Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback New Thread

RaymondPrep101 · May 29, 2012

Prompt 22 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. It takes you too long to get to your example. Most of these points are very general and do not directly contribute to addressing the writing task. Keep your introduction clear and concise. 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 Grammar and the Central Intelligence Association (CIA) provided weapons to the afgans. Afghans should be capitalized and spelled properly. 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 grammar 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 sentence has grammar issues. This saved them much trouble because the flight company KLM had to undergo many courts to save the company. ??

This example could work but the writing style needs improvement. The focus, coherence and clarity of the writing is weak. There are also problems with grammar.

What KLM did however, was did not pay attention to the details. Grammar They did not play Grammar 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. This undermines your previous argument.

The both KLM Grammar 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 Grammar the CIA or the American political situation and so they were able to play the ‘ignoerant card’ Grammar to get out of all the court cases and were able to save the companies. Therefore, both paying attention to the detail Grammar and not paying attention to detail were beneficial, however, had KLM also said no to supplying weapons, than they would not have to Grammar 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.

There are significant problems with this essay. The writing style is poor. The clarity, coherence and focus need improvement. The essay is also filled with grammatical mistakes.

The ideas could be okay but the writing really made the arguments difficult to understand.

RaymondPrep101 · May 29, 2012

Prompt 22 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. This discussion is solid.

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. Solid.

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. You need to take this idea and formulate it into a resolution principle to address the resolution task. 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.

The resolution here works. However, it needs to be expressed in a clear and concise manner. Formulate your ideas into a resolution principle that goes at the beginning of your resolution paragraph.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

Enviro_4_Medschool · May 29, 2012

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.

---

Africa is unique in that the middle part of Africa tends to be quite poor and the extreme Northern and Southern portions tend to have more wealth. One distinguishing characteristic between the central parts and the extremes is the dependence on natural resource extraction for economic growth. Oil companies were supposed to pay Royalties to land owners but because of the tribal nature in much of central Africa the wealth was instead concentrated in the hands of tribal leaders. In fact, some would argue that having natural resources for these countries resulted in a decline in standard of living because of this refusal to transfer wealth while uprooting ordinary citizens. In contrast, Norway has one of the wealthiest per capita standards and have striven to create a more egalitarian society. The royalties from oil extraction in the north sea have been used to generate a substantial heritage fund. Moreover, this investment has payed for social institutions within Norway which further "incentivises" people to support natural resource extraction because their standard of living is amongst the highest int he world. Hence, when looking at the differences in the way central Africa has developed its resources over Norway, the contribution Norway has given to its people suggests that natural resource development should benefit the citizens of the country and nations should develope natural resources in a way that is agreeable to its citizens.

However, within countries there may be different subsets of citizens with different priorities or practises. In North America, there are numerous Aboriginal treaties where aboriginals belong to the country but are also distinct as citizens. In Canada there is a distinction between Aboriginal Law and Constitutional Law. Aboriginal Law considers serious alterations to natural landscapes as an affront to the principles of harmony with nature. Any decision regarding natural resource extraction requires Elder leader consent. If Canada forced natural resource extraction by using a claim like eniment domain, especially in highly contested areas like British Columbia, this may not agree with the principles of First Nations who would approve a more harmonious relationship with nature. In the case of British Columbia if the Federal Government forces development on aboriginal lands it may have to do so by force which would not be agreeable to the inhabitants of first nations. However, they could attempt to justify this by arguing for the greater good of the country and how the wealth generated would be beneficial to the country as a whole which could in turn help First Nations.

Even if First Nations culturally may be opposed to natural resource development, there are still ways of getting them to agree by providing incentives such as ownership in projects and job development. However, what is an important principle in natural resource development is that land owners and other stakeholders have a sense of inclusion in their development. That way they can work with companies to arrive at resolutions that benefit all stakeholders and also feel a sense of ownership that would act as an incentive to have successful development. Africa's resource extraction tends to be harmful not just environmentally but socially because of the tendency to exclude landowners in the process and concentrate wealth with tribal leaders. Perhaps if tribal leaders had done what the oil royalties were meant to do, the citizens could be more agreeable about development. Norway can be considered successful because oil development has amassed wealth in the country which has allowed its citizens to enjoy numerous social benefits. Moreover, by providing incentives back to the citizens, and a sense of inclusion, it is more likely that sustainable development options will be developed that most citizens find agreeable.

----

Thanks again Raymond.

bored · May 29, 2012

Prompt 22 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. It takes you too long to get to your example. Most of these points are very general and do not directly contribute to addressing the writing task. Keep your introduction clear and concise. 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 Grammar and the Central Intelligence Association (CIA) provided weapons to the afgans. Afghans should be capitalized and spelled properly. 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 grammar 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 sentence has grammar issues. This saved them much trouble because the flight company KLM had to undergo many courts to save the company. ??

This example could work but the writing style needs improvement. The focus, coherence and clarity of the writing is weak. There are also problems with grammar.

What KLM did however, was did not pay attention to the details. Grammar They did not play Grammar 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. This undermines your previous argument.

The both KLM Grammar 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 Grammar the CIA or the American political situation and so they were able to play the ‘ignoerant card’ Grammar to get out of all the court cases and were able to save the companies. Therefore, both paying attention to the detail Grammar and not paying attention to detail were beneficial, however, had KLM also said no to supplying weapons, than they would not have to Grammar 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.

