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

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 premed_2012

 

A person's first priority in life should be financial security. This means that every person should strive to achieve financial security in their lives before giving in to any other pleasures. In today's world, money is an important commodity. No matter how ethical and spiritual a person is, he or she can not survive without money. Money allows us to obtain the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing and shelter. Once the basic needs our fulfilled, we go ahead to buy the things we want for our convenience such as phones, cars, houses, and so on. To say that financial security should be a person's number one priority means that the person should be financially stable to take care of his family and personal health. This discussion is okay but is too simplistic. One of your goals in the writing sample is to demonstrate complexity of reasoning.

 

There can be times when a person's first priority in life is not financial security. For instance, if a person's family or friend has met with an unfortunate accident then it is worthwhile to spend money on the person's treatment rather than saving it for future. This is a medical emergency and the money provided can save somebody's life. A person should not worry about future plans such as savings for retirement or his next trip because without his health he won't be able to accomplish those anyways. Again, okay but too simplistic.

 

What determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security or not depend on grammar the situation. This is not a good resolution principle because it is obvious and doesn't say anything useful. If there is a medical emergency or a situation where money can help somebody live a healthy and safe life, then money should not be the first priority. An emergency situation or not is a much better resolution principle. Life pleasures like big house or two cars or fancy dresses can wait until other basic necessities and wants have been fulfilled. Of course, the decision can be very subjective. A person can worry about his family and friends but he or she is not obligated to worry about a stranger who has been diagnosed with a life-threatening disease. In other situations, where a person is planning on buying a bigger house or expensive dresses, a person should first consider his or her financial stability before making a decision.

The discussion here is not very strong. The ideas are just not of high quality.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 polarbear89

 

In our modern world, financial security is an important priority for individuals to make Word choice, unless they wish to have future difficulties. Thus, people should place great emphasis on having financial security and it should be prioritized above other aspects of life. For instance, a young working professional should be prioritizing financial security. Young professionals will not have built up their credit rating, will generally not own assets and some may be in debt due to their education. Further Furthermore, these young professionals may be looking to eventually get married and start a family, and these can be done a lot more comfortably with a sufficient amount of money. If these professionals place other things before financial security, they may not be able to pay off their debt quick enough which may result in high interest payments that detract from their standard of life. Further, raising a child often costs a parent approximately $100, 000 dollars and a person who does not have financial stability will not be able to afford to give the child the necessities and comforts of life that is expected for children. These necessities are the parents’ responsibility and if the parents cannot afford it, they will not be able to build a future for their family and themselves. Thus, it is in the young professional’s best interests to prioritize financial security because with financial security, the professional will be able to enjoy the comforts of life as well as to be able to provide for a future family, if they so wish to do so.

This discussion is too long. More is not always better. Having a concise and directed argument improves impact and clarity. The discussion here is okay but too general and therefore lacks depth.

On the other hand, a student coming out of high school may not wish to prioritize financial security as the main aspect of life they wish to focus on. For instance, it may be said that a student, with no money to his or her name, may want to delve directly into the workforce in order to build up savings. However, in the long term, this approach will not be the most fiscally smart for the student. This is undermining your argument. Instead, the capabale student should be prioritizing education. A person with a bachelor’s degree makes thousands of more dollars across a lifetime than someone who only has a high school diploma. This is still prioritizing financial stability. However, if the student is unable to get help from their parents, or even if they are able to do so, many students will go into debt for their education, and if not in debt, they will not be profiting financially directly during their education. This is a run-on sentence. It is not clear how this adds to the argument. Still, the students should be focusing mainly on achieving the best education possible in order to maximize their financial future. The prioritizing of financial security too early in ones’ life can actually be detrimental to one’s financial security long term.

The issue is that here, even though someone is prioritizing education they are still at the end of the day prioritizing financial stability.

 

Thus, it can be said that financial security should be prioritized when an individual is working professionally and is making plans for the future such as plans for a family. However, if the individual has the opportunity to go prioritize their education, they should prioritize that because, by placing financial security on the side, they will actually be stabilizing their future financial security. There are a few issues here. 1) The resolution principle is too narrow and therefore lacks depth. 2) You undermine your arguments in the italicized portion. What you are arguing is that the student who prioritizes education is essentially prioritizing financial stability. A working professional should not be neglecting financial security because they are often in a place where future familial expenses are imminent and they often have achieved a level of education that has allowed for salary growth. However, a student prioritizing financial stability over their education will actually limit their future financial stability because their lack of education will detract from their salary growth and thus it will detract from their ability to build up assets. Financial stability should only be prioritized when one has acquired a suitable education and when one is a working professional.

