Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback **Thread #3**

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 27 Sharpshooter

 

Laws are created to discourage certain behaviours or in an attempt to attain certain goals. Not all laws are agreeable to citizens because everyone has a different perspective. A person who obeys a law abides by the terms that are stated in that law. We should not only follow laws that we agree with, but as well as those which we may not agree with. Strong introduction. For example, citizens in Guelph have a legal duty to pick up their dog's waste in public. However, not all dog owner agree with this law since they state that dog waste is biodegradeable and its just fertilizer. Dog owners who fail to clean up after dog's waste grammar can face a fine of up to $5000. There are a number of reasons for this law: health, environmental, and aesthetics. The feces of dogs can expose humans to a host of conditions, including tapeworms and whiporms. Dog feces contribute to the bacterial content of river, thereby polluting parks and waterways. Moreover, sidewalks, parks, and green spaces are much cleaner and therefore much nicer for everyone to enjoy when people dispose of their dog's feces. Despite these reasons, a number of people still choose not to follow this law because they fill they will not be caught and some dog owners still do not follow the law. Nonetheless, people should not only follow the only laws they agree with, but as well as they laws they do not approve of since it will prevent them suffering the consequences of not abiding by the law and there are usually good reasons for implemented laws. This example works and is okay. It just lacks depth and complexity.

 

However, it is sometimes justified to break a law that one does not approve of. For example, The Holocaust was a period of genocide of six million European Jews. During this time period, various laws were implemented to eliminate Jews from civil society, most prominently the Nuremberg Laws, were introduced in Nazi Germany. Concentration camps were created in which inmates were forced to slave labour to the point of exhaustion causing disease and death. A number of Jews hid or escaped from the Nazis to save their lives, thereby breaking the Nuremberg Laws; however, the law breaking was justified since the laws were irrational and it was based on racism against the Jews. Also, these Jews sparred their own lives by break these laws. grammar

This example is strong. The explanation just needs to be improved and the ideas need more elaboration. This paragraph looks particularly short compared to the long explanation on dog feces.

 

Thus, what determines when it is justified to break a law is whether survival is at stake or not. When one’s survival is not at stake, it is not justified to break a law. This is a strong resolution principle. However, when one’s survival is at stake, it is justified to break a law. You need to add the "that they don't approve of" element. For example, the law of cleaning up after your dog's waste is not approved by citzens This is not that convincing. , but survival is not at stake in such a case. Therefore, people should just follow this law to avoid the reperucussions of breaking the law. However, the Nuremberg laws was a case where one's survival was at stake; it was genocide based on racism against Jews. Thus, it was reasonble for the Jews, who hid or escaped from the Nazis, to break these laws to save their own lives.

The application was fine but could use more elaboration.

 

Overall Mark: 4.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a 4.5 )

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 27baseballbears

 

In an ideal world, each and every law is unanimously supported by those it governs. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the real world. Often, otherwise law-abiding citizens will disagree with particular laws that they see as unfair or contrary to their rights. However, although a citizen might not agree with some laws, in most cases, it is still the citizen's duty to obey them. Strong introduction. For instance, most people will find the thought of being strip-searched at an airport unpleasant. However, the law requires passengers to submit to intrusive procedures like pat-downs (and possibly strip searches) if they wish to board an airplane. Although citizens might disagree with a law that puts them at the mercy of airport security personnel, it is easy to see why they must abide by the law regardless of their opinion. The required security searches serve to protect all passengers from threats like terrorism. If every dissenting citizen chose not to abide by the law and board planes without security checks, air travel would soon become very dangerous. This is probably a little bit overstated. Laws help protect all citizens, and if we want to enjoy the safety of a lawful land, we must abide by the law even when we disagree with it. Strong.

 

However, sometimes a law is so outrageous Poor word choice. that obeying the law would be equal to condoning grave injustices. During WWII, the Nazis passed many laws that were discriminatory and harmful to the Jewish people. In particular, citizens were forbidden from harboring Jewish people in their homes, since the Nazis wanted all Jews to be rounded up at concentration camps where they could be killed. There were many good people who disagreed with these laws, and some who were brave enough to break them. The family of Anne Frank, for example, were able to escape Nazi persecution for several years thanks to their neighbours allowing them to hide in the attic of their house. Unlike the airport security laws mentioned previously, the citizens who broke Nazi laws were justified in following their moral compasses rather than the word of the state. After all, obeying these laws would have lead to the suffering of even more innocent victims at the hands of the Fascist regime. Excellent.

 

What determines then whether we should have to abide by a law that we disagree with? Obviously, our disagreement alone is not enough. Otherwise, all citizens would follow only the laws that they found convenient, which would defeat the purpose of a legal system. One approach to determining whether a law should be followed or broken is to consider whether the law in question promotes discriminatory treatment of a particular group of people and whether the law can cause lasting harm to citizens. This is essentially two resolution principles. You want to stick with one resolution principle that is applied to both examples. In the case of airport security checks, although being subject to a strip-search is unpleasant, all travellers are subject to the possibility of being searched. In addition, a strip search, although unpleasant, is unlikely to cause long-term psychological or physical damage. This is a somewhat naive idea. A strip search is a humiliating and degrading experience. People have reported that it causes long term harm to them because their intimate privacy was violated by a stranger. Since this law is neither discriminatory or harmful, it should be followed even it we disagree with it. This is also an idea that is flawed. People do not have the same probability of being strip searched. Innocent people are discriminated against and are harmed. People often miss their flights due to being picked to go through further screening. On the other hand, the Nazi laws discussed earlier were both discriminatory against Jewish people and capable of causing significant harm, up to and including death. Citizens are thus justified in questioning and disobeying these laws.

Overall, the ideas in the resolution paragraph are too simplistic. If you used a different supporting example, it would have been a strong principle. However, airport security policies can be both discriminatory and harmful.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 27 drrd

 

Laws are rules that govern society. They are in place to ensure that there is order. In a democratic society, laws are derived from our moral principles and values; they are explicit rules that dictate what is allowed or not allowed. Furthermore, due to the nature of a democracy, the laws are usually representative of the will of the people. By extension, the people obey laws usually because they approve of them. The past two sentences are unnecessary and distract from the argument you are trying to make. However, in some cases, the people of society must obey laws that they do not approve of. For example, consider the October Crisis. In the late 1970s, the Front du Liberation de Quebec (FLQ), a terrorist organization, set a series of bombs off in Quebec, Canada. The attacks killed civilians and posed a threat to province grammar of Quebec and the country at large. After their initial set of bombings, the FLQ proceeded to kidnap two government officials and killed one of them. At this point, the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, enacted the War Measures Act. This act enabled police to arrest citizens without a warrant. At the time, Trudeau was criticized by politicians and the public as this was seen as impinging on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. However, it resulted in a quick resolution of the crisis. In this case, it was clear that although the people did not approve of the law, it had to be obeyed to prevent any further danger to citizen and retain order in society. Strong.