There are significant problems with this essay. The writing style is poor. The clarity, coherence and focus need improvement. The essay is also filled with grammatical mistakes.

The ideas could be okay but the writing really made the arguments difficult to understand.

Raymond, I take too long to get to the example in my paragraph 1, because I was instructed to define the words used in the prompt. Shouldn't I be defining my prompt before going on to provide the example? Because I learnt that one print can be interpreted in different ways and so I had learnt that you should always define and than provide the example.

I wrote the mcat last September, and had gotten an R on my writing sample, can you explain why it's so bad all of a sudden? I am applying the same basic technique as last year.

perspectives · May 29, 2012

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

The citizens of a country are those with special privileges due to having met special criteria warranting citizenship. A country therefore will try to do what is right for its citizens and this includes allocating resources in a way that will please its citizens. This means that however the natural resources are decided to be used, the citizens will agree to that usage. For example, lumber is an abundant natural resource found in Canada, and the lumber industry is a major source of revenue and economic growth. The citizens of Canada can agree to the allocation of lumber in exports because this creates numerous jobs for Canadian citizens, as well as a source of revenue for the country, indirectly leading to economic growth. Citizens will not disagree to this allocation because Canadian citizens are harmed in the process.

However, there are also situations where a country will be justified in allocating the use of their natural resources in a way that does not sit well with their citizens. For instance, space exploration requires the usage of extensive natural resources and citizens may not agree to this allocation due to a lack of foreseeable benefit. The NASA space program has been met with great disagreement from the citizens of the United States as they did not see how this will benefit them. However, the United States of America continued with this program even though it incurred many set-backs and high costs of natural resources because the pursuit of knowledge and understanding was something the country knew had to be explored. The potential from the NASA program can be put into context by Neil Armstrong: “that’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Whether or not a country’s natural resources should be allocated in a way agreeable to its citizens is contingent on the aims of the usage of the material. Certain scenarios will call on a country to do what is best for the well-being of the entire world, and not just their own citizens. From the previously mentioned lumber example, the usage is not for any great innovation for the benefit of mankind. Lumber is used for the production of small household projects such as sheds, tree houses, and small wooden crafts. This usage may be highly satisfying for the household, but the aggregate usage will not make a big difference for humanity. However, in the exploration of space, gallons of oil, metals, and other natural resources are spent for the greater good of mankind. Although this does not benefit the country immediately, the aim and purpose of the allocation is for something greater than the individuals of a nation. A country’s limited natural resources are a scarce commodity, and their allocation is contingent on this key factor of what the end objectives to the resource are.

thanks!

sixstar · May 29, 2012

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

In a democratic society, the government answers to it's citizens. As the citizens of a country provide a signficant amount of tax revenue for the government, and thus provides some of the funds used to invest in projects, such as natural resource development, it can be argued that a country should use its natural resources in a way that is agreeable to all its citizens. For instance, the oil sands industry in Canada serves as a significant source of revenue for the government. When a petroleum company intends to start extracting oil from a particular area, significant public consultation and public health testing must be held in order to gauge the impact that the proposed oil sands will have on the surronding communities. When public health was at risk due to the presence of a number of oil sands developments and their tailing ponds, such as in Fort Chipewyan in the early 2000s, the government responded to the public outcry over the health impacts of the tailing ponds and had to invest a significant amount of time and effort into investigating these health issues and imposing strict health regulations on current and future oil sands developments. In this case, the government acted in a way that would be agreeable to all its citizens by controlling oil sands development and imposing tighter health regulations in an effort to protect public health and well being.

However, a country may sometimes justifiably use its natural resources in a way that is not agreeable to all its citizens. This past spring in Canada, the leader of the Official Opposition, Thomas Mulcair, made the claim that the growing oil sands industry in Western Canada was one of the main factors leading to an inflated value of the Canadian dollar. In turn, Mulcair claimed that this overinflated Canadian dollar led to a decrease in the number of manufacturing jobs in Eastern Canada, due to the increased cost of exporting goods. This claim seemingly divided the country, as the booming oil sands industry in Western Canada was being accused of the crashing manfacturing industry in Eastern Canada. However, the ruling Conservative Party of Canada disagreed with those claims and openly stated that they still consider the development of the oil sands industry an important priority for Canada. In this case, the Conservatives made decisions about the usage of Canda's natural resources in a way that was not agreeable to all its citizens.

It would seem that whether or not a country should use its natural resources in a way agreeable to all its citizens, would depend on the proiorties of the ruling party. In the case of Fort Chipewyan and the surrounding communities, the government invested significant time and effort into managing the oil sands development when public health was at risk. As such, they acted in a way that would be agreeable to all citizens, as the health and well being of it's citizens was a prioirty of the ruling party. However, in the case of Thomas Mulcair's cliams about the impact of oil sands development on different parts of the country, the government acted in way that they felt would provide the greatest benefit to the country, even though not all of the citizens were in agreement. In this case, the finanical proirties of the ruling party superceded public opinion, and thus the government acted in a way that was not agreeable to all its citizens.

Thanks! Your feedback is greatly appreciated!

RaymondPrep101 · May 29, 2012

Raymond, I take too long to get to the example in my paragraph 1, because I was instructed to define the words used in the prompt. Shouldn't I be defining my prompt before going on to provide the example? Because I learnt that one print can be interpreted in different ways and so I had learnt that you should always define and than provide the example.

