Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback

[donna71]

The legal system plays an important role in determining a criminal's sentence or punishment for their crime. Punishment may be accompanied by rehabilitation, but in some cases punishment without rehabilitation is unjust. An example that exemplifies this would be the relatively recent case in Canada where an individual attacked and dismembered a fellow passenger aboard a Grey Hound bus. Upon psychological inspection it was deemed that the individual was mentally unstable and displayed schizophrenic symptoms. In this case it would be unjust to penalize the schizophrenic individual without rehabilitation as this would result in a vicious cycle where upon release and untreated for his condition the individual may reoffend indefinitely. Furthermore, the offender’s inherent mental problems may be beyond his knowledge and/or voluntary control and without rehabilitation the system is penalizing those who are susceptible to mental issues and not enabling them to reintegrate back into the community to lead a productive life. Therefore the denial of rehabilitation is unjust for crimes rooted with problems in psychological deficiencies.

 

On the other hand some punishments without rehabilitation are just. In the case involving Bernard Madoff and the Wall Street collapse, it was found that Madoff’s investments were of fraudulent nature and produced artificial gains based on a Ponzi scheme. The crime was knowingly perpetrated over many years and involved many investors’ assets, ranging from charities to individuals’ life savings. Madoff’s exploitation required careful planning and meticulous care to clean up the trail of evidence that would raise flags to the regulating authorities. He went to great lengths to conceal the crime that it he even purportedly hid the crime from his sons. Punishments without rehabilitiation for white collared criminals such as Madoff are just, as Madoff was a professional who was knowingly aware of the nature and legality of his crime yet continued to conduct himself in an illegal manner. In addition, the purpose of rehabilitation is to correct a deficiency that would enable Madoff to reintegrate into society, however Madoff displayed no obvious treatable deficiency other than the human vice of greed.

 

Punishments serve to deter particular actions that we as a society deem inappropriate. Not all punishments are accompanied with rehabilitation and sometimes this is unjust but in some cases is adequately just. What determines whether the lack of rehabilitation accompanying punishment is just or unjust is dependent upon the presence of a rational, sound mind. Should it be the case that the penalized individual is mentally unstable, such as having schizophrenia, and lacks a sound mind to be able to grasp the nature and legalities of his/her actions, it is unjust to without rehabilitation. In contrast should the individual possess a rational, sound mind and is fully aware of his actions and consequences but continues to proceed with the illegal act, punishment without rehab is just. It is important to recognize and distinguish between the two situations in order to identify and address other underlying problems and/or to appropriately penalize those deserving of punishment.

[DaKirbster]

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.

 

 

------

 

 

The main purpose of the criminal justice system is to keep society safe by punishing criminals who do not follow the law. However, often times these criminals are driven to crime by psychological or mental issues, and can be successfully readjusted to society with proper rehabilitation. In such cases, it is unjust for these criminals to be punished without the opportunity for rehabilitation since they are capable of getting better, and are sometimes not responsible for the crimes they committ. For example, in the late 1990's, a young Aboriginal man in Saskatchewan was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of a man with whom he got into a fight. Further investigations revealed that the convicted criminal had a long history parental abuse and drug addiction, and a team of investigators claimed that the man was capable of rehabilitation with proper therapy and treatment. However, the man was already convicted and continues to carry out his sentence to this day. In this case, the punishment was unjust as the man was not given the opportunity to mend his wrongful ways.

 

However, there are somes cases whereby punishment without rehabilitation is just. This applies to a recent case where a Swedish man massacred camps in Sweden, killing up over 77 people in the process. He has been arrested and his trial is underway. A team of psychologists monitored him constantly for an extended period of time and were convinced that he is of sane mind. The Swedish man insists that he in not insane, but rather his right extremist views drove him to the rampage and he stands beside his horrific crime. This man cannot be rehabilitated because he does not suffer from a mental or psychological illness; rather, he is genuinely evil and twisted, driven to terrible crime by his extreme political views and opinions. As such, punishment without rehabilitation is completely justified.

 

What determines whether or not punishment without rehabilitation is just or not depends on if the criminal is deemed capable of being rehabilitated. In the first case, the Aboriginal man was driven to murder by deep-seeded psychological problems that could be repairable with appropriate therapy and treatment. For this man, punishment without rehabilitation was unjust. In the second case, the Swedish extremist was driven to mass murder by his personal opinions which, while sick and twisted, are not rooted in any psychological problem. As such, rehabilitation is not possible as the man has nothing to rehabilitate; punishment without rehabilitation is justified. Hopefully in the future, society will develop a way to better catch criminals, ill or healthy, before they can committ such atrocities.

[Enviro_4_Medschool]

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.

 

-----

 

When someone commits a crime, it is expected under our penal code that punishment that is fitting for the crime is carried out both at the time of sentencing and if needed be in the future. Part of this punishment could include rehabilitation to insure that if the person is willing they can be taught how to appropriately live within society and avoid committing crimes. This rehabilitation is considered to be part of the justice process and gives the offender a second chance to redeem themselves. Without a chance at rehabilitation it could be considered unjust since the system has not allowed for this chance of redemption. To illustrate this point, some offenders under the law have very long sentences but there is also a system of parole. In order to be considered for parole the offenders must demonstrate an appropriate amount of remorsefulness or skill set to be integrated into society. Even then there may be a parole office to monitor the progress of offender. This allows the offender to be rehabilitated while still having a punishment for the crime. It also allows them to live a life and continue on from the crime. It would be unjust not to allow this chance because some people are truely remorseful for the crimes they have committed, deserve a chance at a rehabilitation program to see if they can be re-integrated and have received punishment that was considered under the courts to cover the crime.