 

However, in other cases, laws that are not approved of may be justifiably broken. Consider the example of peer-to peer (P2P) file sharing. Beginning in the mid to late 1990s, file sharing has become grammar a huge phenomenon. It consisted of individuals on the internet sharing media such as music, movies and TV shows with each other. There was no price involved as users were sharing their own files that they had acquried with others grammar . As it became more and more popular in countries such as the United States of America, organizations such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) began to crack down on certain citizens who were sharing these files illegally. They began prosecuting citizens and serving them lawsuits more than grammar a million dollars. However, the number of people who were adopting file sharing practices on the internet were continuing to increase at an exponential rate. Eventually, the MPAA and RIAA could not track down every single violator of the law. Today, file sharing remains a criminal offence yet millions of people continue to do it. Advocators of file sharing claim that the prices of media are too high and that the distribution networks were quite inconvenient. Clearly, in this case, people did not obey the file sharing laws because they did not approve of them. This is definitely an example of people disobeying a law that they do not approve of. But the point of the refuting task is to argue that this is justified which you did not.

 

Therefore, what determines whether or not it is justified to break a law is whether or not a society is facing a crisis. Strong. In the example of the FLQ, terrorists were killing civilians, including governmental officials. These acts were threatening to the safety of Canadians and had to be stopped. In this case, a law that most people did not necessarily approve of was passed to quickly diffuse the situation as to prevent any further harm. In this case, people had to obey the law for the common good. However, when society is not facing a crisis, the people should not obey laws when that they do not approve of. As mentioned previously, laws are representative of the certain moral principles and values that the people in a democratic society deem important. In the case of P2P file sharing, the majority of society believed that file sharing was appropriate. Due to such an overwhelming majority of people disobeying the laws, they were not upheld by the authorities. In this example, it was clear that societal values around this issue had changed and thus laws were justifiably broken.

Excellent.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 27 loopas

 

Laws are the basis of order in society and without these laws, chaos would ensue. Unfortunately, everyone does not benefit from each law because laws are objectively enforced to benefit society as a whole (not each individual). In order to maintain chaos ??, people should obey not only the laws of which they approve but also those of which they may not approve. For example, recently, in Bolivia and Ecuador, the Law of Mother Nature was put in place to prioritize environmental concerns over economic gain. This law grants nature the same rights as a person such as the right to clean air and water as well as the right to life. Though, this law was not approved by many becuase both Ecuador and Bolivia heavily rely on domestic oil mining to boost the economy, it was obeyed by everyone. This example could be strong. But you do not explain why in this case they must obey a law even if they disagree with it.

 

On occasion however, people must obey only the laws of which they approve and challenge the laws which they do not approve of. For example, Rosa Parks was as an African-American grammar civil rights activist, who refused to obey bus driver James Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. Parks resisted the law which declared that bus passengers should segregate by race. She was arrested for civil disobedience. Eventually, her protest against the law of segregation led the Supreme Court to abandon this law. Rosa Parks legacy still continues and she has become the symbol of civil rights. Rosa Parks would be an excellent example. However, you do not explain why in this case she was justified in breaking the law.

 

To maintain order, citizens should obey laws that not only benefit the society now but will also benefit society in the long run. This is vague and ambiguous. Also, this is not a resolution principle that addresses the resolution task of this writing prompt. For example, though the economy was slightly affected by the implementation of this law What is the evidence for this? Why would most people disagree if it was only a slight economic effect? , the Law of Mother Earth was important to ensure long-term survival of the environment. If this law was not obeyed by everyone, the future generations in Bolivia and Ecuador would not have been able to enjoy the diverse nature that their countries offer. Also, without this law, the tourism industries of these countries would collapse as nature is what draws tourists to these countries. The long-term affect grammar to the economy would have been even more detrimental than the short-term effect. In contrast, the law of segregation which was protested by Rosa Parks would not benefit society as a whole in the long run as hostility between the black and white races would increase and even war could rage. By disobeying a law that she did not approve of, Rosa Parks paved the way to a unified nation in which all races are treated equally. Thus, in implementing and obeying laws, the benefit of future generations should be kept in mind.

The resolution principle of what benefits people in the long run is not strong because it lacks depth.

 

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 somewhat addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 27 medhopeful64

 

Although politicians create laws in order to keep peace in society, politicians cannot always please all citizens in terms of the laws that they pass. Sometimes, people may not approve of certain laws, yet we must obey them regardless of our personal opinion. Doing so otherwise would disrupt the general order and peace of society. For example, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford reccently announced his plans to ban the plastic shopping bag in Toronto starting in 2013. Shortly after this announcement, many people expressed disapproval of this new ban on shopping bags, stating that it was not only an inconvenience to shoppers, but also that it will not help Ontario reduce waste. Most plastic shopping bags are biodegradable and do little harm to the environment. Despite public disapproval, the ban is slated to take effect in 2013. Storeowners who offer shopping bags in their stores will be fined starting in 2013, and although many customers and storeowners alike disapprove of the ban, it must be obeyed. Thus, it is clear that we must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also of those which we may not approve. There are some factual errors here in the story. More importantly, you do not argue why the law must be obeyed and therefore do not address the supporting task.

In extenuating circumstances however, one can justifiably break a law that one does not approve of. This can be done when the law is clearly discriminatory against a certain group of individuals. Take the infamous word choice Rosa Parks example. Rosa Parks, an African-American woman, broke the law when she sat in the front of the bus in the 1950s, refusing to offer her seat to a white passenger. At the time, it was the law for African Americans to sit in the back of the bus, in accordance with the segregation that was currently in place. This law was clearly disapproved by many grammar (including several word choice white, and African Americans), and many decided for themselves that it was unjustifiable. In this case, Rosa Parks (and a few others who followed suit) was justified in breaking the bus law because it was clearly discriminatory against African Americans. Disobeying discriminatory or laws of which one may not approve is thus sometimes justifiable. Strong.

 

One may not approve of all the laws that are passed in one's country. Nonetheless, it is important to obey the laws of which we approve and disapprove as long as it does not trample on the rights of anyone or is discriminatory against a certain group of individuals. You should express this idea more concisely. The way it is worded right now reduces impact and clarity. In such cases, it is justifiable to break a law which one does not approve of. This was seen in the case of Rosa Parks, who broke a clearly discriminatory law that forbade African Americans to sit at the front of a bus. Her refusal to obey led to a social rights movement and helped African Americans obtain the same rights as White Americans. If, however, a law is not discriminatory or does not degrade the dignity of a human being (as it did with the Rosa Parks example), then it is not justifiable to break a law of which one does not approve of. Although the ban on plastic shopping bags in Toronto, Canada was voiced by public disapproval by shoppers and storeowners alike, this particular law does not trample on the rights of any human being, or discrimininatingly target a particular group of individuals. The issue here is that the law may violate the rights of individuals as a consumer. It also discriminates against businesses that rely more heavily on plastic bags. All shoppers and all storeowners must obey the law, regardless of their personal opinion.

Overall, this is strong. You should apply your resolution principle to your supporting example first and then your refuting example. That is the more logical organization of the ideas.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 27 tms

 

In the future, please adhere to the deadline that is set out. Next time your essay will not be marked if it is submitted late.

