Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback

[xVeronica]

............

[wstntime]

The public's right to information should override the government's need for security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the public's right to information might justifiably not override the government's need for security. Discuss what you think determines when the public's right to information should take precedence over the government's need for security.

 

 

The fundamental principle of a democratic society is that informed citizens provide the foundation to drive socioeconomic policy. A government's responsibility is to provide security to its citizens in the form of basic social security, whereby basic needs of health, education, shelter, social protection, and income related security are being met. A government can provide these basic needs only when it is secure in its ability to govern. However, the security to govern is trumped by the development of socioeconomic policy that reflects the values of the citizens of that society. Consider the ongoing debate in Canada with respect to the development of Pipelines, such as the Northern gateway Pipeline in Bc and Alberta, to ship crude oil from the Alberta oilsands to the BC coast in order to export Canadian crude oil to overseas markets such as China. The debate is centered around the need for Canada to capitalize on its abundant natural resources to drive economic growth from export revenues, which will ultimately improve the economic welfare of Canadian citizens, but possibly at the expense of significant environmental damage which could have major social implications. In this case, the public has the right to transparency in the development of these policies, and if the proper balance between social views and economic policy is not achieved, the right to govern can be lost through the democratic process, heavily influenced by an informed public.

 

On the other hand, there are cases when the public's right to information does not justifiably overide a government's need for security. Consider the recent budget presented by Canadian finance minister Jim Flaherty. In the case of the developent of fiscal policy, the government's primary responsibility is to develop policy that sustains the economic viability of the nation, and that the elected parliament continues to have confidence in the appointed government. The need for security in the ability to govern is not overridden by the right of the public to be fully informed on fiscal issues.

 

The determining factor of when the public's right to information should take precedence over a government's need for security is whether the issue is centered around socioeconomic policies or budgetary, or 'money bill', issues. In the case of the development of the northern gateway pipeline, because of the social implications around the issue, the development of economic policy must reflect the social views of Canadian citizens. In this case, if economic policy cannot align with social views, while these policies may negatvely impact the upside potential with how exports can improve the Canadian economy, the government is not at risk of losing it's security to govern. In other words, these decisions cannot force the government out of power on a non-cofidence vote. So with socieconomic decision-making, an informed public should take precedence over a government's need for security. However, with respect to 'money bill issues, such as budgets, a government has to create policy that preserves their ability to govern. If this ability is lost through a non-confidence vote at the house of commons, then this could lead to economic crisis, as the appointed government would lose its ability to manage the money supply, leading to a 'loss of supply'. These Budgetary issues, or 'money bills' are ones where the opposition parties can vote out the appointed governmet through a non-cofidence vote. This would lead ty a new Federal election, ant great expence to Canadians.

 

Excellet Work Man, some crappy scores for me so, but crappy is good! Keep 'em coming! I'm learnig.

[Little John]

A government is an entity that should ultimately serve the people. One way in which governments serve their citizens is by providing them security. In order to provide this security, a government sometimes needs to withold information from its citizens, so that this information is not acquired by people who seek to harm the citizens of the country. The statement asserts that that public's right to hold government accountable for its actions overrides the government's need to keep certain information secret. Despite the fact that governments should always be trying to serve the people, sometimes governments end up hurting their citizens instead of helping them. In order to stop this from happening, the public should sometimes be able to find out what the government's plans are. For example, the TSA is a government institution that has failed to stop any terrorist attacks and only serves to harm American citizens. The public should be able to know what exactly is going on in that organization so whatever it is that it is doing can be stopped.

 

Contrarily, there are times when the public's right to information does not override their government's need to withhold information from them. Although many people would argue that America's foreign policy decisions are ineffective at maintaining world order, it wouldn't be a good thing for American citizens to know the details of their government's foreign policy strategy. If this information was released upon the world, other countries would be offended by this and the United States would lose some of its goodwill from other countries. In addition, countries that are enemies of the United States such as North Korea and Cuba would use this information to harm the US in some way. The release of US foreign policy information would clearly do more harm than good.

 

The public's right to information overrides the government's need for security when it comes to internal affairs that directly affect the government's citizens. The American public has the right to acquire information about the TSA because it is information that affects them personally. The TSA claims to be stopping terrorists, but this is simply a lie. The release of the TSA's secret information would not help terrorists in any way, because the organization is simply a sham that provides "security theater" for the citizens. Because it would only be affecting American citizens, information concerning the TSA should be accessible by the public. On the other hand, information concerning American foreign policy involves more than US citizens - it is relevant to the world at large. Because the release of foreign policy information would have an external effect on more than just US citizens, it should not be released. Knowledge is power - and more knowledge in the hands of citizens can only help to serve their interests. However, if outsiders have access to this knowledge, it can be used to do harm onto others. Therefore knowledge relevant to outsiders should be kept secret.

[Prof.A.DumbleDore]

The public's right to information should override the government's need for security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the public's right to information might justifiably not override the government's need for security. Discuss what you think determines when the public's right to information should take precedence over the government's need for security

 

In order for a democratic society to exist and function properly, its voting citizens must be reasonably informed. The citizen, who must voice their opinion to their democratically representative, cannot reach a fair decision without considering all the factors at stake. With pertinent information, the public can reach a consensus to follow a course of action that is in the best interest of the nation and its people. For example, when the United States of America was debating to go to war in Iraq President Bush and Colin Powell presented information to the Senate that Iraqi government had purchased 'Yellow Cake' uranium powder. The information were deemed classified and the public was not allowed access to the sources to verify its authenticity. Though, there was some opposition to the veracity of the story, it was largely ignored. It was only until after the war did the public discover the inaccuracies of the allegations. The truth was absolutely necessary in this situation, as the country must have all the information necessary before embarking on the path to war.