I wrote the mcat last September, and had gotten an R on my writing sample, can you explain why it's so bad all of a sudden? I am applying the same basic technique as last year.

You should define the words in the prompt. However, it should be done in a concise manner rather than a roundabout way because the definitions represent only a small part of the supporting paragraph.

This last essay is bad because of the writing style. It is really hard to understand. I was a bit surprised because your other essays did not have such significant issues with the writing.

kpm · May 29, 2012

Thanks, Raymond!!!

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

We know now that many natural resources are nonrenewable and therefore in limited supply. Countries need to exercise caution in planning how to use their limited natural resources, which can be quite difficult because citizens may have differing opinions on their best uses. In a democratic society, the decided uses of resources should be transparent to the citizens, and the citizens should have a say in how the resources are used. In North America, the quick, inexpensive and lucrative oil extraction method of hydraulic fracking has become popular for many companies. Unfortunately, hydraulic fracking companies have gained the reputation of lacking in transparency when it comes to disclosing the health risks associated with the method. It turns out that hydraulic fracking uses toxic chemicals that frequently contaminate local drinking water, which has resulted in multiple lawsuits against these companies. These lawsuits could have been avoided if the companies were more straightforward about the risks associated with their methods, and had asked permission of nearby residents to drill hydraulic fracking wells.

However, in some cases, there is not enough time to consider the multiple opinions of different citizens on how best to use certain natural resources. Developing countries may face financial constraints that narrow their options for the use of their resources. For example, although the citizens of Iraq may not all agree, the government of Iraq made the decision to sell oil to the United States. As a developing country, the government may have thought that it was in their best interest to sell their oil for financial profit, instead of to use the oil in their country.

Therefore, in times of financial uncertainty or development, a country may be forced to make decisions in the country's best interest, without consulting its citizens. This was the case in Iraq, where the government chose to sell oil to North America for monetary compensation. However, when a country is developed and relatively financially stable, the citizens should be consulted on the use of natural resources. This consultation needs to be in place in order to avoid a situation where a company is taking advantage of the country's natural resources for financial reasons at the expense of health concerns. This is exactly what happened when North American companies used hydraulic fracking without permission from nearby residents. When there is no imminent financial emergency, citizens will not be inclined to sit back passively while the government or private companies destroy their natural resources for personal financial gain.

RaymondPrep101 · May 30, 2012

Prompt 22 ST6nq

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.

This example is very good. However, there needed to be more emphasis placed on the prevention of unexpected problems aspect to be excellent.

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.

Excellent.

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. This is probably a bit too narrow. You should broaden this. 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.

Excellent.

Overall Mark: 6/6 (Corresponds to approximately a T)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 6 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is completely addressed.

Depth: 6

Focus and coherence: 5.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5.5

RaymondPrep101 · May 30, 2012

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. Try to integrate these two sentences together. The semi-colon disrupts the flow of the essay. 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 grammar 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.

This example is good. The writing style needs improvement.

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.

This example is not very good since it is not strongly convincing and lacks depth. The writing style was also very repetitive.

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.

Your resolution principle should be presented as a whole at the beginning of your resolution paragraph. Here you have split it up. Again, the ideas relating to your supporting example are solid but the ideas relating to your refuting example are weak.

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: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

bored · May 30, 2012

Thanks for the feedback Raymond

donna71 · May 30, 2012

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

Each country possesses a plethora of natural resources, including bodies of water, logging/timber, and also land space. A country, or government, must use such natural resources in a manner that is agreeable or supported by its citizens. For instance in December 2011, the rural Wukan region of China received some media spotlight from the dissent and protesting that had occurred in regards to recent land seizures. The government had plans for using the land in question for re-development, but had seized land currently occuppied by Wukan residents and failed to adequately compensate these individuals. The Wukan residents then staged protests which were exacerbated when the government jailed protesting residents. To stem the negative coverage and to discourage the rising dissent, the government eventually returned the land. Therefore, the nation's government should use and treat land space that is agreeable with the citizens in order to prevent disruption and harm to individuals in existing communities. So though the government has its own agenda of goals, it needs to take into consideration the needs and welfare of the people as well.

However, not all of a country's natural resources need to be used in a way that is agreeable to all of the citizens. The fall of the Qing dynasty ended imperialism and plunged China into a chaotic period ruled by warlords. However, in the mid-twentieth century Mao Zedong gained leadership in China and as part of his campaign to further unify and develop an economic strategy for the struggling country he instigated the Great Leap Forward campaign. The campaign was based upon communist ideas and collective farming communes. He stripped all farmers of their land and assets and ordered all citizens to perform agricultural work, the produce of which he anticipated to stimulate economic growth. The government's seizure of land from warlords also served to stifle their influence in the recently consolidated nation moving towards unity. Therefore a country may use the natural resources of land despite the discontent amongst the citizens in efforts to spur and bring about necessary social, economic, and political stability.

Countries possess natural resources that may be publicly shared, however the nation must balance between when to use its natural resources, such as land, in a manner that is agreeable or non-agreeable with its citizens. What determines whether a nation can use these resources in an agreeable manner or not depends upon whether or not citizens can express and communicate their opinions amongst each other on a mass scale. If it is the case that citizens can express their discontent through mass media, such in the current era with internet and social media in Wukan, then a nation should use its resources in a manner that agrees with the citizens in order to avert violence and international condemnation. However should it be the situation where the citizens, such as the Chinese back in the 1960s during the Great Leap Forward, do not have a means to mass-communciate their discontent or form uprisings, then there is less of a barrier for the government to use the natural resources as they please. It is important to treat all resources with consideration and a country needs to balance its responsibilities between its political goals and the needs of the citizens.