 

Laws are socially constructed set of rules grammar and regulations to govern the actions of individuals. Laws can act on different levels including municipal, provincial, federal and international levels. They are meant to hold individuals accountable for their actions and decisions. Furthermore, when laws are broken, punishment in the form of monetary fines, imprisonment, community service or other ways are given to the individual or group of individuals who are responsible for breaking the law. Such punishments seek to undo the wrong that was done due to breaking the law. As such, it is important for us to obey laws that we approve as well as those that we not approve. Your introduction is too long. Most of these points do not directly contribute to addressing the supporting task. This is especially true in the case of laws that are designed with the safety of others in mind. For example, driving laws in Ontario that prohibit young drivers from driving on certain highways during night hours have been designed while keeping the safety of others in mind. Due to the inexperience of many new and young drivers, statistics gathered by the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario revealed that most accidents on public roads involve young and inexperienced drivers. The data also shows that there is a greater likelihood of accidents to occur on such highways during the night. Therefore, since public roads are meant to be shared by all drivers, it is in the best interests of all highway users to not have drivers with less experience on the highway during the night. Furthermore, a recent survey by the Toronto Star showed that a majority of new and young drivers report that they feel confident while driving on the highway and do not approve of such restrictive laws. However, it is also important for all drivers to obey such driving laws even if they do not approve of them in order to ensure safety of all highway users. This example is strong but the organization of ideas needs improvement.

 

However, it is not always necessary for us to follow the laws, if we do not approve of them. For instance, if the law requires one to act in a certain way that is against his/her moral, ethical or personal beliefs/preferences, it is justifiable for this individual to not follow the law, given that breaking this law would not put other fellow ctizens in danger. For example, a breast cancer survivor who has recently received a mastectomy in Seattle, United States was granted the right to swim topless in a public pool. She claimed that wearing a swim top was painful due to her surgery and that since her actions would not pose a danger to other fellow citizens, she as well as other breast cancer survivors should be granted the right to swim topless in public pools. She has recently been granted permission for claim and this exception has been made for all breast cancer survivors in Seattle. This example illustrates that it is justifiable for an individual to not follow a law if they do not approve of it, given that by breaking the law, they would not put other fellow citizens in danger. Strong.

 

In conclusion, laws play an important role in our society my grammar imposing limits on the actions of individuals in order to ensure that rights of other fellow citizens are not compromised by others and their safety is not jeopardized by the actions of others. As such, it is important for all individuals to follow the law, regardless of whether or not they approve of it. This does not belong in the resolution paragraph. Most importantly, it is crucial for individuals to follow the laws even if do not grammar approve of it, if breaking such law may put the safety of other fellow citizens in danger. This was illustrated by the example of the driving laws in Ontario that prohibit young and inexperienced drivers from driving the highways during night hours since statictics by the Minitry of Transport in Onatrio has shown a higher likelihood of accidents involving young and inexperinced drivers using roads with higher speed limits during night hours. Such laws are in place to ensure that safety of all road users and it is important for all drivers to obey such laws. Alternatively, it is justifiable for an individual to break a law that they do not approve of if breaking the law will not put the safety of other citizens in danger. This was explained with the example of the breast cancer survivor in Seattle who has won the right to swim topless in public pools since wearing a swim top is painful due to her surgery. This examption to the law has also been made for all breat cancer susvivors grammar with masectomies in Seattle, United States. Breaking such a law is justificable in this case as her actions will not pose danger to the health and safety of fellow citizens. Thus, we must follow all laws, including those that we approve and those that we do not approve if breaking such a law will pose danger to the health and safety of fellow citizens. However, it is justifiable for an individual to break a law that he/she does not approve of if breaking such a law will not pose danger to the health and safety of fellow individuals.

Strong.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 5 All of the tasks are strongly addressed.

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 28 doctorbetty

 

John Stuart Mill believed in not interfering in individual freedoms such as freedom of speech - as long as it did not cause direct harm to other people. Freedom of speech is an important freedom in most liberal democracies and currently falls under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This freedom allows citizens to speak up when they disagree with government or if they believe that changes are imperative. Without this freedom, the Canadians who protested for gay marriages, for example, could have been prosecuted. Instead, this freedom ensures that all voices are heard, which contributes to a more meaningful democracy.

This discussion does not make a strong case that freedom of speech should never be limited. In other words, the argument made is not strong enough. The discussion is also too sparse.

Nevertheless, freedom of speech with no restraints could, ironically, stifle the freedom of others. Child pornography, for instance, causes harm to children as well as society at large. When children are exploited, their lives are affected on physical, psychological, and developmental levels. In the end, society pays a significant cost in the form of taxes ??? and reduced morale of communities. In particular, if a child is exploited, he or she may cope by becoming a prostitute or by repeating the cycle of abuse. He or she may also be more prone to illness and contribute to Canada’s rising health burden. Because opportunities are reduced for both the child and the community, freedom is undermined on an extraordinary scale. Thus, if all speech was granted as a “freedom,” costs to society would be unfathomable. This is much better. However, you need to discuss that in this case, censorship and prosecution is justified. Your progression of ideas also needs improvement.

 

Whether freedom of speech should be fulfilled word choice or not is determined by Canada’s limits to freedom clause. ??? By virtue of this clause, courts can limit a person’s freedom of speech if it makes sense within a free and democratic society. This is vague and ambiguous. You want a clear resolution principle that is easy to apply. This doesn't say a whole lot. For example, child pornography does not resonate word choice with a democratic society and is thus punishable by law. This is a weak reason considering there are a great number of reasons why child pornography should be illegal. Though freedom of speech is ultimately important in a liberal democracy, extreme and negative versions of this freedom are not generally granted. This does not mean that freedom is lost. With the example of child pornography, limiting "freedom of speech" protects children and society from immediate and long term effects of exploitation. By limiting some freedom, this prevents harm to society on many levels and therefore preserves a greater sense of freedom.

This discussion does not follow the standard template/format for the resolution paragraph. By following the standard format, it is much easier to address the resolution task.

 

I would recommend starting with the basics and practicing the standard format/outline for each of the three paragraphs. Please refer to this link:

http://portal.prep101.com/Forum/yaf_postst58_How-to-write-Writing-Sample-essays.aspx

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 28 ann2012

 

As once said by Walter Cronkite, an American Journalist, "There is no such thing as a little freedom. Either you are all free, or you are not free." In all democracy countries grammar , people have the right to say whatever they want and whenever grammar they want. This liberty of expressing one's mind without any restriction is protected by laws in every democracy grammar country. For example, the Fundamental freedoms underlined by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that, "everyone in Canada has freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association." This Charter is enforced by the Supreme Court of Canada, and it is intended to be a source for national values and national unity. Therefore, everyone must have the right to express their opinions in the absence of undue restrictions. You do not make a strong case as to why freedom of speech should never be limited. The only reason you give is that the charter is enforced by the Supreme Court. A lot of this discussion does not directly address the writing task and is merely factual information.