 

However, there are certain situations in which highly sensitive material should be deemed classified and protected from the public. This is due to the fact that if such information were released to the masses, it could jeopardize the greater good; such as the safety of the public or the armed forces. This is exemplified in the recent release of the 'Wikileaks' Scandal, in which an military intelligence officer released hundreds of thousands of confidential documents. This was highly controversial as several of the documents contained highly sensitive information regarding ongoing American military operations in Afghanistan. Information contained names of secret agents and confidential informants, and the release of this information compromised the integrity of these imperative operations. Release of such highly sensitive information, which is integral to the success during an ongoing war should be protected from the public, to protect the nation's security.

 

Former U.S President Kennedy once stated that the role of the government is to duly inform the public, not to mislead or sworn to secrecy. The government should, in most cases, make sure its voting citizens have access to pertinent information in order for them to make a fair decision. In the case of the Iraqi 'Yellow Cake' Uranium powder agenda, the public was not able to scrutinize the information fully. Some critics have cited this a major mistake by the Bush administration, some have even suggested that the Iraqi war may not have occurred without this incorrect information. If the public was able to make sure with some degree of certainty to the authenticity of these allegations, they may have made the decision to avoid war; saving billions of dollars and thousands of Iraqi and American lives. However, there are situations in which the public should not be informed, as in the case of the 'Wikileaks' scandal. This information held highly sensitive information that was key in preventing deaths and winning the war. The public's right to information should be limited if the information is related to ongoing operations during a war. However, in a democratic process such as making the decision to begin a war, the public must have access to key information which may very well be the deciding factor. All factors are vital, as going to war is not an easy decision any country should have to make.

[donna71]

The public's right to information should override the government's need for security.

 

 

Citizens of a democratic nation, such as Canada or the USA, vote their leaders into government and to hold the government accountable, many feel that the public has a right to information. Sometimes this right overrides the government need for security or confidentiality of such information. For instance, in the recent Canadian election a specific phenomenon referred to as the automated Robocalls occurred where automated calls were made to to mislead potential voters, ultimately voiding their opportunity to cast their vote. Upon further investigation it was found that the misled voters had all previously declared that they would not vote for a specific party, leading to further speculation as to who is responsible. The public has the right to information on such intrusion of the democratic process to override the government's need to privacy, as this would have real implications for the current government should it be found that they are responsible. Therefore it is important that the public should have the right to information in order to maintain the integrity of the democratic nature of the current and future governments.

 

However, the public's right to information may not justifiably override the government's need for confidentiality or security. About a year ago in May 2011, world breaking news broke out when it was revealed that Osama bin Laden had been captured and killed in Pakistan. Even though the public has the right to know and is aware about the government's plans of actions to capture Osama bin Laden, specific details pertaining to the plan to raid this particular residence, at this particular time and day, and knowledge of Osama's possible whereabouts could not be revealed to the public as doing so would jeopardize all chances for the success of their mission. So though it is important for the American public to hold their government accountable and to be aware about their continued efforts on the war on terrorism, specific details cannot always be made public as confidentiality is required to successfully carry out the goals of some government plans.

 

It is important to make information available to the public so that citizens can partake in shaping the goals of their society and sometimes this information may override the government's need for security, at other times it does not. What determines whether or not the right to information overrides or does not override government security is dependent upon the nature of the information and whether it directly pertains to the citizens or not. Should the information directly pertain to the citizens, such as an obstruction of their cast votes, then public right to information overrides government's need for confidentiality in order to maintain the integrity of voting. However, should the information not directly pertain the citizens, such as information on the specific whereabouts of Osama, then the public's right to information does not override the government's need for security in order to maintain stealth and efficiency in their mission. Regardless of whether or not information overrides the government's need for security, it is important as active members of a society to think critically about the information provided or not provided by the government.

[RaymondPrep101]

For how long will this service be available?

 

This is not known yet. Sorry.

[Enviro_4_Medschool]

The public's right to information should override the government's need for security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the public's right to information might justifiably not override the government's need for security. Discuss what you think determines when the public's right to information should take precedence over the government's need for security.

 

----

 

In a democratic society, the fundamental tenant is that power is with the people; therefore, governments are accountable to the people and should disclose information regarding the acts that the government is overlooking. The fact that it is the people's constitutional right to have access to information suggests that governments should provide all information regardless of how if affects their need for security. While there are many areas that might need security (such as political tactics within a given party), this essay will focus on the need for security in national defense procedures. In Canada, the conservative government promotes national security and was in the process of purchasing several F-35 jets. A report by the auditor general revealed that the cost of these jets were to be significantly higher than was originally portrayed in the election. The Auditor General determined that people had full right to information on the proceeding of the purchasing and nature of such jets even though they were for national security purposes and were a promise of the Conservatives during the election. In this case the lack of transparency was considered a detriment because in the time of recession it was felt that the money spent towards national defence could perhaps be better spent elsewhere. Furthermore, the government must release information regarding their budget or potentially face a charge of contempt of parliament.

 

However, what if disclosing all the information about the jets had compromised the integrity of the program or safety of the forces? The government also makes decisions regarding the overall ability of the nation to defend itself and disclosing all information may compromise the safety of the forces. Take the a hypothetical situation where Canada troops are crucial for promoting Artic sovereignty. If the disclosure of the costs and location of bases, equipment, and personelle were made completely public this could affect the way troops do operations. It could also diminish Canada's capabilities of defending the artic. Worse, it could cause the leakage of sensitive military information to those who may have nefarious purposes. All of this leads to a comprimisation of our National security with the need being that Canada should defend it's artic interests and that releasing information on the way this security is being done may be more harmful than beneficial suggesting that the right for information should not override the need for security.

