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

[Up2Date]

I think we will know by tomorrow since the deadline of this week's prompt is until today at 11:59.

[donna71]

Television has more influence on people than books do.

 

 

The advent of the television or TV has had significant cultural and societal impact. In some cases, the TV has had greater influence on people than books. More specifically, the TV has been highly influential on young children's behaviours and early learning as they learn primarily through observing and watching others. The Bobo doll experiment conducted in the 1970s instigated the controversy over TV and the effect of violent content on children. It was demonstrated that children who observed aggressive behaviour exemplified by an adult model would mimick such behaviour when the children found themselves in a provoking situation. Furthermore, TV programs understand this type of social learning and must be careful in selecting the particular type of role models in their programming. On the other hand, books do not exhibit this same effect as many young children cannot yet independently read and/or comprehend a written book without the assistance of an adult. Therefore TV has a greater effect or influence on children's independent learning as TV is more dynamic and more easily understood and observed.

 

On the other hand, in some cases books are more influential on people than TV. Many famous and revolutionary works have come from books, which have had and continues to play a crucial role in the world of academia. Take for instance Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" that initially sparked great controversy but has greatly influenced and shaped our current understandings of evolution that no academic in biology today would doubt its validity and soundness. Books have had and will continue to play a greater role in academic theories as books help to transmit and store vast amounts of information that TV cannot compare to. Furthermore, the use of books in the world of academics was introduced long before the advent of television and continues to thrive with the advent of TV to illustrate that the influence of the TV on the development of academic ideas is inconsequential. Therefore books have a greater influence on the academic refinement of theories and ideas since they are the main medium through which academic ideas are propagated.

 

TV and books are two important media through which we communicate and learn. What determines whether TV or books are more influential than the other depends on whether the influence in question is on actions/behaviour or if it is on ideas and theories. Should it be the case where people's actions or behaviours are immediately influenced, such as children learning to dance and sing along with characters on TV, then TV has a greater influence than books as children can readily mimic and observe such actions on TV than through reading. However should it be the case where the influence in question is of ideas and theories, then books play a larger role as books have been and continue to be the main medium through which academic ideas are exchanged, as shown by Darwin's "On the Origin of Species." TV and books are two media that complement each other in the pursuit to educate an individual throughout life.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 kpm

 

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. This introduction is somewhat different from the writing prompt. 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.

This example could have been excellent. However, it is not focused on addressing the writing task.

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.

This example could also be excellent. However, the argument is too sparse. Your discussion and explanation of the example need to be expanded. There are also some ideas here that are more suited for the resolution paragraph.

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. Again whether citizens are consulted or not is not the main concern of the writing prompt. 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.

Issues:

1) Your resolution principle is good (financial stability vs. instability). However, both sides need to be expressed at the beginning of your resolution paragraph before being applied to your examples.

2) You should apply your principle to your supporting example first then your refuting example. This is the more logical flow of ideas.

3) Here, the same problem persists in that you get off topic in terms of your supporting example. Whether citizens are consulted or not and issues of transparency are not what the prompt is looking for.

 

The examples and principle could have been excellent. However, the execution is in need of improvement.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 donna71

 

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. Good. 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.

Excellent.

 

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. This last idea is more appropriate for the resolution paragraph.

This is very good. However, more elaboration on why this was justified is needed.

 

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. A balance is not what the prompt is concerned about.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. This concluding sentence is off-topic.

 

In your resolution paragraph, you get off track. Here is your resolution principle:

 

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.

 

This is different from the writing prompt. A nation can always use its resources as it pleases. The core issue is not one of can they, it is an issue of should they. Just because the people can't get organized and protest doesn't mean the government is justified in using natural resources in a way that is not agreeable to its citizens.

 

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[medhopeful64]

Television has more influence on people than books do.