 

On the other hand, while people are free to choose their actions, people are not free to choose the consequences of their actions. How is this relevant to addressing the refuting task? Consider the case when an employee of a hospital spreads out a patient's medical information as a story over the dinner table; or when a research scientist talks about a confidential product that his company is working on. In such cases, either the hospital employee or the research scientist need to be responsible for the consequence caused by their speech. No matter what field people are in, whether it is health care, research, or pharmaceutical, they need to agree on a confidential contract when they are exposed to such information. The confidential contract acts as a restriction, moreover as a reminder. It is to remind people about their responsibilities, in which they should limit their actions including speech, so to protect the benefit of a company or a larger group. There are a few issues here. You have two underdeveloped examples rather than one well developed example. More examples might seem better but it is actually not. The examples are hypothetical and hypothetical examples are generally weak. I get the general idea of what you are trying to say but the argument is not clearly made.

Therefore, when no confidential information is involved in one's conservation grammar , one should be allowed to anything they wish ??? without restrictions. This is a simple right that is protected in every country by laws such as, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, when confidential issues are involved, one should remember his reasonability grammar to protect such information for not his own benefit, but the benefit of a larger group. People are free to say whatever they want whenever they want, however at the same time they need to keep their responsibility and the consequences of their speech in mind. This last sentence does not address the resolution task. The resolution principle is strong. The application to your previous examples needs improvement.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[blue181 10]

Thanks Raymond!

 

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

An important priority for people in the working field is financial security, because many not only have families to support, but they must ensure their savings will last into retirement. Salaries and pension plans, which are key aspects to obtaining that financial security, are usually a primary concern for most people in the workforce. For that reason, when Canada Post announced last year that they would be cutting back salaries and pensions by a relatively wide margin, postal workers went on strike in protest. In this case, the cutbacks would noticeably reduce the income and retirement funds of the workers, and because financial security is so important to them, they went on strike in order to protect it.

 

However, at certain points in a person’s life financial security may not be their first priority. Young post-secondary students, especially, are part of that group. They are not at a point in life yet where they should worry about income and retirement, because they are not working yet, or in need of supporting others. Instead, they are investing money to attend University and College. Programs like OSAP (Ontario Student Assistance Program) allow students to take out thousands of dollars worth of loans to help pay for their education. All that money has to be eventually repaid, which means these students are essentially in a lot of debt and definitely not financially secure. But for students, they are not afraid to take out loans and be financially insecure, because their first priority is to prepare themselves for a future career, and not worrying about supporting others or preparing for retirement.

 

Overall, whether or not a person’s first priority in life should be financial security depends on if they are in the workforce, or a student. For someone who is already working, they need financial security because they probably not only need to support families, but plan for retirement as well. Because financial security is a first priority for the workforce, when the workers at Canada Post found out that it could be shaken by cut backs in salaries and pensions, they went on strike in protest. However, for a student who is not yet financially independent, they are not afraid to take out loans to help with their future, even if it makes them financially unstable because they most likely do not have families or anyone else depending on them financially. At this point in their lives, their first priority should be to invest in their future career, and not financial security.

[acidflower 10]

Prompt #29

 

Financial security may become the priority in an individual's life provided the other necessities such as personal safety and basic needs are achieved. This argument is based on the idea that individuals desire financial security for self preservation rather than altruistic means, which may follow further after one's own requirements are met. An individual requires basic food, water, and shelter and personal safety before being able to pursue financial security. An example, if an individual lives in a country filled with civil war, these basic necessities are not met. Moreover, most likely, the institutions required for said individual to pursue financial security may not be available. For this individual, finding personal safety and daily living requirements precede that of financial security. However, once these needs are met, the individual may choose to pursue money to further stabilize his living standards and self-preservation. At this point, financial security is a means for the individual to maintain basic necessities and to enjoy experiences that are now beyond the basic necessities, such as shopping or going to the movies. Financial security may be the first priority provided other basic necessities are met first.

 

This argument does not address the emotional requirements of individuals, such as making connections with others, developing relationships, and where this fits along the spectrum of priorities for individuals. This would have to be further examined in another aspect.

 

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. Please be harsh.

[DaKirbster 10]

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a person's first priority in life might not be financial security. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

------

 

Money is an important part of everyone's life. It represents our hard work and successes, as well as a potential to exchange goods and services with other people. Its practicality enables humans to live harmoniously with each person specializing in what they good at, rather than having to hunt for their own food and create their own shelter. As such, money is necessary for survival in today's society, and financial security should be the first priority in a person's life. This priority is exemplified by the majority of the population in first world countries. Starting from a young age, people are encouraged to do

well in school and find things that they are good at and that are useful to society. Many go on to study at university or college in order to be able to secure a more financially stable career. Most people prioritize their career pursuits over other aspects of their life; they will follow their job wherever it takes them. Some will move to an entirely new location, away from family and friends, for the sole purpose of obtaining a good job that will grant them financial security. For these people, financial security is their top priority in life.

 

However, there are some people for whom financial security is not their top priority. For example, Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world who achieved extremely stable financial security a long time ago. It would follow then that financial security is no longer his top priority, as he already has it and always will. As such, he gives other aspects of life higher priority. One of these aspects is a greater personal fulfillment through philanthropic endeavours. He has created the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a charity that has raised billions of dollars, much of which were Gates' own contributions, to help fight tropical diseases and aid people in regions affected by disease. By doing so, Gates has helped to give some financial stability to others who would have trouble getting it themselves. Thus, rather than worrying about his own financial stability, Gates prioritizes helping others by giving them financial stability and helping to improve their lives.

 

Ultimately, a person's first priority in life should be financial security - unless they already have it. As in the first example, many people do not have financial security and prioritize finding a good career (and thus financial security), often sacrificing other aspects of their life to accomplish this feat. Conversely, Bill Gates (along with other wealthy individuals) has already achieved financial security and thus prioritizes his life differently, by instead focusing on helping others which will ultimately provide him with a greater sense of fulfillment. People's priorities and behaviours are often guided by a hierarchy of needs - they must first secure their basic ability to survive before focusing on less basic wants and desires. Since money is key to survival in today's society, it is many people's top priority, as it should be.

[medhopeful64 11]

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a person's first priority in life might not be financial security. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

Financial security should be a person's first priority in life. Without financial security, one may not know when or where their next meal will come from, if they will have enough money to pay for school, clothing, rent, etc. In essence, one needs financial security in order to ensure his or her basic needs will be met. All other priorities in life become secondary. This is especially true in third world countries, such as India, or Sudan. Third world countries are, for the most part, poor, and often overcrowded. Corruption is also often rampant in these governments, making it difficult for money to be distributed to people that need it the most - namely, the poor and homeless. In Nigeria for example, around 400 Billion dollars was stolen from the National Treasury by Nigeria's leaders in the mid and late 90s. Thus, for a Nigerian, financial security should be his or her first priority in life because there is no one else who can offer financial support. If he/she somehow becomes poor (ie they lose their job) and are no longer able to make ends meet, then he will be essentially left to fend off for himself somehow; the government cannot or will not help him financially.