Again, even in your refuting arguments, you are stressing that the main priority should be financial stability.

 

One of the challenges of the writing sample is to argue both sides of an issue. Here you have spent the entire essay arguing that financial stability should be the main priority because you have argued for further education for financial reasons.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 sixstar

 

In todays market economy, many would agree that having money and being financially secure is an important factor in determining one's success and happiness in life. Indeed, many of life's milestones, such as going to college, purchasing a new house, and retiring all require the individual to be financially secure. Being financially secure means that one has sufficient money to accomplish their desired goals. Considering the important role that being financially secure plays in one's life, it can be argued that being financially secure should be a person's first priority in life. Solid opening. Many people would agree with this statement, including the Government of Canada and their Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, as exemplified by the new mortgage laws introduced by the Finance Minister this past month. These laws were introduced in response to the global economic crisis beginning in 2008 that was due, in part, to increased consumer debt, especially debt due to new home purchases. The new mortage laws stipulate that the first-time home buyer must contribute a greater down payment on a new home purchase and must payoff their mortage in a shorter period of time (25 years vs. the previous 30 years). Both of these requirements makes it harder for a first-time home buyer to purchase a home unless they have enough money (and significantly more money than was previously required to purchase a home), and thus, more financially secure. As a first home purchase is a significant life milestone for most people, the Government of Canada's new mortgage laws highlight how being financially secure should be a top priority in one's life, especially during the stage of life when they purchase a house. If financial security is not one's first priority in life, they may not be able to accomplish things, such as purchasing a new house. The issue here is that the supporting task is not strongly addressed. You make a strong case that the Government of Canada agrees that financial security is important, however, that does not focus on why this should be the case. An excellent example but not a good fit for this prompt in the way it is explained.

 

However, financial security might not always be a person's first priority in life. When a person first has children, it can be argued that the individual's life priorities change. After having child, many people focus more on the health and well being of the child grammar , rather than their own financial security. For instance, several reports have shown that parents spend a significant amount of money on their children, for things such as schooling, sports, toys, and other extracurricular activities. This point might actually undermine your argument. However, rather than making more money to compensate for the increased spending on their children, many families actually earn less income than before they had children. This fact is largely attributed to the parents, spending, on average, more time with their children, and less time working, resulting in less income being earned. As such, this case exemplifies how raising children can be a person's first priority in life, and how this priority can even undermine an individual's financial security. This discussion is okay but lacks depth. It is not a clean and cohesive argument.

 

It would seem that whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security depends on the individual's life stage. This is vague. You should be more clear in your resolution principle. When a person is nearing the life stage or life milestone when they are required to spend a significant amount of money, such as purchasing a house or retiring, financial security should be their first priority. This idea lacks depth. This is essentially saying that financial security should be a person's first priority when they reach a point in their life where they need a lot of money. Canada's new mortgage laws support this idea in that the government now requires first-time home buyers to be more financially secure before purchasing a new house. However, during the children rearing stage in some people's lives, it can be argued that a person's first priority is no longer financial security, but rather raising children. You argued that raising a child is expensive. You also argued that financial security is important when someone is at a stage where they need a significant amount of money. Therefore, based on your points, when someone is raising a child, their goal should be financial stability. This idea was clearly supported by the studies showing that parents often forgo financial security, by working less, for focusing on the successful raising of their children. As such, while being financially secure is an important proirity in most people's lives, a person's first priority may change depending on the particular stage of life that they are in.

 

The primary issue here is that your ideas just do not fit neatly with one another in a cohesive argument. In several places, your own points undermine your argument.

 

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

[polarbear89]

Positive social change requires a great leader.

 

Describe a specific situation in which positive social change might not require a great leader. Discuss what you think determines whether or not positive social change requires a great leader.