 

Television and books influence many aspects of our lives. From reality shows to romance novels, they are a source of information as well as a source of entermainment. Although not everybody watches news or reality shows, everybody does see ads on our TVs, regardless of programme being watched. The ads seen on TV are particularly influential on children and teens. Ads set a certain "status quo" for teens and kids. The people depicted in these ads are often young thin girls or muscular young men. Not only is a certain body image being portrayed here for kids to imitate, but these ads also dictate how one should act; ie in gender stereotypical ways. Women being passive, men being active. Often, a very strict body image and standard of behaviour is depicted in television ads, and they send a very powerful, or influential, message to our kids and teens. They tell us how to look and behave. Often how we ought to look and behave is unattainable, or even destructive to our physical or mental health. This is especially true for children and teens, who desire nothing more than to fit in with the crowd. Books on the other hand, do not portray a strict way of how we should look or act; the characters in novels or other types of books are only a figment of the author's imagination. Rarely are these images and standards of behaviour destructive to the mental or physical health of those reading the books. Thus, in this case, it can be argued that television has more influence on people than books do.

 

However, if we look at adults, it is a different story. Adults are much more autonomous and critical of what they see or hear than children are. Although "fitting in" is still important to the adult population, it is not nearly as much so as it is for adolescents and kids. Thus, they are less influenced by the ads shown on television. Becuase of their higher cognitive functions and different priorities on what they value (ie being oneself instead of conforming), books are more influential on adults than telelvision is. Take self help books for example. This particular genre of books has become very popular in the past couple years, mainly for adults. They are much more influential than telelvision because such self help books often touch the heart, and have much deeper meaning. They are meant to increase one's happiness, or productivity in life. Many people have even been able to achieve the goal of these books - ie, they are happier or more productive now as a result of reading these books. As such, books are clearly more influential on the adult population than telelvision is, as telelvision cannot quite increase one's happiness or productivity in the same manner!

 

Both books and television influence many aspects of our lives. The factor that determines whether or not television has more influence on people than books do depends on who you are looking at, or the target audience. For children, telelvision is more influential than books are. For adults, the opposite is true. This is in part due to the increased importance children and teens place on fitting in with the crowd, and wanting to be seen as popular among their peers. They are also less capable of thinking for themselves and thus tend to follow the pack. Television - in the form of ads - exploits this potential weakness in children to sell their products. They portray a particular body image and ways of behaving that can have a very negative affect on the mental and physical health of kids, and is thus incredibly influential. Adults on the other hand place more importance on being true to oneself and doing what is best for them, not on fitting in. Because of this, they are more influenced by books such as self help guides. Thus, television has more influence on children whereas books have more influence on adults.

____________

Thanks Raymond!

 

EDIT - Raymond, my previous essay did not get marked yet, perhaps you accidentally missed mine? Thanks

[perspectives]

Television has more influence on people than books do.

 

Since the inception of the television, it has had an immense impact on the way people live their lives. Prior to the television, people relied on newspapers for news, books for knowledge and novels for entertainment. However, the television is able to provide all the above on its own. Television has the ability to provide numerous different channels, each channel having its own unique content. It one were interested in the current affairs happening around the world, they can tune into CNN which provides the latest on international news. If one were interested in passing time and having a chuckle, they can tune into a drama, such as How I Met you Mother. If one were interested in knowledge, they can tune into the discovery channel. The possibilities for what a television can provide are endless, and thus they can captivate the audience in ways books cannot.

 

However, there will always be a time and place where books will have a greater influence than television. The power of language and diction can communicate to certain individuals that television will never be able to match. Literature provides a media of conveying information that is more interactive, as readers have to consciously focus on the text. For example, when students study for an exam, they will most often read their textbooks. Reading a textbook for them may be much more beneficial and efficient in memorizing details and understanding material than through watching a video on television trying to convey the same message.

 

Therefore, it is evident that television and books both play a crucial role in communication and both have a strong influence on people. Whether or not television or books are more influential depends on the audience. Books can be more influential for those focused in trying to absorb knowledge as a beautifully written text can be captivating in ways that draws the reader into a trance, separating them from the material world. This is illustrated by a student that can become so focused in his studies that he will be able to pick up the material after one read. However, for audiences that lack the focus to concentrate on a wall of text, a visual communication provider such as television will have stronger influence. This is evident in the case of viewers of television that can only pay attention when provided a visual and audio. In summary, there are circumstances where television provides more influence and circumstances where books are more influential.

 

Thanks! Sorry I'm a bit late, Raymond! I really appreciate your feedback!

[Neuro_07]

Television has more influence on people than books do.

 

Thanks a lot, Raymond.