 

In other places of the globe, however, financial security may not necessarily be a person's first priority in life. This is possible in first world countries that have welfare systems in place to help those in need of financial aid. Canada for example has a relatively generous welfare system that will offer immediate (but temporary) financial aid to a person in need. Unlike in Nigeria, if a citizen in Canada lost his or her job, he/she could simply apply for welfare and rest assured that he/she would likely receive the aid. For example, if a father decided to quit his job in order to move to a different province in order to allow his child to attend a particular school elsewhere, he has the option of doing so because he can apply for financial assisstance. In Nigeria or India this would likely be impossible due to a lack of financial aid from the government. This father can thus put other priorities - such as his child's education - before financial security. In this way, it is clear that a person's first priority in life might not necessarily be financial security.

 

Financial security is a top priority in many people's lives. Whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security depends on if their country of residence has a reasonably efficient welfare system. If one lives in a country like Canada that offers temporary but immediate financial relief, then a person's first priority in life might very well not be financial security. Other priorities can come first because a "safety net" is there for them in case they suddenly lose their job. If, however, one lives in a third world country like Nigeria, where no welfare system is in place and/or is corrupt, then a person's first priority in life should be financial securityl. Without financial security, a person in such a country will have to struggle just to get his/her basic needs met.

_____________

Thanks again Raymond.

[sharpshooter 10]

Prompt 29 Sharpshooter

 

Money plays a major role in a person's life. Financial security is having enough funds to survive for the present moment and the future. Usually, one's most important goal in life should be working to become safe financially. Many people invest in registered retirement savings plans (RRSP), a plan that allows your money to grow through interest, because they know they need to save a large chunk of money in order to retire and live a decent quality of life during these their golden years. If individuals do not invest in RRSP's or save up their money for retirement, they will not be able to retire as early or they may not be able to retire at all since people need money to buy food and pay for shelter (i.e. property taxes and utilities) to survive. In Hong Kong, many seniors, who have retired, have actually gone back to work since they did not save enough money for their retirement or they did not use their money wisely during retirement. In fact, many Hong Citizens are working in fast food restaurants just to make a living. Thus, these citizens, are not enjoying their golden years optimally.

 

However, being financially safe might not always be a person's first priority. For example, during the Vietnam war, many Vietnamese citizens sold all their belongings and spent almost all their money in exchange for gold, which they need to use to pay to leave Vietnam via refugee boats. At these times, gold was the only acceptable way to pay for refugee boats because these boats were operated by foreigners. During the war, people died everyday, and sounds of bombs dropping could be heard on a daily basis. Thus, many people fled the country for their own safety. In this case, these citizens were more worried about their survival than being financially secure since money cannot bring someone back from the grave.

 

What determines whether or not a person's most important goal in life is being financially secure depends if a country is in a state of war or peace. During peace time, one's priority should be being secure financially. However, during war time, one's priority should not be finanical security. For example, Canada is in state of peace currently, thus the first priority of Canadian citizens is being finanically secure; that's why many Canadains invest in RRSP's and GIC's so they can enjoy their retirement. However, during the Vietnam war, people's most important goal was not financial security, their most important goal was surving. So, they spent all their money to flee the country in hopes of a safer life in a new country.

 

Thanks Raymond!

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 28 Enviro_4_Medschool

 

The freedom to express oneself without fear of persecution is one of the fundamental cornerstones of democracies. It is felt that restrictions to the right to speech means that we are not allowing all individuals to express themselves and this goes against the rights that should belong to everyone. Therefore, to some we should never seek to censor free speech because it is an inherent free right and thus should never be limited. This way of thinking is most obvious when compared to regimes where there are restrictions on free speech. China is usually condemned for its heavy state censorship in the media including the lack of airing of contentious issues such as Tibet and human rights issues with minority groups. As a result Tibetans have found they need to voice their concerns elsewhere, primarily through the presence of the Dali Lama. This lack of individual expression coupled with unambiguous human rights violations in China has many thinking that China needs to adopt a more liberal government in order to uphold the rights of its citizens. In fact at times the West has pressured China to adopt a more open media of all their groups because it has been viewed that the state sponsored attacks on free speech are a violation of a basic human right. This pressure is also due to the fact that in democracies, freedom of speech is important so that all are represented in society and it is felt this should be upheld and not limited and this right should also be expressed in states that democratic states have affairs with. Strong.

 

While in most democracies there is some trepidation towards censorship there still exists censorship at the extremes. This is created in order to protect certain populations from harm whether physical or psychological. The KKK You should define your acronyms. is a well known white supremacy group but their message is hateful, especially to non-Caucasians, and if allowed to go unchecked could lead to the harassment of ethnic populations. Since it is a question of safety as well as the militant extremism from this group, there are limits to their right to speech because it is felt that the message violates other rights such as the right to exist and to be free from fear of ones safety. If there is reason to believe that the message a group is portraying could potentially excite violence in their members or even lead to the harassment of other members of the public then there is justifiable reason to restrict speeches that could, by any reasonable person, be perceived to cause harm. Excellent.

 

Whether the right to free speech should be limited depends on whether the message expressed could potentially affect the safety and livelihood of others. This is vague and ambiguous. Try to be more clear and specific such as if it violates the fundamental rights of others. The West encourages China to allow more freedom of expression in their individuals because to much restriction is viewed as a violation of their basic rights. The repression of these individuals has led many to sympathize with Tibetans and other minority groups who are essentially silenced in China due to the state government command. Your principle is not applied well to your supporting example. However, completely uncensored speech by extremist groups as a rallying point against other populations in society and should be restricted. The KKK has always made it clear what their intentions are through their message but if allowed to go unchecked could end up harassing ethnic populations, which would be in violation of other privileges such as the right to feel safe in ones home. As long as the speech does not incite violence because it is of a hateful and persecuting nature there should be a right to express any opinion in a liberal democratic society.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 5

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[souljaboy 10]

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

In today's society, financial stability is a necessity for the well-being of an individual. The major needs of a person, such as food, shelter, and health, can only be attained if there is adequate financial security. In third world countries such as India, medical care that is necessary for a person's survival often require large amounts of money that average citizens cannot afford. Consequently, expensive surgeries that can often save or prolong someone's life is only given to those that are financially able to support it. In such a situation, the person's chance at life is directly affected by their financial capabilities. For humans, survival is the most important priority in life, and financial stability directly affects a person's ability to survive in our world.

 

However, for those that live in a society without an emphasis on money, financial security is not even remotely a factor in the lives. In some remote areas of China where there is no industrialization, there are villages with people who do not place any major values in finances. In these places, the community as a whole do not use money with each other. Instead, all their needs are accounted for and the residents would help others without using money. These communities are almost entirely self sustaining, so much so that they do not need to use money to facilitate trade with each other because they al function as a whole. Consequently, individuals here do not need to put any priority on financial security since it is of no importance to their life.

