writers, budding academics, or professionals in the workplace should focus on their individual abilities and weaknesses to help them improve. On the other hand, criticism is not always focused on helping someone to improve, and is often related to issues that are subjective or relative. In these instances, it is more appropriate to direct the criticism towards the issue, rather than the individual. For example, criticizing a person’s moral beliefs is unlikely to change their beliefs, and it’s impossible to say whether criticism would “improve” their moral beliefs, as this is a relative and subjective concept. Thus, it’s important to consider the target of your criticism, whether it be an individual or issue, within the context of the situation at hand and your end goal.

[wstntime]

Sorry, I'm on my iPhone.

 

Analysis of a particular social structure, and identifying negative components, creates a platform from which to drive structural change. These structural criticisms are effective when they lead to changes in a current structure which are more reflective of the morals and values of the citizens of that society. Consider the social issue of gay rights in Canada. As recently as the 1990's, public sentiment was in favor of limiting the rights of gay and lesbian couples in Canada. This minority group did not reap the spousal benefits of heterosexual married or common-law couples couples. Aside from that, these differences violated the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. By the mid-2000's, social criticism on the issue had swayed public opinion in favor of equality for this minority group. The civil marriage act in 2005 allowed legalized marriage of gay and lesbian couples, which brought the social structure around this issue more in line with public sentiment.

On the other hand, social criticism directed towards an individual may also be effective. In the early 1990's, criticism escalated regarding the creation of a cult-like social unit by David Koresh in Waco, Texas. Koresh had created a flawed structure that violated American law, such as statutory rape, child abuse, and polygamy, headed by a dictatorship that brain-washed members of the social unit to live by his own morals and principles. This led to the 'Waco Seige' in 1993 that culminated in the dismantling of the group and the imposing of stiff penalties to senior members, including the leader Koresh. In this case, criticism effectively led to the destruction of a flawed social unit that breached the laws and ethics of American society.

These examples show that criticisms directed toward issues or individuals can be effective, but the determining factor in where these criticisms should be directed is whether or not it has an effect on society as a whole or whether it is unique to an individual or small group within that society. In the case of gay rights in Canada, criticisms that led to changes in laws governing same sex marriage can be considered effective because the result reflected the change in public opinion around the issue. In the case of the Waco Seige, criticisms of the flawed social structure within the isolated group, led to appropriate punishment of members of the group, and can also be considered effective because it reflected public sentiment around the existence of such a social unit within American society. There is often a disconnect between the social behavior of an individual or small social group and the social interactions of the society as a whole, and this must be considered when directing social criticisms.

[matgn03]

An important mantra which debators know well is to "attack ideas, not people". Logical dissection and analysis of ideas is what most likely persuades the educated listener towards a cause or social issue, not atacks on individual's character or past. In fact, in the modern day and age of poitical correctness, pundits or other critics who attack individuals specifically often find themsevles in hot water and doing disservice to the cause they may have been promoting. Consider the recent case of WBNY Radio Talk SHow host Rush Limbaugh, who in his caustic stance against women's contraceptive rights, verbally attacked contraception supporter and college student Sandra Fluke. Limbaugh, on his live radio show listened to by over 50,000 Americans a day, called Fluke a "slut", promopting mass outrage by women and by advertizers of RUsh. By attacking an individual involved with the issue rather than the issue itself, Limbaugh caused a media firestorm and ended up losing over half of his advertisers. Limbaugh would have been much more effective in getting people to consider and agree with his social criticism of healthcare-funded women's contraceptives if he had stuck to attacking the social issue itself.

 

However, there are some exceptions, especially recently with the advent of the Internet and Youtube in particular, whereby social critics have managed to promote a cause extremely well by focusing entirely on individuals. For instance, the recent "Koni 2012" viral video showed a way in which a figurehead, Joseph Koni, of the terrorizing Liberation Army in Sudan, can be used as asymbol for the larger cause in general. By focusing energy and highlighting the atrocities committed by Koni over 20 years, such a forcing child soldiers to carry guns and kill, raid villages and murder indisicrimantely, the short film''s activist makers strongly create a message against the man himself but also the larger issue of violence in Africa. Many of the film's shots are pictures of individual members of the terrorist army or equally poginantly, pictures of innocent African victims. With millions of views and supporters, the movie has made it so that Koni is now a marked man worldwide and has been forced to flee Sudan and hide. In this case, it is clear that showcasing an indiviudal's role in a key social issue can actually be used to affect social change as well.