Thanks Raymond

souljaboy · May 31, 2012

A country's natural resources can be considered to affect all of the country's citizens. The impact of using and exporting the natural resource affects economy of the country, and in turn its' citizens, as well. Therefore, the resources should be used in such a way that it benefits all of the country's citizens. The country United Arab Emirates possess very large oil reserves as a natural resource. Oil is a valuable commodity in today's world and exporting the oil brings in considerable amount of wealth for the country and its citizens. The majority of the citizens of UAE supports exporting oil for profit because it brings them individual economic wealth as well. Therefore, the majority of these oil reserves are currently being mined and a lot of the profit goes back to the citizens. UAE, by exporting the oil, improved their economy greatly and improved the living standards of the country as well. The country is using the natural resource it possesses for the benefits of the majority of the citizens.

However, all the citizens of a country cannot always receive benefits from how a government treats its natural resources. In the 1980s, cod fishing in the eastern coast of Canada is a booming industry. Severe overfishing occurred, so the government must make a decision that is not popular with the maritimes residents but is a necessity. The Canadian government had to limit the amount of cod that can be caught significantly, which is a very unpopular decision with those who depend on fishing for their livelihood. In this situation, the government must decide to act with its natural resource in such a way that displeases a minority but is for the benefit of the entire country. By limiting the amount of cod fishing, the government is looking at the big picture and is preserving the environment so that cod in the east coast does not go extinct. The majority of Canadian citizens were agreeable with this decision, and it is helping the recovery of the cod population.

It is not always possible for the government to use a resource in a way that is agreeable with all the citizens, so they must make a decision that benefits the majority of its citizens as well as the overal state of the country at the risk of angering a minority. The United Arab Emirates were presented with a situation where the natural resource can be used to benefit all their citizens, which is what they decided to do. The country's useable of its natural resource managed to improve the lives of all its citizens. However, Canada did not have the same possibility regarding cod fishing and the government had to treat the resource in a way that displeased some but is a benefit to the majority. By limiting cod fishing, it damages the finances of many associated with cod fishing but preserves the environment and ecosystem of the east coast ocean in such a way that it will be a greater benefit to the rest of the country's citizens.

bored · May 31, 2012

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.

Natural resources of a country are resources that belong to a country which are often not available in many other countries. A particularly rare ore is only available in certain countries of Africa and nowhere else around the world, for this reason, other countries are willing to pay good price for this ore. Most of the African nations that mine this ore are selling it because of the large amount of money they get from other nations. These African nations such as Congo, Nigeria and many others are usually very poor and classified as third world. The conditions in these countries are very bad and money is often needed to make it better. The government of these countries choose to sell the ore to get more money and make conditions better, and the people also agree with this decision of the government to sell the ore. By selling it and using the money to help citizens, the government is making a better country and also winning support of its citizens.

Often times however, a country is unable to do what the citizens ask. Japan for example is such a country. Japan is a country that has a rich supply of Uranium, which is a mineral used to make nuclear weapons. Because of the events of world war 2, and because of the constant threat of a nuclear attack from the violent North Korea, the citizens of Japan have always been asking their government to get nuclear weapons using the uranium that they mine. However, the country is not allowed to get nuclear weapons according to the UN and the Council of Nuclear Nations. Because of this international ban on nuclear weapons on countries, they are not able to use their natural resources to get nuclear weapons. The government has no choice but to sell the uranium that their citizens mine.

One of the most important principle that determines whether a country should use the natural resources in a way that is recommended by its citizens is whether if the country is allowed to do so or not by international laws. International laws usually take priority over the will of the people. In Japan's case, the uranium is not allowed to be used to make nuclear weapons so as much as the government or the citizens may want to do so, they are not allowed because of International Laws. They instead sell their resources which is the next best use for their resources. In the case of many African nations however, the best use for their national resources is to sell, which is what the citizens recommend and this is what the government of their country is doing. In their case, selling their resources allows them to acquire more money to better the country's condition for its people.

RaymondPrep101 · May 31, 2012

Prompt 22 kpm

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? This is not the question that the writing prompt is looking to explore. In business, the ability to effectively handle unexpected problems may determine the fate of the product or service the business provides. This is related to the writing prompt but is not what the prompt is looking for. 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.

This works although your introduction was a bit off target.

On the other hand, even when businesses give great attention to detail, they may sometimes face unexpected problems. Good. 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.

This example is okay but not great. Many people can point out the flaws of Research in Motion and I'm sure they have lots of ways to get input on what aspects of their product to improve. In other words, as it is explained here, your argument is not very convincing.

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 different from the writing task. If potential problems could be identified than they would not be unexpected problems. Furthermore, being prepared to deal with problems is not what the writing prompt is concerned with. 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 Again, this idea is not really convincing. If all of the details of the product are taken care of and there are no problems then this would obviously help win over consumers..

Overall, this resolution paragraph does not really address the writing task and is mostly off-topic. No convincing resolution principle is put forth.

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: 3

Focus and coherence: 2.5 There are real issues with staying on task. Try re-reading the prompt to make sure that you are on target.