 

The public has a right to information when the government should be held accountable to the decisions it is making. The government may want to promote security but if the factors suggest better apportionment of resources elsewhere then the governments, as interim regulators of the nations resources, should inform the people how the government is allocating resources. In the example of the F-35's, it is true that the F-35's had some militant significance but the total cost of the program fell into the realm of accountability of funds; something which the public has a right to know and that the government has to give full disclosure on or face potentially being held in contempt of parliament. However, it is not always prudent to disclose all the information about security if it could affect the safety and integrity of national defense programs. There may be situations where complete disclosure of security information could compromise the integrity of a program of threaten the safety of the people maintaining our national defense. In this situation the need for information should not override the government's mandate for security.

 

----

 

Thanks again Raymond!

[osadek]

The public's right to information should override the government's need for security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the public's right to information might justifiably not override the government's need for security. Discuss what you think determines when the public's right to information should take precedence over the government's need for security.

 

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

 

A government should, ideally, always be held accountable for their actions, decisions and policies, and this accountability is greatly dependant upon the government's transparency with its people. It therefore stands that the public's right to information should take precedence over the government's concerns about security. The extent of the public's right to information and transparency can be seen by the information and knowledge transferred from the United States Military to the public. Potentially sensitive information such as military spending and budgets, the amount of ground troops, equipment etc. is constantly being transmitted back to the general population to keep them informed of the military's actions. Although transmitting this information in the open may be a security risk to both the government and the military, it is essential for the continuation of the war. Public approval of the war is based on informed decision, which is only possible with the availability of information, it therefore stands to reason that if the American public could not see and analyze the decisions made by the military, the military would lose their trust and consequently their approval. A war without approval would then put tremendous pressure on both the military and government to withdraw; without the backing of its own people the government stands to lose much more in both confidence and security, than by transmitting the information requested by their people, such are the workings of a democratic nation.

 

However, if one were to look at pre-revolution Cairo, specifically between the period after Anwar Sadat's assassination and Hosni Mubarak's fall, one would see a situation where the government's need for security vastly outweighed the public's right to information and transparency. Almost immediately after Sadat's assassination the former vice-president, and now current president Mubarak, put 'Emergency Law' into action. Emergency law gave the government, especially the police, near absolute power with almost no accountability, the law allowed the police to apprehend and imprison any individual suspected of almost anything without having to explain themselves. This meant that people could be snatched off the street and not be seen for days or even weeks, the government and police were not obliged to release any information about any of those currently in custody, and family members had no legal discourse to request information from the government about the legal status, health and situation of those allegedly in custody.

 

Therefore, what determines whether or not the public's right to information should override the government's need for security is the political and ideological structure of that ruling authority. In the case of the United States of America, a democratic nation, all decisions made are based on the rulings of the majority; the public. Therefore, the government cannot make decisions without the backing of it's people, and people cannot decide to get behind an idea without making an informed decision. It is therefore in the nature of democracy that the public's right to information overrides the government's need for security. However, in the case of a dictatorship as was Egypt up until the January 2011 revolution, the government's main purpose was to protect itself in any manner possible, which is one of the founding reasons for constructing and enacting 'Emergency Law'. In this situation it was the government's need for security and control of its populous that greatly took precedence over the public's right to information and transparency.

[osadek]

Thanks a lot for doing this

[RaymondPrep101]

durabol

 

The fundamental principle of a democratic society is that informed citizens provide the foundation to drive socioeconomic policy. A government's responsibility is to provide security to its citizens in the form of basic social security, whereby basic needs of health, education, shelter, social protection, and income related security are being met. The prompt is about the government's security so discussing citizen security first is off-topic and does not add to addressing the writing task. A government can provide these basic needs only when it is secure in its ability to govern. However, the security to govern is trumped by the development of socioeconomic policy that reflects the values of the citizens of that society. This is different from the right to information.

Overall, the focus of your introduction is in need of improvement.

Consider the ongoing debate in Canada with respect to the development of Pipelines, such as the Northern gateway Pipeline in Bc Your marker will be American so you need to define an acronym first. Although as a rule of thumb, you should avoid the use of acronyms. and Alberta, to ship crude oil from the Alberta oilsands to the BC coast in order to export Canadian crude oil to overseas markets such as China. The debate is centered around the need for Canada to capitalize on its abundant natural resources to drive economic growth from export revenues, which will ultimately improve the economic welfare of Canadian citizens, but possibly at the expense of significant environmental damage which could have major social implications. In this case, the public has the right to transparency in the development of these policies this is on-topic but only included here as a passing point, and if the proper balance between social views and economic policy is not achieved, the right to govern can be lost through the democratic process, heavily influenced by an informed public. The second half of this sentence doesn't add anything to addressing the writing task.

Overall, this example could work but is not focused enough on addressing the writing task. You have all of these background details that do not explicitly contribute directly to addressing the writing task.

 

 

On the other hand, there are cases when the public's right to information does not justifiably overide a government's need for security. Good. Plain and straightforward is better than fancy and off-topic. Consider the recent budget presented by Canadian finance minister Jim Flaherty. In the case of the developent of fiscal policy, the government's primary responsibility is to develop policy that sustains the economic viability of the nation, and that the elected parliament continues to have confidence in the appointed government. How does this have to due with transparency or security? The need for security in the ability to govern is not overridden by the right of the public to be fully informed on fiscal issues.

I don't get it. The argument here is unclear. It is not directed at addressing the refuting task.

