Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback **New Thread**

[donna71]

In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems.

 

Businesses must deliberate upon many factors for a product or their company in the process towards their success. It is important then for businesses to pay attention to detail as this may help prevent unexpected dilemmas. Take for instance, the Bhopal gas disaster in India that had occurred in the 1980s where the Union Carbide India company failed to maintain their standards of regular checks and maintence of the plant. Power was shut off in order to save on electrical costs, but this effectively shut off the safety system of the plant and led to the inevitable disaster that resulted in widespread fatalities and debilitating disease. Had the company been more keen on safety adherence, the business would not be facing the numerous lawsuits filed by victims or by family on behalf of the victims in Bhopal. Furthermore, by being meticulous on safety the widespread environmental pollution and toll on human health could have been averted.

 

On the other hand, unexpected problems seem to be inevitable sometimes despite care given to details. For instance, Apple products are designed with great care and innovation and much time is spent on tweaking and refining the details of each product. Steve Jobs was notoriously known to be anal about the very specifics of each product and would spend hours deliberating on details and how products are presented in commercials. Despite the meticulous care spent on each feature of the iPhone, Apple has come under crossfire from other technology companies such as Motorola. Motorola sued and won a patent lawsuit that had forced Apple to remove its push email function in Germany. As a result, this function had to be disabled in all iPhones used in Germany to the dismay of Apple customers. Therefore, despite the care spent in designing the features of products, businesses may face unexpected problems when their competition locate loopholes to gain the upperhand and undermine the business in question.

 

Great time and attention is spent on various details of a business, including product features and standard operating procedures. Businesses are able to prevent unexpected problems by paying attention to and attending to details, but businesses also encounter unexpected problems when they do pay attention to details as well. What determines if attending to details will help to prevent or not prevent problems depends upon whether the details in question pertain to mandatory or optional processes. Should the details be part of mandatory processes, such as standard operating protocols to uphold safety which was illustrated in the Bhopal disaster, then paying attention to the details will help prevent unexpected problems and lawsuits. However should the details be part of optional processes, such as the anciliary design features on the iPhone, then paying attention to details will not necessarily prevent problems for a business if the competition actively undermines Apple. It is imperative for businesses to distinguish between the different types of details in order to allocate their time and attention accordingly.

 

Thanks Raymond!

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 21 blue181

 

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.

Very good.

 

However, the role of the 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.

There are some factual problems here. The problem in this case is that there isn't even a ruling party so I don't think this example is going to work for this prompt. Furthermore, the parties tried to form a coalition but failed to do so indicating that the parties are not actually working well together. This is a good effort but one of the risks of using a recent and well covered story as an example is that factual mistakes can easily be picked up.

 

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. This is not a good resolution principle. You had a perfectly good resolution principle that you were hinting at (if the country is facing a crisis). 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. It could be. 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 why?, 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.

For the writing sample, you do not want to use the idea of "greater good" or if something is helpful or not as a resolution idea. That idea lacks depth because you would essentially be saying that opposition parties should critique when it is helpful and not critique when it is not helpful. Here the resolution principle of peace vs. crisis is good. However, it wasn't well applied to your examples.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 21 sixstar

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.

The problem here is that there are too many points that are merely factual and do not contribute directly to addressing the writing task. In other words, you have a lot of information but a lot of it is not directly useful to developing and strengthening your argument.

 

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.

This is a little bit better. However, it would be better if you simply set up the situation more concisely (Conservatives have a minority government) and then actually provided an example of a policy where the opposition provided their input.

 

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). This idea isn't expressed clearly. Why don't you say it depends on whether the ruling party has a majority or minority number of seats. That is a much simpler and clearer way of expressing the same idea. 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.

You need to apply your resolution principle to the examples you discussed earlier.

 

In terms of the writing style, the clarity needs to be improved. One way to do this is to express ideas in a more concise manner. More words is not always better.

 

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 adequately addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[waldosa]

In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems.

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

 

The world of entrepreneurship is fraught with a great deal of risk which can lead to unforeseeable problems. However, a diligent, well-organized business with an eye for detail and an appreciation for upcoming business trends can avert problems that it may not even expect. The computers market of the 1970s and 1980s serves as a good example. In those times, most computers were out of the reach of the common consumer, and gigantic mainframes and supercomputers owned by large companies were the order of the day. IBM's computers were prominent in such businesses and the company took little effort to create personal computing software. It took the extraordinary vision of Microsoft owner Bill Gates to see a tiny, but growing demand for personal computers. His operating system of Windows was a graphical user interface that enabled the average person to tap in to the power of computers. By the time the personal computing revolution came unexpectedly early, IBM became an afterthought and was unable to capitalize with any user-friendly operating system. Windows took over and prevented the possible problem of becoming an afterthought, thanks to the eye for detail Bill Gates had.

 

 

However, sometimes even the most well-organized and meticulous of companies fall prey to the problems in business. The Lehmann Brothers was one of the largest financial institutions in the USA and in the world. Gaining credit from such an institution was only possible after a detailed inspection of the credit history of the loanee. However, the 2008 stock market crash brought about by an unexpected credit crunch derailed even this most esteemed of institutions. In this case, a great degree of attention to detail did not prevent an unexpected problem for the Lehmann Brothers. A stock market crash has broad consequences and almost indiscriminately affects organizations, regardless of any organizational strengths.

