drrd Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 The role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power. In a democracy, it is the the responsibility of the government to represent and serve the citizenry. People vote for the political party that they believe will best represent their ideologies and social interests. The results of an election determine which party will assume the leading role in government. The parties that do not receive a majority vote form the political opposition. In many cases, the role of the opposing party is to be critical of the ruling party. This is in an attempt to ensure transparency in decision-making, as well as ensure that the government is working for the common good. Healthy criticism by the opposing party will provide the opportunity for other government representatives and the citizenry to understand both the benefits and drawbacks to any political decision. As a result, it ensures that fair and balanced judgements are occuring in government. For example, consider the decision by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to purchase a fleet of F-35 Fighter Jets for the Canadian military. Harper has insisted that the purchase of the jets will replace the existing outdated technology that the country currently has. He also explained during his re-election campaign with the Conservative Party that the Jets will cost approximately $9-billion dollars. However, a preliminary report by the Canadian Auditor General revealed that the Prime Minister neglected to include the costs of maintenance, bringing the total cost closer to $25 billion. Immediately, the opposition parties (including the Liberal party and the NDP) accused the Conservative party of lying to taxpayers. The change in the price tag raised significant questions about whether the purchase of the Jets were a responsible decision in times of economic uncertainty. The opposition insisted that a special inquiry was needed and also launced a petition calling on the government to tell the truth. In this case, it was clear that criticism was essential by the political opposition to ensure that fair and balanced decisions for the common good were being made in government. However, in other circumstances, the role of the political opposition may not be to criticize the policies of those in power. Consider the American debt ceiling crisis of 2011. In the United States, the debt ceiling is a limit imposed on the government determining how much money they can borrow from the Department of the Treasury. The only way it can be increased is with a vote by Congress. Both the Democrats and Republican parties in the US disagreed on what to do; Republicans, the majority party in the House of Representatives, favoured no tax increases and large spending cuts, whereas Democrats favoured tax increases with smaller spending cuts. In any case, if spending exceeded the debt ceiling, the United States would default and precipitate a financial crisis of significant national and international consequences. However, it took weeks of debate and disagreement between both parties due to differing economic and political ideologies before any sort of compromise was made. The agreement was made only a few days before a deadline imposed by the treasury, and if it was not done by then the US would have slipped into a financial crisis. President Obama was known to work behind the scenes to secure a compromise between the parties - otherwise, the prolonged debate could have led to serious consequences. Therefore, in such cases in which an economic crisis must be averted, it is important for both parties to come to an agreement for the greater good. There are several factors which determine when the role of the political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power and when the opposition should assume a different role. In times of relative peace and in absence of any serious negative consequences, criticism is preferred by the opposition party to ensure that the ruling party is making fair and balanced decisions in light of the common good of the country. For this reason, democracies encourage debate and this was evident in the criticisms by the Liberal and NDP on the Conservative decision to purchase the F-35 Jets. However, if a country is within a national crisis, such as the American debt-ceiling incident, criticisms by opposition parties may be harmful instead of helpful. In this instance, the opposition must be cognizant of the fact that their criticisms may prevent important decisions to be made due to their immediate nature. When an imminent threat to the people exists, the opposition must be ready to come to compromise with the ruling party for the good of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldosa Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Thanks Raymond! ------------------ The role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power. A US president once said "Politics has often been called the second oldest profession in the world. I find it bears a striking resemblance to the first." This cynicism is associated with politics because of the fact that politics attempts to reconcile a party's struggle for power with its desire for effecting public change for the greater good. Since two parties compete for power exactly because they have different ruling philosophies (if they had the same ideas, they would be one party!), there is often a discord between political parties, even though both are looking for the public good. One such example is the ever-present enmity between the Democrats and Republicans in the USA. Obama's Democrats feel that socialized health care is the way forward for their country, despite the country's opposition to socialist infrastructure due to historical reasons. The Republicans have been in steadfast opposition to this idea, and feel that the current system, driven by insurance companies, is effective as is. Further north, the Canadian political debates are considerably less dramatic and polarizing. The Conservative ruling party of Steven Harper's has maintained the socialist health care system that has been in place in Canada for decades. In response, the National Democratic Party (the NDP) is considerably less critical of policies of the Harper government, when compared to the US. This is despite the fact that the Harper government's right-wing policies are in stark contrast to the liberal, left-wing ideologies the NDP champions. Despite ideological differences, the liberal NDP, and Harper's Conservatives are able to agree that health care should be provided and administered the way it has in Canada for decades. Indeed, the NDP is in support of the ruling party's policies regarding health care. The differentiator between when the political opposition should criticize the ruling party, and when it should support depends on how concordant the ruling party's policies are with its own ideology. When the opposition finds that the ruling party's policies are acceptable, it should support the ruling government, and when it finds that the policies are prohibitive towards building a better society, the opposition should criticize. The examples that have been provided flesh out these examples, and the difference among Canadian and US debates is present because in the USA, the ideology differences are manifested in policy debates, whereas in Canada, differences in ideology are not prohibitive towards health policy. Simply put, in the USA, the ruling and opposition parties disagree upon administration of health care, whereas in Canada, both the ruling and opposition parties are in accordance with each other upon health care policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
souljaboy Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 In a democratic government, the opposition is usually the voice of opposition towards most policies that are put forth by the governing party. The opposition would often pounce upon the slightest fault in any facet of the governing party's actions, both personal and professional. This is an important aspect of the democratic government because the opposition would bring to light many of the failings of those in power, which the ruling party are either not seeing or intentionally ignoring. Every year in the Canadian federal budget, the opposition would always find some fault associated with specific articles in the budget and bring it to the publics' attention. Many times, these problems in the budget would be corrected by the ruling party for the better. By acting as a critic, the opposition party brings many issues to the surface that would never be seen if they were not present.The opposition has the necessary role to critique every aspect of the policies dictated by those in power so that it can be improved. However, sometimes the opposition needs to unite with the ruling party in order for important policies to be approved quickly for the good of the country. When the United States faced a situation where they were about to default on their national debt, the ruling Democrats attempted to pass a bill which would have prevented a debt default and possible credit downgrade. However, the Republican opposition continued to criticize every aspect of the bill and it was not passed as quickly as possible. Although a debt default was avoided, the delay and constant argument between the two parties eventually caused a credit downgrade, which is harmful to the country's economic health. Because of the opposition needlessly criticized every aspect of the bill, the overall state of the country was affected negatively. In such a situation, the opposition must unite with the ruling party on the decision for the benefit of the country. The opposition should be a constant critic of the policies created by the ruling party in order to have the most effective and overall beneficial policies created. However sometimes there are time sensitive situations where it is much more beneficial for the country if the opposition limited their critique and supported the ruling party's policies in order to be efficient. When facing issues such as the federal budget, the opposition has the necessary duty to be a critic that determines the issues and how to improve them. Their critique allows for a more effective policy to be passed and prevents those that are inefficient from being put in place. When facing a situation where time is of essence, such as the US debt default, the opposition should support the ruling party's policy with minimal conflict in order to ensure the best possible outcome for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medhopeful64 Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 The role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power. People and parties in power have an important role to play in the everyday lives of civilians. Those elected in power must do their best to ensure that the needs of the country's citizens are met and that their views as a whole are taken into