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

RaymondPrep101 · May 31, 2012

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!

This is one is definitely odd. I can definitely see where the confusion lies. I honestly don't have an answer because I don't know. I would think/hope that the writing prompts for the actual tests are carefully prepared and reviewed. If for some reason something strange like this does arise on the actual test. I would follow the prompt instruction as it is written rather than what you are used to. At least in that case, you followed the instructions as is.

sharpshooter · May 31, 2012

Prompt 23 Sharpshooter

Natural resources area created by Mother Nature and do not belong to a single entity. As such, a Nation should usually utilize its natural resources in a manner that pleases all its citizens. When natural resources in northern areas of Canada were used without consulting the First Nations people, a conflict arose between the Canadian government and the First Nations people; the First Nations people were displeased in how natural resources were being used. As a result, the First Nations people held political protests to show their disapproval of the Canadian government’s actions. The Canadian government responded by introducing co-management, which is the sharing of decision- making power with non-traditional actors. These actors include local resource users, environmental groups, and aboriginal people. In the end, co-management reduced the conflict between the government and First Nations people because the policy allowed the First Nations have a say in how natural resources would be used in their community. Thus, a nation should be required to use its natural resources in a manner that is consistent with the views of all its citizens.

However, a nation is sometimes justified to use natural resources in a manner that does not please all its citizens. The United States (U.S.) used its natural resources to make atomic bombs for the safety of its country and others. One of the natural resources used to make one of the bombs was uranium. Not all American citizens approved of using the nation’s uranium to make atomic bombs because some thought the use of atomic bombs would spur further conflicts between the U.S. and other countries. The U.S. dropped two atomic bombs to force Japan surrender in World War II (WWII). Before using the atomic bombs, Japan was given an ultimatum to surrender or else its country would suffer “prompt and utter destruction.” However, the Japanese government ignored the ultimatum; as a result, two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. Six days after the bombing, Japan announced its surrender, signing the Instrument of Surrender in September, thereby officially ending WWII. By forcing Japan to surrender without more fighting, the lives of 100000 American soldiers and maybe even one million Japanese people were sparred; they would have died if the U.S. further invaded Japan.

Thus, when survival is not an immediate issue, a nation must use its natural resources in a way agreeable to all its citizens. When the survival of nation’s people is at stake, a country might justifiably use its natural resources in a way that is not agreeable to all its citizens. When the government of Canada used natural resources in northern Canada without approaching the First Nations people, they upset the First Nations and cause them to engage in politically rallies to show their disapproval. Therefore, the Canadian government introduced co-management, which allowed the First Nations people to have some decision making power pertaining to the use natural resources in their living areas. When the U.S. decided to use uranium to make atomic bombs, not all citizens were pleased with the government’s decision. However, the atomic bombs deployed on Japan ended WWII and saved many American and Japanese lives.

Thanks Raymond!

medhopeful64 · May 31, 2012

Each country has its own natural resources that it can use to their financial advantage. Oil for example is a precious natural resource that has left countries like Saudi Arabia relatively well off financially. However, it is important that the country use its natural resources in such a way that the majority of its citizens would not object to. Take Alberta's oil reserve for example. Alberta has a plethora of oil that the government of Canada can use to generate additional income. However, the money derived from this natural resource is used for services that all Albertans (and the rest of Canadians) would agree upon. Such services include health care, transportation, agriculture, etc. It is safe to say that essentially all Canadians appreciate Canada's free health care. Alberta's oil reserves is a small but important source of money that makes universal health care accessible for all Canadians. Albertans especially benefit from the additional income generated from the province's oil source as Albertans enjoy a very stable and prosperous economy. Thus, the way Canada uses its oil is agreeable to all its citizens.

There are, however, certain situations in which a country might justifiably use its natural resources in a way that is considered somewhat objectionable by some of its citizens. Take Afghanistan's opium industry for example. Afghanistan is currently the largest producer of opium in the world, largely due to the fact that it is easier and cheaper to grow than other produce such as wheat, especially in Afghanistan's dry climate. However, opium is a well known narcotic and can result in drug addiction and harmful consequences. Despite these risks, the Afghan government decided to resort to opium poppy cultivation in order to finance their military existence in 1979 during the Soviet Invasion. Although cultivating opium is definitely questionable - and in fact, many Afghans have objected to this practice, declaring it as being un-Islamic - the Afghan government did not really have any other options left during this time of war. The Soviet Union was gaining considerable power and ground in Afghanistan and as a last resort the Afghan government decided to use its natural resources in a way that was definitely not agreeable with all its citizens. In this case however, it was justified because the Afghan government had little options left to finance the military operation, and Afghanistan managed to force the Soviets to leave their country. As seen here, desperate times call for desperate measures.

Natural resources are a source of potential income for countries. The way that it is used however, may or may not be agreeable to all of its citizens, yet still be justified. The factor that determines when a natural resource should be used in a way agreeable to all its citizens depends on the country's current economic status. If a country is enjoying a stable and prosperous country, then indeed a country must use its natural resources in way that is agreeable to all its citizens; doing so otherwise cannot be justified as the country is (at the moment) relatively well off financially. It does not need to resort to questionable methods. Alberta's economy is one of the best not only in Canada, but the entire world. As such, Canada must use its natural oil in Alberta in way that is agreeable to all Canadians. In times of economic instability, which often accompanies times of war, the country may be in immediate need of income, and thus may resort to exploiting its natural resources in a way that some of its citizens may object to. Afghanistan's economy at the time of the Soviet Invasion in 1979 (as well as today) was very unstable, and opium cultivation was a way to generate additional money to fund the military existence.