 

However, since rehabilitation works for people willing to submit themselves to the process. Since our penal code and court interpretation of justice reolves around punishment fitting for the crime some people have committed crimes so abhorrant that there is no realistic way to rehabilitate in order to allow safe integration into the public. The murders of prostitutes in Vancouver by Picton could be considered to fall under this realm. Picton was a known suspect and even under watch from the RCMP continued to murder prostitutes. To this date, he has shown no remorse and in all liklihood would probably continue to murder prostitutes given the chance. He had been released previously for other offenses and in all liklihood had undergone some rehabilitation but still continued to murder regardless. In this case, justice would be that the person receive a severe punishment with no chance for parole; rehabilitation as being ineffective would no longer be considered part of a just process. Furthermore, extremely life-long sentence, such as one that would accompany multiple murders in Picton's case, there is a minimal chance of being released into the public and thereforem rehabilitation could be considered unnecessary to the justice process. In this case there is a punishment and justice but the lack of rehabilitation does not take away from the justice process.

 

There is a large enough gradient in the form of justice and effectiveness of rehabilitation that some cases require rehabilitation as part of a just process and some do not. If the person has shown they are capable of being reintegrated back into society then it would be unjust to prevent them from having the chance to do so. Since there is a system of parole, and rehabilitation of crimes committed, people who are likly to show remorse for their crimes have a chance of being rehabilated and justice would still have been accomplished from their initial crime. They are monitored by a system of parole to insure the continued safety of the public and justice has given a second chance through rehabilitation. However, in the case of such people as Picton, their crimes are so heinous and their remorse so lacking, that the most appropriate punishment is to keep them locked away from society with no chance of rehabilitation and parole. IN Picton's case rehabilitation was proven to be ineffective and justice can still be carried out without giving them a chance to rehabilitate. Hence, the lack of rehabilitation still results in a just process.

 

----

 

Thanks again Raymond!

[wstntime]

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.

 

A breach of society's moral values and ethical principles warrants punishment that includes treatment to reintegrate the individual into society, whereby further breaches of these values and principles are unlikely. Societies view this concept of punishment and rehabilitation as a fair and logical way to improve social stability in the future. Consider the case of football star Michael Vick, who was setenced to prison for his involvement in a dogfighting ring across several US states. Underground dogfighting rings, which often included illegal gambling as well, are a breach of the law in the USA, and a prison sentence as punishment was warranted. Along with his incarceration, Vick received treatment to address the underlying reasons for his breach of the moral code. After his imprisonment, vick was able to reintegrate back into society and have a positive impact by using his experience to teach young people about the negative implications of criminal activity. In this case, it would be unjust to deny the rehabilitation along with punishment.

 

However, there may be situations where it is deemed fair to have punishment without rehabilitation. Consider the case of psycopath Timothy McVeigh who was involved in the Oklahoma city bombing which killed hundreds of people. In this case, Mcveigh received punishment in the form of the death penalty and was eventually executed by lethal injection. The breach of society's moral code was so severe in this case, that the american people, as was reflected in verdict by the judicial system, did not feel that treatment to reintegrate Mcveigh back into society was fair, and that retribution for the killing of these people was the appropriate punishment.

 

While it can be seen that fair punishment may or may not include rehabilitation, whether or not denying rehabilitation is just or not depends on the severity of the crime and whether society seeks retributive justice or restoration and reintegration. While there are different philosophies regarding the most appropriate form of justice, most societies have a mixture of retribution and restoration as punishment for breaches of values and principles. In the case of Michael Vick, punishment and treatment for reintegration into society is justified because society believes that restorative justice will ultimately inprove social stability in the future. For this reason, it would be unjust to deny rehabilitation along with the punishment. However, in cases involving psycopaths such as Timothy McVeigh, society views their actions as such a severe breach of the moral code, that reintegration into society is unacceptable, or is most likely not even possible, and retribution for such crimes without any form of rehabilitation is viewed as fair by society as a whole.

 

Thanks again. I kinda cheated because I edited my post after I submitted it.

[stryke22]

In the judicial system it is usual to offer and/or enforce both punishment and rehabilitation on repeat offenders or offenders of serious crimes such as murder and rape. Often with these types of offenders, their actions are a way for them to release an emotional anomaly or a response to abuse. Usually these underlying causes can be addressed through rehabilitation and in most cases, corrected. It is therefore unjust to punish such offenders but not offer them rehabilitation. The punishment simply teaches them that their actions were unacceptable whereas the rehabilitation can dig to the root of the problem and give the offender the tools needed to help get their lives back in order. Without rehabilitation, it is probable that the offender would continue in their destructive ways.

 

At times, however, it is not necessary to give rehabilitation. This is the case when the offender knows that their actions were unacceptable and knows how to fix them. This is most often the case in young children, particularly toddlers who are learning what is considered acceptable and not acceptable in our society. Children are not born with a sense of societal morals and must be taught these things. Often, parents must punish their children in someway in order to show them what is acceptable and not acceptable. This is most often necessary when teaching children how to get along with other children. In these cases, the children are learning and punishment facilitates their learning. Rehabilitation is not needed because the child has learned from the punishment and will not make the same mistake again.

 

Ultimately it depends on the nature of the person as to whether rehabilitation needs to be carried out. If the person is offending social morals due to an underlying emotional issue or a response to abuse as is the case most often with repeat offenders, murderers and rapists, one must use rehabilitative measures to address the underlying issue. In the case of people who are learning something for the first time, especially young children, the punishment is necessary to teach show them the proper response to their situation but rehabilitation is not necessary because there is no underlying reason to the offenders actions other than ignorance (which is solved when the punish is carried out).

 

Thanks for grading this!!

[medhopeful64]

Hi Raymond, I was wondering how long this service would be running for? Thank you.

[RaymondPrep101]

page_matrix

 

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. Why? Rehabilitation offers counseling, support, and educational resources for offenders to encourage behavioural changes and outlooks of what?. 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.

Issues: 1) You should follow the standard 3 paragraph format for the writing sample essays. 2) Your points are too general and vague here.

For instance, it would be unjust to deprive word choice 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. This is a run-on sentence. 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.

This should be combined and reorganized with the ideas in your last paragraph. Your argument here is basic and lacks depth. It does not make a strong argument overall.