 

People look to great leaders during difficult times with hopes that the leaders will cause positive social change. Social change is a shift in society is a shift in society and great leaders can initiate these changes. In fact, a great leader may be required to harness the energy of a society to provoke these positive social changes. For example, Pierre Trudeau is considered a great leader in Canadian history. During a time of uncertainty in the country, Pierre Trudeau initiated positive social change that would affect the country for years to come. Trudeau introduced a new policy into Canada that was the first of its kind in the world: The Multiculturalism Policy. This policy acknowledged that though Canada is a bilingual nation, Canada is a country filled with many cultures. This action was mirrored in the provinces of Canada and was also adopted by Australia, another nation that also has many immigrants and many cultures. By creating this policy, Trudeau signaled to the local immigrants, as well as to the international community, that Canada is an accepting nation. This promotion of multiculturalism allowed the assorted cultures of Canada to be officially accepted and respected. Trudeau’s policy has allowed Canada to be proud proud of its multiculturalism and the policy helped allow Canada to be known as being one of the most culturally accepting nations worldwide.

 

However, on another note, positive social change does not always require a great leader. For example, fundraisers such as Run for the Cure, promote positive social change without the need for a great leader. Run for the Cure is a fundraiser run by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. The Run collects money for breast cancer research and also raises awareness about breast cancer. This Run enlists positive change by raising awareness of the disease and also by funding research to prevent and treat cancer. A team of volunteers originally founded the Run in Toronto and the Run’s impact increases with the addition of each volunteer. The Run for the Cure events are held in different cities and, as such, are a local event. In a situation of a local initiation of a social change, a great leader is not necessary. Rather, it is important for there to be a cohesive team, in order for these local groups to initiate social change.

 

Whether or not positive social change requires a great leader, depends on how far reaching the extent of the social change intends to be. If the extent of the social change is to be nation-wide or international, it is important for there to be a great leader to unite the people and also serve as a figure for the social change. For instance, Pierre Trudeau’s Multiculturalism Policy affected not only the nation of Canada but also caused effects throughout the world. His leadership created a united voice for the policy and he also became an emblem representing the innovative policy. However, in the case of the Run for the Cure, the events that are held by the organization are local, and thus, it is not necessary for there to be a great leader. Instead, the community works on a local level, as a team, and since the group of people united is smaller, it is not necessary to have a leader representing the cause. Overall, it a great leader is important when the social change is to have an effect on a large scale community. However, if the community is smaller, then it is not necessary to have a great leader in order to effect positive social change.

 

 

thank you

[chris67]

Many of the most admirable occurences in human history involve citizens uniting for a cause and causing positive social change, which generally involves an improvement in their quality of life. In most cases, this unity must be initiated by someone with great inherent leadership skills. A great leader is able to convince the people to believe in a cause, and stand up for what they believe is right in an attempt to better their lives and the lives of others. Doing so often involves going against an authority, which many may be reluctant to do, so it is very important that a great leader has excellent motivational skills. An example of such a leader would be George Washington. The British controlled what is now the United States for over a century, and American citizens did little to attempt to acquire their freedom. George Washington was able to convince the people that they should fight for their independance, which they did and emerged victorious. After gaining its freedom, America was able to prosper socially and economically, and eventually became what it is today. If not for the leadership qualities of George Washington, the United States might look far different in our modern day.

 

However, it is possible for positive social change to occur without great leadership. On occasion, circumstances make improvement in a society inevitable, so positive social change may occur with simply adequate or even poor leadersip. After the Soviet Union disbanded in 1991, Poland was able to abandon communism and become a democratic country. During this time period the Polish national government was very unstable, with 3 different Presidents taking office over a 5 year period. Twenty years later, none of those Presidents are particularly celebrated by historians or Polish citizens. Despite the lackluster leadership during the early to mid nineties, Polish citizens were able to enjoy a period of economic prosperity. Wages increased and quality of life undoubtebly improved with the adoption of democracy, despite the fact that the country did not have a great leader.

 

Ultimately, what decides whether a society requires a great leader for positive social change is whether or not the social change goes against the beliefs of the ruling government. American citizens wanted to be free of British rule, while the British political leaders were unwilling to grant them their independance. Thus, they required a great leader to mobilize them to stand up and fight against the British. Positive social change in Poland during the early to mid nineties came as a result of a change in government, and did not require a great leader. The previous communist government severely lowered the quality of life of Polish citizens, so by simply following the principles of democracy adequate leaders were able to cause positive change in Polish society.