 

In the last two decades, electronic media, which includes television, radio and internet, has expanded exponentially. Especially, television has intruded each and every home in North America and has become an integral part of people’s lives. Furthermore, it has become the primary source for any kind of information. Its increased popularity has substantially reduced the impact of print media and thus, it has more potential to influence people than the books have. If there is a debate on a social issue between leaders of political parties prior to an election, people watch it on the television at home rather than reading about it in the books. Through the television, people have live access to information about national and international issues at home, which is something that cannot be achieved through books. Hence, due to its rapid transmission of information and its wide reach, television is the quickest and most effective way to influence public’s opinion.

 

However, in spite of its popularity, television is not the primary source of information in educational institutions. Television is very rarely used for the purpose of teaching students. In schools and colleges, students heavily rely on the books for learning new information. Since the students are required to consciously memorize specific details, and as television is an inefficient mode of presenting certain concepts such as chemical formulas, textbooks are the ideal source of information for students. Thus, in an academic setting, books have stronger influence over students than television.

 

Hence, whether or not television is more influential than books depends on whether the person under consideration is in an academic setting or not. If we consider a student in high school, then the student’s majority of acquisition of new information is through books, not television. Thus, the student is most influenced by books. But, a person who is not in an academic setting primarily relies on television for access to new information. As mentioned earlier, due to easy and quick access to information provided by television and the reduced popularity of books outside schools and colleges, television has more influence on the general audience than books do. In conclusion, television strongly influences majority of the public, but in case of students, books have more impact than television.

[bored]

Television has more influence on people than books do.

 

Describe a specific situation in which books have more influence on people than television does. Discuss what you think determines whether or not television has more influence on people than books do.

 

They say that "an image is tells more than a thousand words", and television plays a continuous wave of images constantly. Therefore a TV should be able to tell much more than an image, and it does. During a film, a scene on the big screen tells much more than a book might about that scene. It is also much more efficient to observe a 3 hour video rather than spend a week reading a novel. For this exact reason, a Television has much more influence on a person than would a novel or a textbook might. During my undergraduate studies, I had recently taken a course in physics. Physics is a subject that many find difficult for various reasons, and often times, lectures and the textbook are not enough. My case was no different. I would often read the textbook and not be able to understand much, simply because a textbook is written in very formal writing. I particularly had trouble visualizing the waves portion of physics. I than looked at the many videos located on the internet about the subject area. There were many videos that were able to show me everything that was going on in this subject. Physcis had become very easy all of a sudden because I was able to visualize what was going on. Instead of reading the definition of a wave, I was shown a video of a wave propagating through space, which worked very well and would work for others as well. Television has indeed been more influential in my life for learning subjects that were particularly difficult to visualize.

 

On the other hand, there are subject matters where books can be much more influential than a video on the television. When I was learning about World War 2, while living and watching a documentary on a Canadian government funded channel about the War, I was able to see and feel the bias that was present. It was very obvious that the Canadians were focusing ninety percent of the film on what the Canadians and allies did during the war. I was only able to visualize and hear 2 sentences about the RUssian involvement during the war, even though the Russians had lost more soldiers and civilians than all of the allies nations combined. The documentary was titled World War 2, but only the allies side of the war was shown. I than read a book on world war 2, by an Canadian politician who was in favour of the war during the 1940s, and wrote the book during the war in 1944. This book contained detail information about what the Russians were up to as well as what the allies were up to. It was clear to me that the TV documentary was made during the cold war when Russia was an enemy of NATO and this was the reason why this documentary was biased towards not showing the Russian side of the war.

 

The difference between the book and the television was that the the Canadian government funded channel is able to show anything that it deems necessary for the country. The book written by a Canadian politician however, remains unchanged by time. The book provides unchanged material but the television provides biased material. The smart citizen would realize that the television is biased and thus would be influenced by the book much more than the documentary in this subject matter. Which has more influence, was determined by the subject matter. Physics being the law of the universe cannot be interpreted in more than one way, but History on the other hand can be interpreted in many ways and be told from many perspectives. History can even be manipulated just as the documentary has done. Physics is a science whereas, history is a humanity/art. This is what determines which has more influence. If the subject matter is a science, than the television will have more influence, however if it is an art, than books will have more influence on the intelligent citizen.