 

Although rehabilitation is an important parallel word choice 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 argument here is weak. Of course, if someone is dead they won't be needing any rehabilitation. You should use a real life concrete example in your essays.

 

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.

The severity of the crime is a good resolution principle. However, the weak argument in your refuting example comes back to affect the strength of your arguments in this paragraph.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

osadek

 

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? This argument is questionable because laws are still enforced whether people are aware of them or not. Ignorance is not an excuse in a court of law. 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. This statement is too strong and will weaken your arguments in the refuting paragraph. 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.

The argument here lacks evidence and supporting points. There are contentions without anything to back it up. You should also use real life examples to illustrate your points.

 

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. This is not a proper description of Sharia Law. 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.

This example is a bit better than your last paragraph although it sounds a bit biased and your essays should be more objective.

 

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. In the United States, there is still the death penalty in some states and in the military. This also ignores the punishment of life in prison without the chance of parole which is a form of punishment without rehabilitation. 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.

This does not do a good job of addressing the task. The argument itself is weak because premeditated murder (1st degree murder) in Western countries often have punishments that don't include rehabilitation.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

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. This is a weak argument. Don't people who commit crimes deserve to be punished? 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.

Problems:

1) The whole premise of the argument that the harm of a punishment needs to be made up for is questionable.

2) Animals are not really what the prompt is referring to. I guess you can rehabilitate an animal but that is not really what the prompt is looking for.

3) Personal examples tend to be weak in general.

 

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. Introducing the concept of revenge makes the argument less clear. Is revenge just? 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. This argument is confusing and not convincing.

The overall discussion is too vague.

 

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. This still doesn't make a lot of sense. 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.

 

Overall, the quality of ideas needs a lot of improvement.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 All of the tasks are only weakly addressed.

Depth: 1.5

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

donna71

 

The legal system plays an important role in determining a criminal's sentence or punishment for their crime. Punishment may be accompanied by rehabilitation, but in some cases punishment without rehabilitation is unjust. Good start. An example that exemplifies this would be the relatively recent case in Canada where an individual attacked and dismembered decapitated I think a fellow passenger aboard a Grey Hound bus. Upon psychological inspection it was deemed that the individual was mentally unstable and displayed schizophrenic symptoms. In this case it would be unjust to penalize the schizophrenic individual without rehabilitation as this would result in a vicious cycle where upon release and untreated for his condition the individual may reoffend indefinitely. I'm not sure this case works well in this prompt. The severity of the mental illness of the offender and the severity of the crime may make rehabilitation impossible. Furthermore, the offender’s inherent mental problems may be beyond his knowledge and/or voluntary control and without rehabilitation the system is penalizing those who are susceptible to mental issues and not enabling them to reintegrate back into the community to lead a productive life. Therefore the denial of rehabilitation is unjust for crimes rooted with problems in psychological deficiencies.

The idea and argument are strong. I just think that this example is too extreme to illustrate your point well.

On the other hand some punishments without rehabilitation are just. In the case involving Bernard Madoff and the Wall Street collapse word choice, it was found that Madoff’s investments were of fraudulent nature and produced artificial gains based on a Ponzi scheme. The crime was knowingly perpetrated over many years and involved many investors’ assets, ranging from charities to individuals’ life savings. Madoff’s exploitation required careful planning and meticulous care to clean up the trail of evidence that would raise flags to the regulating authorities. He went to great lengths to conceal the crime that it he even grammar purportedly hid the crime from his sons. Punishments without rehabilitiation for white collared criminals such as Madoff are just, as Madoff was a professional who was knowingly aware of the nature and legality of his crime yet continued to conduct himself in an illegal manner. In addition, the purpose of rehabilitation is to correct a deficiency that would enable Madoff to reintegrate into society, however Madoff displayed no obvious treatable deficiency other than the human vice of greed.

This is very good.

 

Punishments serve to deter particular actions that we as a society deem inappropriate. Not all punishments are accompanied with rehabilitation and sometimes this is unjust but in some cases is adequately just. What determines whether the lack of rehabilitation accompanying punishment is just or unjust is dependent upon the presence of a rational, sound mind. Should it be the case that the penalized individual is mentally unstable, such as having schizophrenia, and lacks a sound mind to be able to grasp the nature and legalities of his/her actions, it is unjust to punish without rehabilitation. In contrast should the individual possess a rational, sound mind and is fully aware of his actions and consequences but continues to proceed with the illegal act, punishment without rehab is just. It is important to recognize and distinguish between the two situations in order to identify and address other underlying problems and/or to appropriately penalize those deserving of punishment.

Excellent resolution principle and idea, but no application to your previous examples which is a critical component of the resolution paragraph.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Displaying intelligence can sometimes be a politician's downfall.

 

Describe a specific situation in which displaying intelligence might not be a politician's downfall. Discuss what you think determines whether or not displaying intelligence will be a politician's downfall

 

Instructions

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

 

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

 

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

 

Deadline

11:59pm Wednesday, April 25.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Thursday, April 26.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 15: DaKirbster

 

The main purpose of the criminal justice system is to keep society safe by punishing criminals who do not follow the law. However, often times these criminals are driven to crime by psychological or mental issues, and can be successfully readjusted to society with proper rehabilitation. In such cases, it is unjust for these criminals to be punished without the opportunity for rehabilitation since they are capable of getting better, and are sometimes not responsible for the crimes they committ. This should be saved for the resolution paragraph. Discussing these ideas in a vacuum and without context is ineffective. For example, in the late 1990's, a young Aboriginal man in Saskatchewan was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of a man with whom he got into a fight. Further investigations revealed that the convicted criminal had a long history parental abuse and drug addiction, and a team of investigators claimed that the man was capable of rehabilitation with proper therapy and treatment. However, the man was already convicted and continues to carry out his sentence to this day. In this case, the punishment was unjust as the man was not given the opportunity to mend his wrongful ways.

The idea is good but the organization needs improvement. You need to have integrated the initial points into your discussion of the example.