 

It seems that whether a person's first priority in life is financial security is dependent on how important money is for attaining basic needs in the society the person lives in. In the capitalist society that is present in most of the world today, money is needed to attain all the needs of life, and hence financial security becomes someone's first priority because it is necessary for their survival. In some rare societies though, such as remote villages in China, money is of no importance to the lives of the residents because all their basic needs are accounted for already. Ultimately, the first priority is always securing the basic needs of life, and financial security is usually responsible for that, which is why it often should be a person's first priority.

[perspectives 10]

a person's first priority in life should be financial security

 

Priorities are set in order to determine what is of most significance and should take precedence over other tasks. The number one priority for many is the need to attain financial security, which means being able to support the lifestyle they desire through a means of consistently accumulating wealth. This should take precedence over other priorities because financial security dictates the physical and emotional well-being of an individual. A life without financial security could potentially lead to stress and depression, and an inability to continue other things in life. For example, famous rapper and artist 50 Cent popularized this idea of acquiring wealth with his popular album "Get Rich or Die Trying." 50 cent's background is the epitome of that very saying, as he endured through poverty, drugs, gangs, and more then one gun shot in order to reach the level of financial security he possesses today. Financial security was his first priority in life, as it is with many others.

 

However, a person's first priority is what they value most, which may not always be financial security. A specific situation where this is evident is in individuals living in a war-torn country and have never experienced what it means to have financial security. Many citizens growing up during a period of war do not place financial security as their first priority in life, instead their priorities are in more basic physiological needs such as food, shelter, and water. In a state where personal safety is in jeopardy, a person will no longer value monetary wealth as that can only go so far in ensuring protection. Individuals during a war would much rather have a safe haven stocked with basic food, water and warmth. This experience will carry forward in their life, and will have a lasting impact in consolidating physiological needs as their first priority.

 

Whether or not financial security is a person's first priority in life depends on the person's previous experiences. A person's previous experiences will dictate their expectations in life, and thus someone that has never felt they have been placed in a state of endangerment will have financial security as their first priority. Although 50 Cent was in bodily harm many times, he put himself in that position himself in an attempt to gain financial security. He was not placed into cross-fires by birth or by force, but intentionally placed himself in that position for the opportunity to gain financial wealth. Those that have endured the sufferings of a war will grow to develop basic physiological needs as their first priority in life. Therefore, it can bee seen that previous experiences play an important role in shaping ones' future expectations and therefore their priorities in life.

 

Thanks!

[ann2012 19]

Thank you Raymond!!!!!!!!!

 

Prompt 29

 

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

There is an old saying, "money cannot do everything, but nothing can be done without money." This saying applies to everyone in today's society. People should ensure that they have the financial ability to satisfy their basic personal needs such as, food, residency, and clothing. Once people have the basic status of living, then they can shape their lives according to own interests. Thus, it is reasonable and important that people prioritize their plans accordingly to satisfy their financial needs first. Take education as an example, in countries such as, India and Uganda, where poverty is a serious issue. People in these countries, who are suffering from hunger, lack of water, and diseases would not consider sending their kids to school until their family can afford food and water to achieve a basic living status. In contrast, people living in developed countries such as, Canada and United States would consider education as a basic right that every children should have.

 

On the other hand, when people are facing a situation, in which they need to make financial sacrifices to save their own or their family member's life, they would not consider money as important as survival. As already shown in many detective movies, if one's family member is kidnapped and the kidnapper asks for money in order for them to release the victim. In such situations, one would always try to collect the amount of money the kidnapper is demanding for, without concerning of the financial crisis he would face afterwards. Therefore, in situations when one's survival is in immediate threat, his financial status would not be considered as a first priority.

 

In conclusion, when people's safety or survival is not an issue, then people would prioritize their plans to first satisfy their financial needs. It is only when people are financially secured, and have their basics needs such as, food and clothing satisfied; they can then consider other needs such as, education. However, in cases such as kidnapping, when people's safety or even survival is in immediate threat, then people would put safety instead of money as their first priority. It is only when one has survived then can he have concerns about his financial status.

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 28 donna71

 

The freedom of speech is an important tool to express one's opinions and to possibly instigate change. The freedom of speech is sometimes an absolute right that should not be limited by a governing body. An example to exemplify the importance of this freedom is in the civil rights movement of the 1950s in the USA. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks are two notable persons involved in the movement who utilized this right to express wishes for a more equal society between black and white americans. King led peaceful marches and even risked his life doing so to express these proposed changes to American society. The result from this freedom has led to greater equality between majority and minority groups in the USA. Therefore the freedom of speech should not be limited as without such freedoms positive social change may not be possible. Furthermore King's right to express his opinions did not infringe on the rights of others. Excellent.

 

On the other hand, there are cases when the freedom of speech may be limited. For instance, in September of 2007 the University of Winnipeg discovered a message on a bathroom stall that stated "I'm going to blow this place up". Emergency measures were taken to ensure student safety and security presence was heightened to handle any real threats on the proposed day. Many institutions, including the university, have implemented zero tolerance policies for threats or utterances with intentions of harm. Therefore the freedom of speech is not always tolerated to allow individuals to express anything they wish and this is done in order to better ensure a safe environment for all and helped to better promote the university's stance against violence. Strong.

 

There may be a fine balance between ensuring one's rights and freedom of speech at the cost of allowing any type of speech to be expressed. What determines when speech may be limited depends on whether the expression in question promotes violence to others or not. Should it be the case where the expression does not promote violence, such as King's peaceful marches and speeches for more equal rights, then such freedom of speech should not be limited as such expressions are key for positive social change. On the other hand, should the freedom be used to express one's intentions to harm others with violence, such as the threats written at the University of Winnipeg, then such freedoms are justifiably limited as most institutions wish to promote a peaceful and safe environment for all. It is imperative to find a balance when administering the freedom to speech. Strong.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 5.5

Focus and coherence: 5.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5.5

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 28 sixstar

 

In most democratic societies, a declaraction or charter of rights and freedoms serves a fundamental role in guiding the behavior of citizens in society. One of these freedoms outline in grammar these declaractions is the right of a citizen to the freedom of speech. When a citizen is given freedom of speech, they are able to speak publicly about their ideas and opinions, without fear of reprocussions grammar . The freedom of speech allows citizens to express new ideas or challenge present philosphies, which can signifcantly influence society. As such, it can be argued that the right to the freedom of speech is an absolute right and one that should never be limited. Although, the language in the prompt is absolute. You should use more neutral language and paraphrase it using less extreme word choices. For instance, the "Occupy Movement" that started in September of 2011, consisted of people from around the world, protesting the great disparity between the incomes of society's "1%" and the "99%" (in reference to the 1% of the population who earn the highest incomes and the 99% who fall in the lower income brackets). As the occupy movement spread to other cities, the ideas that the protesters were advocating gained widespread recognition. In some cities, these ideas that the organizers of the protests publicly shared started a widespread diaglogue between citizens and their government representatives that, in some cases, lead to certain social changes. Without the right to the freedom of speech, these diaglogues about social issues would never begin and social change may not occur. As such, this case exemplifies how the freedom of speech can be viewed as an essential right that should not be limited. Excellent. However, this paragraph had an above average number of spelling mistakes.