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

 

Sorry about being slightly late, Hope you can still mark it. Thank you!

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 souljaboy

 

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 grammar 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.

Excellent. Try to cut down on some of the repetitiveness of the writing.

However, all the citizens of a country cannot always receive benefits from how a government treats its natural resources.This is different from what the prompt is concerned with. In the 1980s, cod fishing in the eastern coast of Canada is grammar 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. You should be using past tense. 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 grammar with this decision, and it is helping the recovery of the cod population.

Excellent. You started off with a sentence that was off-topic but recovered and stayed on topic.

 

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. This is not a resolution principle that creates a contrast. How is this suppose to apply to your supporting example? Furthermore, "greater good" is not always clear and is not a good resolution principle. 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. Taking advantage of their oil deposits is not all good. There can be lots of drawbacks including over dependance on oil revenue or exhausting oil reserves which could hurt the country in the long run. 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.

The resolution paragraph is the weakest part of your essay. This discussion is not focused on addressing the resolution task. You should not use "greater good" as a resolution principle because it is vague and not clear cut. It also lacks depth.

 

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is poorly addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 bored

 

Natural resources of a country are resources that belong to a country which are often not available in many other countries. Awkward phrasing. 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 grammar for this ore. What is this ore called? 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.

This is okay. However, it is written in a very vague manner which gives the marker the sense that this example is made up. You should also have a greater focus on addressing the supporting task.

 

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.

This is interesting and it works. The writing style needs improvement.

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. Excellent. 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. Run-on sentence. 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.

Issues: 1) You should apply your resolution principle to your supporting example first then your refuting example. This is the more logical organization of ideas.

2) You do not apply your resolution principle to your supporting example (i.e. selling the ore is allowed by international laws).

 

Your ideas are solid. The writing style and grammar level need to be improved.

 

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4.5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed.

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 2.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 Sharpshooter

 

Natural resources area word choice 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.

This example is excellent. The execution could use some improvement. You should elaborate on why the government should use the resources in a way agreeable to its citizens (Discuss in a more explicit manner, the advantages of working with the First Nations groups and other actors.)

 

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.

The example kind of works. There are a few issues here: 1) Citizens would not have been able to object to the use of atomic bombs by the government because the project was top secret. 2) You have a number of facts in the discussion that don't add anything to developing the argument. Filler reduces the clarity of your arguments. 3) Your discussion needs to be more focused on addressing the refuting task.

 

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. Excellent. 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.

You do not apply your resolution principle to your supporting example.

 

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 adequately addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 medhopeful64

 

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. Grammar 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 grammar 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. This is not the right conclusion that addresses the supporting task. The issue is not whether Canada uses its oil in an agreeable way to its citizens, the issue is whether it should.

This is well done. However, the organization and flow of ideas could use improvement.

 

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 word choice 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.

Excellent. This discussion is much better organized and more focused on addressing the refuting task.

 

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. Grammar 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 grammar 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 word choice.

Excellent.

 

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 completely addressed. Resolution task is completely addressed.

Depth: 5.5

Focus and coherence: 5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 ST6nq

 

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. I don't think this conclusion can be drawn. Just because the country uses its resources in an agreeable way doesn't mean it is safe or effective. 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.

This example is well done.

 

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.

This does not address the refuting task because this is off-topic. Read the refuting portion of the writing prompt again and it should be clear that this discussion is off target.

 

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. The issue here is not whether a country uses its natural resources in a way that is agreeable. The primary concern is should the country use its resources in a way that is agreeable. These are two different issues. 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. This is not focused enough on the core issue of the writing prompt. 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. Similar to before, this is off-topic.

 

Make sure that you understand the core issue of the writing prompt before proceeding. It is very easy to get off-track and once that happens, the essay usually remains off-track.

 

Although well written, the essay was not focused on the key issue 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 well addressed. Refuting and resolution tasks are not addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 1.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 spring

 

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 grammar economically due an grammar 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 grammar 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 grammar 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.

This example works well.

 

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. This discussion does not address the refuting task. The issue here is not whether the government needs to consult the people or not.

 

This discussion does not address the writing task. You are asked by the writing prompt, "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. " Your discussion did not fulfill this task. You are looking for an example where citizens disagreed to the use of a natural resource or the way it is being used, yet the government is still justified in their action.