 

However, there are somes cases whereby punishment without rehabilitation is just. This applies to a recent case where a Swedish man massacred camps in Sweden, killing up over 77 people grammar in the process. He has been arrested and his trial is underway. A team of psychologists monitored him constantly for an extended period of time and were convinced that he is of sane mind. The Swedish man insists that he in not insane, but rather his right extremist views drove him to the rampage and he stands beside his horrific crime. This man cannot be rehabilitated because he does not suffer from a mental or psychological illness; rather, he is genuinely evil and twisted, driven to terrible crime by his extreme political views and opinions. As such, punishment without rehabilitation is completely justified.

This is excellent. However, Andres Breivik is from Norway not Sweden. Make sure you do not make factual errors when using a well known example.

What determines whether or not punishment without rehabilitation is just or not depends on if the criminal is deemed capable of being rehabilitated. In the first case, the Aboriginal man was driven to murder by deep-seeded psychological problems that could be repairable with appropriate therapy and treatment. For this man, punishment without rehabilitation was unjust. In the second case, the Swedish extremist was driven to mass murder by his personal opinions which, while sick and twisted, are not rooted in any psychological problem. As such, rehabilitation is not possible as the man has nothing to rehabilitate; punishment without rehabilitation is justified. Hopefully in the future, society will develop a way to better catch criminals, ill or healthy, before they can committ such atrocities.

Well done.

 

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 well addressed.

Depth: 5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 15: Enviro_4_Medschool

 

When someone commits a crime, it is expected under our penal code that punishment that is fitting for the crime is carried out both at the time of sentencing and if needed be grammar in the future. Part of this punishment could include rehabilitation to insure ensure that if the person is willing they can be taught how to appropriately live within society and avoid committing crimes. This rehabilitation is considered to be part of the justice process and gives the offender a second chance to redeem themselves. Without a chance at rehabilitation it could be considered unjust since the system has not allowed for this chance of redemption. Your introduction should be more concise. You should integrate some of these points into your example.To illustrate this point, some offenders under the law have very long sentences but there is also a system of parole. In order to be considered for parole the offenders must demonstrate an appropriate amount of remorsefulness or skill set to be integrated into society. Even then there may be a parole office to monitor the progress of offender grammar. This allows the offender to be rehabilitated while still having a punishment for the crime. It also allows them to live a life grammar and continue on from the crime. It would be unjust not to allow this chance because some people are truely remorseful for the crimes they have committed, deserve a chance at a rehabilitation program to see if they can be re-integrated and have received punishment that was considered under the courts to cover the crime. This sentence lacks clarity.

This example is okay but is a bit too vague and therefore lacks depth.

 

However, since rehabilitation works for people willing to submit themselves to the process. Grammar Since our penal code and court interpretation of justice reolves around punishment fitting for the crime some people have committed crimes so abhorrant that there is no realistic way to rehabilitate in order to allow safe integration into the public. The murders of prostitutes in Vancouver by Picton could be considered to fall under this realm. Picton was a known suspect and even under watch from the RCMP continued to murder prostitutes. To this date, he has shown no remorse and in all liklihood would probably continue to murder prostitutes given the chance. He had been released previously for other offenses and in all liklihood had undergone some rehabilitation but still continued to murder regardless. In this case, justice would be that the person receive a severe punishment with no chance for parole; rehabilitation as being ineffective would no longer be considered part of a just process. Furthermore, extremely life-long sentence, such as one that would accompany multiple murders in Picton's case, there is a minimal chance of being released into the public and thereforem rehabilitation could be considered unnecessary to the justice process. In this case there is a punishment and justice but the lack of rehabilitation does not take away from the justice process.

The example certainly works. The ideas are all there but they are poorly organized. The ideas do not flow smoothly from one to the other. The coherence needs improvement.

There is a large enough gradient in the form of justice and effectiveness of rehabilitation that some cases require rehabilitation as part of a just process and some do not. This is very vague and the wording makes for a weak statement. If the person has shown they are capable of being reintegrated back into society then it would be unjust to prevent them from having the chance to do so. Since there is a system of parole, and rehabilitation of crimes committed ?, people who are likly to show remorse for their crimes have a chance of being rehabilated and justice would still have been accomplished from their initial crime awkward phrasing. They are monitored by a system of parole to insure the continued safety of the public and justice has given a second chance through rehabilitation. However, in the case of such people as Picton, their crimes are so heinous and their remorse so lacking, that the most appropriate punishment is to keep them locked away from society with no chance of rehabilitation and parole. Why? IN Picton's case rehabilitation was proven to be ineffective this undermines your previous statements where you said there should be no rehabilitation. and justice can still be carried out without giving them a chance to rehabilitate. Hence, the lack of rehabilitation still results in a just process.

What is your resolution principle exactly? This is not clear in the writing.

 

The ideas are solid here but the writing style makes things difficult to understand. The organization, coherence and focus of the writing need improvement. The clarity is significantly reduced by the jumbled thoughts and points.

 

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

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 2 Numerous grammatical mistakes.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 15: durabol

 

A breach of society's moral values and ethical principles warrants punishment that includes treatment to reintegrate the individual into society, whereby further breaches of these values and principles are unlikely. Societies view this concept of punishment and rehabilitation as a fair and logical way to improve social stability in the future. Consider the case of football star Michael Vick, who was setenced to prison for his involvement in a dogfighting ring across several US states. Underground dogfighting rings, which often included illegal gambling as well, are a breach of the law in the USA, and a prison sentence as punishment was warranted. Along with his incarceration, Vick received treatment to address the underlying reasons for his breach of the moral code. Like what? After his imprisonment, vick was able to reintegrate back into society and have a positive impact by using his experience to teach young people about the negative implications of criminal activity. In this case, it would be unjust to deny the rehabilitation along with punishment. Why?

The example could work but the development of the discussion needs improvement. You don't address the key issue here: Why would it be unjust for Vick to receive punishment without rehabilitation. If you don't answer this question in your supporting paragraph then you have not addressed the writing task.