 

 

The determining factor of when the public's right to information should take precedence over a government's need for security is whether the issue is centered around socioeconomic policies or budgetary, or 'money bill', issues. In the case of the development of the northern gateway pipeline, because of the social implications around the issue, the development of economic policy must reflect the social views of Canadian citizens. Why? In this case, if economic policy cannot align with social views, while these policies may negatvely impact the upside potential with how exports can improve the Canadian economy, the government is not at risk of losing it's security to govern. Why? This sentence is written in a confusing manner. In other words, these decisions cannot force the government out of power on a non-cofidence vote. So with socieconomic decision-making, an informed public should take precedence over a government's need for security. However, with respect to 'money bill issues, such as budgets how is the development of the pipeline not a money/economic issue?, a government has to create policy that preserves their ability to govern. If this ability is lost through a non-confidence vote at the house of commons, then this could lead to economic crisis, as the appointed government would lose its ability to manage the money supply, leading to a 'loss of supply'. These Budgetary issues, or 'money bills' are ones where the opposition parties can vote out the appointed governmet through a non-cofidence vote. This would lead ty a new Federal election, ant great expence to Canadians.

Only at the end do I finally understand what you are getting at. If a federal budget is not passed then that leads to an election. Your US marker may not know this. You also do not make it clear in your discussion.

 

Overall, the examples and discussion are not focused on addressing the writing task. The arguments are unclear and difficult to follow.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is not addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 1.5 Focus and coherence of the essay are serious issues.

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Little John

 

A government is an entity that should ultimately serve the people. One way in which governments serve their citizens is by providing them security. The prompt is about the government's need for security not the citizens'. In order to provide this security, a government sometimes needs to withold information from its citizens, so that this information is not acquired by people who seek to harm the citizens of the country. This does not belong in your supporting paragraph. The statement asserts that that public's right to hold government accountable this is different from the right to information for its actions overrides the government's need to keep certain information secret. Despite the fact that governments should always be trying to serve the people, sometimes governments end up hurting their citizens instead of helping them. This idea lacks depth. In order to stop this from happening, the public should sometimes be able to find out what the government's plans are. This is on-topic. But it takes you too long to get to your main argument. For example, the TSA is a government institution that has failed to stop any terrorist attacks and only serves to harm American citizens. You should define your acronyms. You can't make a statement like this without evidence or supporting points. The public should be able to know what exactly is going on in that organization so whatever it is that it is doing can be stopped.

Your example could work but is poorly/not explained.

 

Contrarily, there are times when the public's right to information does not override their government's need to withhold information from them. Although many people would argue that America's foreign policy decisions are ineffective at maintaining world order, it wouldn't be a good thing for American citizens to know the details of their government's foreign policy strategy. If this information was released upon the world, other countries would be offended by this and the United States would lose some of its goodwill from other countries. In addition, countries that are enemies of the United States such as North Korea and Cuba would use this information to harm the US in some way. You can't make a statement like this out of nowhere without supporting points. The release of US foreign policy information would clearly do more harm than good.

This is too broad. The US does set objectives for its foreign policy and makes this known to the public. This example could work but is not explained well.

 

The public's right to information overrides the government's need for security when it comes to internal affairs that directly affect the government's citizens. The American public has the right to acquire information about the TSA because it is information that affects them personally. The TSA claims to be stopping terrorists, but this is simply a lie. The release of the TSA's secret information would not help terrorists in any way, because the organization is simply a sham that provides "security theater" for the citizens. All of these claims need to be backed up by evidence. Because it would only be affecting American citizens ? It also affects people from other countries traveling to and from the US., information concerning the TSA should be accessible by the public. On the other hand, information concerning American foreign policy involves more than US citizens - it is relevant to the world at large. Because the release of foreign policy information like what? This is too broad. would have an external effect on more than just US citizens, it should not be released. Knowledge is power - and more knowledge in the hands of citizens can only help to serve their interests. However, if outsiders have access to this knowledge, it can be used to do harm onto others. Therefore knowledge relevant to outsiders should be kept secret.

The argument is okay but not great. You also do not focus on the public's right to information.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[wstntime]

Only at the end do I finally understand what you are getting at. If a federal budget is not passed then that leads to an election. Your US marker may not know this. You also do not make it clear in your discussion.

 

Overall, the examples and discussion are not focused on addressing the writing task. The arguments are unclear and difficult to follow.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is not addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 1.5 Focus and coherence of the essay are serious issues.

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

 

Just wondering, do you think maybe my problem is that I am always trying to put a unique spin on the topic, instead of just sticking to the basics and getting right to the point?

[RaymondPrep101]

Prof.A.DumbleDore

 

In order for a democratic society to exist and function properly, its voting citizens must be reasonably informed. The citizen, who must voice their opinion to their democratically grammar representative, cannot reach a fair decision without considering all the factors at stake. With pertinent information, the public can reach a consensus to follow a course of action that is in the best interest of the nation and its people. You neglect the second element of the prompt which is the government's need for security. For example, when the United States of America was debating to go to war in Iraq President Bush and Colin Powell presented information to the Senate that Iraqi government grammar had purchased 'Yellow Cake' uranium powder. The information were grammar deemed classified and the public was not allowed access to the sources to verify its authenticity. Though, there was some opposition to the veracity of the story, it was largely ignored. It was only until after the war did the public discover the inaccuracies of the allegations. The truth was absolutely necessary in this situation, as the country must have all the information necessary before embarking on the path to war.

This example would work but the discussion neglected the second part of the prompt which is the government's need for security. It also needed more of a focus on the right of citizens to information.

 

However, there are certain situations in which highly sensitive material should be deemed classified and protected from the public. This is due to the fact that if such information were released to the masses, it could jeopardize the greater good don't use the term greater good because it is vague and ambiguous; such as the safety of the public or the armed forces. This is exemplified in the recent release of the 'Wikileaks' Scandal, in which an military intelligence officer released hundreds of thousands of confidential documents. This was highly controversial as several of the documents contained highly sensitive information regarding ongoing American military operations in Afghanistan. Information contained names of secret agents and confidential informants, and the release of this information compromised the integrity of these imperative operations. Release of such highly sensitive information, which is integral to the success during an ongoing war should be protected from the public, to protect the nation's security.