 

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. You do not apply your resolution principle. You simply restate the same facts as before. 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.

Here you do apply your resolution principle. However, your argument about not posing a risk to the environment and human health is too simplistic. How about if ecosystems are destroyed to create more land to grow cotton? How about exhausting the land due to poor farming practices? How about people being displaced by cotton fields? How about children being forced to pick cotton? Arguments where something does not do any harm lack depth. Nothing is perfect and saying that growing cotton does not pose any risk is too simplistic in reasoning.

 

Express both sides of your resolution principle at the beginning of your resolution paragraph before application to your examples.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is not addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 waldosa

 

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. This doesn't quite go all the way. Determining what the public wants and complying with what the public wants are different. As such, this is not a good paraphrasing of the prompt. 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 imbalance 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 grammar .

This example could work but is not well explained in terms of addressing the writing task. In other words, the argument is not clearly presented. You have all of the necessary ideas. However, they are not pieced together into a strong and coherent argument.

However, not all resources have as simple and direct uses as agriculture. This is not a good transition sentence. 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. I kind of get what you may be trying to argue. However, your argument is not well explained and is not clear.

 

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.

This resolution is interesting and works.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 loopas

 

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. This introduction is too long. The example should be the main focus of the discussion. These points should be discussed within the context of your example. 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.

This discussion is okay but could have been excellent. The discussion would have been stronger if the earlier points were integrated into your example.

 

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. A concluding sentence would be nice.

Solid.

 

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. How is this going to be applied to your refuting example (lumber)? 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. The purpose of the resolution paragraph is to create a contrast between the supporting and refuting examples. Here you have done the opposite. 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.' The resolution paragraph is not the place to be introducing new examples.

 

There is a standard template for the resolution paragraph that should be followed. A template exists because it is the optimal structure for addressing the resolution task.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 Chronograph

 

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. Using a nation's resources in the best interests of citizens is different from using a nation's resources in a way that is agreeable to citizens. Sometimes they overlap, but sometimes they are different. A recent example of such practice grammar 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.

This example could work but is not well explained and needs to be more focused on addressing the writing task.

 

However, there are times where the government uses its natural resources in ways that are not agreeable to all its citizens. Good. Such an example is seen in Afghanistan, where geologists have discovered a lithium reserve in Kandahar that is estimated to value grammar approximately 1 trillion dollars (USD). The discovery in 2010, raised a new dilemma to the grammar 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 grammar . A country that is facing political instability, civil war, terrorism, poverty, and substantial debt, such as Afghanistan, has very little control on the grammar newly discovered lithium as it does not have the resources to extract or refine. With no knowledge of its uses and chemical manipulations word choice, 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 grammar it was in the country's best interest to outsource for a fraction of the potential revenue.

This example is excellent. The grammatical issues are distracting. Some of the ideas could be saved for the resolution paragraph.

 

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. You only need one factor. These are all similar so maybe you can come up with a term that encompasses all of them. Doing so would enhance clarity. 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 grammar has invested time and money in educating the nation with industrializing word choice means of refinement and political stability, has the luxury of venturing word choice many possible avenues on how to approach uses of a newly found resource and therefore can offer the popular vote ?.

The resolution principle is strong but there are a few issues here. 1) You do not apply your resolution principle to your Afghanistan example. 2) Your application of the principle to your Canadian example needs improvement. 3) You should apply your principle to your supporting example first and then your refuting example. This is the more logical organization.

 

The grammar and vocabulary are both weak.

 

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: 4

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 2

[Elham]

Hi everyone, does anyone know what the newest prompt is and and when is the deadline?

 

Thank you.

[sharpshooter]

Hi everyone, does anyone know what the newest prompt is and and when is the deadline?

 

Thank you.