 

Ultimately what determines whether social issue should be directed at issues or individuals is a matter of scale. Large scale social issues of our time, such as gay marriage or contraception rights are best attacked as ideas and not towards select people involved on either side of the debate. When aforementioned Rush Limbaugh defamed a supporter of the opposing case, he did considerable collateral damage and did not affectively promote his point of view. A large scale issue such as contraception or government-mandated healthcare need to be criticized in a rational and reason-based way. However, when social cirticism is directed at a very specific, smaller scale issues such as Koni's lone terrorist militant group, then using focused images of the group's leader can be very effective in stirring up emotion and support for the cause. In the ever changing media and technological landscape of the day, social critics will undoubtedly find new ways to spread their meassage, innovate, and evolve with the times.

[donna71]

Throughout history and in modern day, all societies face a plethora of different social issues. To be effective at eradicating or resolving such problems involves directing criticism at the issues and not at particular individuals; this is particularly so if a larger mass of individuals or populations of people are affected. For instance, in the 1950s America faced great social turmoil when it came to civil rights for Black Americans, particularly in the South. Many Black Americans faced discrimination and they were segregated into separate schools and institutions. Furthermore in the public sector, Black Americans may not even sit in the white-designated sections of public transit buses. To target and penalize individuals responsible for each specific inequality directed at each Black American would have been impractical as the discriminatory attitudes and behaviours were a social phenomenon. Therefore the effective way in which to collectively address the problem would be to target the general phenomenon of racial attitudes and behaviours rather than specific individuals.

 

On the other hand, that is not to say that effective social criticism is never directed at individuals rather than issues. If we look at the example with Trayvon Martin, the teenager who was recently shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a community patroller, it can be argued that the case would have evaded the nation's attention and justice would not have been served had Martin's parents failed to speak up. Furthermore, it could be said that the police chief is responsible for the lack of accountability and thoroughness in handling such a serious crime. Therefore it is imperative to criticise individuals, such as the chief, for failing to adequately scrutinize and address each case presented to the department rather than blindly blame racism or politics to effect change to the handling of crime cases.

 

It is important for individuals in a society to voice their opinions and advocate for social change where it is necessary. For social criticism to be effective in instigating change, it may be directed at general issues and sometimes it is directed at specific individuals. What determines whether or not the finger should point to issues or individuals is dependent upon the number of individuals affected by and responsible for the problem. Should a large number of people, such as Black Americans, be affected by another large number of people such as Caucasian Americans, then the social issues must be highlighted such as attitudes and behaviours as all cases have this common theme. However should a small number of people are affected by and are responsible for a problem, then the social criticism is directed at the individual, since these cases are more isolated and/or specific. Regardless of where the criticism is to be directed at, it is imperative to listen to all of the social voices presenting opinions that are directed at bettering society for the good.

[RaymondPrep101]

jcbarnes

 

Effective critiques of socioeconomic hierarchy and structure are often bogged down by the ad hominem attacks. In order to promote change, logical and impersonal arguments should be presented as reasons for revolution, rather than assaults on individuals who personify the problems at hand. For example, the corruption that ran rampant and unchecked throughout the Enron executive staff, and the subsequent devastating repercussions on both the workers and the stock market, can be identified as a strong motive for changing the laws governing transparency in the corporate sector. In contrast, lambasting Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron, for being greedy and immoral neither identifies a problem to be resolved nor a resolution for current issues. Therefore, social criticism should generally be directed at issues rather than individuals.

This example could work but as an argument it is too sparse. You need more details and elaboration.

 

However, there are cases in which criticism of the individual can be highly effective. In October of 2011, Lamar Smith proposed the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) to the United States House of Congress. This act, which would strongly enforce copyright laws that have been largely flouted on the internet, had a number of far-reaching implications. By granting corporations the ability to temporarily shut down websites at will, regardless of content this is not exactly accurate because it isn't the corporations themselves that are shutting websites down, the balance of power shifted away from an individual's freedom of speech and towards a company's copyright. In response, a great amount of backlash was generated. A number of congressmen identified Smith's previous ties to the Recording Industry Association of America, and questioned his expertise in designing such a piece of legislation. It was suggested that Smith's familiarity with the structure and intricacies of the internet were not sufficient to effectively target copyright violation. By doing so, the validity of SOPA was compromised, and this legislation was eventually discarded.

This argument is more developed than the last and it does work. However, the argument is questionable. I'm not sure that this was the reason why the bill was dismantled. I also don't think that the great backlash was targeted at Mr.Smith primarily. This is the risk of using examples that the marker may be familiar with. If they disagree with you, it could affect the marking.