This is good. Although you should discuss citizens' right to information. You have to address both elements of the prompt in both of your paragraphs.

 

Former U.S President Kennedy once stated that the role of the government is to duly inform the public, not to mislead or sworn to secrecy. This is more suited for the supporting paragraph. The government should, in most cases, make sure its voting citizens have access to pertinent information in order for them to make a fair decision. In the case of the Iraqi 'Yellow Cake' Uranium powder agenda, the public was not able to scrutinize the information fully. Some critics have cited this a major mistake by the Bush administration, some have even suggested that the Iraqi war may not have occurred without this incorrect information. If the public was able to make sure with some degree of certainty to the authenticity of these allegations, they may have made the decision to avoid war; saving billions of dollars and thousands of Iraqi and American lives. There is no resolution principle presented thus far. However, there are situations in which the public should not be informed, as in the case of the 'Wikileaks' scandal. This information held highly sensitive information that was key in preventing deaths and winning the war. The public's right to information should be limited if the information is related to ongoing operations during a war. However, in a democratic process such as making the decision to begin a war, the public must have access to key information which may very well be the deciding factor. All factors are vital, as going to war is not an easy decision any country should have to make.

Issues:

1) Your resolution principle should be presented at the beginning of your resolution paragraph. Then it should be applied to both examples. Here you have it at the end and have no application to the examples.

2) The resolution principle is okay since it works here. However, it lacks depth because it is a bit narrow and can't be applied to situations outside of war.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Only at the end do I finally understand what you are getting at. If a federal budget is not passed then that leads to an election. Your US marker may not know this. You also do not make it clear in your discussion.

 

Overall, the examples and discussion are not focused on addressing the writing task. The arguments are unclear and difficult to follow.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is not addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 1.5 Focus and coherence of the essay are serious issues.

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

 

Just wondering, do you think maybe my problem is that I am always trying to put a unique spin on the topic, instead of just sticking to the basics and getting right to the point?

 

Yes. As I have stated previously, you should start with the foundations first then work on style later. A simple and plain essay that is clear and concise is much better than an essay that is complicated and fails at addressing the writing tasks.

[RaymondPrep101]

donna71

 

Citizens of a democratic nation, such as Canada or the USA, vote their leaders into government and to hold the government accountable, many feel that the public has a right to information. Sometimes this right overrides the government need for security or confidentiality of such information. Good start. However, be careful because confidentiality is different from security. For instance, in the recent Canadian election a specific phenomenon word choice referred to as the automated Robocalls occurred where automated calls were made to to mislead potential voters, ultimately voiding their opportunity to cast their vote. Upon further investigation it was found that the misled voters had all previously declared that they would not vote for a specific party, leading to further speculation as to who is responsible. The public has the right to information on such intrusion of the democratic process to override the government's need to privacy, as this would have real implications for the current government should it be found that they are responsible. This sentence is a run-on and needs to be rewritten to improve clarity. Therefore it is important that the public should have the right to information in order to maintain the integrity of the democratic nature of the current and future governments.

This example is good. It would have been excellent if there was more elaboration on why in this case the right to information overrides the government's need for security.

 

However, the public's right to information may not justifiably override the government's need for confidentiality or security. About a year ago in May 2011, world breaking news broke out when it was revealed that Osama bin Laden had been captured and killed in Pakistan. Even though the public has the right to know and is aware about the government's plans of actions to capture Osama bin Laden, specific details pertaining to the plan to raid this particular residence, at this particular time and day, and knowledge of Osama's possible whereabouts could not be revealed to the public as doing so would jeopardize all chances for the success of their mission. This is a run-on sentence. The clarity needs improvement. So though it is important for the American public to hold their government accountable and to be aware about their continued efforts on the war on terrorism, specific details cannot always be made public as confidentiality is required to successfully carry out the goals of some government plans.

This example is okay but lacks depth.

 

It is important to make information available to the public so that citizens can partake in shaping the goals of their society and sometimes this information may override the government's need for security, at other times it does not. What determines whether or not the right to information overrides or does not override government security is dependent upon the nature of the information and whether it directly pertains to the citizens or not. Issues: 1) You should only have one resolution principle. 2) Both of these are vague and ambiguous which makes them difficult to apply. Should the information directly pertain to the citizens, such as an obstruction of their cast votes, then public right to information overrides government's need for confidentiality in order to maintain the integrity of voting. However, should the information not directly pertain the citizens or at least their interests, such as information on the specific whereabouts of Osama it is hard to argue that this is not something that pertains to the citizens, then the public's right to information does not override the government's need for security in order to maintain stealth and efficiency in their mission. Regardless of whether or not information overrides the government's need for security, it is important as active members of a society to think critically about the information provided or not provided by the government.

The resolution paragraph is the weakest part of your essay. The resolution principle is vague and ambiguous. The application is also not very strong and needs more elaboration to be convincing.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 3 Grammar needs improvement. There is an issue with run-on sentences. Use linking words instead to progress your argument.

[donna71]

Thanks again for your feedback Raymond, it's much appreciated.

 

I just had a question about your resolution principles and the writing tasks: do you think it is better to first come up with a resolution principle and then examples to fit that principle, rather than coming up with examples for each task and making then making a principle around those examples?

[DaKirbster]

The public's right to information should override the government's need for security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the public's right to information might justifiably not override the government's need for security. Discuss what you think determines when the public's right to information should take precedence

 

over the government's need for security.