 

 

The examples discussed show that an attention to detail can prevent unexpected problems, but some situations leave the company helpless to deal with a problem. What differentiates those two situations comes down to whether the consequences of an unexpected problem are broad, or narrow to the company's market. In a situation like a stock market crash, broad consequences affect every company in the market, and an attention to detail is not of much help in averting disaster. In comparison, if the problem has narrow consequences, an attention to detail can help the company organize and cover niche growth opportunities before unexpected problems occur. The example of Microsoft shows that while the computing industry was servicing business clients, an eye for the niche market of home consumers helped Microsoft avert problems when the personal computing industry exploded. The consequences were narrowly focused - only the personal computing segment of the computing market was affected, even though eventually, those narrow consequences had a large impact, and IBM's operating systems became archaic.

 

-----------

Wasn't too confident about the resolution principle at all, but I gave it a shot.

 

As an aside, would you recommend coming up with the resolution principle, and then thinking of examples in line with the idea, or coming up with two examples and tying them together with a principle at the end?

 

Thanks!

[drrd]

In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems.

 

In society, businesses create products and services and sell them within the market to generate revenue. Ultimately, the principle concern of the business is to accumulate some net profit. Indeed, a successful business is measured by the amount of money it makes in comparison to others. Therefore, it often becomes the responsibility of the leaders of a business to ensure that any obstacles it encounters will not pose a problem to the generation of profit. In some cases, attention to detail may prevent unexpected problems within a business. If a business is cognizant of the risks of an operation, they may be able to take preemptive measures to minimze any sort of loss of profit. For example, consider the BP oil spill. In April 2010, an oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico that was operated by British Petroleum, an affluent oil and gas company. The explosion resulted in a massive oil spill that continued for 3 months before the leak in the seabed was plugged. Along with a huge environmental impact, the spill had major economic consequences. BP, and it's leaders, were criticized for the disaster. The company lost a significant amount of oil to the environment, and were also forced to pay for some of the damages. A special inquiry from the White House revealed that BP comitted 9 faults, many of which included not training workers with enough knowledge as well as continuing to drill into the seabed after multiple warning signals. In this case, the company clearly did not pay attention to the details of this operation and suffered both directly through loss of profit and a diminished reputation.

 

However, in other cases, attention to detail within business may not prevent unexpected problems. Consider the Global financial crisis of 2007-2008. Thousands of business, which were successful prior to the crisis, have been unable to thrive in the current economic climate. The financial crisis had been a result of plumetting real estate pricing in the United States, which damaged financial institutions globally. Consequently, there was a downturn of economic activity in which several key businesses failed and consumer wealth declined. In this situation, businesses around the world were unable to predict or plan for such a wide scale economic decline which directly affected them. Therefore, they were unable to take any preemptive measures to prevent this problem. Therefore, in this case, attention to detail would not be sufficient in inhibiting any loss of profit as business were unaware that such an event was going to unfold.

 

Therefore, whether or not a business' attention to detail can prevent unexpected problems depends on the economic climate at the time. In times of relative economic stability, business should be able to plan ahead and understand the inner workings of their operations to the fullest extent to ensure no harm will come to them. Due to the stability of the market, the only problems that should arise would likely come internally - therefore, the business should pay attention to the details of all inner processes. However, in times of economic instability, it may be impossible for a business to make predictions and take any sort of preemptive measures to prevent losses. In these cases, the problems arise externally and are out of the control of the leaders of a business.

[bored]

Business is an activity that an entity (an individual or an organization) engages in with others. The task of the activity is to achieve the goal of the organization. In Business, organizations often do dealings with other organizations in order to achieve success mutually. Usually these dealings are done so with the signing of a contract or an agreement that revolves around achieving success for both the organizations. If both of the organization want profit from the deal, then, attention to the detail is absolutely necessary. Details often range from things written down in the agreement in paper, but also paying attention to the other organizations past dealings, their history and their aspirations. All of these things prevent problems for both in the future. During the late 1900s, in the midst of the war between the afgan militia and the Russian army, many government officials and the in the US and the Central Intelligence Association (CIA) provided weapons to the afgans. This was all however done illegally. The supplies were sent in cargo planes in flights of the company KLM. The Americans at this time contact many other flight companies to provide them with services of transporting material to Afghanistan without any question. All companies but KLM denied the request, because they paid much attention to American situation and to the history of the CIA and political situation of America, they were able to learn that what the CIA had wanted to do was illegal so they declined. This saved them much trouble because the flight company KLM had to undergo many courts to save the company.

What KLM did however, was did not pay attention to the details. They did not play attention to the details of American situation and for that reason they were able to get out of all the court cases for their illegal actions. Because they did not know what was being supplied, the KLM organization was not held responsible for what happened, instead, the CIA was held responsible for it all. By not paying attention to the details, KLM was able to play the ‘ignorant card’ and get out of all the trouble that they may have been in because of illegally supplying weapons to the Afgan militia.