 

It becomes clear then that the target of social criticism may change depending on the circumstances. This is not a good paraphrasing of the resolution task. As a general rule, criticism should be leveraged in such a way that social change may come into effect. This is an ambiguous/vague resolution principle and does not provide clear conditions. It is also not very useful because social criticism directed at either issue or individuals in any case could bring about social change. Presenting valid and coherent arguments against clear issues is often highly effective, as these general critiques can be readily adapted to finding solutions for the problems at hand. Directing ire against individuals will depend on what the outcome of the critique will be: if a personal attack only serves to besmirch the person's reputation, then the criticism becomes a pointless emotional exercise. However, if the individual in question stands in a position to directly affect the direction of the social order this idea could have been developed into a resolution principle, then criticism of specific faults or shortcomings is an effective, and possibly necessary, way to quickly make a point.

Overall, there is no clear separation of the two examples which is your goal in the resolution paragraph.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[jcbarnes]

jcbarnes

 

It becomes clear then that the target of social criticism may change depending on the circumstances. This is not a good paraphrasing of the resolution task. As a general rule, criticism should be leveraged in such a way that social change may come into effect. This is an ambiguous/vague resolution principle and does not provide clear conditions. It is also not very useful because social criticism directed at either issue or individuals in any case could bring about social change. [/color]

 

Hi Raymond, just wondering if you could provide a little more elaboration on this comment. If my proposed resolution principle (to expand upon it) is:

 

"The efficacy of criticism levied upon either individuals or issues is dependent upon whether it will result in a change of policy. Arguments against specific people should be reserved for cases in which criticism of the individual will affect the outcome of the issue at hand."

 

Would it still be too vague? And my argument would remain vague in its overall direction in that it would change on a case-to-case basis, but as an overarching resolution, it can be applied to every situation; is this acceptable?

[Zabooomafooo]

Drastic action is sometimes the only way to bring about political change.

 

Describe a specific situation in which drastic action might not be the only way to bring about political change. Discuss what you think determines when drastic action is the only way to bring about political change and when it is not.

 

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

 

As times change, societies evolve. However, the road that a society goes down to make a certain change is sometimes a bumpy one. The statement means that sometimes, the only way to change government policy is to resort to extreme actions. Before "extreme actions" can be defined, the "normal" way of making political change must be outlined. Quite simply, most political changes occur from large numbers of people voting for a politician to pledges to make that change. Thus, extreme actions could be considered anything outside of this, like protesting, letter-writing campaigns, or even violent revolution in some cases. The statement is correct when applied to events such as the civil rights movement or the woman's suffrage movement.

 

However the statement isn't always correct. The "normal" way of bringing about political change is usually responsible for most modifications to government policy in stable countries. For example, Canada in the last fifty years has seen more government policy change than in rest of the entire country's history. People have learned in the last generation or so that they can acquire free handouts from the government by voting for politicians who promise to do so by borrowing money from other countries and taxing businesses and the affluent. Canadians now receive healthcare, pensions, welfare cheques, and subsidized post-secondary education from their government by voting this way. I would argue that a major paradigm shift in the role of government occured in the 1900's in Canada - a point at which Canadians began to see their government as an entity that looks after them, rather than an entity that simply provides protection. And this shift, that is essentially the rise of socialism, took place not through letter-writing campaigns or violent revolution, but simply because politicians realized that the best strategy for getting elected was to buy people's votes with their own money (and after people started demanding this). It's as if as though this was an inevitability built in to our democratic system. And thus drastic action is not always required to bring about political change.

 

So when is drastic action required for political change? Part of it has to do with the amount of resistance society initially has to the change. Much of this resistance comes from how disagreeable the majority of people find the changes to be. The civil rights movement saw much opposition from the white majority living in the United States at the time. Black civil rights activists could not hope to make change by simply voting for politicians who agreed to do so, because such a politician would never be elected. Thus, civil rights activists had no choice but to resort to public demonstrations and civil disobedience. The same can be said about the women's suffrage movement. The establishment at the time was composed of almost entirely men who would never vote to dilute their own power by giving women the vote. Once again, drastic measures had to be taken. Contrarily, the rise of socialist government policy in Canada was not because of anybody's drastic actions. In fact, it was not because of the deliberate action of anybody at all. People naturally have the tendency towards hedonism - to get as much free stuff as possible. The tendency for people to vote for politicians who said they could satisfy that urge was natural for them. It is an inherent part of the democratic system to allow for the rise of socialism, if left unchecked. So to summarize, drastic action is required for political change if there is a good deal of resistance to the change in society.