account when implementing certain policies. The opposition parties are there to ensure that the party in power does not abuse their power, and to ensure that the voices of the public are being heard. In order to do this, sometimes the opposing parties must criticize the policies of those in power. This also ensures that the policies currently in effect are as efficient as possible. For example, the Harper government introduced the Clean Air Act in 2006, a policy that was heavily critized by opposition parties, as well as several environmental groups. Although the policy had the intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and set new regulations for vehicle fuel consumption and gas emissions for oil companies, it was criticized by NDP Leader Jack Layton for having little effect on preventing climate change. These criticisms led to a threat of another election, and thus the Conservative Party agreed to modify the act. A modified version, highlighting more specific goals that were claimed to be more energy efficient was introduced in 2007. Thus, in this case, it can be seen that criticizing the policies of those in power is the responsibility of the opposition parties. In other cases, however, the role of a political opposition does not necessarily always need to be to critize the policies of those in power; in fact, it can be the exact opposite. That is, the role of the political opposition can be to help the party in power to implement their policies. Take Canada's role in the war in Afghanistan for example. The Harper government planned to remove all troops from Afghanistan in 2011, the majority of which did return to Canada in the proposed time frame. The decision to withdraw combat troops was influenced positively by opposition parties, particularly Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff. He voiced his support and praise for the way the Harper government handled Canada's role in the war in Afghanistan. Funding for Canada's mission in Afghanistan was used appropriately, and unanimously. Thus, in this case, the support of the political opposition allowed those in power - the Conservative Party - to more efficiently deal with certain areas of government, such as foreign aid. The party in power must be able to implement and reinforce policies that work the most efficiently for the country. This can be done by either criticism or by support by the political opposition. The role of the political opposition varies between the two, depending on what the public thinks. If the public thinks the current government (and thus, the current policies) is doing a good job, then the role of the opposition should be to support the government, by trying to reinforce those policies. If however, the public's view is negative, then the role of the opposition should be to criticize the policies of those in power. For example, the public was overall in favor of spending a good deal of tax money on the mission in Afghanistan. As such, the role of the opposition parties was to value the public's opinion, and offer support for those policies that were approved of by the citizens. After all, the common goal for all parties is to make the country a better place to live in for the civilians. This can be done by either support or criticism from the opposing parties. _____________ Thanks Raymond! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue181 Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Thanks for all the help Raymond! The role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power. A democratic government consists of a lead party – the one who garnered the most votes during election, and one or more opposing parties. It could be said that the political opposition’s role is to provide a source of critique for the lead party’s policies and decision making. For example, when Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his plans to purchase F-35 fighter jets despite their hefty price tag, opposition leaders strongly disagreed in regard to their necessity. They questioned the true operational cost of such expensive machines. It was later revealed by the Auditor General that these operational costs would have been a substantial amount more than the original price announced by the Harper government, indicating that the party in power has been dishonestly withholding information from citizens regarding the use of their tax money. In this case, the opposition’s role was to criticize and question the leading party’s financial policies in order to make certain that a poor decision regarding usage of the country’s budget would not be made. However, the role of political opposition is not always to criticize the policies of the party in power. When a country is in crisis, rather than simply criticizing the lead party’s actions, it would be more efficient for the opposing parties to work together with the leading party to formulate a rebuilding strategy. For example, Greece is currently in a financial crisis. After an inconclusive election earlier this year, it has become evident that having a single party in power will not be enough to help the country recover from its debt. Due to this difficult situation, most Greek parties have agreed to try and form a coalition government and work together to maintain Greece’s presence in the euro. In this case, having an opposing party criticizing the policies and actions of a leading party that brought the country to a crisis would not be helpful. Instead, the opposition’s role would be to work together with the party in power to attempt to come up with a better solution to the crisis faster. Overall, whether the role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies, actions, and decisions of those in power depends on how helpful those critiques are to the country’s current situation. When a country is in relative peace and is not experiencing a crisis, criticisms from the opposing party are usually successful in providing a second opinion, and are helpful to maintaining the integrity of the leading party’s policies. How the criticism from opposing parties revealed the true cost of the expensive F-35 fighter jets the Harper government was prepared to purchase is an example of such helpful critique. However, sometimes when a country is in crisis criticisms from opposing parties are not all that helpful when it comes to solving the crisis at hand. At the point of a crisis, the most important thing is not to criticize what the current government is doing wrong, but to come up with a solution to the problem, and that is most efficiently done when the opposing parties work together with the party in power. That is why Greece, a country currently in financial crisis, is considering the formation of a coalition government to work through this difficulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Prompt 21 Enviro_4_Medschool People in power are always accountable to someone. This is one of the traits of democratic governments where the elected government is accountable to the opposition. The role of the opposition becomes one where they examine what the government is doing and provide the counter-argument to why policies in the government should not happen. This helps provide accountability as well as reflection upon implications of policies that otherwise may not be addressed by the government. Excellent thus far. In Canada, the current Conservative government now holds a majority because the opposition voted in non-confidence on the issue of the purchase of M-35's F-35s. There is still ambiguity over the cost of these jet fighters and how the government should be determining word choice the nature of the purchase. The opposition's role is to criticise whether such a large purchase (35 billion or 10 billion depending on the report) is necessary given the recession we're in and whether the government has done their due diligence in examining the benefit to Canadians. Furthermore, without criticism from the opposition it might not have been known that the current budget bill contains extensive changes to several acts. By criticising the government's policies the opposition can point out current fallacies in the system and help keep voter's informed on issues that are not necessarily in the government's interests to promote. Overall, the opposition party criticisms help in transparency which helps in accountability and thus creates a check and balance. Excellent. On the other hand, the Conservatives might have gotten their majority because Canadians were tired of minority governments who were ineffective at carrying through legislation. Lengthy times to enact policy is a consequence of tying up legislation and policies with excessive debating and criticising. It can be alarming when there is no progress on policies because of stalling between quarreling parties especially when there are pressing problems that need addressing. If you are going to talk about Greece, you should not have talked about the Conservatives. In addition, these ideas should be discussed within the context of your example. The recent collapse of the current Greek Coalition shows how dire things can be if only criticisms are the role of the opposition. Not only have criticisms led to stalling but there is now increased support for extreme right or left parties and consequently, the fiscal health of the European Union (and the societal health of the greek people) is now being held hostage to the acceptance of austerity measures. This is a run-on sentence and the clarity needs to be improved. Moreover, the arguing is not promoting any cause and in this situation it would be beneficial if the opposition parties would attempt to get along and find unifying principles and not focus as much on criticizing every policy. This is on topic. The ideal situation would be to find a balance that does not bring Greece closer to anarchy with every failed policy attempt to get things on track. This example would fit perfectly. However, the way in which it is explained is not effective. It needs to be reorganized and more focused on addressing the writing task. When government's are threatened by anarchy, or periods of excessive policy back log, the opposition and government may need to get along. In a relatively peaceful times with a majority government, the opposition may need to criticize as an additional check and balance towards good governance (on the basis that there is a future accountability of knowing the implications of the current policy) Try not to use brackets in a formal essay like the writing sample. It only disrupts the flow of your essay. The resolution principle here is good however, it should be expressed more concisely. . Minority governments may need to attempt to get along, find unifying principles and not criticize every policy in order to prevent chaos or voter apathy towards multiple elections. So when governments are not very stable the opposition may need to relinquish the role of criticiser and work to keep the country running and find ways of getting things forward; however, criticism and examination of policies is very important. There needs to be alternative viewpoints in order to find policies that best reflect the wishes of the population. Majority governments sometimes do not reveal all of their plans and remain accountable primarily through the criticisms of the opposition. The ideas here are good. However, the organization of this paragraph is poor. Furthermore, you do not apply your principle to your previously discussed examples. I think there could be an issue with time rationing as you start off extremely strong and then the essay goes downhill from there. Overall Mark: 4.