 

However, the freedom of speech might justifiably be limited in certain situations. For instance, many jurisdictions across the world have laws against racism and hate speeches grammar . Often, if a display or public expression of ideas is intended to segregate and/or disparage another individual or group, it is considered racism, and thus against the law. During the Euro 2012 soccer tournament, organizers set up task forces to prevent racial comments or displays from being publicly expressed, and worked with local law enforcement agencies to quickly arrest anyone who breaks these "anti-racism" laws. The philosphy behind limiting one's freedom of speech when the speech is hateful is to prevent these negative ideas from spreading to others in society who may internalize these hateful messages and perpetuate the racism. The organizers of the Euro 2012 soccer torunament hoped that by quickly persecuting those individuals who make hateful comments would deter grammar others from doing the same and in fact, during just the first few weeks of the Euro 2012 soccer tournament, several individuals were arrested for publicly expressing hateful comments and speeches. Run-on sentence. As such, the freedom of speech might justifiably be limited when the speech is hateful and racist against another individual or group. Excellent.

 

It would seem that what determines when the freedom of speech should be limited is the speech's intended or potential outcome and effect on others in society. This is vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. When a public expression of ideas is for the purpose of spurring social change This is also vague since hate speech could be defended by bigots as intended for spurring social change., as in the case of the "Occupy" movement, speech should not be limited, as it provides a medium for which people can express different ideas and potentially make a positive impact on society. However, when the intention of the speech is hateful or racist This would have been better since it is more specific. , the freedom of speech may justifiably be limited as the speech can lead to the spread of hateful ideas and purpetuate discrimination in society. As such, speech has a great influence on society, and so as long as the speech is inteneded on bringing positive change to society and not hateful in nature, it should not be limited.

This discussion is okay. However, you essentially have two different resolution principles that fall under your vague statement of intended purpose. Ideally, you want one clear resolution principle that is applied to both examples.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 5

Focus and coherence: 5.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[mandm_user 12]

Hey premed101 forum, this is my first essay, feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!!!

 

prompt 29

 

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a person's first priority in life might not be financial security.

Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

In today's modern society, everything surrounds money and financial stability. In today’s market in order for an individual to have the ability to purchase anything from food, clothing, housing or healthcare he must pay for it. Therefore, in order to survive, the individual must earn a certain income for himself to continue living and supporting himself. This means, when an individual has to take care of himself on his own, his first goal in life should be to earn money and guarantee financial stability for the rest of his life because no one else will do it for him. Both American and Canadian societies put a strong emphasis on capitalism, individualism, and self growth. As a result, an individual that wishes to progress through life and acquire his own independence must have financial security first in a capitalist society.

 

Nevertheless, there may be a situation in which a person's first priority in life might not be financial security. Many parents realize today that the first priority for their children is to acquire knowledge and education. No matter how expensive or how difficult it is, parents decide to send their young ones to universities in order for them to acquire a good education that will provide the foundation to a successful career in the future. A good example of why education should be a person's first priority in life is the lottery. Along the years, many people who have dreamed and actually won the lottery believed that since they have won millions of dollars they are now set for life and have nothing to worry about. However, studies show that many of them have lost all their money in a very short time and now struggle with bills and debts. Many of them lack education and therefore do not know how to handle their money and where to invest it.

 

Circumstances that determine whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security are the society and environment in which a person lives in. If a person decides to establish his life and future in capitalist society, his first priority in life should be financial security because without money and financial stability that individual will not be able to support himself or his family and therefore will find himself struggling to survive in an environment where everything is trade off for money. However, many people build their own little communities and tribes that provide all the essential food and material for their members to survive. Such environment does not require financial security because everybody has to work in order for the community to survive and support itself. A person's first priority in this type of environment could be to find his own spirituality, deepest value and meaning of life and love. Ultimately, in the 21st century, many societies and countries demand that the person's first priority in life should be financial security, but there are exceptions where people disconnect themselves and move away from the modern life and try to build their own life style where financial security is not the first priority.

[RaymondPrep101 10]

The news media should report only what the public wants to know.

Describe a specific situation in which the news media might report something other than what the public wants to know. Discuss what you think determines when the news media should report what the public wants to know and when they should 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 Friday, July 6.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Saturday, July 7.

[Enviro_4_Medschool 10]

The news media should report only what the public wants to know.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the news media might report something other than what the public wants to know. Discuss what you think determines when the news media should report what the public wants to know and when they should not.

 

----

 

Newspapers became known during the Crimean war because reporters on the front lines were able to get information on the battlefield out to the general populace. This was reported heavily because for the parties involved in the Crimean war there was an interest in the outcomes of the war. Since then a lot of news has focused on subjects the public wants to know or has a right to know because of the potential effects on their daily lives. Since newspapers are one way we get information about domestic and international affairs there should be, to a certain degree, emphasis on topics that concern the average citizen. Hence, news media should focus on what the public wants to know rather than reporting indiscriminately. A recent example of coverage that people want to know is the Robocall scandal regarding the 2011 Canadian Federal election. The news media made it a mission to follow up on the findings of investigations because there was strong public interest to get to the bottom of the scandal. This made headlines for a couple of weeks because people were concerned about whether democracy was at risk in Canada. While there were several other world events happening at the time, Robocalls for Canadians took precedence because it was inferred that this was what Canadians wanted to know. Hence, if it concerns citizens of a country the news media should report what the public wants to know.

 

However, sometimes there are situations where knowing may compromise the goals of a country or the safety of certain citizens. The American operation in Pakistan to Osama Bin ladin's compound was kept largely classified. While numerous Americans probably would have liked to know about the operation in more detail the reporting on it was restricted. This was because Obama did not want to risk people attempting to make a shrine out of Osama's death. Furthermore, the spot at sea where Osama's body was disposed was not disclosed so that there was no tomb to serve as a rallying point for surviving Taliban members. Perhaps members of Al Quada, the general Middle Eastern population and Americans would have liked to know more information but it was restricted in the hopes of furthering the goals of the United States against Terrorism. The mystique from speculation was considered the better course of action for the safety of everyone rather than full disclosure and news media needed to respect the larger goals of the nation rather than what the public wanted to know.

 

What news media should and should not cover is a tricky question. Citizens should influence what the media reports because they have a right to know about various affairs, especially ones that concern them directly, and their wants should act as a filter on what the media should focus reporting on. However, if the information may thwart the overall goals of the nation then there may be justification in restricting coverage. Whether the media should only report on what the public wants to know depends on whether the information should be kept classified in the interests of the country. Citizens of Canada had a right to know what was happening surrounding the Robocall controversy because it threatened the integrity of electoral system. Thus, the media should have kept reporting on the results of the investigation. Conversely, the operation to Osama's compound contained many sensitive details regarding the war against the Taliban and while the public might have wanted to know the details there was prudence in allowing most of the operation to be left to speculation. This was done probably to protect the US from litigation as well as to prevent a congregation of supporters to rally around Osama's death. So in situations where the information should be kept classified for security purposes the media should not report what the public wants to know. On a last note, it is entirely possible that more information will be released in the future regarding that operation when the threat from Terrorism is not considered a threat to national security.