 

-----

 

 

Inherent in the idea of a democratic society is the need for the public to be informed of its surroundings. The government has a responsibility to reveal information about its policies and procedures to keep the public aware of what it is doing, though the government is sometimes reluctant to do so for security reasons. Regardless, this ingrained need for security should be overriden by the public's right to information. Relaying information to the public is critical to ensuring that citizens can make informed decisions about elections and political issues. For example, recently in Canada, the Harper gorvernment declined to disclose the amount of money spent of a certain set of millitary aircrafts because they believed it to be a security breach. It is important to note that they the public was aware of what aircrafts were bought, but not how much was spent. In this case, it is clear that the public has a right to be informed of federal budget spendings as ultimately, it is the tax payers' money that is being used to purchase such equipment. After an outrage over the nondisclosure of government spending, the public's right to information eventually overrode the government's apparent need for security.

 

However, there are some cases wherein it is justifiable for the government to keep certain information from the public. For example, the fine details of the procedures undergone during some security checks, like at the airport, should be kept confidential to ensure public safety. The government should not publicize every detail about such security checks so that potential criminals are kept unaware. The reasoning behind this is that if everyone knew exactly when, where, and how they were searched at every security check, then criminals would be able to devise ways to cheat the system and sneak harmful materials into countries or onto airplanes. This causes a potential danger to the public, which is minimized by keeping this information secret from criminals.

 

What determines whether or not the public's right to information overrides the government's need for security depends on if the information in question could pose a serious potential threat to public safety in the hands of criminals. In the first example, simply knowing the amount of money spent on millitary aircrafts (especially when the identity of which are already publicly known) causes no threat to public safety and thus the public has a right to know. In the second example, the fine details of security checks are hidden from the public to reduce the possibility of criminals finding devious ways to smuggle dangerous materials. In that case, the government's need for security takes a higher priority over the public's right to information. Ultimately, the idea is that informed citizens are necessary for a truly democratic society, but informed criminals are detrimental.

[RaymondPrep101]

Enviro_4_Medschool

 

In a democratic society, the fundamental tenant is that power is with the people; therefore, governments are accountable to the people and should disclose information regarding the acts that the government is overlooking. The fact that it is the people's constitutional right to have access to information suggests that governments should provide all information regardless of how if affects their need for security. The wording used here is a bit too absolute. This should be avoided because it will automatically weaken the arguments you make in your refuting paragraph. While there are many areas that might need security (such as political tactics within a given party), this essay will focus on the need for security in national defense procedures. It is good to define security but the bracketed part is unnecessary. In Canada, the conservative government promotes national security and was in the process of purchasing several F-35 jets. A report by the auditor general revealed that the cost of these jets were to be significantly higher than was originally portrayed in the election. The Auditor General determined that people had full right to information on the proceeding of the purchasing and nature of such jets even though they were for national security purposes and were a promise of the Conservatives during the election. In this case the lack of transparency was considered a detriment because in the time of recession it was felt that the money spent towards national defence could perhaps be better spent elsewhere. What lack of transparency? This comes out of no where. Furthermore, the government must release information regarding their budget or potentially face a charge of contempt of parliament. How is this related to addressing the writing task?

This example could work but is weakly explained. It is missing some important details and is not focused enough on addressing the writing task.

 

However, what if disclosing all the information about the jets had compromised the integrity of the program or safety of the forces? This is not a good transition into your refuting paragraph because it undermines your previous argument. The government also makes decisions regarding the overall ability of the nation to defend itself and disclosing all information may compromise the safety of the forces. Take the a hypothetical situation where Canada troops grammar are crucial for promoting Artic sovereignty. If the disclosure of the costs and location of bases, equipment, and personelle were made completely public this could affect the way troops do operations. It could also diminish Canada's capabilities of defending the artic. Worse, it could cause the leakage of sensitive military information to those who may have nefarious purposes. All of this leads to a comprimisation this is not a word of our National security with the need being that Canada should defend it's artic interests and that releasing information on the way this security is being done may be more harmful than beneficial suggesting that the right for information should not override the need for security.

The example here again could work. But the writing style needs improvement. Ideas do not flow well and the cohesiveness of the argument is weak.

 

The public has a right to information when the government should be held accountable to the decisions it is making. This misses the other part of the prompt which involves the issue of security. It also doesn't really make sense. Shouldn't the government always be held accountable for the decisions it makes? The government may want to promote security but if the factors suggest better apportionment of resources elsewhere then the governments, as interim regulators of the nations resources, should inform the people how the government is allocating resources. In the example of the F-35's, it is true that the F-35's had some militant significance but the total cost of the program fell into the realm of accountability of funds; something which the public has a right to know and that the government has to give full disclosure on or face potentially being held in contempt of parliament. You do not apply the resolution principle you laid out. However, it is not always prudent to disclose all the information about security if it could affect the safety and integrity of national defense programs. There may be situations where complete disclosure of security information could compromise the integrity of a program of threaten the safety of the people maintaining our national defense. In this situation the need for information should not override the government's mandate for security.

This is the weakest part of your essay. There is no good resolution principle. There is no contrast made between the two examples. The second example is not even discussed here.

 

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 not addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

osadek

 

A government should, ideally, always be held accountable for their actions, decisions and policies, and this accountability is greatly dependant upon the government's transparency with its people. It therefore stands that the public's right to information should take precedence over the government's concerns about security. Good start. The extent of the public's right to information and transparency can be seen by the information and knowledge transferred from the United States Military to the public. Potentially sensitive information such as military spending and budgets, the amount of ground troops, equipment etc. is constantly being transmitted back to the general population to keep them informed of the military's actions. Although transmitting this information in the open may be a security risk to both the government and the military, it is essential for the continuation of the war. Public approval of the war is based on informed decision, which is only possible with the availability of information, it therefore stands to reason that if the American public could not see and analyze the decisions made by the military, the military would lose their trust and consequently their approval. This is one big run-on sentence. A war without approval would then put tremendous pressure on both the military and government to withdraw; without the backing of its own people the government stands to lose much more in both confidence and security, than by transmitting the information requested by their people, such are the workings of a democratic nation. Another run-on sentence. You should have a concluding sentence that ties your example back to addressing the writing prompt.