The both KLM and the other flight companies did well to avoid many unexpected problems. The other companies were able to avoid it all by simply saying ‘no’ to the CIA and avoid all the problems that were faced by KLM and much worse things that could have happened to the companies had they accepted the offer of the CIA. KLM on the other hand took the offer of the CIA but did not pay much detail to the CIA or the American political situation and so they were able to play the ‘ignoerant card’ to get out of all the court cases and were able to save the companies. Therefore, both paying attention to the detail and not paying attention to detail were beneficial, however, had KLM also said no to supplying weapons, than they would not have to waste much money on hiring legal companies and would also have been able to avoid the stress. However, because they did not pay attention to the detail, they were able to get out of all the legal problems and were able to save the companies because they simply blamed the CIA for not following the agreement.

[souljaboy]

There are hundreds of aspects to business that can affect a company's financial performance, and thorough attention to every one of these aspects, no matter how small, can prevent problems in the future that can significantly affect the company. In 2009, the car company Toyota experienced problems regarding several of their automobile brands because the cars experienced unintended acceleration. This problem is potentially fatal to the driver and initiated a mass recall of Toyota products, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars as well as tarnishing Toyota's image as a reliable car company. The cause of the problem was eventually concluded to be the accelerator petal sticking unintentionally, which was a problem that could have been easily avoided if there was a thorough inspection and more attention was paid to the testing of that particular part. Some extra inspection with minimal cost would have avoided costly financial and public image problems for the company potentially costed Toyota hundreds of millions.

 

In some circumstances, even if a company pays the utmost attention to every detail there are still circumstances out of their control that can cause problems. A significant reason for such problems to occur is if an outside source affected your business in an aspect you cannot control. In the 1970s, the video game industry was just about to experience a boom where many companies are beginning to capitalize on the video game market. However, several horrible games as well as home gaming systems produced by companies such as Atari destroyed consumer interest in the home video game market, even though there were systems and games from other companies that are well designed. The low quality products from the big name company still sold well but decimated the market because they were seen as an example of what video games are like. The other companies creating the better systems paid intensive attention to detail to create the best systems and games, but they were affected by problems created by other companies that are out of their control. In this case, no matter how much attention they have paid to the details, there was no way for them to predict that another factor would decimate their sales.

 

Paying attention to every detail would guarantee that there will be significantly less unexpected problems in the future, but there are still important factors affecting the market that are out of the company's control. For Toyota, better attention paid to the accelerator would have prevented the mass recall and loss in revenue, but they were not affected by external problems out of their control. For the many companies affected by the video game crash caused by Atari and others, they paid attention to every detail in the product but their market was decimated by something out of their control. A company can only ensure that the problems in the future cannot stem from their own errors by paying attention to detail, but there can still be many unexpected problems caused by something they cannot control.

[Guest ST6nq]

In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems.

 

Large, multimillion dollar enterprises inherently deal with a lot of risk in their daily operations and consequently employ a large number of people to ensure that every single aspect of their company runs smoothly. This attention to detail is critical for the drafting of legal contracts, formulating budgets, negotiating with business partners, as well as ensuring that human and other resources are allocated in a cost-effective manner. Even a momentary deficit in attending to the details of these components of running a successful corporation can result in unexpected and largely avoidable problems. For example, following a period of fiscal instability for the 2002 Winter Olympics enterprise in Salt Lake City, as CEO of the Winter Olympics, Mitt Romney instituted a systemic change in the culture of the organization whereby people began to work in a proactive and reflective manner in order to ensure that the fine aspects of running a successful Winter Olympics were made a priority, and that these small details were not ignored. This resulted in increased funding support from external corporations, more accountability of other Olympics executives, as well as a substantial investment in security measures due to the fears of another potential terrorist attack since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers were still fresh in peoples’ minds. Mitt Romney’s attention to detail allowed for the Olympics to be a highly successful event as evidenced not only through the generation of a large profit but also due to the lack of any significant unexpected problems.

 

Conversely, the automobile company General Motors (GM) exemplifies that a company can put forth great efforts in an attempt to prevent problems, and yet ultimately these problems will occur because it of factors that are not under their control. Specifically, the 2008 global recession lead to an economic decline resulting in a loss of net revenue for GM, the firing of many of their employees, and a need to obtain loans from the federal government in order to avoid total liquidation of their assets. Despite years of meticulous planning for a potential bankruptcy, there is nothing that GM could have done to prevent their demise because their decline was largely due to the collapse of the global economy, over which they have no direct control. Consequently, GM became reliant on the US government for fiscal stability, and eventually significantly reduced its debt. Clearly, despite all of the planning that was done, GM could not have prevented their financial crisis because the crisis was dependent upon factors that were outside of their control.

 

Therefore, whether or not attention to detail can prevent unexpected problems in business is dependent upon the stability of the global markets at the time. In the case of the 2002 Winter Olympics, as CEO, Mitt Romney’s attention to detail resulted in increased popularity and financial success of the Olympics, and also lead to the prevention of any major problems from occurring. This was possible as a result of the stability of the global markets at the time, which were very strong for a period of time following Bill Clinton’s presidency. However, in 2008, after President George W. Bush had been in office for 8 years, the global recession influenced every major corporation in a negative way. This resulted in GM being unable to financially support itself, and it was deep into the worst fiscal problem it ever experienced, and no amount of attention to detail could have prevented this from occurring because the global markets essentially dictated GM’s consumers, and by extension, GM’s success as a major corporation.