 

 

Thanks!

[MedicalTown]

Prompt 31 - Positive social change requires a great leader.

 

When wanting change, there needs to be someone at the forefront directing people and telling them what to do and when they shall do it next. This "director" is what we call in modern words a leader, and he is vital for the inclusion of positive social change to a society. For example, in the early 1990's, the country of South-Africa, like the rest of Africa had always been thought as a third-world country, with no potential to grow and prosper like the western world. South Africa was in the middle of societal tension with the blacks and whites not conforming with each other. All this however changed when the great leader of South Africa came to power. He turned a country which was full of racism, into a country with great power. The full effects of societal change that the 1990's leader of South Africa induced is still seen today. It is quite fascinating to see how in 2010 South Africa was able to host the World Cup of soccer when only twenty years earlier it was considered a third world country. This success is attributed to South Africa's great 1990's leader who even now is still regarded as a hero with respect to South Africa's growth in the world.

 

There are instances however when positive societal change can be accomplished without a great leader. Such is the case when the people of the society are strong and driven with a common goal in mind. An example of such is seen in strikes. People will come together and decide that they shall not follow the status quo unless change is made. These strikes do not have a specific leader in place, but it is more so a group of individuals with similar beliefs whom are willing to fight for what they believe is true.

 

When considering social change, it is quite evident that social change can indeed be accomplished with or without a great leader. However, when wanting a large amount of change to be introduced into a society, a leader is of great importance. If only small changes are to be introduced into society, such as an increase of vacation time for flight attendants, small strikes can be done without the need of a leader. Such small strikes are seen quite frequently in France and rarely utilize a leader. On the other hand, if revolutionalizing societal ideas is the goal in mind, a leader is of great importance. A leader takes into consideration all of the individual’s different view points and puts them together to create a resolution that includes everyone’s suggestions. A leader allows everyone’s voice to be heard, which in all truth, is the reason why change is sought after in the first place anyways.

 

Thanks!

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 blue181

An important priority for people in the working field word choice 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.

There are a few issues here. 1) You establish that financial security is important but don't make the argument that it should be the first priority. 2) This discussion is too short.

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. This discussion is better than your last paragraph. However, it is still a bit too general.

 

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 grammar . For someone who is already working, they need financial security because they probably not only need to support families grammar , 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. Strong.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 acidflower

 

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 grammar before being able to pursue financial security. An example, if an individual lives in a country filled word choice 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.

 

Since you are new to the writing sample, I would recommend starting with the basics. Learn about the writing sample, what are the tasks that need to be addressed and then learn the basic template/format.

 

There is a set cookie cutter template that should be followed in your essays. The standard format will help you to best address the tasks that compromise the writing prompt. See this link:

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

Overall Mark: 1/6 (Corresponds to approximately a J)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is not addressed. Resolution task is not addressed

Depth: 1

Focus and coherence: 1

Grammar and vocabulary: 3

[DaKirbster]

Positive social change requires a great leader.

 

Describe a specific situation in which positive social change might not require a great leader. Discuss what you think determines whether or not positive social change requires a great leader.

 

 

------

 

 

Newton's first law of motion states that an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force; although this is a scientific concept, it holds true for society at large. Society is unlikely to change unless a great leader (i.e. an outside force) acts upon it to bring about social change. A great leader has the power to represent the people and influence others, and can often be the tipping point for introducing change. For example, in the early days of the United States of America, the rights of black people were few and far between. They were denied justice and equality, forced into segration from white people. Martin Luther King Jr. is a black man who stood up for his rights and encouraged others to do the same. With his thoughtful and influential speeches and ideas he garnered the support of many people across the nation. Eventually, his influence spreaded far enough to elicit equality for black people throughout the governments of the nation. The elimination of racial segregation laws was a positive social change that required King Jr. to lead it.

 

However, not all social change requires a great leader. For example, safe injection sites for chronic drug users have been implemented in the city of Vancouver within the last few years. These sites provide clean needles and a supportive environment for the drug user to satisfy his addiction. In addition to drastically reducing the transmission of HIV through the use of clean rather than dirty needles, the program as provided drug quitting strategies for the addicts and changed countless lives. The safe injection site program does not have any particular leader; it is simply an idea that has gained the support of many citizens and politicians through scientific research into its benefits. Even though it is a controversial program, it has been able to successfully implement positive social change without the use of a great leader.