 

The next prompt hasn't been posted yet. Just check this thread tomorrow for the deadline.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 23 Neuro_07

 

Natural resources are components of the environment that are used by the grammar mankind to fulfill their basic needs for survival or to build tools to improve quality grammar of their life. Some resources are ubiquitous and are found everywhere in the world. However, some resources are found only in specific countries and thus, need to be imported by other countries. It is the duty of the government to ensure protection of its scarce resources and employ them in ways that are agreeable to the citizens of the country. For instance, China restricted the export of its raw earth minerals in 2008, which has led to a dispute with USA grammar and other countries. China has rich reserves of raw earth minerals and had been selling these precious non-renewable natural resources to foreign countries at unreasonable prices, which fetched a lot of scrutiny from the local media and the public. As a result, in order to protect its resources and sustain the earth industry for the future of the country and its citizens, China put a cap on its exports. This demonstrates that it is important for a nation to use its natural resources in a way that lies in the welfare and agreement of its own citizens. This example is very good. The explanation could use some improvement.

However, it must be noticed that it may not always be feasible for a country to utilize its resources in accord with the public demands. The “Sardar Sarovar” dam that is being built on the Narmada River in India has faced immense opposition from the local public and media. The hydroelectric project requires relocation of thousands of people living in the vicinity of the dam and thus, has been subject to severe criticism by the affected people. However, due to its enormous potential to provide employment, water and electricity to millions of people, government grammar has decided to continue the project despite of the grammar disagreement of local people. In this case, the government’s decision to use the natural resource – water – in a way that is not agreeable by all its citizens is justified because of the huge benefits of the project that outweigh the cost of relocation grammar of several thousand people. Excellent.

 

Hence, whether a country should use its natural resources in a way that satisfies all its citizens or not depends on whether the progress and welfare of the country lies in agreeing with people or disagreeing with them. This is awkwardly phrased. As exhibited by China’s restriction of its exports of raw earth minerals, a government should follow public’s demand if it serves the purpose of preserving and utilizing country’s grammar natural resources in a way that promotes its growth. However, sometimes a government has to go against the will of the public in order to ensure effective use of natural resources to benefit the country in the long run. The Indian government’s decision to pursue a project in the face of opposition seems valid because of the project’s potential to contribute to the country’s economy and prosperity. In conclusion, a government’s primary objective should be to employ the natural resources of the country in a way that benefit the country and its people. The purpose of the resolution paragraph is to create contrast between your two examples. You do not do that here. Both decisions seem to be in the best interest of the people and future growth so there is no distinguishing factor presented. As such, your resolution paragraph is the weakest part of your essay.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is not addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 2.5 Grammar is a significant problem.

[RaymondPrep101]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.

 

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 Monday, June 11.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Tuesday, June 12.

[tms]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.

 

Human behaviour plays a major role in our society and encompses the way in which we compose ourselves as well as the way in which we interact with fellow humans, animals, objects and our surrounding. The field of psychology is primarily interested in further investigation of the reasons behind our behaviours. Over the course of history, many psychologists such as Freud, Pavlov, Hebb and numerous others have proposed various different theories and reasons as to why humans behave in a certain way. Some beleive that human behaviour is primarliy based on self-interest, meaning that we tend to engage and interact in ways that we see as beneficial for ourselves, often resulting in positive consequence for oursleves. For example, a famous psychological theory related to negative versus positive reinforcement has investigated the phenomenon of self-interest behind behaviour in many different organisms, including humans. This theory suggests that when behaviour results in negative consequences, neurons in our brain respond to such feedback by reducing the frequency at which they fire, and over time, the likelihood of such behaviours decreases. On the other hand, when behaviour results in positive feedback, it causes the neurons to fire at a higher frequency, further strengthening the likelihood of such behaviours taking place in the future. This theory is often applied to childhood learning. When a child is learning to do something and receives positive feedback, either as a physical reward such as cookies or emotional response such as praise or pat on the back, he/she learns that such behviours will result in something of benefit for them. As a result, the child will be more likely to engage in such behaviours.

 

Alternatively, it is not always necessary for human behviour to be guided by self-interest. This is especially true when one reaches the adult stage. In the adult stage, he/she is beleived to have developed appropriate cognitive abilities and is able to make an informed decision based on their experiences in the world. For example, Mahatma Gandhi led the non-violent revolution in India in order to fight for freedom. He used his cognitive skills, education and life experinces regarding what he thought was right. He beleived that all humans should be free to have a voice in society and that they should be able to make their own decisions. As such, he led a remarkable revolution in the 1940’s that finally led to the independance of India in 1947. In this case, Gandhi was an adult who was able to make an informed decision regarding what he felt was right for the greater good and for society in general. His actions, efforts and behaviours were not driven purely by self-interest, rather they were driven by the greater interests of all Indian citizens.