Thanks Raymond!

June 1, 2012

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.

Those charged with managing the natural resources of their country have a responsibility to make decisions about these resources in a manner that is most agreeable to the citizens of that country. This ensures that the resources are used in an effective and safe manner which minimizes any potential health risks or environmental hazards attendant with using the natural resources. For example, the company British Petroleum (BP) was afforded permits to engage in offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in order to extract oil to be used by the United States. Due to the malfunctioning of the underwater equipment, a major oil leak ensued, resulting in billions of dollars of damage to the southern coast of the United States, permanent ecological damage as well as a surge of public distrust against oil industry executives and certain members of the federal government. Consequently, citizens of the United States realized the importance of ensuring that their natural resources were exploited in a safe, regulated and cost-effective manner, and it was this newfound collective mindset amongst the citizenry which in part lead to major investigations into the incident as well as the drafting of improved oil extraction plans to be used in the future. This incident exemplifies how the potential risk of exploiting a natural resource can result in a national mindset whereby a country must use it’s natural resources in a way that is agreeable to all of its citizens, since so many people were affected by the disastrous consequences of the BP oil spill.

Conversely, when a country has very limited natural resources, the government must make a unilateral decision on how to proceed with using those resources regardless of the input they receive from their citizens. For instance, in Western Africa, Ouagadougou suffers from poor soil, a lack of advanced technologies, and is often rated as being the country with the fewest natural resources in the world. As a result, the citizens have to rely on manual labor and a small quantity of agriculture for sustenance. While this is not preferable for many citizens, especially those who are unable to effectively engage in manual work such as the elderly, small children and those suffering from AIDS, they have little choice since the government has not initiated any efforts to enhance the fertility of the soil or any other natural resources, despite the efforts of several groups of citizens advocating for the use of a wider range of natural resources. Clearly, since the natural resources of Ouagadougou are so limited, the citizens have no choice but to cultivate their natural resources in a manner that is not in accordance with how the majority of citizens envision for themselves.

Therefore, whether or not a country uses its natural resources in a way that is agreeable to all of its citizens is dependent on the availability of natural resources. For a country such as the United States which has a multitude of natural resources available, citizens have the luxury of being able to dictate which natural resources should be used and in what manner they should be extracted from the environment, which resulted in much stricter regulations for offshore oil drilling. However, in countries that have limited natural resources such as Ouagadougou, the citizens are virtually powerless in terms of dictating which natural resources should be used because there are simply no other resources available, and in this case the country that they live in is the limiting factor leading to dissonance between the citizens desires and the stark reality of the resources their country has provided.

RaymondPrep101 · June 1, 2012

Prompt 22 Neuro_07

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.

This example is strong. To be even better, there should have been more focus on the problem being unexpected.

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.

This is strong as well.

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. Good. 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. This is a run-on sentence. 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. This concluding sentence is vague. You should have just simply restated the earlier idea.

Excellent overall.

Overall Mark: 5.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a S)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 5.5 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is completely addressed.

Depth: 5.5

Focus and coherence: 5.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5.5

spring · June 1, 2012

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

Natural resources play an important role in our global economy. Some examples of natural resources include crude oil, minerals, plant and animal based products, water supply and others. For example, many countries such as Canada and others in the middle east are able thrive economically due an important natural resource of crude oil. Billions of people around the world rely on oil for transportation and numerous industrial sectors rely on it as an energy source. The process of extracting crude oil and using it as a source of energy can pose great threats to the environment and human health. As such, it is important for a country to use its natural resources in accordance to the views of its citizens. For example, this can be seen in Alberta, Canada. The provincial government in Alberta as well as the federal Canadian least large amounts of government land to private oil companies such as Shell and SunCrude for exploration. However, it is clearly understood that the process of crude oil extraction and purification can have large consequences for the environment as well as health of those living near these areas. As such, the provincial and federal governments in Canada are closely working with citizens as well as experts in the field in order to develop and enforce strict rules for private companies involved in the extraction process and they are also working closely with the private industrial sector to help optimize the use of such natural resources.

However, it is not always important for a country to make use of its natural resources in accordance to the views of its citizens if the process of acquisition and use of that natural resource does not have the potential to cause significant harm to the environment and/or human health. For example, India is a major cultivator of cotton and a majority of raw cotton and finished cotton goods on the global market are made from cotton grown in India. India takes advantage of its fertile land in combination with hot and humid temperatures to grow and harvest cotton. This process does not pose a risk to the environment and/or human health. In fact, cotton farms provide employment for thousands of citizens in India and they also bring in large sums of money into the country, further contributing to its global domestic product. As such, it is okay for the government in India to make decisions regarding the use and exports of this important natural resource without consultation with its citizens.

In conclusion, it is important for a country to use its natural resources in a way that is in accordance to the views of its citizens, especially if the extraction and use of that particular natural resource can have a potential effect on the environment and human health. This was illustrated in the example of the crude oil extraction, purification and export from Alberta, Canada where the provincial and federal governments are in constant consultation with the citizens as well as experts in the field in order to optimize the use of such natural resource. On the other hand, it is not important for a country to make use of the natural resource in accordance to the views of the citizens if the acquisition and use of that natural resource does not have the potential to cause harm to the environment and/or human health. This was illustrated in the example of cotton cultivation and exports from India to many other parts of the world. The use of fertile land in combination with hot temperatures to grow and harvest cotton does not pose a risk to the environment and/or human health. As such, it is okay for the government in India to make decision regarding the use and exports of this important natural resource without consultation with its citizens.