 

What determines whether or not positive social change requires a great leader depends on if the change directly contradicts current law. In the early United States, the government had deemed that black people were not equal to white people and should thus be given lesser rights. Martin Luther King Jr. was the catalyst that facilitated the change in this law through his great leadership and widespread impact, thus allowing for positive social change through equal rights for black people. On the other hand, the safe injection sites in Vancouver did not oppose any governmental law - they were merely controversial. Upon presentation of some scientific research, without facilitation of a great leader, people became convinced that it could work and approved the program. Consequently, positive social change was brought about by the program that reduced disease transmission and drug use in the streets of Vancouver. While it is true that great leaders can have great influences on people, some ideas have enough inherent worth that they can prove themselves without charistmatic faces transmitting the message.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 DaKirbster

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 word choice 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. This discussion is okay but is a bit general. Furthermore, the emphasis of the argument should be on why financial security should be the top priority. Here, you have it as a primer rather than the main focus.

 

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. This example is kind of weak because it lacks depth. Of course, financial stability is not going to be a person's top priority when they already have it. This is obvious.

 

Ultimately, a person's first priority in life should be financial security - unless they already have it. Again, this is a shallow and obvious argument. 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.

 

One of your goals in the writing sample is to demonstrate complexity of reasoning. This is not achieved when the arguments are too simplistic.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 medhopeful64

 

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. I don't know if you can still count India as third world. 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. This example could be excellent. However, the execution requires improvement. The explanation is not strong.

 

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. There are a few issues here. 1) The example is hypothetical/general and therefore lacks depth. 2) Although welfare is available, I don't think that receiving welfare affects your priorities in life. In fact, it may be a strong motivator to make financial stability the number one priority. 3) The example is not very believable.

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. Like what? You don't apply your principle to your refuting example. 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.

Overall, the focus on welfare is interesting but does not work well here. For most people on welfare, their first priority in life is financial stability.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 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. Strong opening. 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 word choice 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. You need a concluding sentence to wrap up your arguments. The Hong Kong example kind of came out of the blue. It lacked depth because you could have substituted any country in its place when the discussion is so general.

 

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.

This example is strong. The execution could use some improvement and some points should be elaborated upon.

 

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.

The resolution principle is excellent and the application was fine. However, the discussion feels a bit sparse overall.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 5

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 souljaboy

 

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 Word choice. For humans, survival is the most important priority in life, and financial stability directly affects a person's ability to survive in our world. This last concluding sentence undermines your argument.

 

However, for those that live in a society without an emphasis on money, financial security is not even remotely a factor in the lives.grammar 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. This discussion is strong. However, it sounds made up. Without more in depth details, this seems less than plausible because of the rapid industrialization of China and because there are of tens of millions of migrant workers that move out of rural areas to find jobs to make money.

 

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. You do not apply your resolution principle to your supporting example. 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. This last sentence does not fit in the resolution paragraph.

 

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: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 perspectives

 

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. Obviously, this is not true. 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 50 cent popularized the 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. Some of the points and arguments here are either untrue or confusing. The example could work but is poorly executed.

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 word choice as their first priority. This discussion works but is too general and therefore lacks depth.

 

Whether or not financial security is a person's first priority in life depends on the person's previous experiences. This is vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. 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. How does this work with your supporting example when you just wrote that 50 Cent survived a lot. Although 50 Cent was in bodily harm grammar 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 I'm pretty sure he grew up in a dangerous neighborhood 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. How can this conclusion be drawn? Therefore, it can bee seen that previous experiences play an important role in shaping ones' future expectations and therefore their priorities in life.

 

Overall, the quality of ideas is lacking.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3

[Drew92]

Prompt 31

 

Positive social change is an improvement in the lives, or conditions of some group or community that engineers the change. A great leader is the face for such a movement, a person around whom a group can rally in fighting for social change. History is rife with examples of a great leader being the catalyst for such change. Groups of people, with similar goals in mind, have been united under the leadership of an individual or small group to unite their ideas and see those goals through. An example of such a leader is Martin Luther King Jr., who was vital in the success of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States of America. What Martin Luther King Jr. did was give a single voice to those looking for change. He united supporters in a common goal, so as to maintain a clear, concise message to the rest of the country. A lack of a similar leader and voice in similar protests, such as the more recent Occupy Wall Street movement, have yielded less success in developing positive social change.