 

In conclusion, there are several schools of thoughts and proposed theories regarding the reasons behind human behaviour. Human behaviour is guided by self-interest when one is at the childhood stage since his/her cognitive abilities have not yet developed completely. As a result, his/her behviour can be manipulated accordingly via the use of positive versus negative feedback. However, human behaviour can be based on other reasons such as the greater good of humankind. This is especially true when one reaches the adult stage and has development sufficient cognitive abilities as well as gained life experience to make an informed decision. Therefore, as an adult, ones behaviour may be a result of what he/she percieves will be of benefit to society as a whole, reagdrless of the consequences of such behviours on an individual level.

 

Thank you!

[Enviro_4_Medschool]

Adam Smith was a believer in the force of the invisible hand. He believed that markets will become most efficient if people act in their own self-interest. In other words self-interest will create the most ideal equilibrium because we are primarily motivated by things that benefit us and we will continuously behave in manners that work to our self-interest. The tendency to promote self-interests can be best exemplified in politics especially after conflicts. After WWII, America and Russia were both winners but suspicious of each other. Both Roosevelt and Stalin wanted the outcome of the post-war period to fall under the vision they thought for the world and also most benefited their country. The manner in which they negotiated with each other and the way they acted was a product of what they believed worked for their countries best. Roosevelt had wanted to uphold American ideals of liberty,freedom and democracy and Stalin wanted to promote the Marxist/Lenninist sphere of influence. If Europe and East-Asia fallen under Roosevelt's interest this would have primarily benefited Americans as it would have opened up markets for American goods. Conversely, Stalin expanding would have validated the expansionistic aspects of Communism. The fact that both leaders were so guided by their own self-interests affected their behaviour towards each other and the way they acted in general. Therefore, self-interest can have far reaching consequences on behaviour and the tendency to act out of self-interest can a guiding factor in human behaviour.

 

On the other hand, not all leaders or people have acted out of their own self-interest. Gandhi vouched for Pacifism when trying to create the autonomy of India from British rule. Around this time there had been bloodshed with the separation of Pakistan and various wars had created periods of instability. When Gandhi started his protest he did it because he believed in the betterment of India and in mankind. He no longer believed that conflict was the answer and that behaviour should instead be guided by a tendency to help one another. Furthermore, he had originally had a lifestyle of self-interest when he was a business man and had foregone it in favour of helping Indians. Here his behaviour was not motivated out of self-interest but was primarily guided by altruism and pacifism.

 

Whether people choose to be guided by self-interest or out of altruism seems to be most apparent at the end of wars or instability; especially, if there is a power struggle between the interest of one party and the interest of another. At the end of this confrontation or instability the course forward will be based on what the person feels should come next. Some may act based on self-interest to protect the integrity of their ideology and beliefs such as in the case of Stalin and Roosevelt after WWII. Others may choose to believe in the betterment of mankind as the next step forward as was the case with Gandhi and the way he felt India should become autonomous. Moreover, there may even see an interplay throughout history where people will act out protectionism for their self-interest and act out of altruism for the interests of others. Therefore, behaviour will primarily be guided by what the person believes comes next which may or may not promote self-interest.

 

----

 

Thanks Raymond!

[cashew247]

Unfortunately, it is no longer a shocking truth that human behaviour has been known to be influenced by self-interest. News stories that depict humans conducting selfish acts, which jeopardize the lives of others, in order to gain ahead are ubiquitous. An example is the Ponzi scheme, the after-effects of which have been devastating, leading to the financial losses of millions of people. Bernard Madoff was the head of the fraudulent act; he manipulated his partners, seniors headed for retirement, parents seeking insurance for their children's lives, and other trusting citizens into scheme that cost his investors billions of dollars. Madoff's behaviour demonstrates that he was primarily driven by selfish intent: a greedy desire to gain money for himself at the expense of other people's futures.