[sharpshooter]

Prompt 22 Sharpshooter

 

Business people often emphasize paying attention to details to maximize their profits; paying attention to detail may allow businesses to avoid unexpected problems. Paying attention do detail in business is knowing all the information about the business’s product or services, such as its advantages, disadvantages, future outlook, safety, etc. Before diazepam, anti-anxiety medication, was introduced as a prescription medication for the public, the pharmaceutical company found out all about the details of the drug and tested the drugs. First, the drug was tested on animals for acute and chronic processes. They tested the drug for at least 70% success in a population of 100. Next, they tested the drug side effects and efficacy in a population of 300. Finally, they did extensive clinical trials on a population of 3000. Through these trials, they found the drug was a teratogen to animals, an agent that can cause birth defects. Also, it can interact with other drugs. By finding out these details of the drug, they realized that they had to list that the drug cant interact with other medication and is teratogenic. Ultimately, paying attention to the details of the drug might prevented have the pharmaceutical’s drug from causing birth defects in human beings and other drug side effects in people, who chose to use diazepam in the past. Therefore, being aware of detail can potentially prevent unforeseen issues.

 

However, paying attention to detail might not prevent unforeseen problems. For instance, a Windsorite bought a street of house lots 20 years ago and planned to sell the lots for much more in the future. He paid attention to the details of the real estate market values monthly and found out that his house lots increased for the first 15 years since he purchased the lots. However, five years ago, the value of the lots have continually decreased and is still decreasing until today. The value of the lots decreased by 40% over the past four years. The Windsorite did not expect the value of the lots to start decreasing five years ago until today; he studied the details of the real estate market and found that the value of house lots generally continued to increase in the 15 year span since he bought the house lots. Real estate agents might not be able to help individuals sell their house for max profit; they may tell their customers to keep waiting since they have paid attention to the market value of their house and noticed it kept on increasing over the past years. However, the value of the houses could depreciate the next month since housing market values are unpredictable.

 

Thus, being aware of detail might prevent unexpected problems in business when the detail being studied pertains to the testing of the product. For example, when the pharmaceutical company studied the details of diazepam in testing phase of the product, the company discovered it was teratogenic to animals; thus, they deemed that the drug could be teratogenic to humans. Thus, the company’s study of the details of the drug might have prevented the drug’s potential teratogenic effects on a person. If the company did not study the details if the drug meticulously, the drug could have not have been discovered to be teratogenic; a medical doctor could have prescribed a pregnant individual diazepam for anxiety relief without knowing that it was teratogenic. However, attention to detail might now prevent unexpected problems if the detail does not pertain to a business’s product; for example, real estate does not have a testing phase of any sort. One can only pay attention to the details of the current market values of the house and lots, and these details might not prevent unexpected problems. For example, a Windsorite did not know the value of his house lots would depreciate continuously for the last five years; the value of the is lots inflated for 15 years prior to the start of the continual depreciation of his house lots.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 21 Neuro_07

 

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 the 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.

This is good. A real life example would add depth.

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. This idea lacks depth. Presumably the government always designs a policy that is intended to help the society. 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. This undermines the idea in your paragraph. 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.

The idea here lacks depth. You are basically arguing that the opposition party should encourage the government when they are right (this is obvious).

 

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. This is too obvious and lacks depth. It also does not work well because even though the requirements may seem like they are being met, the policy may actually have unintended consequences. 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.

 

One of your goals for the writing sample is to demonstrate complexity of reasoning. The ideas here are too simplistic and lack depth. You should also try to use real life examples to add to your essay.

 

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: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 21 kpm

 

This essay was submitted after the deadline had already passed. I will mark it this time but please adhere to the deadline as others on the forum do.

 

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. This is different from the writing prompt. You should paraphrase the writing prompt in your supporting paragraph. 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.

This example is okay but the discussion is not focused on criticism and not focused on discussion of the role of the opposition.

 

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. This is not what the writing prompt is about. 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.

This does not address the refuting task and is a related but tangential discussion.

 

Thus, opposing political parties are usually useful in that they ensure that more of the population is fairly represented in government. Again this is off-topic. 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.

This is off-topic and misses the point of the prompt.

 

Make sure that the main focus of the writing prompt is understood before proceeding. If the discussion starts to go off on a tangent, it will remain off course and not address the main idea of the writing prompt.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting and resolution tasks are not addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 1.5 The ideas are tangential and off-topic.

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[kpm]

Oh boy, I did extremely poorly on the previous prompt. Here's hoping I've improved and can stay on topic/prompt.

 

Thanks again, Raymond!

 

In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems.

 

Achieving a goal requires planning and attention to detail. The question is to what extent must the planning reach in order to overcome any problems that may arise along the way? In business, the ability to effectively handle unexpected problems may determine the fate of the product or service the business provides. For example, nuclear energy is no longer used in Japan because of the widespread damage caused by explosions of nuclear reactors that could not withstand the tsunami of 2011. Soon after the explosions, it was revealed that the reactors had not received proper maintenance and had not been designed to withstand the forces caused by the tsunami. In this case, attention to detail on both the part of the engineers who designed the reactors and on the part of the workers who serviced the reactors might have prevented the explosions.