 

However, there may be situations where it is deemed fair to have punishment without rehabilitation. Consider the case of psycopath Timothy McVeigh who was involved in the Oklahoma city bombing which killed hundreds of people. In this case, Mcveigh received punishment in the form of the death penalty and was eventually executed by lethal injection. The breach of society's moral code I am not sure why you use the term moral code here. Law and moral code sometimes overlap but are not synonyms. was so severe in this case, that the american people, as was reflected in verdict by the judicial system, did not feel that treatment to reintegrate Mcveigh back into society was fair, and that retribution for the killing of these people was the appropriate punishment. This is a run-on sentence. What does it matter what the American people think? Justice and the people's will are two different things.

This example is good. The reason why this is just needs improvement. It is a severe crime, that is a good reason. However, what the American people feel is not a good reason why this punishment was just.

While it can be seen that fair punishment may or may not include rehabilitation, whether or not denying rehabilitation is just or not depends on the severity of the crime and whether society seeks retributive justice or restoration and reintegration. This needs to be written more concisely. Issues: 1) You should only have one well-developed resolution principle. Here you have two. 2) The italicized part is written in an unnecessarily complicated manner which lacks clarity. 3) The italicized idea is not a strong one. While there are different philosophies regarding the most appropriate form of justice, most societies have a mixture of retribution and restoration word choice as punishment for breaches of values and principles. In the case of Michael Vick, punishment and treatment for reintegration into society is justified because society believes that restorative justice will ultimately inprove social stability in the future. This argument is weak because it undermines your refuting idea. For this reason, it would be unjust to deny rehabilitation along with the punishment. However, in cases involving psycopaths such as Timothy McVeigh, society views their actions as such a severe breach of the moral code, that reintegration into society is unacceptable, or is most likely not even possible, and retribution for such crimes without any form of rehabilitation is viewed as fair by society as a whole. You have some good ideas and some ideas that are weak.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3 All of the tasks are only somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 15: stryke22

 

In the judicial system it is usual to offer and/or enforce both punishment and rehabilitation on repeat offenders or offenders of serious crimes such as murder and rape. Often with these types of offenders, their actions are a way for them to release an emotional anomaly word choice or a response to abuse. Usually these underlying causes can be addressed through rehabilitation and in most cases, corrected. It is therefore unjust to punish such offenders but not offer them rehabilitation. The punishment simply teaches them that their actions were unacceptable whereas the rehabilitation can dig to the root of the problem and give the offender the tools needed to help get their lives back in order. Without rehabilitation, it is probable that the offender would continue in their destructive ways.

This discussion is good. I would have not have chosen rape or murder in this case because these are very severe crimes and picking those crimes weakens your arguments. You should use a real world example to add depth to your discussion.

 

At times, however, it is not necessary to give rehabilitation. This is different from what the writing task is asking for. This is the case when the offender knows that their actions were unacceptable and knows how to fix them. This is vague and the argument seems weak. This is most often the case in young children, particularly toddlers who are learning what is considered acceptable and not acceptable in our society. How exactly do toddlers and children know that their actions are unacceptable? How do they know how to fix them? Children are not born with a sense of societal morals and must be taught these things. Often, parents must punish their children in someway in order to show them what is acceptable and not acceptable. This is most often necessary when teaching children how to get along with other children. In these cases, the children are learning and punishment facilitates their learning. Rehabilitation is not needed because the child has learned from the punishment and will not make the same mistake again.

The argument here is weak. It is pretty hard to argue that punishing children without rehabilitation is just. It just doesn't make sense.

 

Ultimately it depends on the nature of the person as to whether rehabilitation needs to be carried out. This is vague and ambiguous. If the person is offending social morals due to an underlying emotional issue or a response to abuse as is the case most often with repeat offenders, murderers and rapists, one must use rehabilitative measures to address the underlying issue. In the case of people who are learning something for the first time, especially young children, the punishment is necessary to teach show them the proper response The punishment teaches them that what they did was wrong. It is rehabilitation that teaches them the proper response. to their situation but rehabilitation is not necessary because there is no underlying reason to the offenders actions other than ignorance (which is solved when the punish is carried out).

 

The essay started off well with solid ideas. However, the ideas relating to children that followed were weak.

 

The format and organization are fine. It is the quality of ideas that is the problem here.

 

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 weakly addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

 

 

 

 

[RaymondPrep101]

Hi Raymond, I was wondering how long this service would be running for? Thank you.

 

This is not known at the moment.

[osadek]

Thanks a lot for the feedback, was really grasping for straws in that last one.

 

Thanks again

[donna71]

Politicans play important roles in decision making and do so with information that is gathered or brought to their attention. Displaying intelligence or knowledge of information can sometimes be to a politician's disadvantage. For instance, there was the recent robocalls incident in which voters were diverted from the proper voting stations. Investigation into the party responsible for these misleading calls would produce damaging information for those responsible and also for those who were aware of such information. Should it be found that Stephen Harper was aware of or possessed such information prior to the incident, but failed to initiate action to prevent it would result in decreased credibility for him and his colleagues. Therefore the display of intelligence would be a disadvantage as it may lead many to question the politician's credibility and professionalism. Subsequently his/her qualifcation to hold such a role may be questioned and he/she may not be re-elected.

 

However, intelligence may prove to be useful and an advantage for a politician. Consider the Chinese president and his response to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Immediately following the onset of the earthquake, the president was on the scene of the earthquake epicenter surveying the damage. The president had previous training in geomechanics and this intelligence allowed him to gauge the level of damage and make the necessarily swift plans of the search and rescue efforts. The president was praised for his quick and appropriate handling of the disaster. Therefore the president's display of intelligence, or specialization in geomechanics, results in an advantage for him as it proved and enabled him to be qualified in making and directing the appropriate plans in handling the situation. The lack of intelligence on the other hand, would be to the president's disadvantage as consultation with the appropriate officials would result in further delay in the emergency response.