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a Q ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 4.5 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed. Depth: 4.5 Focus and coherence: 4 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixstar Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 "The role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power." In a democratic society, citizens are given the power to elect the people who they think will best represent their views in government. As there is often a wide variety of political views held by the general population, there will often be a diverse range of party representation in government. The multiparty system of government, such as the one used in Canada and the US, allows for different political views to be represented in government, even though the party in question may not be the ruling party (the party holding the most poltical power.) The party (or parties) that are not elected as the ruling party are collectively referred to as the political opposition. As the political opposition often inherently holds different views to that of the ruling party, the main role of the political opposition is to critique the poilices of the ruling party. For instance, in Canada, the party with the second most elected representatives forms what is called the "Official Opposition." Ingrained within the principles of the Official Opposition is the formation of an appointed group of elected representatives who serve as the official critics to the federal departments led by the elected representatives of the ruling party. This group of representatives from the Official Opposition are known as the "shadow cabinet," and serve as an important role in speaking out against the policies of the ruling government. Even if the actions of the shadow cabinet members do not directly result in policy change, they present alternative ideas in which the other elected representatives in government, as well as the public, can hear - leading to alternative avenues for policy change. However, the role of a political opposition is not always to simply criticize the policies of the ruling party. In fact, in some cases, the political oppostion may play a significant role in actions such as policy formation. In the mid 2000s, the Conservative Party of Canada was elected as the ruling party in Canada. While they had the most elected representatives of a single party, they were outnumbered by the number of elected reprsentatives belonging to the political opposition, which consisted of multiple parties, such as the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party. In this situation, the Conservative Party of Canada had to consult with members of the oppositon parties, as important decisions, such as the federal budget, had to recieve a majority of the votes from all parties in government. Furthermore, the oppostion members have the collective ability to reject policies put forth by the ruling party and initiate a vote of non-confidence, that results in a federal election being called, and the ruling party potentially losing their status in power. As such, the political opposition plays a significant role in policy formation, that transcends simply criticizing the policies of the ruling government. In considering these two alternative perspectives about the role of a political opposition, it would seem that the role that a political opposition takes on depends more on the makeup of government as a whole, with regards to the number of elected representatives belonging to each group (the political opposition or the ruling party). In cases when the ruling party has a significant number of seats in governement, compared to the political opposition, the poltical opposition will serve mainly as critics of the policies of the ruling government, as they do not have much say in policy formation. On the other hand, if the opposition has more representatives than those belonging to the ruling party, the poltical opposotion plays a greater role in policy formation, alongside the ruling party. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Prompt 21 Non-trad hopeful In modern domocracies, the political opposition - the political party or parties who hold a minority of seats in government - plays a critical role in the functioning of the democratic system. Commas are more appropriate here. It is the job of the political opposition to hold the party in power accountable for their policy decisions and this is largely done through a close critique of government policies. Good intro. For instance, the Harper government in Canada releases a yearly 'budget' which determines where government funds will be spent. It is the job of the political opposition to carefully analyze the budget and make criticisms where they feel funds have been allocated poorly. In the most recent budge,the official opposition - currently the NDP - heavily criticized the government for allocating too many resources for defence and making cuts to social programs. This criticism was important because it not only held the government accountable for their decisions but it also made the general public more aware of the budget decisions. Excellent. However, the job of the political opposition is not simply to critisize the policies of those in power. There are times when the opposition must also support the government through compromise by voting on specific legislation or budgets. Without the support of the opposition, legislation often would not be made into law or policies and the democratic process would be very slow. This is especially true in minority governments where the government in power relies upon the oppisition party to vote in favor of their policy in order for it to pass in the legislature. In the case of the annual budget, if the government does not receive majority support for its budget, it is said to not have the 'confidence' of the House and, therefore, an election must be called. It is clearly not ideal to call an election every year, so the opposition ofen has to compromise with the government in order to avoid an election. This is very good. It would have been excellent if you had a real example to illustrate your points. The role of the political opposition is therefore complex and may call for criticism and compromise at the same time. This is not what the resolution paragraph is about. Whether or not the role of the political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power depends upon the benefit that this criticism will have to society. This is vague and ambiguous. You had a perfectly good resolution principle (majority vs. minority governments) that you were hinting at but did not use. In the case of the budget or a select policy, the opposition is quite right to critisize the government on issues that it believes will have negative effects on society or that goes against its political principles. However, there are times when compromise is the best solution for society - without compromise, legislation would often not get passed and elections would be called far more frequently than society may desire. The role of the political opposition is therefore a careful balance between criticism and compromise. The resolution principle here is basically "The opposition should criticize government policies when it is beneficial." This principle is weak because it lacks depth and complexity of reasoning. You also do not apply your resolution principle to your previously discussed examples. Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed. Depth: 4 Focus and coherence: 3.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Prompt 21 ST6nq A fundamental tenet of a democratic society is a government which fairly represents the interests of the people in that society. Paramount to the peoples’ interests in that society is the protection of their unalienable rights and freedoms from infringement by the political party in the majority. Thus, it is incumbent upon a democratic government to ensure that the majority party is challenged, without exception, with respect to all legislative proposals in order to ensure that the rights of all people in the society are protected. You should tone down the language a bit because if your language is too strong, you are going to undermine your refuting argument. For example, President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in an attempt to minimize the number of American’s who are uninsured and cannot receive access to quality health care. This resulted in major criticism from the Republican’s who voiced concerns regarding the constitutionality of this law, claiming that it went beyond the scope of congress’s taxing powers by fining those who do not purchase health insure insurance. This ultimately lead to the law being brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. Here the Republicans sought to protect the rights and freedoms of Americans by fulfilling their duty to directly challenge to majority grammar party’s decision to pass this law. Very good. You have a number of grammatical errors with respect to your use of the apostrophe. Conversely, following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, an outpouring of patriotism brought unity to the United States as a whole, and particularly with respect to the government. Specifically, both Democrats and Republicans set out to protect the rights and freedoms of Americans from terrorist factions by means of taking offensive military actions. Absent from the development of these military plans in the federal government were disagreements and criticisms between the political parties, because they both had the same goal in mind, which was to take any and all actions necessary in order to bring the terrorist organizations to justice, maintain homeland security, and to ensure that American’s freedoms do not come under attack in the same manner ever again. Due to the common purpose of both political parties, their responsibility towards each other was no longer to criticize, but to support each other in order to ensure American’s rights remained protected. Very good. Again, you don't use the apostrophe properly here. It should read "Americans' rights". I would suggest using a different example here because the "war on terror" is a controversial topic. Given the growing unpopularity of the wars, you run the risk of offending your marker. Therefore, the role of a political party is to criticize another party when the criticizing party believes they are justified in claiming that the other party’s legislative actions are threatening the rights and freedoms of people in the society they are governing. This is vague and ambiguous. Any opposition party can take any piece of legislation and argue that it violates rights and freedoms. Even with your own example, do the Republicans really believe Obama's healthcare bill violates rights and freedoms? Or do they just want to prevent Obama from passing any meaningful legislation? There are also lots of bills that receive bipartisan support that curtail rights and freedoms. Therefore, your argument doesn't hold up under examination. In the case of Barack Obama’s health care bill, Republicans believe that the bill violates American’s fundamental rights afforded to them by the constitution, and so they are justified in criticizing the Democrats in order to ensure that American’s rights are valued and protected. However, when both parties share the common purpose of enacting legislation that unambiguously promotes the protection of the rights and freedoms that American’s enjoy, such as the use of military forces to protect America from another terrorist attack, then both political parties should reserve their criticisms and instead support each other in their pursuit for the betterment of the society that they serve. This discussion is okay but not strongly convincing. Overall Mark: 4.