 

On the other hand, even when businesses give great attention to detail, they may sometimes face unexpected problems. The company, Research in Motion (RIM), undoubtedly invested countless hours of planning into the design and development of the Blackberry, however, their competitor, Apple Computers, happened to create the more popular iPhone. It could not be guaranteed that had RIM invested more time and money into designing the Blackberry, they could have beat the competition. There would have been no way for them to know which aspects of their product to improve in order to beat Apple's product.

 

Therefore, when potential problems can be identified, businesses would do well to pay attention to detail and planning to avoid problems or at least to be prepared to deal with those problems. This is particularly true when safety is at stake, as in the case of the nuclear reactors of Japan, where attention to maintenance and design could have prevented the explosions. However, when the product that a business provides depends upon a consumer market, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to predict the competition's next move. If the market prefers the competition's product, as in the battle between RIM and Apple, no amount of planning or attention to detail can prevent the problem.

[kpm]

Also, thanks for marking my essay even though it was past the deadline. I'm new to this, but will now strictly adhere to the deadline. Thanks again!

[donna71]

Hi Raymond,

 

I was doing some practice prompts and I came across this one here and I just had a quesiton about it.

 

New technologies often hide problems that are only revealed later.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the benefits of a new technology might not hide later problems. Discuss what you think determines when the benefits of a new technology outweigh potential problems.

 

The third task, as it is worded here, threw me off a bit and I was wondering if for all of the prompts we should just go with what we are normally accustomed to doing? That is, normally I would've tried to come up with a resolution that showed when technology creates problems that are revealed later and when they create problems that are revealed immediately. Or am I just not getting the right interpretation? Thanks!

[Neuro_07]

Thanks a lot Raymond!

 

In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems.

 

Businesses that engage in trade of products or services that face strong competition in the market need to invest a lot of time and resources in research, production, marketing and other areas that may affect the success or failure of the product or the service. It has become extremely crucial for the firms to pay attention to the minute details in order to avoid any unexpected problems in the future. Businesses protect their intellectual property by patenting inventions in order to prevent their use by competitors and thereby, have an advantage over other businesses in the market. Violation of any patent can fetch severe penalties to the business owners. In 2011, Apple filed a lawsuit against HTC for using apple’s patented features in their phones’ User Interface (UI). The International Trade Company (ITC) found HTC guilty of infringing the patents and thus, imposed a ban on import of HTC phones until the features were removed from the phone. Hence, HTC’s lack of attention to details in designing the Operating System of their phones lead to a serious problem that could have been avoided if they had been more attentive and careful.

 

However, it is important to note that paying attention to details cannot prevent the problems in every case. Some problems are difficult to predict and even more difficult to avoid through proper planning. The automotive industry crisis that began in 2010 was mainly a result of the 2008 oil price shock and global financial crisis. The “Big Three” American automakers, General Motors (GM), Ford and Chrysler faced a tough situation that they did not expect to see and apparently couldn’t have avoided either. The sales of automotive companies were falling due to rising gas prices and the situation was further exacerbated by the global recession that had led to widespread unemployment. Declining sales and plummeting stock prices led the “Big Three” to the verge of bankruptcy. Since such an unexpected situation resulted from factors that were not in their control, the companies could not have avoided it by attending to any details.

 

Thus, whether attention to details helps prevent unexpected problems or not depends on whether the problem affects the particular company in question or the entire market on the whole. A problem like a lawsuit for violation of patents affects only one particular business and can be avoided by closely monitoring the designing of each and every feature of the product, and keeping in mind and thus, preventing use of, the features patented by the competitors. On the other hand, detailed planning and research may not be successful in avoiding problems like unexpected financial crisis due to a market crash, which affects almost every business, because the factors that engender the crisis are out of the company’s control. In conclusion, although it is important for every business to pay attention to details, whether it would help in preventing unexpected problems or not is determined by the nature of the problem and the factors that cause the problem.

[blue181]

Thanks Raymond!

 

In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems

 

Nowadays, for a business to become and remain successful, it must not only have innovative products, but attention to detail as well. This attention to detail can many times prevent unexpected issues from arising. However, some companies still choose to ignore certain details, a mistake which could lead to unexpected business problems. For example, in 2010 Toyota issued a recall for several million of their vehicles after receiving complaints about sticking accelerator pedals. Although the company later admitted they knew about potential problems with the accelerators even during their assembly, they claimed that the issues were not enough to warrant a recall. However, if Toyota had paid more attention to detail and inspected the accelerators more closely before putting them on the market, the company would not have had to go through the embarrassment of publicly admitting an issue that may have cost several people their lives. So in this case, more attention to detail could have prevented the problems and questions that Toyota had to face with regards to its image and safety standards.

 

However, sometimes even the utmost attention to detail cannot prevent unexpected business problems. Steve Jobs’ eye for detail is one of his best known qualities; however, for NeXT inc. – the company he founded in between his time with Apple, even his attention to detail could not prevent the problems that eventually led the company to failure. Jobs’ vision for NeXT was to create a top level desktop computer for students with the newest, state-of-the-art technology. Even though the computer itself was a high quality machine, it still failed to thrive on the market because it was simply far too expensive for its target market of students to afford. In this case, no amount of attention paid to the detail and quality of the product itself could have prevented the failure, because there just was not a market suitable for it at the time.