 

Intelligence and knowledge is important to consider when we want to elect or re-elect officials to political roles. Sometimes the display of intelligence can be a disadvantage but at other times it is not. What determines whether the display of intelligence is advantageous or disvantageous is dependent upon the nature of the intelligence, specifically whether the knowledge is situation-specific or discipline-specific. Should it be the case that the intelligence is situation-specific, that is intelligence about the plans to carry out automated robocalls, then the display of such intelligence may result in the politician's downfall. However should it be the case where the intelligence is discipline-specific, such as related to geomechanics and earthquakes, the display of such knowledge is an advantage in order to instigate the proper measures. It is important for politicians to be aware of the types of information that they possess in order to appropriately conduct themselves.

 

Thanks again Raymond!

[Enviro_4_Medschool]

In ancient greece, public figures interacted with their peers and the general populace in forums where they had to display their intelligence by means of persuasive arguments. However, those who were considered quite clever could also be considered mischevious; therefore, sometimes the display of what was perceived to be an excess of of intelligence bred mistrust in the majority rather than support. Consequently, sometimes displaying intelligence can lead to a politician's downfall because people distrust the intentions of those that are intelligent. At the time of Lenin's death, there had been conflict and a dramatic shift from Imperalism under the Czar to Communism. The people had fought what was in part an ideological war and wanted to be led into peace and stability. Furthermore, the people were looking for someone that stood for them and wasn't above them like the Czars were. Therefore, when Trotsky and Stalin were engaged in a battle for who would take up the Communist movement there had been a public sentiment to support the "common man" Stalin over the "scholar" Trotsky. History showed that Stalin won and it could be argued it was because of the perception of Stalin being closer to the people and more of a common man than Trotsky who was a scholar and therefore removed from the general population. It was Trotsky's brillance that alienated him from the people and therefor led to his downfall.

 

However, there are examples of politician's who have won because people found the intelligence of the leader to be a hallmark of competance. Before Obama became president, the contest was between him and Hilary Clinton. Both of these candidates could be considered intelligent scholarly people and both were popular in part because they were intelligent people. Furthermore, at the time Obama and Hilary were running there was alot happening in America. Bush Jr's wars had been quite costly both financially and emotionally and this was soon compounded with the fall of wall street, which led to massive foreclosures of homes. The fallout was that America went into a recession. In the face of such a complicated situation, for some a leader was needed that was intelligent and could bring hope because their intelligence bespoke of competance to lead a nation out of the recession. In this case when intelligence spoke of competance with the promise of a well-reasoned change there was a surge of inspiration in Americans to vote for Obama.

 

Both the cases of Stalin taking over Communism and Obama's presidency heralded a shift from one leader to another as well as a shift from one way of life to another. The determining factor of why both of these leaders won was based on what the people wanted from their leader in terms of future navigation of the country. In Stalin's case, people favoured a leader that they could relate to, that was "simple" over someone who promoted an ideological cause that they could not understand. Trotsky by showing his brilliance ended up alienating the people because they expected someone more common. Conversely, it was expectations that lead Americans to be inspired by Obama and elect him in the hopes that he would be able to navigate the mess of a costly war and the sub-prime mortgage crisis. In this case, intelligence fell in line with competance and displaying intelligence uplifted the candidate in public esteem.

 

----

 

Thanks Raymond.

[DaKirbster]

Displaying intelligence can sometimes be a politician's downfall.

 

Describe a specific situation in which displaying intelligence might not be a politician's downfall. Discuss what you think determines whether or not displaying intelligence will be a politician's downfall.

 

 

----------

 

 

Politicians are society's leaders; they are responsible for making decisions that benefit the nation. It stands to reason, then, that politicians should be intelligent so that they may make good decisions. However, there are times when displaying intelligence can lead to a politician's downfall. For example, recently in British Columbia, Gordon Campbell's liberal party were in charge. Campbell realized that the province was struggling and needed to make more money. As such, he proposed and implemented the HST tax to replace the GST and PST, which would effectively raise the province's revenue through higher taxing. This was a display of intelligence that ended up badly for him. The voters did not like the HST - no one likes to pay more tax. There was a public outrage and protests swept the province. Eventually, Campbell was forced to revert the tax back to the old GST and PST system (at great cost to the province), and resigned shortly thereafter due to his newfound unpopularity.

 

However, there are some cases where a politican displaying intelligence will not lead to his downfall. Within the past few years, President Barack Obama has been voicing his concerns about the future of the environment. He realizes that our environment is slowing deteriorating due to human pollution. Recently, Obama made a pledge to reduce the United States' carbon emissions for the benefit of the environment. This is a display of intelligence that did not lead to a downfall, but rather people support it; saving the environment is a hot topic in today's society and many people are enthusiatic to support it.

 

What determines if a politician's display of intelligence will lead to his downfall depends on whether or not the display of intelligence involves a direct burden to the voters. If it does, then the public will not like it and it could end badly for the politician. In the first case, Campbell displayed intelligence by noticing the province needed more money and offering a solution. Unfortunately, his solution involved increasing taxes which directly burdens the public, and so the taxpayers did not approve and it lead to his downfall. In the second case, Obama displayed intelligence by realizing that the environment is in danger and pledging to reduce pollution to help it. The taxpayers are not directly burdened since the pledge did not involve many specifics to the public, and rather it looked impressive for the president to be standing up for a noble cause. Ultimately, it should be everyone's hope that all politicians are intelligent, whether or not they display it, as much of our future rests in their hands.

[jcbarnes]

Displaying intelligence can sometimes be a politician's downfall.

 

Describe a specific situation in which displaying intelligence might not be a politician's downfall. Discuss what you think determines whether or not displaying intelligence will be a politician's downfall

 

While competence would seem to be a virtue for any profession, a public display of intelligence may at times be detrimental for politicians. Showing obvious intelligence and saaviness can at times alienate and intimidate constituents, as the general public may feel as though the politician in question has little in common with the common people. This is most often the case in areas with poor education systems. During the 2008 American presidential election, the so-called heartland of the United States, representing the more rural portion of America, demonstrated very little support the Democrat candidate Barack Obama. Reports from CNN and other news outlets suggested that Obama's smooth speech delivery, refined outward appearance and illustrious education background alienated him from these voters. For individuals who voted based on who they felt would represent their interests best, a man who preferred a nice glass of wine over a beer represented someone with very different core values, resulting in a lack of support.