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a Q) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 4.5 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed. Depth: 4 Focus and coherence: 4.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5 Please correct your use of the apostrophe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro_07 Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 The role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power. In a democratic country, the supreme power is vested in the hands of people, who elect representatives that will support their ideas in the government. A political party or coalition with most number of seats in the parliament is called the ruling party or the governing party. Any other party with its members in the parliament is called the opposition party. A strong opposition party is extremely crucial for the progress of a democratic nation. The role of an opposition party is to check the actions and decisions of the ruling party and make sure they are in favour of the citizens of the country. The opposition parties criticize the policies of the government whenever they do not comply with the demands of the majority of the citizens. For instance, when inflation rates are high, the government is expected to include subsidies and tax cuts for the agricultural industry in order to keep the food prices low. If the government fails to introduce such measures, the opposition ought to rebuke the ruling party for inaction, and thereby keep the public and the media informed about the relevant issues. Hence, an opposition party’s role in criticising government’s policies is critical for ensuring that the public’s demands are fulfilled. However, an opposition party need not strive to criticize every decision of the ruling party. If government designs a policy that is intended for helping the society, it should not be criticized by the opposition. In this case, the opposition party’s role is to analyse whether the policy is being introduced to meet the society’s requirements or to fulfill party’s own agendas. In some cases, superficially, the government’s policies may seem to fulfill the expectations of the people, but that may not be the case after careful analysis. It is the opposition party’s duty to analyse the government’s decisions and detect their true motives. Moreover, the opposition parties should encourage the government, if their purpose is right, in implementing policies that are beneficial for to the people of the country. In conclusion, whether the opposition should criticise the government’s policies or not depends on whether the policies meet the people’s requirements or not. If the government fails to attend the people’s needs, like in case of absence of subsidies for agricultural industry in times of inflation, then the opposition party should actively criticise the actions of those in power in order to prevent them from ignoring the public’s voice and to ensure expression of values and wishes of the voters in the policies of the country. However, if the government fulfills the public demand while implementing a policy, with the right intent, then opposition should not look to criticise the ruling party. In fact, in this case, criticising government’s actions may fetch criticism to the opposition party and result in loss of support from the voters. Thus, the opposition parties play the role of a critic and should analyse the outcomes of, and the intentions behind, the government’s policies. Thanks a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Prompt 21 chris67 Conflict between political parties seems to have been around since the creation of the first political systems. Criticizing an opposing party's views can be very beneficial to a political party, especially if the opposing party is currently in power. A political party's interests should be primarily focused on ensuring that the laws and policies passed reflect that party's viewpoints. This is not the point of the prompt. To accomplish this, it is often necessary to criticize another party's views. In 2011, the Canadian NDP heavily criticized the Conservative government for proposing to buy expensive fighter jets. The NDP believe that Canada does not need to spend large amounts of money on their military, and believed that the money could be better spent elsewhere. They chose to openly criticize the Conservatives for what they believed to be foolish spending in an attempt to get the ruling party to change their fiscal policies to coincide with the beliefs of the NDP, and the resulting public pressure forced the conservatives to cut back on their plans for lucrative spending on military planes. This example is very good. It would have been better if you elaborated upon why it is the role of the opposition party to question those in power. Is it only because their viewpoints are different or do they have a greater responsibility than just sticking to political ideology? However, a political party may sometimes be able to gain from cooperating and not criticizing the policies of the party in power. In 2006, the liberal Polish party PO formed a coalition with the PiS party What do PO and PiS stand for? You need to define acronyms. , which was in control of a minority government, and in danger of losing it's power if the remaining parties chose to call an election. PO chose to support the PiS proposal to raise the sales tax in order to support the struggling healthcare system. The PO agreed that the healthcare system needed additional funding, and they chose to support the ruling party's proposal to solve that problem. This example could work but the explanation could use some improvement. It is obvious that political parties frequently disagree on many issues, but that is not always the case. If a political party has views that fundamentally oppose the policies of the party in power, then they should openly criticize those policies. However, if the ruling party's actions coincide with the interests of the opposition, then the opposing party can benefit from cooperating with the party in power. The resolution principle here is weak. What this essentially says is that a political party should criticize the party in power if they disagree with their policies and they should cooperate if their interests are the same. This idea is obvious and lacks depth. In addition, your resolution principle needs to be applied to your previously discussed examples. Overall Mark: 3/6 (Corresponds to approximately a N) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 3 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is poorly addressed. Depth: 3.5 Focus and coherence: 3.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Thanks Raymond for taking the time to mark my essay. I tend to have a hard time with prompts like the one about academic success where I can't use concrete examples such as wars, history, new events etc. Can you please offer some advise on how to handle such prompts. Thanks You! There are concrete real world examples that can be used for the academic prompt. However, time needs to be invested in order to do research and build up an examples database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Prompt 21 Link In the world of government, political parties always strive to stay in power or obtain the position of power. For those not in power, it is challenging role grammar, due to the fact that they are not in the position to create new policies. The only action for a political party not in power to do on a day to day basis is to criticize the policies of the current politicians in power. This is somewhat different than what the prompt is looking for. By doing so, this can create a perception that the current administration is not doing a good job. One may consider the situation where the Obama administration recently released their budget for 2013. Immediately, the political opposition—the republicans—began to criticize the new budget. The Republicans stated that the new budget spent far too much, borrowed too much, and did not reduce the current debt. The Republicans did not specifically say how much less they would spend or borrow, simply that the new budget was an inappropriate course of action. Therefore, when the case is that the political opposition cannot make policy themselves, their main role is to criticize the policies of those in power. This example could work but the arguments here lack depth. It is not convincing that the opposition party's role is to criticize policies just because they don't have power. That would be childish. You need a more reasoned argument as to why the role of the opposition is to criticize policy. However, in times of political elections, then the grammar main role of political opposition should not be to criticize the policies of those in power. This doesn't really make sense. During political elections, opposition parties usually step up their criticism of policy. During an election, the most important role for the political opposition is to convince the public to vote for them so they can win the position of power and make policies. One of the most common ways to do this is to criticize policy. Therefore, this condition that the main role of the political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power should not be applied to times of election. For example, during the last election for the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty promised to implement policies if he was elected that would lower tuition for low-income families. He proposed that students that came from families that made less than 160000 dollars, would receive an 800 dollar credit for their tuition. Many families make less than this salary and this tuition credit made Dalton McGuinty an appealing choice. In this time of election, Dalton McGuinity cares most about the number of votes he receives, so he attempted to appeal to as many voters as possible. Dalton McGuinty did not criticize the policies of those in power, but simply acted to gain the support of as many voters as possible, so he could win his election. Therefore, in the case of elections, a political party’s main role should not be to criticize the policies of those in power. The premise of this discussion is questionable. The role of the political opposition to criticize the policies of those in power is seemingly dependent on the situation where there is either an election or no election. This would be a good resolution principle if your refuting argument actually held up to scrutiny. In cases where there is no election occurring, then it should be the case that the main role of the political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power. Why? This scenario is evident in the example of the republicans criticizing the new budget from the Obama administration, where there was no election taking place. However, when there is an election taking place, then the main role of the political opposition should not be to criticize the policies of those in power, but rather to obtain as many votes from the public as possible. For example, when Dalton McGuinty was in the election for the Ontario Premier he focused on creating an appealing promise to Ontario students to obtain many votes in the election. When determining whether the role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power one must analyze whether it is a time of election. Thus, when it is a not a time of election, the role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power, however, when it is a time of election the main role of the political opposition is to gain votes from the public. The resolution principle is a good one but you don't apply it to your examples here. You do not apply your resolution principle by explaining why it depends on whether there is an election or not within the context of your examples. The same information is simply restated. I did this in notepad in 30min. I had A LOT of trouble coming up with examples…the only thing is I brought it to a word doculment to add in the en dashes b/c they looked weird in notepad, did I use the en dash correctly (first paragraph)? Coming up with examples is one of the challenges of the writing sample. Commas would have worked better. The quality of ideas needs improvement. Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is not addressed. Depth: 1.5 Focus and coherence: 2 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Prompt 21 Caliver In a democratic political system, there are two major players that influence the implementation of policies: the ruling party and the opposition. Often, the ruling party serves to introduce a policy while the opposition analyzes the policy and criticizes it to ensure fairness and transparency of the suggested policy. This idea should be integrated into your example to improve impact. This is especially true in nations that are politically stable, such as Canada. This can be saved for the resolution paragraph. Currently, in Canada, the Conservatives have introduced a new employment insurance policy, which will install more strict recipient criteria. The New Democrats have criticized the new bill, hoping for modification of the policy to better reflect the nature of unemployment according to their ideals. Therefore, in a politically stable nation, such as Canada, the role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies being implemented by the ruling party for the best of its citizens. This example is great but the discussion here is too sparse. Expand and elaborate on your ideas further. On the other hand, there are some occasions where a political opposition may serve a different role. In a nation facing political turmoil, it is necessary for the opposition to cooperate with the ruling party and support their policies, in order to stabilize the nation. For example, Korea faced political turmoil due to financial crisis in 1997. In order to overcome the crisis, the Korean government had to enforce necessary austerity measures as soon as possible. In this case, due to the urgency of the situation, the ruling party and the opposition have decided to cooperate and passed the bill unanimously. Later on, the Korean economy recovered due to these measures passed collaboratively. Therefore, in a politically unstable nation, the role of the opposition is to collaborate with the ruling party to implement necessary policies. This idea should be saved for the resolution paragraph. This discussion is very good. It would have been excellent if you explained why in this case the ruling party even needed the support. Could they not have passed the bill themselves? Why was it important to get the opposition party on board? Whether or not the role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power is determined by the stability of the nation. This is a very good resolution principle. However, you spoiled it too early in your previous paragraphs. By saving this idea until the resolution paragraph, you can improve its impact. If the nation is stable like Canada, the opposition should criticize the ruling party's policies to ensure that the policies are for the best of the citizens. This application could use improvement. However, if the nation is facing political trouble, like Korea in 1997, the opposition should cooperate with the ruling party to rescue the nation from the turmoil. Ultimately, a political opposition should act for the best of its nation and citizens. The resolution principle is very good. However, the application of the principle to your examples is weak. You don't explain why political stability or instability determines the role of the opposition party. You don't explain how stability impacts the role. 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: 3.5 Focus and coherence: 3.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Prompt 21 Sharpshooter The political opposition tends not support the policies of the government in power; usually the opposition’s goal is to weaken the policies of those in power so their platform looks better and they could gain the majority vote in the future. Run-on sentence. This idea is also somewhat different from what the prompt is asking for. For example, if a government in power introduced a policy to allow chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to be used, the opposition party should go against their policy by speaking out against the policy. CFC's contribute to ozone depletion, which in turn causes global warming since the ozone layer filters out ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth. The opposition's goal would be to not allow this policy to be passed since the CFC's would contribute to global warming and even increase cases of skin cancer. The opposition would do this to show citizens that their political party cares about them and to win their votes for the next election. Thus, usually the political opposition's goal is to weaken the policies of those in power. This concluding sentence again, is different from the essence of the prompt. The problem with this example is that it is still hypothetical. Yes, CFCs were a real political issue but the situation you set up is still hypothetical and therefore not strongly convincing. However, the opposition party's goal should not always be to argue against the policies of the ruling party. For instance, if a ruling party decided to implement a full day of kindergarten to improve the education of its citizens, the opposition should actually support such a policy since it will actually benefit the country in the long run. The reason behind a full day of kindergarten is to allow young children learn more at a younger age and increases their success in the future. By increasing the chances of the success of its citizens, there is a greater chance that these citizens will contribute more to society and the economy. Ultimately, more money would be poured into the economy. This is too simplistic an example and lacks depth. What if there are funding issues that make funding full day kindergarten impossible? The problem with making up examples is that they are usually too simplistic and therefore unrealistic. Thus, the opposition party should aim to criticize the policies of those in power when the policy negatively affects the environment or citizens. For example, if the ruling party were to introduce a policy to allow CFC's to be used, the opposition should go against such a policy since CFC's delete the ozone layer and increases global temperatures, thereby increasing cases of skin cancer. Howerver, when the policy of the ruling party benefits the citizens of the country (does not negatively affect them), the opposition should actually suppor the policy; for instance, the ruling party's introduction of full day kindergarten to increase the success of the next generation should be supported by the opposition party. Same problem as before, the idea is just too simple and does not demonstrate complexity of reasoning. What you are saying here is that the opposition should go against a policy if it is bad and should support a policy if it is good (this is obvious). ------ Do you have any tips on how to gather relevant ideas and examples in sufficient depth for the WS? (I think I have difficulty relating to the prompts; it's hard for me to come up with relevant examples) The best way to approach the issue with examples is to spend time to do research and build a database of examples that you can draw from. There are various threads and resources that can advise you on how to best go about this. Overall Mark: 2/6 (Corresponds to approximately a L ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed. Depth: 2 Focus and coherence: 3 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpm Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Hey Raymond, Thanks a lot for providing this service! The role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power. The beauty of a democracy lies in the fact that multiple political parties can represent their constituencies in the government. In voicing their differing opinions, policies that better reflect the concerns of a larger proportion of the voters can be forged. For example, the Conservative federal government of Canada recently drafted a budget containing many propositions with which the opposing federal parties disagree. The leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May, recently stated that she may have upwards