 

Overall, whether or not attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems depends on if the problems are related to the quality of the product itself, or if they are related to other issues of the market. For Toyota, their lack of attention to detail compromised the quality of their product, which caused them issues with recalls, and questions regarding their safety standards. Their problem may have been prevented if they had been more careful with inspecting the faulty accelerator pedals before putting them out on the market. However, if the problems have to do with other factors of the market, such as choosing the wrong target audience in Steve Jobs’ case, then even attention to detail and creating a high quality product cannot really prevent unexpected issues from arising.

[loopas]

In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems.

From a young age we are taught to pay attention to details; with activities like building puzzles and 'I spy with my little eye' our teachers instill in us a keen sense of detail. Though these games and actvities often seem trivial, they play a major role in creating successful business people. Businesses thrive on detail-oriented individuals who can forecast and thereby circumvent unexpected problems. For instance, in December 2011, a fire in AMRI Hospital, one of India's highest ranked medical facilities, took the lives of the over 80 patients and staff members. The fire department released a statement, in which the cause of the fire was said to be trash and combustible materials which were kept in a basement with no sprinklers. A few months prior to the accident, inspectors outlined these hazards in a document and warned hospital officials to carefully read the document. Hospital officials however, did not pay attention to details written in the document as they considered it to be a mere formality. Had hospital officials paid attention to details in the document and removed the dangerous items, they would have been able to avoid the fire and thereby save 80 lives.

 

Sometimes, however, attention to detail cannot prevent unexpected problems. For example, the Tato Nano, the cheapest car in the world, was marketed as 'the arrival of safety for the working class of India,' bringing to light the horrific pedestrian accidents that take place in India due to dreadful traffic laws and corrupt traffic police officers. Ironically, this car which was assembled on the basis of detail, because of the tight budget and the small size of the car, resulted in a number of deaths as it spontaneously burst into flames. In this case, paying attention to detail did not avoid this problem.

 

Paying attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems if people are restless and impatient, and have overlooked important documents as was the case in the AMRI fire. If, however, all documents have been carefully looked at and analysed then paying further attention to details will not prevent problems as in the case of the Tata Nano.

[sixstar]

In business, attention to detail might prevent unexpected problems.

 

Preventing unexpected problems is an important goal of all businesses. One way to prevent unexpected problems is to pay attention to detail. For instance, the toy company Fischer Price spends a significant amount of time and money on product testing. One of the most important types of product testing that a toy company will undertake is product safety testing. With product safety testing, paying attention to detail is of utmost importance. By throughly analyzing the safety details of a new toy, Fischer Price can avoid unexpected problems, that could result in costly product recalls.

 

However, paying attention to detail doesn't always prevent unexpected problems. In businesses that deal with food sale and production, for instance, strict government regulations attempt to prevent food contamination and the spread of food-bourne illnesses. In the late 2000's, McDoanld's Canada had to cease the sale of all products that contained tomatoes or lettuce due to a recall of those products from a farm in the United States. Due to this, McDonald's Canada undoubtedly lost money from the loss of sales of some of their products. In this case, while all the McDonald's Resturants in Canada paid significant attention to detail of their own food safety protocol, they still encountered a issue with their final product due to issues that were beyond their control. This problem was a result of an accidental contamination that occured at a farm that wasn't owned or operated directly by McDonald's Canada. As such, no matter how much detail was paid to the food handling requirements by McDonald's Canada, this unexpected problem still occurred.

 

It would seem that paying attention to detail can prevent unexpected problems as long as the details are within the business's direct control. By focusing their efforts on testing the safety of the toys that they produce, Fischer Price hopes to prevent unexpected safety issues and costly product recalls. On the other hand, even though McDonald's Canada paid great attention to their food safety and handling procedures, they were not able to prevent unexpected problems that arose due to factors that were beyond their direct business control. As such, in this interconnected society, where more and more companies are outsourcing various aspects of their production to other businesses, paying attention to detail can only go so far in preventing unexpected problems.

 

Thanks!

[RaymondPrep101]

A country must use its natural resources in a way agreeable to all its citizens.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a country might justifiably use its natural resources in a way that is not agreeable to all its citizens. Discuss the principles you think determine when a natural resource should be used in a way agreeable to all its citizens.

 

Instructions

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

 

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

 

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

 

Deadline

11:59pm Friday, June 1.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Saturday, June 2.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 22 Enviro_4_Medschool

 

In business, the bottom line and market access are the most important factors word choice. 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. There are some grammatical problems and questionable word choices. 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 its 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. This example is not well explained thus far. 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.

Apple would certainly be a good example because they pay attention to details which prevents unexpected problems. However, the explanation here and execution need to be improved.

 

However, innovation that did not involve re-imaging of previous products may not always be successful despite attention to detail. This is different from the writing prompt. 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.

You should choose one example. Having two examples may seem better but it is not. It actually complicates things and reduces clarity.

Your example could be excellent but the writing style and execution are weak.