 

Overall, the example is very good.

 

You should have a transition sentence into your refuting paragraph.

However, if one were to look at pre-revolution Cairo, specifically between the period after Anwar Sadat's assassination and Hosni Mubarak's fall, one would see a situation where the government's need for security vastly outweighed the public's right to information and transparency. Almost immediately after Sadat's assassination the former vice-president, and now current president Mubarak, put 'Emergency Law' into action. Emergency law gave the government, especially the police, near absolute power with almost no accountability, the law allowed the police to apprehend and imprison any individual suspected of almost anything without having to explain themselves. Run-on sentence. This meant that people could be snatched off the street and not be seen for days or even weeks, the government and police were not obliged to release any information about any of those currently in custody, and family members had no legal discourse to request information from the government about the legal status, health and situation of those allegedly in custody.

You start off well. Then during the explanation of your example, you fail to address the writing task.

 

Therefore, what determines whether or not the public's right to information should override the government's need for security is the political and ideological structure of that ruling authority. In the case of the United States of America, a democratic nation, all decisions made are based on the rulings of the majority; the public. Therefore, the government cannot make decisions without the backing of it's people, and people cannot decide to get behind an idea without making an informed decision. It is therefore in the nature of democracy that the public's right to information overrides the government's need for security. Excellent. However, in the case of a dictatorship as was Egypt up until the January 2011 revolution, the government's main purpose was to protect itself in any manner possible, which is one of the founding reasons for constructing and enacting 'Emergency Law'. In this situation it was the government's need for security and control of its populous that greatly took precedence over the public's right to information and transparency. This needs to be better explained.

Excellent resolution principle. Strong application to the supporting example and weaker application to the refuting example.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 3 Avoid run-on sentences.

[RaymondPrep101]

Thanks again for your feedback Raymond, it's much appreciated.

 

I just had a question about your resolution principles and the writing tasks: do you think it is better to first come up with a resolution principle and then examples to fit that principle, rather than coming up with examples for each task and making then making a principle around those examples?

 

This is how I personally approach the writing sample. Coming up with a resolution principle first then generating examples to fit ensures that 1) I don't have to strain myself to come up with a resolution principle. The resolution will always be strong with this approach. 2) It makes it easier to think of examples.

 

However, this requires a knowledge and a list of strong resolution principles (i.e. war vs. peace, large scale vs. small scale, democracy vs. dictatorship, etc.).

[RaymondPrep101]

DaKirbster

 

Inherent in the idea of a democratic society is the need for the public to be informed of its surroundings word choice. The government has a responsibility to reveal information about its policies and procedures to keep the public aware of what it is doing, though the government is sometimes reluctant to do so for security reasons. Regardless, this ingrained need for security should be overriden by the public's right to information. Relaying information to the public is critical to ensuring that citizens can make informed decisions about elections and political issues. The introduction is fine. But is a bit too long. You should make it more concise to get to your main idea sooner. For example, recently in Canada, the Harper gorvernment declined to disclose the amount of money spent of a certain set of millitary aircrafts grammar because they believed it to be a security breach. It is important to note that they the public was aware of what aircrafts were bought, but not how much was spent. In this case, it is clear that the public has a right to be informed of federal budget spendings as ultimately, it is the tax payers' money that is being used to purchase such equipment. After an outrage over the nondisclosure of government spending, the public's right to information eventually overrode the government's apparent need for security.

Excellent. Watch your grammar.

 

However, there are some cases wherein it is justifiable for the government to keep certain information from the public. For example, the fine details of the procedures undergone during some security checks, like at the airport, should be kept confidential to ensure public safety. This is vague. What exactly is a fine detail? The government should not publicize every detail about such security checks so that potential criminals are kept unaware. The reasoning behind this is that if everyone knew exactly when, where, and how they were searched at every security check, then criminals would be able to devise ways to cheat the system and sneak harmful materials into countries or onto airplanes. This causes a potential danger to the public, which is minimized by keeping this information secret from criminals.

This discussion is vague and lacks depth. It is also hypothetical and lacks concrete details. Furthermore, it does not really address the refuting task.

 

What determines whether or not the public's right to information overrides the government's need for security depends on if the information in question could pose a serious potential threat to public safety in the hands of criminals. This is vague and ambiguous. You want something that is more clear. In the first example, simply knowing the amount of money spent on millitary aircrafts (especially when the identity of which are already publicly known) causes no threat to public safety and thus the public has a right to know. In the second example, the fine details of security checks are hidden from the public to reduce the possibility of criminals finding devious ways to smuggle dangerous materials. This is a shaky argument. In that case, the government's need for security takes a higher priority over the public's right to information. Ultimately, the idea is that informed citizens are necessary for a truly democratic society, but informed criminals are detrimental.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Punishment without rehabilitation is unjust.

 

Describe a specific situation in which punishment without rehabilitation might be just. Discuss what you think determines whether punishment without rehabilitation is just or unjust.

 

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, April 20.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Saturday, April 21.

[page_matrix]

Punishment without rehabilitation is unjust.

(Thank you!)

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

Punishment is a sanction for which one pays for one's wrongdoing. While society has the right to punish criminals, it is unjust to do so without accompanying rehabilitation. To punish an offender is one thing, but society should also aim to provide an offender with another chance through this punishment. Rehabilitation offers counseling, support, and educational resources for offenders to encourage behavioural changes and outlooks. Through this process, society's act of punishment is not merely to impose a negative consequence as a price for a crime, but to also provide corrective discipline to help these offenders from re-offending and to re-integrate into society more positively.