of one hundred amendments to propose for the budget. Many of her proposals will concern budget cuts in the environmental industries. By pursuing better environmental policies, Elizabeth May is representing Canadians who are concerned about the impact of human activity on the environment. Since the federal government of Canada is democratic, we are theoretically able to form policies that reflect the values of many Canadians. However, policy-making is sometimes limited by democracy in that ensuring more people are represented takes much more time than passing legislation that satisfies only the ruling party. For example, before the Conservative party of Canada was elected in majority, the opposing parties held so much power that the ruling party struggled to get anything done. Many of their proposals were rejected from their inception, and the government complained about their inability to move policy forward. The opposing parties banded together against the Conservatives, forcing another election. Only when the Conservatives were granted a majority was policy able to move forward. Thus, opposing political parties are usually useful in that they ensure that more of the population is fairly represented in government. They are able to identify flaws in the proposed policies of the ruling party and help amend them to better serve the population. Unfortunately, sometimes the opposition is so powerful that they can actually prevent policy-making, in which case democracy can become counter-productive. The opposition needs to keep in mind that their role is to represent their constituency, not to overthrow the current leading political party. Additionally, the party in power and the opposing parties must make compromises in policy-making. Otherwise, new policies will linger in debate and nothing will be accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems. Describe a specific situation in business in which attention to detail might not prevent unexpected problems. Discuss what you think determines whether or not attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems in business. 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 Sunday, May 27. Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Monday, May 28. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enviro_4_Medschool Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems. Describe a specific situation in business in which attention to detail might not prevent unexpected problems. Discuss what you think determines whether or not attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems in business. In business, the bottom line and market access are the most important factors. Businesses will spend exorbitant funds to insure that their product will be successful and to research their target markets and audiences. The logic of forecasting risks, finding potential markets, and figuring out miscellaneous details is to ensure adequate success of the product is to avoid unexpected problems because prior planning and detail sorting will squirrel out problems. Most often many of the details of a product have been sorted out by pilots by start-up companies. Apple found a key audience for it's i-phone, i-pad, i-tunes, i-pod, etc. market but only after the concept of personal mobile devices had been perfected by other companies. Apple imitated these companies but most of the details had already been sorted out by initial market response and hence Apple knew already what kind of problems to expect and how to get around them. The result was an extremely successful offering and Apple domination in the world of personal apps and products. Also, Apple was able to focus on the details of making a successful product, and deal with the problems of appeal to capture a larger market share without worrying about the unexpected problems of whether the product could be successful. However, innovation that did not involve re-imaging of previous products may not always be successful despite attention to detail. Few have probably heard of Chux the first disposable diaper that was imitated by Pampers. Furthermore, Oracle successfully won it's law suit against Google for Google of stealing Oracle's Java script. However, the reward of 150,000 was lower than the 1 billion they had hoped to obtain. So even though Oracle and Chux spent a lot of time trying to hammer out the details of their products, and in Oracle's case had a legitimate case against Google, and even though both found successful markets for their products they still could not deal with the unexpected problem of imitators being able to be more successful in capturing audience appeal. Perhaps if Chux and Oracle had a larger access to the market share by having protection in their initial offers they would not have been devastated by the problems that arose via imitators despite attention to detail of their products. Also new innovations tend to not have legal legislation to deter imitators. Lastly, Chux and Oracle as being pioneers for their product were also the most likely to face unexpected problems due to the novelty of their products and have limited defense due to a lack of legal protection -- details that for the most part are beyond their control expect for the application of patents. Imitators are able to prevent unexpected problems because the innovators were able to hammer out most of the details for them. So whether details prevent or manage unexpected problems is really a matter of what stage of the development a product is. Novel innovations will have a higher likelihood of unexpected problems due to the lack of previous knowledge of how a product will perform on the market. Novelty is also prey to imitators who may be able to capture a larger market share simply by re-imaging and focusing on appeal rather than risk. Imitators by coming in at a later stage in the market are able to bypass the initial unexpected problems for new innovations and their attention to detail helps them better brand their products while avoiding unexpected and disruptive problems. Apple was able to do this in their ability to increase the appeal of products invented by the predecessors. --- Thanks Raymond for all the insight. I don't think this one went very well and I got kind of side-tracked from the prompt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
in2bat0r Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems Thorough research is often necessary for optimizing safety within industrial business practices. In such business endeavors, the more rigorous the job planning, the safer the project will be in general. For example, when planning the Fukushima nuclear plant, the Japanese engineers implemented the highest reactor safety measures available and planned for the occurrence of a natural disaster by including multiple back up systems in case damage was sustained to the plant, or in case the plant lost power for some unseen reason. As a result, when a massive earthquake struck Japan early in 2011, a complete nuclear meltdown was avoided. The plant sustained significant damage, and four workers died as a result, but a complete nuclear catastrophe was avoided because the nuclear containment vessels were well designed, and the back-up generator system provided an adequate amount of cold water to prevent catastrophic meltdown. On the other hand, attention to detail might not always prevent an unexpected problem. If the risk assessment underestimates the dangers of a given job, then it is possible that attention to detail might not prevent an unexpected problem. For example, In 2010 the crew of the Deepwater Horizon were drilling for crude oil in the depths of the Gulf of Mexico when there was an unforeseen blow out, which resulted in a massive surface explosion and the uncontrolled release of oil into the aquatic environment. It is possible that if those in logistics had acknowledged the possibility of a blow out of such magnitude, that greater precautions would have been taken, or the perhaps that the drilling had not even taken place. It is clear that on some level, the risk was not assessed appropriately, and while it is likely that operations proceeded with care, the crews were not able to prevent the devastating blow out. In industrial business practices the avoidance of unforeseen operational disasters depends on the initial assessment of risk by those wishing to carry out the project. In the case of the Fukushima nuclear plant, engineers understood the great risks involved in building a nuclear plant in an area prone to earthquakes, and so took every precaution to prevent disaster. In contrast, the assessment of risk in drilling for crude oil at great depths was not assessed optimally, and as a result, crews could not avoid a devastating blow out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Prompt 21 donna71 In a multi-party government system the political opposition may be the non-ruling parties. One of their roles as opposition is to criticize the policies and decisions that are in the process of being made by the ruling party in power. For instance, earlier this year the Conservative party, which is the party in power in Canada, decided to scrap the long arms and gun registry act, saying that it was too costly of a program with little safety gain. Opponents criticized the decision saying that guns must be tracked and held accounted for and to decrease the likelihood of gun-related violence guns should be tracked to their owners. The role of opponents in criticizing policies of those in power is to point out shortcomings and other perspectives to consider when making a decision so that the process can be made more transparent. By attacking these policies, the opposition forces the party in power to justify their decisions in order to further facilitate discussion, discourage unilateral or authoritative decision making, and to hold themselves accountable to the voters who elected them to their decision making roles. Excellent. However, the role of the opposition is not limited to criticizing policies of those in power, but may include investigation into the party in power in order to reveal any abuses of power. For instance, when the Liberal party was in power prior to 2006 they had introduced a sponsorship program in order to show the government's support of Quebec's industries in order to undermine actions of the separatists who wished for Quebec to become independent from Canada. Run-on sentence. Investigation revealed that the program was wrought with corruption and abuse of public resources; millions were awarded to contracts for no or little work and proper bidding processes were ignored. Letters leaked, most likely from opposition, showed a Liberal member advising another to cease partisan sponsorship abuses. Therefore the role of opposition may not be to criticize the sponsorship policies, but to reveal the corruption of the ruling party's political members in order to provide information and power to the people at election time. By revealing abuses of power, the opposition helps to keep the politics of the nation more transparent and to remove parties that show disregard for public resources. Excellent. The opposition play a very important part in influencing politics in less direct ways. The role of opposition may be to criticize policies or decisions made by the ruling party, but at other times they may reveal abuses performed by the ruling party. What determines whether the opposition is to criticize policies or reveal power abuse depends upon whether it can be shown that the ruling party has performed corruptive acts or not. This is okay but lacks depth because it is too narrow. Should it be the case that no incriminating information on the abuse of public resources has been found, then the role of the opposition is to criticize the policies set out by the ruling party, such as in the removal of the gun registry in order to induce justification for or revise decisions. However if the ruling party has demonstratively abused their power, such as in the Liberal's sponsorship scandal then the opposition's role is to make such information known in order to give citizens the opportunity to choose a different ruling party to govern the nation. The opposition plays an equally important and powerful role in the democratic nature of governance. Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 5 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed. Depth: 4.5 Focus and coherence: 5 Grammar and vocabulary: 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Prompt 21 drrd In a democracy, it is the the responsibility of the government to represent and serve the citizenry. People vote for the political party that they believe will best represent their ideologies and social interests. The results of an election determine which party will assume the leading role in government. The parties that do not receive a majority vote form the political opposition. In many cases, the role of the opposing party is to be critical of the ruling party. This is in an attempt to ensure transparency in decision-making, as well as ensure that the government is working for the common good. Healthy criticism by the opposing party will provide the opportunity for other government representatives and the citizenry to understand both the benefits and drawbacks to any political decision. As a result, it ensures that fair and balanced judgements are occuring in government. These are strong points but would be even more effective if discussed within the context of your example. For example, consider the decision by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to purchase a fleet of F-35 Fighter Jets for the Canadian military. Harper has insisted that the purchase of the jets will replace the existing outdated technology that the country currently has. He also explained during his re-election campaign with the Conservative Party that the Jets will cost approximately $9-billion dollars. However, a preliminary report by the Canadian Auditor General revealed that the Prime Minister neglected to include the costs of maintenance, bringing the total cost closer to $25 billion. Immediately, the opposition parties (including the Liberal party and the NDP) accused the Conservative party of lying to taxpayers. The change in the price tag raised significant questions about whether the purchase of the Jets were a responsible decision in times of economic uncertainty. The opposition insisted that a special inquiry was needed and also launced a petition calling on the government to tell the truth. In this case, it was clear that criticism was essential by the political opposition to ensure that fair and balanced decisions for the common good were being made in government. Very good. If your earlier points had been integrated into your example, the discussion would have been excellent. However, in other circumstances, the role of the political opposition may not be to criticize the policies of those in power. Consider the American debt ceiling crisis of 2011. In the United States, the debt ceiling is a limit imposed on the government determining how much money they can borrow from the Department of the Treasury. The only way it can be increased is with a vote by Congress. Both the Democrats and Republican parties in the US disagreed on what to do; Republicans, the majority party in the House of Representatives, favoured no tax increases and large spending cuts, whereas Democrats favoured tax increases with smaller spending cuts. In any case, if spending exceeded the debt ceiling, the United States would default and precipitate a financial crisis of significant national and international consequences. However, it took weeks of debate and disagreement between both parties due to differing economic and political ideologies before any sort of compromise was made. The agreement was made only a few days before a deadline imposed by the treasury, and if it was not done by then the US would have slipped into a financial crisis. President Obama was known to work behind the scenes to secure a compromise between the parties - otherwise, the prolonged debate could have led to serious consequences. Therefore, in such cases in which an economic crisis must be averted, it is important for both parties to come to an agreement for the greater good. Excellent. There are several factors which determine when the role of the political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power and when the opposition should assume a different role. In the resolution paragraph, you want to choose one determining factor. Choosing multiple factors makes it more complicated for you and reduces the clarity of your argument. In times of relative peace and in absence of any serious negative consequences The italicized part is an idea that lacks depth., criticism is preferred by the opposition party to ensure that the ruling party is making fair and balanced decisions in light of the common good of the country. For this reason, democracies encourage debate and this was evident in the criticisms by the Liberal and NDP on the Conservative decision to purchase the F-35 Jets. You do not apply your resolution principle to your supporting example. You do not explain how peace affects the role of the opposition. You simply restate your previous points. However, if a country is within a national crisis, such as the American debt-ceiling incident, criticisms by opposition parties may be harmful instead of helpful. In this instance, the opposition must be cognizant of the fact that their criticisms may prevent important decisions to be made due to their immediate nature. When an imminent threat to the people exists, the opposition must be ready to come to compromise with the ruling party for the good of the country. The application of your resolution principle to your refuting example is good. Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 5 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed. Depth: 5 Focus and coherence: 4.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Prompt 21 waldosa A US president once said "Politics has often been called the second oldest profession in the world. I find it bears a striking resemblance to the first." Although interesting and creative, the marker may not understand this quote and what it means. It also does not relate well to the writing prompt. This cynicism is associated with politics because of the fact that politics attempts to reconcile a party's struggle for power with its desire for effecting public change for the greater good. This is a different topic than the writing prompt. Since two parties compete for power exactly because they have different ruling philosophies (if they had the same ideas, they would be one party!) The inclusion of this bracketed idea is unnecessary and interrupts the flow of the essay., there is often a discord between political parties, even though both are looking for the public good. One such example is the ever-present enmity between the Democrats and Republicans in the USA. Obama's Democrats feel that socialized health care is the way forward for their country, despite the country's opposition to socialist infrastructure due to historical reasons. The Republicans have been in steadfast opposition to this idea, and feel that the current system, driven by insurance companies, is effective as is. This example could work. However, the discussion is a bit of a jumble of ideas. You do not present a clear and focused argument that addresses the supporting task. You don't talk about the role of the opposition. Further north, the Canadian political debates are considerably less dramatic and polarizing. This is not what the writing prompt is concerned with. The Conservative ruling party of Steven Harper's has maintained the socialist health care system that has been in place in Canada for decades. In response, the National Democratic Party (the NDP) is considerably less critical of policies of the Harper government, when compared to the US. This is despite the fact that the Harper government's right-wing policies are in stark contrast to the liberal, left-wing ideologies the NDP champions. Despite ideological differences, the liberal NDP, and Harper's Conservatives are able to agree that health care should be provided and administered the way it has in Canada for decades. Indeed, the NDP is in support of the ruling party's policies regarding health care. This example does not work here. The discussion does not address the writing task because it does not discuss the role of the opposition party. The differentiator between when the political opposition should criticize the ruling party, and when it should support depends on how concordant the ruling party's policies are with its own ideology. This is obvious and lacks depth. When the opposition finds that the ruling party's policies are acceptable, it should support the ruling government, and when it finds that the policies are prohibitive towards building a better society, the opposition should criticize. The examples that have been provided flesh out these examples ??, and the difference among Canadian and US debates is present because in the USA, the ideology differences are manifested in policy debates, whereas in Canada, differences in ideology are not prohibitive towards health policy. Simply put, in the USA, the ruling and opposition parties disagree upon administration of health care, whereas in Canada, both the ruling and opposition parties are in accordance with each other upon health care policy. What you are saying here is that the opposition party should criticize the ruling party when it disagrees and should support the ruling party when it agrees. This idea is too simplistic and lacks depth. The italicized portion here also does not make sense from an argument perspective. 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 poorly addressed. Depth: 1 Focus and coherence: 1.