 

Imitators are able to prevent unexpected problems because the innovators were able to hammer out most of the details for them. So whether attention to details prevent or do not prevent 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.

I understand your ideas and they are good. They are just again, not well explained and clear. In your resolution paragraph, you need to apply your resolution principle to your previously discussed examples.

Also, I don't think Apple is just a mere imitator. People look at Apple and think innovation.

 

The ideas here could be very strong. It is the writing that holds your essay back.

 

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: 4.5 The depth of ideas is good.

Focus and coherence: 1.5 The focus and coherence of your writing is weak.

Grammar and vocabulary: 2.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 22 medicg

 

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.

I suggest checking your facts because there are some errors here. Several of the reactors did melt down completely. The Fukushima power plant incident is a nuclear catastrophe in every expert's opinion.

 

The Fukushima power plant would be a great example for your refuting paragraph but does not work here. Make sure that your facts are right when you are using highly publicized recent events.

 

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.

Again, there are some factual errors here. The senior management were aware of the risks and did not act properly. They were negligent and the problems were foreseeable. In other words, the problems were preventable.

 

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.This is vague. 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. But the disaster still happened which is why this would have been an excellent refuting example. 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.

This idea works (ignoring the mistakes in the stories of course).

 

Again, be careful when using examples that are well known and highly publicized because your marker could pick up on your factual errors.

 

Everything here was solid but the mistakes in the stories held it back.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Visual images convey reality more accurately than words do.

 

 

Unfortunately, the deadline for this prompt passed a while ago. I post a new prompt every 5 days along with a deadline. You are welcome to submit essays for the new prompts.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 22 donna71

 

Businesses must deliberate upon many factors for a product or their company in the process towards their success. It is important then for businesses to pay attention to detail as this may help prevent unexpected dilemmas. Take for instance, the Bhopal gas disaster in India that had occurred in the 1980s where the Union Carbide India company failed to maintain their standards of regular checks and maintence of the plant. Power was shut off in order to save on electrical costs, but this effectively shut off the safety system of the plant and led to the inevitable disaster that resulted in widespread fatalities and debilitating disease. Had the company been more keen on safety adherence, the business would not be facing the numerous lawsuits filed by victims or by family on behalf of the victims in Bhopal. Furthermore, by being meticulous on safety the widespread environmental pollution and toll on human health could have been averted.

Excellent

 

On the other hand, unexpected problems seem to be inevitable sometimes despite care given to details. For instance, Apple products are designed with great care and innovation and much time is spent on tweaking and refining the details of each product. Steve Jobs was notoriously known to be anal about the very specifics of each product and would spend hours deliberating on details and how products are presented in commercials. Despite the meticulous care spent on each feature of the iPhone, Apple has come under crossfire word choice from other technology companies such as Motorola. Motorola sued and won a patent lawsuit that had forced Apple to remove its push email function in Germany. As a result, this function had to be disabled in all iPhones used in Germany to the dismay of Apple customers. Therefore, despite the care spent in designing the features of products, businesses may face unexpected problems when their competition locate loopholes to gain the upperhand and undermine the business in question.

This is very good. It is not excellent because it doesn't strongly satisfy the unexpected problems element. If they infringed on a patent and were then sued for it, that would not really constitute an unexpected problem. If you made the case that Apple had said that it had come up with it independently and it is impossible to be familiar with all of the patents out there, then the litigation would be unexpected.

 

Great time and attention is spent on various details of a business, including product features and standard operating procedures. Businesses are able to prevent unexpected problems by paying attention to and attending to details, but businesses also encounter unexpected problems when they do pay attention to details as well. What determines if attending to details will help to prevent or not prevent problems depends upon whether the details in question pertain to mandatory or optional processes. When I read this on its own, I don't know what you are talking about. For the resolution principle you want something simple and clean. The simpler the contrast is, the more elegant it is. Should the details be part of mandatory processes, such as standard operating protocols to uphold safety which was illustrated in the Bhopal disaster, then paying attention to the details will help prevent unexpected problems and lawsuits. However should the details be part of optional processes, such as the anciliary design features on the iPhone, then paying attention to details will not necessarily prevent problems for a business if the competition actively undermines Apple. It is imperative for businesses to distinguish between the different types of details in order to allocate their time and attention accordingly.

This works but is average because the resolution principle isn't expressed in a clear and strong manner.

 

Well done overall.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 5

Focus and coherence: 5.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 22 waldosa

 

The world of entrepreneurship is fraught with a great deal of risk which can lead to unforeseeable problems. However, a diligent, well-organized business with an eye for detail and an appreciation for upcoming business trends can avert problems that it may not even expect. Good opening. The computers market of the 1970s and 1980s serves as a good example. In those times, most computers were out of the reach of the common consumer, and gigantic mainframes and supercomputers owned by large companies were the order of the day. IBM's computers were prominent in such businesses and the company took little effort to create personal computing software. It took the extraordinary vision of Microsoft owner Bill Gates to see a tiny, but growing demand for personal computers. His operating system of Windows was a graphical user interface that enabled the average person to tap in to the power of computers. By the time the personal computing revolution came unexpectedly early, IBM became an afterthought and was unable to capitalize with any user-friendly operating system. Windows took over and prevented the possible problem of becoming an afterthought, thanks to the eye for detail Bill Gates had.