 

For instance, it would be unjust to deprive rehabilitation for incarcerated youth offenders whose lack of social support and education during incarceration may affect their trajectory into adulthood. The lack of educational opportunities and rehabilitation resources for these offenders may prevent them from ever changing their "criminal" status in society's view - punishment such as incarceration alone will not teach them how to be a better citizen by society's standards, how to prevent problem behaviours, and how to live their lives after their sentences. Therefore, not only are these offenders being sentenced to prison for their current crimes, they are also being sentenced to a life-long trajectory of continued problem behaviours, while sentencing society to continued exposure to these offenders if they receive no rehabilitation.

 

Although rehabilitation is an important parallel to punishment, punishment without rehabilitation may still be justified. In the case of capital punishment, the severity of the crime is too high to deem the offender another chance to correct oneself. If capital punishment is the end result, rehabilitation for the purposes of learning one's wrongdoing and learning to re-integrate into society would not be necessary. The lost of one's right of life may also justify the lost of access to rehabilitation.

 

The necessity of rehabilitation in punishment depends on the severity of the crime, and consequently, the severity of punishment. For punishments from which offenders are expected to return into society, it would be unjust to deprive these offenders of proper rehabilitation. This provides them with an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, and to have another chance at a life that society deems proper. However, in situations where the crime was deemed too severe to grant a second chance at life in society, it may also be justified to not provide rehabilitation.

[osadek]

Punishment without rehabilitation is unjust.

 

Describe a specific situation in which punishment without rehabilitation might be just. Discuss what you think determines whether punishment without rehabilitation is just or unjust.

 

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

 

Jesus said to God 'Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do'. Irrespective of one's beliefs, it cannot be denied that this statement, in its essence, is quite logical. How can someone be punished for something which they do not realize, or cannot admit, is wrong? Rehabilitation attempts to teach and show people where they went wrong, and most importantly, why what they did was in fact wrong. Without rehabilitation punishment is simply abuse, which is most definitely unjust. In the majority of 'Western' countries the death penalty has been removed from the judicial system. This is based on the premise that a person can in fact be rehabilitated back into society; by learning the errors of their ways. It is their belief, and contention, that it is not justifiable for an individual to be simply put to death, without attempting to aid the flaws in that individual. The death penalty, as seen by these societies, is in stark contrast to rehabilitation and is an irreversible solution to a problem that could be fixed otherwise.

 

However, there are situations in which punishment without rehabilitation may be just. The majority of countries in the Middle East still abide by Shari'aa Law, the set of moral codes, rules and laws written down in the Quran. In these countries the death penalty is still very active, and is often called for in trials that involve premeditated murder. The view of the death penalty in these societies is entrenched in 'an eye for an eye' way of thinking, and life. Therefore, for these communities punishment, being the death penalty, is the most just thing to do; as it addresses the needs of the victims directly. It is their belief that he who has killed must die as well in order for justice to prevail, and to set things back into balance.

 

Therefore, what determines whether punishment without rehabilitation is just or unjust are the ideologies and beliefs of the society within which the punishment is carried out. 'Western' culture believes in the power of rehabilitation and that people can change if shown how. They would direct their time, energy and resources to rehabilitating an individual convicted of murder, rather than unjustifiably ending that individuals life. However, cultures in the Middle East view the death penalty, which completely sidesteps rehabilitation, as a justifiable and just form of punishment. What is considered punishment and what is considered just are not set in stone, they lie on an adjustable scale depending on the culture, their moral codes and beliefs.

 

 

Thanks again for this.

[Little John]

The statement means that to punish someone without attemping to correct their behaviour so they do not repeat their mistake is not fair to the person being punished. Because a punishment is inflicting harm upon another person, which is morally wrong, a punishment must make up for this in some way. One way in which punishments make up for the harm done to another person is by helping to teach that person to change their behaviour. This works throught the law of effect: organisms do not repeat actions that in the past resulted in harm being incurred to them. But oftentimes the law of effect alone is not enough to change someone's behaviour - they might need additional help, in the form of instruction, for example. In these cases, the harm inflicted upon another human being has not been made up for, thus is unethical. Consider the following example to demonstrate how punishment without rehabilitation is sometimes unjust. My puppy once pooped on the floor inside my house while me and my sister were away for the afternoon. My sister saw the mess, then proceeded to hit my puppy in an attempt to teach him a lesson. This action was unethical because my sister hit my puppy in such a way that he was not aware of the reason for why he was being hit. In this case, the punishment was futile because it did not rehabilitate - the punishment did not teach my puppy to not poop on the floor.

 

As stated earlier, there are numerous reasons why punishments are performed. One of those reasons is to deter others who see the offender being punished from performing the same crime that they did. This results in fewer similar crimes being committed, which keeps people safer. Another reason why people punish others is to fulfill their emotional need for revenge. Punishing murderers by putting them in jail for life exemplifies both of these reasons. The harsh penalty of life in jail not only makes it less likely for people to commit murder, but also allows the friends and family members of murder victims to feel better about their loss knowing that some good has come of the situation as the murderer won't be able to hurt anybody else. This punishment is not unethical despite the lack of rehabilitation for the convict, because the harm inflicted to the convict has already been made up for due to the two aformentioned reasons.

 

Punishments that are not followed by rehabilitation or that do not serve the purpose of rehabilitation are unethical when the harm done to the person being punished is not made up for by anything else. The reason for this, is that punishments always involve inflicting harm upon others, which is immoral unless the good that comes from the situation makes up for it. When my sister performed a punishment against my dog that did not teach him to not to repeat his mistakes, no good came of that situation except perhaps the opportunity for her to vent her anger. Venting anger by itself does not justify hitting a baby animal, and thus her action was immoral. Contrarily, punishing murderers with life in jail without rehabilitating them serves the practical purpose of detering future crime and making the grieving family of the victim feel better. Thus the immoral nature of the punishment was compensated for by the good done for society and for the help to correct the sadness that the murderer inflicted upon the family of the victim. In summary, punishments should always serve the greater good.