 

However, a certain degree of intelligence is necessary to instill a sense of trust in a politician. President Bill Clinton, former Rhodes scholar and governor of Arkansas, was an exceptionally bright individual. His ability to successfully govern Arkansas, and subsequently, the United States of America, resulted in unprecedented approval ratings during his tenure. Performing tasks such as greatly reducing the national debt and ratifying the North American Free Trade Agreement aptly demonstrated his competence, which in turn resulted in greater national support.

 

It can be surmised then that the display of intelligence by politicians may or may not harm their careers. What determines the outcome of such a display is dependent upon the utility of the mode of intelligence exemplified; showing off skills such as being able to critique the works of Monet or Renoir only serves to highlight the differences between the politician and question and the general public, while being able to balance a budget is an ability that instills confidence in the voters. Barack Obama's alleged elitism, allegations levelled after his criticism of religious groups of lower education, created a disconnect between the working class and the candidate. In contrast, Bill Clinton's competence during his term as Governor of Arkansas helped promote a sense of confidence in his abilities. Therefore, it can be said that the intelligence displayed by politicians must be related to their role as leaders in order to be beneficial.

[RaymondPrep101]

donna71

 

Politicans play important roles in decision making and do so with information that is gathered or brought to their attention. Displaying intelligence or knowledge of information Intelligence and knowledge of information are two different things. I don't think it is a good idea to make them synonymous here because knowledge of information is not what the prompt is getting at here. can sometimes be to a politician's disadvantage. For instance, there was the recent robocalls incident in which voters were diverted from the proper voting stations. You are going to need to elaborate. The marker may not know what you are referring to. Investigation into the party responsible for these misleading calls would produce damaging information for those responsible and also for those who were aware of such information. Should it be found that Stephen Harper was aware of or possessed such information prior to the incident, but failed to initiate action to prevent it would result in decreased credibility for him and his colleagues. Therefore the display of intelligence would be a disadvantage as it may lead many to question the politician's credibility ?? and professionalism. Subsequently his/her qualifcation to hold such a role may be questioned and he/she may not be re-elected.

My initial feeling was correct. Knowledge of information does not equate to intelligence and this example doesn't address the writing task well.

 

However, intelligence may prove to be useful and an advantage for a politician. Consider the Chinese president and his response to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Immediately following the onset of the earthquake, the president was on the scene of the earthquake epicenter surveying the damage. The president had previous training in geomechanics and this intelligence allowed him to gauge the level of damage and make the necessarily swift plans of the search and rescue efforts. The president was praised for his quick and appropriate handling of the disaster. Therefore the president's display of intelligence, or specialization in geomechanics, results in an advantage for him as it proved and enabled him to be qualified in making and directing the appropriate plans in handling the situation. The lack of intelligence on the other hand, would be to the president's disadvantage as consultation with the appropriate officials would result in further delay in the emergency response.

Excellent.

 

Intelligence and knowledge is are important to consider when we want to elect or re-elect officials to political roles. Sometimes the display of intelligence can be a disadvantage but at other times it is not. What determines whether the display of intelligence is advantageous or disvantageous is dependent upon the nature of the intelligence, specifically whether the knowledge is situation-specific or discipline-specific. This is very vague and ambiguous. When reading it, it is confusing to know what is being proposed. Should it be the case that the intelligence is situation-specific, that is intelligence about the plans to carry out automated robocalls, then the display of such intelligence may result in the politician's downfall. However should it be the case where the intelligence is discipline-specific, such as related to geomechanics and earthquakes, the display of such knowledge is an advantage in order to instigate the proper measures. It is important for politicians to be aware of the types of information that they possess in order to appropriately conduct themselves.

The overall argument here is not convincing. Isn't the Chinese president's intelligence situation specific in the example provided?

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Enviro_4_Medschool

 

In ancient greece, public figures interacted word choice with their peers and the general populace in forums where they had to display their intelligence by means of persuasive arguments. However, those who were considered quite clever could also be considered mischevious; therefore, sometimes the display of what was perceived to be an excess of of intelligence bred mistrust in the majority rather than support. Consequently, sometimes displaying intelligence can lead to a politician's downfall because people distrust the intentions of those that are intelligent. Some of the statements here need a bit more evidence and elaboration. At the time of Lenin's death, there had been conflict and a dramatic shift from Imperalism under the Czar to Communism. Why do you jump from discussing ancient Greece to Russia? There is too big a disconnect between ancient Greece and Russia for your earlier points to be considered relevant. The people had fought what was in part an ideological war and wanted to be led into peace and stability. Furthermore, the people were looking for someone that stood for them and wasn't above them like the Czars were. Therefore, when Trotsky and Stalin were engaged in a battle for who would take up the Communist movement there had been a public sentiment to support the "common man" Stalin over the "scholar" Trotsky. History showed that Stalin won and it could be argued it was because of the perception of Stalin being closer to the people and more of a common man than Trotsky who was a scholar and therefore removed from the general population. It was Trotsky's brillance that alienated him from the people and therefor led to his downfall.

The Russian example would be great. However, you need to have more explanation and expansion upon the idea that Trotsky's intelligence was his downfall. The last sentence was great, however, that idea needed to be the central focus of the paragraph.

 

 

However, there are examples of politician's who have won because people found the intelligence of the leader to be a hallmark of competance. Before Obama became president, the contest was between him and Hilary Clinton. Both of these candidates could be considered intelligent scholarly people and both were popular in part because they were intelligent people. Furthermore, at the time Obama and Hilary were running there was alot happening in America. Bush Jr's wars had been quite costly both financially and emotionally and this was soon compounded with the fall of wall street, which led to massive foreclosures of homes. The fallout was that America went into a recession awkward phrasing. In the face of such a complicated situation, for some a leader was needed that was intelligent and could bring hope because their intelligence bespoke of competance to lead a nation out of the recession. In this case when intelligence spoke of competance with the promise of a well-reasoned change there was a surge of inspiration in Americans to vote for Obama.