[RaymondPrep101]

KatMatt

 

It is sometimes necessary to criticize someone in order for him or her to achieve personal and/or professional growth. However, there is a difference between criticizing someone on an individual level, and directing criticism towards an issue or behavior. Reputable art schools are notorious for teaching methods that incorporate group critiques of a person’s artwork and ideas. For example, students at Emily Carr School of Art and Design in Vancouver, Canada must present their concepts and final artwork to a group of their peers and their teacher. After the presentation, these people provide feedback to the student: sometimes this feedback is positive, but often it is negative. Further, the feedback is often directed at the individual’s ideas and concepts, both of which are distinctly personal and likely inseparable from their self-concept as an individual. In this example and pedagogical approach, criticisms are directed at individuals in order to help artists improve their depth of thinking. This is an odd conclusion considering that you described this initially as a notorious teaching method.

This is not what the prompt is looking for. The prompt is about social criticism. It is looking for discussion of societal issues.

You should address the writing tasks in order because that is the most logical way to address the writing prompt and is what the marker will be expecting. Here, you address the refuting task before the supporting task.

 

In contrast, discussions around politics often focus on ideas, rather than individuals. I am able to disagree with and criticize my husband’s opinion on union rights, while at the same time keeping his opinion separate from his worth and identity as an individual. Similarly, many politicians hold spirited debate in the Canadian House of Commons over issues tied to their individual or party ideology, without resorting to personally attacking or criticizing members of the other party. An excellent recent example of this is the outpouring of respect and admiration for Jack Layton, the recently deceased leader of Canada’s NDP party. While Mr. Layton’s opinions and platforms were often quite contrary to those of the ruling conservative party, many members of the conservative party expressed their admiration for Mr. Layton as an individual and committed politician upon his death. Indeed, they were able to separate him from his political opinions and ideology.

You started off on the right track but your example doesn't work because again it is not about social criticism and issues.

 

For criticism to be effective, it’s important to consider the end goal. Often, the goal is to help an individual improve their skill or competency in some way or another. For example, criticism offered to artists, writers, budding academics, or professionals in the workplace should focus on their individual abilities and weaknesses to help them improve. On the other hand, criticism is not always focused on helping someone to improve, and is often related to issues that are subjective or relative. In these instances, it is more appropriate to direct the criticism towards the issue, rather than the individual. For example, criticizing a person’s moral beliefs is unlikely to change their beliefs, and it’s impossible to say whether criticism would “improve” their moral beliefs, as this is a relative and subjective concept. Thus, it’s important to consider the target of your criticism, whether it be an individual or issue, within the context of the situation at hand and your end goal.

This is off-topic. The essay discussion is focused on criticism in general. That is not what the prompt is looking for. The prompt is about social criticism and societal issues.

 

Before writing, make sure that the nature and essence of the prompt is understood before proceeding. If the essay goes a bit off-topic, it will remain off-topic and none of the tasks will be addressed.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1 None of the tasks are addressed because the point of the prompt is missed.

[RaymondPrep101]

durabol

 

Analysis of a particular social structure, and identifying negative components, creates a platform from which to drive structural change. These structural criticisms are effective when they lead to changes in a current structure which are more reflective of the morals and values of the citizens of that society. Consider the social issue of gay rights in Canada. As recently as the 1990's, public sentiment was in favor of limiting the rights of gay and lesbian couples in Canada. This minority group did not reap the spousal benefits of heterosexual married or common-law couples couples. Aside from that, these differences violated the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. By the mid-2000's, social criticism on the issue had swayed public opinion in favor of equality for this minority group. The civil marriage act in 2005 allowed legalized marriage of gay and lesbian couples, which brought the social structure around this issue more in line with public sentiment.

This example could work but the way it is described is not effective at addressing the task. You need to elaborate more on the social criticism that took place. You also need to discuss why social criticism in this case should be directed at issues rather than at individuals.

 

On the other hand, social criticism directed towards an individual may also be effective. Good. In the early 1990's, criticism escalated regarding the creation of a cult-like social unit by David Koresh in Waco, Texas. Koresh had created a flawed structure awkward word choice that violated American law, such as statutory rape, child abuse, and polygamy, headed by a dictatorship that brain-washed members of the social unit to live by his own morals and principles. You have a bunch of details just jammed in here. Taking one or two points and elaborating on them would have been more effective. This led to the 'Waco Seige' in 1993 that culminated in the dismantling of the group and the imposing of stiff penalties to senior members, including the leader Koresh. In this case, criticism effectively led to the destruction of a flawed social unit that breached the laws and ethics of American society.