 

However, there are also extraordinary stories of people who defy the notion that humans are self-obsessed creatures. For instance, Stephanie Decker is a loving wife, an amazing mother, and is also an amputee. Decker lost both of her legs in a tornado that destroyed their home a few weeks ago because she was covering her children and protecting them from the storm. In the short time that the tornado overturned Decker's house, she stood guard over her children by laying on top of a blanket that she secured over their heads. Despite the fact that the beams of the house were falling on top of her, she was immutable and refused to expose her children to imminent danger. Ultimately, her children survived the tornado without a scratch and both of Decker's legs were injured to the point of amputation. Stephanie Decker's experience is an extraordinary testament to the fact that humans can do awe-inspiring and selfless acts when put to the test.

 

The deciding factor that determines when human behaviour is guided by self-interest and when it is not, depends on whether the individual's closest family is in danger. In Madoff's case, his personal life was not depicted to be unhappy or turbulent, nor were his family in financial distress. Madoff's involvement in the Ponzi scheme seemed to be due primarily to his desire of accruing a great amount of wealth. In Stephanie Decker's case, her children were in immediate danger; in interviews, she stated that she did not hesitate to do what she did and that she would do it again. Her act of pure selflessness was fuelled by her intent to prevent her kids from being in danger. Humans are fickle creatures; there are many motivations for why one acts the way one does. Humans will often act in a way that benefits themselves; however, if one's immediate circle is in danger, often another altruistic and selfless side will overshadow and take action.

 

----

Thank you so much!

[Drew92]

Prompt 25: Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.

 

Human behavior encompasses the decisions and actions made by all in an ongoing basis. It is only natural for humans to put themselves first when deciding in what way to act. Eating healthy, working out and studying hard are all examples of things that are done for one's own sake, and are accepted as natural. The idea that human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest is most interesting when considering actions and decisions that appear selfless. In a number of situations it is possible to guage the more far-reaching possible consequences of one's potential choices. This allows people to act in their best interests. Putting in extra hours or work or buying donuts for one's fellow staff may come across as a selfless attempt at building team spirit and putting the company first. It may actually be an attempt to be noticed by one's employers and work towards a desired raise or promotion. Even in many seemingly selfless decisions, one's own self-interest may play a role. One may donate to charity with the warm feeling that accompanies being able to tell people that one donates to charity. One may take on a number of different unpaid volunteering roles to pad ones's application to medical school or in order to guarantee great reference letters in the future. People are often keenly aware of how their actions, no matter how selfless on the surface, can improve their own quality of and position in life.

 

However, human behavior cannot be guided by self-interest when a person does not get a chance to consider all the possible outcomes and repercussions of a decision. Thinking critically about what could happen, and trying to stay a couple steps ahead of reality takes a great deal of time. When there is little time in which to act, such as in an emergency situation, self-interest is forgotten and is replaced by instinct and empathy. For example, a Washington man was branded a hero after his efforts in saving another man's life on a subway station. The man in danger was an epileptic and was attacked be a seizure that caused him to fall onto the tracks below, as a train was pulling in. The other man, after trying to pull him out, realized that his only recourse was to flatten his body against the seizing body below his, hoping to prevent too much movement. The train gave them two feet of clearance, which was barely enough for both men to make it out alive. In no way would the man's self-interest cause him to jump down, for the simple reason that the man did not have time to think about what it would feel like to be a local hero. In the few seconds he had to act, it was his instinct and cool-headedness and worry for a fellow man in a desperate, terrifying situation that guided his actions. This is not an isolated situation either. Many have drowned diving in after their drowning family or friends, or tried to shield loved ones from a bullet. Emergency situations have proven again and again to result in decisions made independently of self-interest.

 

Human behavior is incredibly complex, and one continually encounters decisions and actions that seem baffling. One cannot simplify human behavior to the result of a few motivating factors. That said, it is easily argued that self-interest is often one of the primary determinants in deciding what course of action to take. Given an opportunity to think critically about the consequences of one's choices, very rarely will one decide to act against one's best interests. It is this availability of time, however, that determines whether or not self-interest will guide a person's decisions. Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest when a person has an opportunity to think about what is in his/her best interest. In emergency situations, where time is precious, self-interest is not nearly as big a factor in one's decisions as instinct and empathy for those in the situation. What a person's actions and decisions are often comes down to how long one has to decide.

 

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

 

Thanks a lot!