Thanks

waldosa · June 1, 2012

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

----------

The natural resources of a country are the chief method by which a country sustains its economy and the well-being of its citizens. Since it is the well-being of citizens that is at stake, it is important to determine in what ways the public wants its natural resources used. A prominent example is the way in which subsistence economies, prevalent throughout the world, use their natural resource of agriculture for the only purpose it can serve - international or domestic commerce. For example, Ireland's economy relies heavily on their natural resource of potatoes. The unregulated nature of the potato trade allows Irish citizens to decide how this resource is used. In general, however much is needed by the country is freely distributed, whereas the surplus is traded or sold overseas. A disbalance in this trade can either induce an unwanted surplus, or insufficient food to supply the population. An example is the potato famine that the Irish suffered under in the 1980s due to the British government's intervention. The use of potatoes in this case was regulated in a way that was not agreeable to all citizens, even though the citizens knew better and could handle themselves.

However, not all resources have as simple and direct uses as agriculture. The discovery of oil is often seen as the equivalent of a gold mine, because much of the public sees it as another good that only serves the use of domestic and international commerce. For example, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has two major companies involved in the oil and petroleum trade - Aramco and Sabco. Although Aramco's purposes are more popular - sell all the oil, Sabco's approach of using petroleum products for industrial purposes has played an important role in the development of Saudi infrastructure. This resource can be used not only for fuelling economies through overseas commerce, but also as a resource for development of products such as plastics, which have widespread uses. In this case, both companies preside, even though most citizens think of oil as a gold mine to fuel the economy.

When citizens are knowledgeable of the ways in which a particular natural resource can be used, a country should garner the acceptance of the public in determining how to use the resource. However, when the public is not aware of the many ways in which a natural resource can be used, the government should use the resource in the best way for its citizens, even if it means that many will disagree with the usage. Citizens are knowledgeable of the ways in which potatoes or agriculture can be used, and it should consequently be used for domestic and international commerce, something upon which they all agree. However, oil can be used not only for commercial purposes, but also for industrialization through the production of products such as plastics, which serve to drive development throughout the nation.

AtomSmasherXVIII · June 1, 2012

Just for ****s and giggles, I'm going to take a swing at marking this.

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

Natural resources play an important role in our global economy. Some examples of natural resources include crude oil, minerals, plant and animal based products, water supply and others. For example, many countries such as Canada and others in the middle east are able thrive economically due an important natural resource of crude oil. Billions of people around the world rely on oil for transportation and numerous industrial sectors rely on it as an energy source. The process of extracting crude oil and using it as a source of energy can pose great threats to the environment and human health. As such, it is important for a country to use its natural resources in accordance to the views of its citizens. For example, this can be seen in Alberta, Canada. The provincial government in Alberta as well as the federal Canadian least large amounts of government land to private oil companies such as Shell and SunCrude for exploration. However, it is clearly understood that the process of crude oil extraction and purification can have large consequences for the environment as well as health of those living near these areas. As such, the provincial and federal governments in Canada are closely working with citizens as well as experts in the field in order to develop and enforce strict rules for private companies involved in the extraction process and they are also working closely with the private industrial sector to help optimize the use of such natural resources.

1) Should have made a stronger connection between "using resources in agreement with citizens" and "strict regulations on oil exports." Should have put more emphasis on the fact that people want more government regulations for oil.

Also, the PURPOSE of your first example is to help EXPLAIN what the statement means. You're not supposed to add an example that supports the statement for the SAKE of it, because that is not what is asked in the prompt!

However, it is not always important for a country to make use of its natural resources in accordance to the views of its citizens if the process of acquisition and use of that natural resource does not have the potential to cause significant harm to the environment and/or human health. For example, India is a major cultivator of cotton and a majority of raw cotton and finished cotton goods on the global market are made from cotton grown in India. India takes advantage of its fertile land in combination with hot and humid temperatures to grow and harvest cotton. This process does not pose a risk to the environment and/or human health. In fact, cotton farms provide employment for thousands of citizens in India and they also bring in large sums of money into the country, further contributing to its global domestic product. As such, it is okay for the government in India to make decisions regarding the use and exports of this important natural resource without consultation with its citizens.

2) For this paragraph, you were supposed to write about how a government uses resources in a way that its citizens DON'T agree with. This is not a good example because you didn't make it clear that people DISAGREE with this use of cotton. In fact, this seems more like another example of a use of a natural resource that the Indian people agree with - it's giving them jobs after all, why would they not be in agreement with that?

In conclusion, it is important for a country to use its natural resources in a way that is in accordance to the views of its citizens, especially if the extraction and use of that particular natural resource can have a potential effect on the environment and human health. This was illustrated in the example of the crude oil extraction, purification and export from Alberta, Canada where the provincial and federal governments are in constant consultation with the citizens as well as experts in the field in order to optimize the use of such natural resource. On the other hand, it is not important for a country to make use of the natural resource in accordance to the views of the citizens if the acquisition and use of that natural resource does not have the potential to cause harm to the environment and/or human health. This was illustrated in the example of cotton cultivation and exports from India to many other parts of the world. The use of fertile land in combination with hot temperatures to grow and harvest cotton does not pose a risk to the environment and/or human health. As such, it is okay for the government in India to make decision regarding the use and exports of this important natural resource without consultation with its citizens.