 

---

 

Thanks Raymond

[RaymondPrep101 10]

Prompt 28 souljaboy

 

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that many people in the world do not possess. Those of us that live in a society which allows freedom of speech might sometimes take this valuable right for granted, but we would quickly realize how much it affects our lives if it was limited in any way. Freedom of speech allows someone to voice their opinion, even if it is directly in conflict with the ideals of someone in power. Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights figure who advocated for African America grammar equality and never had his right to speech limited in any way, even though his ideals were opposite of many of those in power. Because of this freedom, King was able to help advance African American rights with a series of iconic speeches. If the government limited King's right of free speech, he would not have been able to continue his crusade for equal rights because he would be quickly silenced. The enormous impact King had on African American rights is possible because he had his right of free speech. Excellent.

 

In some cases, freedom of speech of certain people should be limited because they are using their freedom of speech to harm others. In the case of Jim Jones, who began a cult in the United States in the 1970s, limiting his freedom of speech helped reduce the eventual damage as a result of his actions. You're going to have to elaborate more before drawing this conclusion. By limiting Jim Jones' ability to use various forms of information to convert more people into his followers, less people were converted into joining the cult. Jones eventually led a mass suicide of all the members of the cult, but the casualties were much less than possible because the U.S. government limited his right of speech How? so that he was not able to convert followers. In this case, the government is justified in limiting a person's freedom of speech because he was severely detrimental to the lives of others. This example could work but is not well explained. The story is incomplete as it is written. Furthermore, the organization of ideas needs to be improved.

 

Freedom of speech is a right that we all possess and should be able to exercise, unless the power is used with the goal of harming others. This is vague and ambiguous. For example, as twisted as Jim Jones was, he may have had a goal of helping others. Martin Luther King Jr. had peaceful intentions with his promotion of civil rights, and freedom of speech allowed him to make a series of speeches to further advance civil rights in the United States. Jim Jones, on the other hand, had his freedom of speech somewhat limited because his goal harmed others. Freedom of speech is a human right, but that right is dependent on if it has positive intentions.

The resolution principle is okay but not great because it lacks depth. It also does not apply as well to your refuting example.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[tms 10]

The news media should report only what the public wants to know.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the news media might report something other than what the public wants to know. Discuss what you think determines when the news media should report what the public wants to know and when they should not.

 

In modern societies, news media in the form of television news channels play a crucial role in bringing information on current events to a vast number of individuals. News media can relay information regarding politics, economics, crime, humanitarian efforts, social events, sports, new research discoveries, weather forecasts, traffic news, and consumer reports. Such information can be on a local, provincial, federal or international scale. News media is also a form of a business that gains revenues from various sources including government funding, private sector sponsorships, public donations and advertising. In order to maximuize revenue and sell the service of information delivery, news media should report only what their consumers (i.e. public) wants to hear. This is especially true for news media channels that operate on private funding. For example, CP24 is a well-known news channel in Ontario that brings mostly local news to the public, 24 hours a day. In addition, it also has some segments on provincial, national and international news throughtout the day. Majority of the revenues for this channel come from the private sector and advertising. In this case, it is important for this channel to report only what the public wants to hear in order to keep them engaged and have a relatively high popularity. This will later ensure continued support from their funding sources and hence, will allow for the overall survival of the channel.

 

However, it is not always necessary for news media to report only what the public wants to hear. This is especially true for news media channels that are funded by goverment sources and public donations. In this case, such a channel can be considered as a government-operated channel that does not need to worry about continued support from an external organization, as seen in the case of privately funded news media channels. Moreover, such a news media channel also has an increased responsibility to relay an unbiased account of all current events, whether good or bad. The content and presentation of the information by government-operated channels should not rely on what the public wants to hear. For example, the Canadian Broadcast Cooperation (CBC) is the major news media channel in Canada that is primarily funded by tax dollars and public donations. Journalists and broadcasters working for the CBC have an increased responsibility to deliver information regarding all current events that are taking place in the local, provincial, national and international scales. Since they are being funded by public money, it is their responsibility to bring an unbiased, undistorted account of news “as it is” and “as it happens”, regardless of whether the public wants to hear it or not.

 

Overall, news media plays a major role in bring information regarding current events to a vast majority of individuals in modern societies. The content of the news and the way in which it is delivered can vary from news channel to channel. Such variation is primarily based on the funding source of the channel. It is okay for news media channels that are being funded by advertising revenues and private sector sponsorships to report only what the public wants to hear as it will later ensure continued private sector support and survival of the channel. This was illustrated by the example of CP24, a well-known news media channel that is funded by the private sector. In contrast, it is the responsibility of news media channels that are funded by public sources such as tax dollars and public donations to provide a full account of all events. This was illustrated by the example of CBC which can be considered as a government-operated news media channel. As such, the presentation of information can greatly vary from channel to channel depending on the source of funding.

 

Thanks!

 

PS. Thanks Raymond for marking my other essay

[ann2012 19]

Thank you for grading this!

 

 

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

The news media should report only what the public wants to know.

 

 

With the well developed technology, people in today's society rely on newspaper and other forms of media for keeping track of current events, which may affect their lives. Public is usually concerned with local, national or even international events that may have an effect on their living status or their countries. This public will of knowing the truth (of events happening around the world) puts a force on media to report honestly. Thus, media has the responsibility to report on what the public wants to know, which is the true side of incidents been reported. For example, when SARS outbreak happened in Canada in April 2004, the Canadian health institute took immediate actions to control the disease. As same as the Canadian health institute, the Canadian media reported about SARS publicly to the citizens in order to prevent the disease from spreading. As a result, the disease was controlled and the damage to public health was minimized. Thus, public has the right to know about the reality of events that affect their lives, and media has the responsibility to report on certain events truthfully.

 

On the other hand, when a nation's security is endanger and it's people need faith to depend upon, then the media may not necessarily report the entire truth to the public. Take the Canadian government's decision during World War One as an example. When the British allies including Canada, were in an inferior position, the Canadian government reported wining news to it's citizens in order to give people faith in their country. At the same time, the Canadian government enacted the Conscription, in which every man above a certain age must join the war. In the end, the British allies had their final victory. Thus, even though the Canadian media did not report truthfully at that time, but it was for a greater cause and the outcome of that decision can speak for itself.

 

Therefore, in time of national crisis such as, Canada during World War One, it is necessary for the media to put certain limitation on the news that are being reported to the citizens. These limitations are there to provide people greater faith in their country and so to bring people protection and courage. However, when a nation's security is not endanger, the public has the right to know about the truth of events, at least within their nation. As said for the example of SARS in Canada, it is the media's responsibility and duty to ensure that the truth of certain incident is being reported to the public.