This example could work. Again, it is the execution that is lacking. You need to elaborate more on the social criticism that took place. You need to discuss criticism being leveled at individuals rather than the issues.

 

These examples show that criticisms directed toward issues or individuals can be effective, but the determining factor in where these criticisms should be directed is whether or not it has an effect on society as a whole or whether it is unique to an individual or small group within that society. I understand what is being said here but the clarity needs improvement. In the case of gay rights in Canada, criticisms that led to changes in laws governing same sex marriage can be considered effective because the result reflected the change in public opinion around the issue. This is not an application of the resolution principle you just set out. In the case of the Waco Seige, criticisms of the flawed social structure within the isolated group, led to appropriate punishment of members of the group, and can also be considered effective because it reflected public sentiment around the existence of such a social unit within American society. There is often a disconnect between the social behavior of an individual or small social group and the social interactions of the society as a whole, and this must be considered when directing social criticisms.

The principle could have have worked but it needs to be applied more convincingly to the examples. There needs to be a greater contrast created between the two examples.

 

Overall, all of the ideas and examples were good and would have worked. However, the execution of those ideas was the issue in this case.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2 All of the tasks are only weakly addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

matgn03

 

An important mantra which debators know well is to "attack ideas, not people". Good. Logical dissection and analysis of ideas is what most likely persuades the educated listener towards a cause or social issue, not atacks on individual's character or past. In fact, in the modern day and age of poitical correctness, pundits or other critics who attack individuals specifically often find themsevles in hot water and doing disservice to the cause they may have been promoting. Consider the recent case of WBNY Radio Talk SHow host Rush Limbaugh, who in his caustic stance against women's contraceptive rights, verbally attacked contraception supporter and college student Sandra Fluke. Limbaugh, on his live radio show listened to by over 50,000 Americans a day, called Fluke a "slut", promopting mass outrage by women and by advertizers of RUsh. By attacking an individual involved with the issue rather than the issue itself, Limbaugh caused a media firestorm and ended up losing over half of his advertisers. Limbaugh would have been much more effective in getting people to consider and agree with his social criticism of healthcare-funded women's contraceptives if he had stuck to attacking the social issue itself.

Excellent. Although, there were a few spelling mistakes that could have been easily fixed.

 

However, there are some exceptions, especially recently with the advent of the Internet and Youtube in particular, whereby social critics have managed to promote a cause extremely well by focusing entirely on individuals. For instance, the recent "Koni 2012" viral video showed a way in which a figurehead, Joseph Koni, of the terrorizing Liberation Army in Sudan, can be used as asymbol for the larger cause in general. Clarity needs improvement. By focusing energy and highlighting the atrocities committed by Koni over 20 years, such a forcing child soldiers to carry guns and kill, raid villages and murder indisicrimantely, the short film''s activist makers strongly create a message against the man himself but also the larger issue of violence in Africa. Many of the film's shots are pictures of individual members of the terrorist army or equally poginantly, pictures of innocent African victims. With millions of views and supporters, the movie has made it so that Koni is now a marked man worldwide and has been forced to flee Sudan and hide. In this case, it is clear that showcasing an indiviudal's role in a key social issue can actually be used to affect social change as well.

This is very well done. It would have been excellent if you explained why in this case attacking the individual is more effective than social criticism of the issue.

 

Ultimately what determines whether social issue criticism not issue should be directed at issues or individuals is a matter of scale. Large scale social issues of our time, such as gay marriage or contraception rights are best attacked as ideas and not towards select people involved on either side of the debate. When aforementioned Rush Limbaugh defamed a supporter of the opposing case, he did considerable collateral damage and did not affectively promote his point of view. A large scale issue such as contraception or government-mandated healthcare need to be criticized in a rational and reason-based way. However, when social cirticism is directed at a very specific, smaller scale issues such as Koni's lone terrorist militant group, then using focused images of the group's leader can be very effective in stirring up emotion and support for the cause. In the ever changing media and technological landscape of the day, social critics will undoubtedly find new ways to spread their meassage, innovate, and evolve with the times.

Excellent.

 

Overall, well done. It would have been an S if there weren't as many spelling and grammatical mistakes. It would have been a T if you had less spelling/grammar mistakes and if you had the key point in your refuting example.

 

Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 5 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is completely addressed.

Depth: 5

Focus and coherence: 5

Grammar and vocabulary:4