3) You worded this wrong. The first sentence makes it sound like you're siding with the statement. You're not supposed to take a side here - this is an exercise in relativistic bull**** fluff. Then later on you qualify your earlier approval of the statement... which is confusing. Your first sentence of this paragraph should have been "It is important for a country to use its natural resources in a way that is in accordance to the views of its citizens when ________."

IMO, your thesis should have been that the government should be allowed to use natural resources in a way that the people DON'T want when it is for the "Greater good." The college liberal English grad students who are marking your essay would eat this right up.

Despite the fact that you almost totally ignored what the prompt asked you to do, I'd still give you an N for this essay because your writing is decent. If you had actually followed the instructions you would have gotten a Q.

loopas · June 1, 2012

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

A country's wealth allows it to forge a name in the world and often sets it apart from other nations. More often that not, this wealth is a result of a country's natural resources. For example, Canada's thriving lumber industry has allowed it to carve a name for itself in international business. The natural resources of a country belong to its citizens and are for them to share. Often however, these natural resources are the cause of war and instability. In order to prevent turmoil, a country should use its natural resources in a way agreeable to all its citizens. For example, the citizens of the United Arab Emirates are often reported to be very satisfied with their lives. This is because exporting of the oil brings great wealth into the country and a large majority of this wealth goes directly to the citizens. The UAE uses its natural resource to build its own economy as well as the individual economies of its people.

However, there are often situations when a country may choose to use its natural resources in a way that is not agreeable to all its citizens. For instance, as previously mentioned, the lumber industry is a huge contributor to the Canadian economy. The exploitation of Canada's forests is often contested by environmental groups like the Toronto Environmental Alliance. These organizations fear that in the long run, the exploitation of forests will destroy the environment and lead to the collapse of the economy. On the other hand, the government argues that if they stop exporting lumber then the economy will collapse immediately. They say that while they are exporting lumber, they are working on creating a new, renewable sources of lumber.

Though a very complicated issue, a country should only use its natural resources in a way agreeable to all its citizens when it immediately benefits the economy and growth of the country. Though the UAE will eventually exploit all of its oil reserves and this may lead to a financial crisis, the citizens of UAE are currently benefiting from the oil reserves. In Canada, many environmentalists fear the exploitation of natural resources will damage the environment, however, if the government stops exporting lumber it will lead to an immediate economic crisis. In war torn areas of South Africa, many citizens have lost their lives by mining for diamonds. This has been the subject of popular film, 'Blood Diamonds'. Most citizens do not agree with the mining of these diamonds as it is dangerous. In spite of the outcry of their citizens, countries continue to mine for diamonds. This mining should immediately stop because it does not benefit the economy as most foreign countries have refused to accept 'blood diamonds.'

Thank you!

Chronograph · June 1, 2012

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

The gross domestic product per capita of a country is a good reflection of a nation's economic well being and development. What determines the GDP per capita of a nation is correlated with the abundance of natural resources available. Many of the resources are non-renewable such as oil, natural gas, decaying metals, and other organic resources, which is why it is crucial for a government to use their nation's resources in the best interest of the citizens they are representing. A recent example of such practice is seen in Canada, which is governed under a democratic party, with the recent discovery of abundant oil reserves in Saskatchewan. The government approached with a bidding war on the area among all the big oil companies in Canada, which further provided many jobs to Canadians. This decision was in the best interest of Canadians as it decreased unemployment rate, attracted international investors, and most importantly kept Canadians happy. Although the government had many avenues in which it could have entered into with the finding of oil, it ultimately chose to proliferate the growth of the country and its citizens.

However, there are times where the government uses its natural resources in ways that are not agreeable to all its citizens. Such an example is seen in Afghanistan, where geologists have discovered a lithium reserve in Kandahar that is estimated to value approximately 1 trillion dollars (USD). The discovery in 2010, raised a new dilemma to the government as to how the metal should be used. Such a find was viewed as a game changer to a country that has been through much war oppression. A country that is facing political instability, civil war, terrorism, poverty, and substantial debt, such as Afghanistan, has very little control on the newly discovered lithium as it does not have the resources to extract or refine. With no knowledge of its uses and chemical manipulations, the Afghan government had very limited options. Despite the disagreement with the citizens of Afghanistan, the government chose to outsource the land mine to countries with tools and means to make revenue from such a resource. A nation with a small military presence was trying to avoid any further wars over the newly found resource, so decided it was in the country's best interest to outsource for a fraction of the potential revenue.

It is clear from the aforementioned examples that having the industrialized tools, knowledge, and political stability to effectively use a resource, determines when a natural resource should be used in a way agreeable to all its citizens. Some nations do not have the luxury of pleasing all its citizens and as such, the government must make the unpopular decision. Canada on the other hand, who has invested time and money in educating the nation with industrializing means of refinement and political stability, has the luxury of venturing many possible avenues on how to approach uses of a newly found resource and therefore can offer the popular vote.

Thanks!

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest ST6nq

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Who's Online 2 Members, 1 Anonymous, 51 Guests (See full list)

Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback New Thread