The ideas here could be good however the execution requires improvement. IBM here is a negative example of the prompt (they did not pay attention to detail and they ran into an unexpected problem). I do not know you why you also have Microsoft here. They paid attention to details but that did not prevent them from running into unexpected problems.

Mixing the two here took away from the cohesiveness and strength of your argument.

 

However, sometimes even the most well-organized and meticulous of companies fall prey to the problems in business. The Lehmann Brothers was one of the largest financial institutions in the USA and in the world. Gaining credit from such an institution was only possible after a detailed inspection of the credit history of the loanee. However, the 2008 stock market crash brought about by an unexpected credit crunch derailed even this most esteemed of institutions. In this case, a great degree of attention to detail did not prevent an unexpected problem for the Lehmann Brothers. A stock market crash has broad consequences and almost indiscriminately affects organizations, regardless of any organizational strengths.

There are a number of factual errors here. Lehmann Brothers was one of the players in orchestrating the crash. They went bankrupt and that caused the resulting credit crunch and plunge in world markets not the other way around. The bankers at Lehmann Brothers knew what they were doing. They took incredible gambles and the possibility of bankruptcy would not have been an unexpected problem.

Make sure that you have the right facts when using a well known and recent event as an example.

 

The examples discussed show that an attention to detail can prevent unexpected problems, but some situations leave the company helpless to deal with a problem. This is not a good paraphrasing of the resolution task. What differentiates those two situations comes down to whether the consequences of an unexpected problem are broad, or narrow to the company's market. This is vague and not very clear. In a situation like a stock market crash, broad consequences affect every company in the market, and an attention to detail is not of much help in averting disaster. This makes sense. In comparison, if the problem has narrow consequences, an attention to detail can help the company organize and cover niche growth opportunities before unexpected problems occur. The example of Microsoft shows that while the computing industry was servicing business clients, an eye for the niche market of home consumers helped Microsoft avert problems when the personal computing industry exploded. The consequences were narrowly focused - only the personal computing segment of the computing market was affected, even though eventually, those narrow consequences had a large impact, and IBM's operating systems became archaic.

The resolution principle here could work but is not well executed. You also don't apply your resolution principle to your refuting example.

 

-----------

Wasn't too confident about the resolution principle at all, but I gave it a shot.

 

As an aside, would you recommend coming up with the resolution principle, and then thinking of examples in line with the idea, or coming up with two examples and tying them together with a principle at the end?

I usually like to start with a resolution principle and then find examples to fit that principle rather than trying to find a resolution principle that fits the examples.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 22 drrd

 

In society, businesses create products and services and sell them within the market to generate revenue. Ultimately, the principle concern of the business is to accumulate some net profit. Indeed, a successful business is measured by the amount of money it makes in comparison to others. Therefore, it often becomes the responsibility of the leaders of a business to ensure that any obstacles it encounters will not pose a problem to the generation of profit. In some cases, attention to detail may prevent unexpected problems within a business. If a business is cognizant of the risks of an operation, they may be able to take preemptive measures to minimze any sort of loss of profit. For example, consider the BP oil spill. In April 2010, an oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico that was operated by British Petroleum, an affluent oil and gas company. The explosion resulted in a massive oil spill that continued for 3 months before the leak in the seabed was plugged. Along with a huge environmental impact, the spill had major economic consequences. BP, and it's leaders, were criticized for the disaster. The company lost a significant amount of oil to the environment, and were also forced to pay for some of the damages. A special inquiry from the White House revealed that BP comitted 9 faults, many of which included not training workers with enough knowledge as well as continuing to drill into the seabed after multiple warning signals. In this case, the company clearly did not pay attention to the details of this operation and suffered both directly through loss of profit and a diminished reputation. The discussion was solid.

 

However, in other cases, attention to detail within business may not prevent unexpected problems. Consider the Global financial crisis of 2007-2008. Thousands of business, which were successful prior to the crisis, have been unable to thrive in the current economic climate. The financial crisis had been a result of plumetting real estate pricing in the United States, which damaged financial institutions globally. Consequently, there was a downturn of economic activity in which several key businesses failed and consumer wealth declined. In this situation, businesses around the world were unable to predict or plan for such a wide scale economic decline which directly affected them. Therefore, they were unable to take any preemptive measures to prevent this problem. Therefore, in this case, attention to detail would not be sufficient in inhibiting any loss of profit as business were unaware that such an event was going to unfold. Excellent.

 

Therefore, whether or not a business' attention to detail can prevent unexpected problems depends on the economic climate at the time. In times of relative economic stability, business should be able to plan ahead and understand the inner workings of their operations to the fullest extent to ensure no harm will come to them. Due to the stability of the market, the only problems that should arise would likely come internally - therefore, the business should pay attention to the details of all inner processes. However, in times of economic instability, it may be impossible for a business to make predictions and take any sort of preemptive measures to prevent losses. In these cases, the problems arise externally and are out of the control of the leaders of a business.

This idea works. However, in your resolution paragraph, you need to apply your resolution principle to your two previously discussed examples.

 

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 completely addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 5