This example could work. However, again the example is not explained in a way that is focused on addressing the writing task. It is only at the end that you get to the ideas that are supposed to be the central focus of the paragraph.

 

Both the cases of Stalin taking over Communism and Obama's presidency heralded a shift from one leader to another as well as a shift from one way of life to another. The determining factor of why both of these leaders won was based on what the people wanted from their leader in terms of future navigation of the country. In Stalin's case, people favoured a leader that they could relate to, that was "simple" over someone who promoted an ideological cause that they could not understand. Trotsky by showing his brilliance ended up alienating the people because they expected someone more common. Conversely, it was expectations that lead Americans to be inspired by Obama and elect him in the hopes that he would be able to navigate the mess of a costly war and the sub-prime mortgage crisis. In this case, intelligence fell in line with competance and displaying intelligence uplifted the candidate in public esteem.

There isn't a clear resolution principle here. Without a strong resolution principle, you will not be able to create a convincing and logical contrast between your examples.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is poorly addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

DaKirbster

 

Politicians are society's leaders; they are responsible for making decisions that benefit the nation. It stands to reason, then, that politicians should be intelligent so that they may make good decisions. However, there are times when displaying intelligence can lead to a politician's downfall. For example, recently in British Columbia, Gordon Campbell's liberal party were in charge. Campbell realized that the province was struggling and needed to make more money. As such, he proposed and implemented the HST tax to replace the GST and PST you need to define your acronyms., which would effectively raise the province's revenue through higher taxing taxation. This was a display of intelligence that ended up badly for him. The voters did not like the HST - no one likes to pay more tax. There was a public outrage and protests swept the province. Eventually, Campbell was forced to revert the tax back to the old GST and PST system (at great cost to the province), and resigned shortly thereafter due to his newfound unpopularity.

This example is not very strong. You don't make a convincing case that Campbell displayed intelligence. Raising taxes if the province needs more money is obvious.

However, there are some cases where a politican displaying intelligence will not lead to his downfall. Within the past few years, President Barack Obama has been voicing his concerns about the future of the environment. He realizes that our environment is slowing deteriorating due to human pollution. Recently, Obama made a pledge to reduce the United States' carbon emissions for the benefit of the environment. This is a display of intelligence that did not lead to a downfall, but rather people support it; saving the environment is a hot topic in today's society and many people are enthusiatic to support it. This last sentence is not well-written.

Similar problem to before, the displaying intelligence aspect is not strongly coming through in your arguments.

 

What determines if a politician's display of intelligence will lead to his downfall depends on whether or not the display of intelligence involves a direct burden to the voters. This is vague and subjective. If it does, then the public will not like it and it could end badly for the politician. In the first case, Campbell displayed intelligence by noticing the province needed more money and offering a solution. Unfortunately, his solution involved increasing taxes which directly burdens the public, and so the taxpayers did not approve and it lead to his downfall. In the second case, Obama displayed intelligence by realizing that the environment is in danger and pledging to reduce pollution to help it. The taxpayers are not directly burdened since the pledge did not involve many specifics to the public, and rather it looked impressive for the president to be standing up for a noble cause. This is not convincing. Environmental initiatives cost money. Just because he was vague about it doesn't mean the voters are not going to be directly burdened by it. Ultimately, it should be everyone's hope that all politicians are intelligent, whether or not they display it, as much of our future rests in their hands.

 

Overall, the strength of ideas needs improvement.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 3 Ideas lack depth.

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

jcbarnes

 

While competence would seem to be a virtue for any profession, a public display of intelligence may at times be detrimental for politicians. Showing obvious intelligence and saaviness can at times alienate and intimidate constituents, as the general public may feel as though the politician in question has little in common with the common people. This is most often the case in areas with poor education systems. During the 2008 American presidential election, the so-called heartland of the United States, representing the more rural portion of America, demonstrated very little support for the Democrat's candidate Barack Obama. Reports from CNN and other news outlets suggested that Obama's smooth speech delivery, refined outward appearance and illustrious education background alienated him from these voters. For individuals who voted based on who they felt would represent their interests best, a man who preferred a nice glass of wine over a beer represented someone with very different core values, resulting in a lack of support.

This example works well. However, your marker will be American and you do run the risk of alienating or insulting your marker with the way this is described.

 

However, a certain degree of intelligence is necessary to instill a sense of trust in a politician. This is somewhat different from the refuting task. President Bill Clinton, former Rhodes scholar and governor of Arkansas, was an exceptionally bright individual. His ability to successfully govern Arkansas, and subsequently, the United States of America, resulted in unprecedented approval ratings during his tenure. Performing tasks such as greatly reducing the national debt and ratifying the North American Free Trade Agreement aptly demonstrated his competence, which in turn resulted in greater national support.

This example would work but is not focused enough on addressing the writing task. You need to place more emphasis on how Bill Clinton displayed intelligence and you need to hammer the intelligence point home.

 

It can be surmised then that the display of intelligence by politicians may or may not harm their careers. What determines the outcome of such a display is dependent upon the utility of the mode of intelligence exemplified Awkward phrasing and questionable word choices.; showing off skills such as being able to critique the works of Monet or Renoir only serves to highlight the differences between the politician and question and the general public, while being able to balance a budget is an ability that instills confidence in the voters. Barack Obama's alleged elitism, allegations levelled after his criticism of religious groups of lower education, created a disconnect between the working class and the candidate. In contrast, Bill Clinton's competence during his term as Governor of Arkansas helped promote a sense of confidence in his abilities. Competence is not synonymous with intelligence. Therefore, it can be said that the intelligence displayed by politicians must be related to their role as leaders in order to be beneficial. Your resolution principle is not strong. It is vague and unclear. The contrast is not clear.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4