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Prompt 21 souljaboy In a democratic government, the opposition is usually the voice of opposition word choice towards most policies that are put forth by the governing party. The opposition would will often pounce upon the slightest fault in any facet of the governing party's actions, both personal and professional. This is an important aspect of the democratic government because the opposition would bring to light many of the failings of those in power, which the ruling party are either not seeing or intentionally ignoring. These ideas are good but should be discussed within the context of your example. Every year in the Canadian federal budget, the opposition would always find some fault associated with specific articles in the budget and bring it to the publics' attention. Many times, these problems in the budget would be corrected by the ruling party for the better. By acting as a critic, the opposition party brings many issues to the surface that would never be seen if they were not present.The opposition has the necessary role to critique every aspect of the policies dictated by those in power so that it can be improved. This discussion is good. However, your example is a bit too vague and general. Provide specific details. However, sometimes the opposition needs to unite with the ruling party in order for important policies to be approved quickly for the good of the country. When the United States faced a situation where they were about to default on their national debt, the ruling Democrats attempted to pass a bill which would have prevented a debt default and possible credit downgrade. However, the Republican opposition continued to criticize every aspect of the bill and it was not passed as quickly as possible. Although a debt default was avoided, the delay and constant argument between the two parties eventually caused a credit downgrade, which is harmful to the country's economic health. Because of the opposition needlessly grammar criticized every aspect of the bill, the overall state of the country was affected negatively This is too general.. In such a situation, the opposition must unite with the ruling party on the decision for the benefit of the country. This is a very good example. The opposition should be a constant critic of the policies created by the ruling party in order to have the most effective and overall beneficial policies created. However sometimes there are time sensitive situations where it is much more beneficial for the country if the opposition limited their critique and supported the ruling party's policies in order to be efficient. You should integrate these ideas into a resolution principle that provides a concrete rule. When facing issues such as the federal budget, the opposition has the necessary duty to be a critic that determines the issues and how to improve them. Their critique allows for a more effective policy to be passed and prevents those that are inefficient from being put in place. There is no application of the resolution principle. When facing a situation where time is of essence, such as the US debt default, the opposition should support the ruling party's policy with minimal conflict in order to ensure the best possible outcome for the country. You need to apply your resolution principle to your previously discussed examples. The resolution idea here is strong (whether there is a crisis). However, you do not express the idea as a principle and you do not apply it to your examples. In other words, your idea is good but the execution here was poor. Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed. Depth: 4 Focus and coherence: 3.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Prompt 21 medhopeful64 People and parties in power have an important role to play in the everyday lives of civilians. Those elected in power must do their best to ensure that the needs of the country's citizens are met and that their views as a whole are taken into account when implementing certain policies. The opposition parties are there to ensure that the party in power does not abuse their power, and to ensure that the voices of the public are being heard. In order to do this, sometimes the opposing parties must criticize the policies of those in power. This also ensures that the policies currently in effect are as efficient as possible. When possible you should integrate your points with your example to improve their effectiveness. For example, the Harper government introduced the Clean Air Act in 2006, a policy that was heavily critized by opposition parties, as well as several environmental groups. Although the policy had the intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and set new regulations for vehicle fuel consumption and gas emissions for oil companies, it was criticized by NDP Leader Jack Layton for having little effect on preventing climate change. These criticisms led to a threat of another election, and thus the Conservative Party agreed to modify the act. A modified version, highlighting more specific goals that were claimed to be more energy efficient was introduced in 2007. Thus, in this case, it can be seen that criticizing the policies of those in power is the responsibility of the opposition parties. This example is very good. It would have been excellent if the points before your example were discussed within the context of the example. In other cases, however, the role of a political opposition does not necessarily always need to be to critize the policies of those in power; in fact, it can be the exact opposite. That is, the role of the political opposition can be to help the party in power to implement their policies. Take Canada's role in the war in Afghanistan for example. The Harper government planned to remove all troops from Afghanistan in 2011, the majority of which did return to Canada in the proposed time frame. The decision to withdraw combat troops was influenced positively by opposition parties, particularly Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff. He voiced his support and praise for the way the Harper government handled Canada's role in the war in Afghanistan. Funding for Canada's mission in Afghanistan was used appropriately, and unanimously. Thus, in this case, the support of the political opposition allowed those in power - the Conservative Party - to more efficiently deal with certain areas of government, such as foreign aid. How? This example could work but you don't discuss why it is the role of the opposition in this case to support the party in power. The party in power must be able to implement and reinforce policies that work the most efficiently for the country. This can be done by either criticism or by support by the political opposition. These past two sentences need to be rewritten to improve clarity. The role of the political opposition varies between the two, depending on what the public thinks. This idea is questionable. If the public thinks the current government (and thus, the current policies) is doing a good job, then the role of the opposition should be to support the government, by trying to reinforce those policies. If however, the public's view is negative, then the role of the opposition should be to criticize the policies of those in power. For example, the public was overall in favor of spending a good deal of tax money on the mission in Afghanistan. As such, the role of the opposition parties was to value the public's opinion, and offer support for those policies that were approved of by the citizens. After all, the common goal for all parties is to make the country a better place to live in for the civilians. This can be done by either support or criticism from the opposing parties. You don't discuss your supporting example here. The idea here is unconvincing. Even though the public opinion supports the decision of the government, there is still a responsibility of the opposition to criticize policy. What if the people are misinformed or are being lied to by the party in power? What happens when public opinion is divided? 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 Focus and coherence: 3 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elham Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Visual images convey reality more accurately than words do. Describe a specific situation in which visual images might not convey reality more accurately than words do. Discuss what you think determines whether or not visual images convey reality more accurately than words do. When one analyzes the ways of understanding our universe in the most effective way, one would soon realize the importance of visual learning. In fact, recent studies suggest that in order for a person to have a better understanding of her reality, one should consider the learning techniques that include drawing, which would most precisely allow the observer to interpret her surrounding. The importance of visual learning is highlighted at the earlier ages. For instance, many students like Maryam who attends a preschool program tend to struggle with the teaching approach that is primary based on written language. One reason behind this is that despite the exact definition of any words that can be find in dictionary, each and every word can have a very different meaning to the readers. In other words, words can have a very subjective meaning and each person can interpret them differently based on their experience. In comparison, pictures, which are representation of our surrounding, are less likely to be subjective and thus have the ability to convey the information very clearly. Although one may think of pictures and the use of visual images as the most effective way of learning in childhood, one should not make a simple assumption that visual learning is the most effective way of learning at all ages or in all fields. For instance, at the post secondary level, the importance of language and the use of words can be considered as one of the most essential tools for conveying the information to others. For instance, for Mehri, who studies physics at the University of Victoria and is in her last year of her PHD degree, using the words to present her work to scientific community would be essential. That is in order to defend her thesis she has to present her research in the form of writing, as at this level of complexity of subject, presenting her work by visual image would make her work impossible to understand for others. Thus, age and the level of education are the important factors in determining whether the visual image or the words are the most effective way in understanding our surrounding. At the young age, students like Mayram who just started to learn about the universe the visual approach would be the best. On the other hand, for students like Mehri who are trying to convey sophisticated information, the language and the use of words would be the best approach, which would allow for easier interpretation of her work. Thank you Raymond. I truly appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.