 

However, a great leader is not always apparent in positive social change, suggesting that a great leader is not always a prerequisite of social reform. The recent Arab Spring is an example of positive social change, in the eyes of those involved in the change, that did not require a great leader. Unlike Martin Luther King Jr., the message of those involved and advocating for the change was gotten out by faceless entities, relative unknowns who still had access to various forms of media. There was no single great leader involved in funnelling the thoughts and ideas of the people to express it to the rest of the country and/or world, as the ideas of the people were focused and already narrowed. The messages, leaving through such platforms as Facebook, Twitter and **DELETED**, and reaching the world in a novel way, were remarkably united in their significance and meaning. This unity, in the absence of any single, great leader, allowed for successful and cohesive revolt. It led to positive social change, as defined above, in the eyes of those who engineered that change.

 

Thus, positive social change has not always required a leader; in other cases, the leader has been vital to causing social change. What determines whether or not positive social change requires a leader is if a cohesive voice is needed. A group with many conflicting ideas within a single, broad goal requires a leader to bring order and clarity. During the tumultous times surrounding the Civil Rights Movement, tensions were running high and there were a number of different ideas on how to trigger social change. Some advocated violence, some peace, and others falling somewhere in between. However, with a great leader also came a common rallying point; certain ideas could be fixed upon and this newfound focus and clarity in their conveyance would better reach the rest of the country. A great leader was not needed in the Arab Spring, however. A group already united in specific ideas and goals for change do not require a leader to give them a unified voice. This unity was seen by the cohesiveness of the messages escaping to the rest of the world; though they were sent from a great number of different, unknown sources, none of whom were "great leaders", their message was consistent. Since this consistency already existed in the people involved in the Arab Spring, a leader was not need to unify any ideas. It remains to be seen, however, if further social progress will require a great leader in the countries affected, as the ideas and goals of the people for the country begin to lose their unity.

 

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

 

Thanks a lot!

[souljaboy]

Positive social change requires a great leader.

 

Describe a specific situation in which positive social change might not require a great leader. Discuss what you think determines whether or not positive social change requires a great leader.

 

Throughout history, positive social changes in the world often requires a great leader to bring about those changes. The general populace needs the leader to become a figurehead for the cause and be the one to cause the social changes to occur. Mahatma Ghandi was one such leader who brought an end to British imperial rule over India. Prior to Ghandi, British rule over India has lasted for hundreds of years and most of the Indian population objected to their presence. Ghandi become the leader they needed to spearhead the movement for independence from imperial rule. Because of his presence and charisma, Ghandi brought almost all of the Indian population into this cause and the British government had no choice other than to grant India independence. Ghandi was the great leader required to unite the Indian people and to pressure the British government. without a figure like Ghandi, British rule over India would have continued for a longer period of time.

 

However, in many cases, positive social change can happen over time without any specific outstanding figure to bring about those changes. In the 1800s in Canada, Chinese workers were brought in to work on the railroads and were almost treated as slaves during the initial periods. They had many strict rules placed on them, one of which is the infamous "head tax". Over several decades though, most of these rules were removed by the government and the discrimination on the Chinese that was so predominant at the beginning became drastically reduced. In this example, the social change occurred gradually, without any great leaders to bring the changes about. The early chinese population in Canada gained their rights through positive social change over time.

 

A great leader is often required to bring about drastic social changes quickly, but most positive social changes will occur over time on their own. Ghandi was a great leader who managed to rally the population and brought India it's independence in a fight over a decade. If he was not present, British rule would have continued much longer. If there is no great leader, positive social change will still occur but will take much longer, as exemplified by the early Chinese population in Canada, who gained their rights over more than a hundred years.

[medhopeful64]

Positive social change requires a great leader.

 

Describe a specific situation in which positive social change might not require a great leader. Discuss what you think determines whether or not positive social change requires a great leader

 

Thanks Raymond!

 

The history of humankind is replete with examples of many courageous men and women fighting for positive social change. Social change, or a change in the social order of society that results in the elimination of discrimination of minorities, is often led by a great leader, one who fights to give the minorities a voice. A particular example is Martin Luther King Junior, an African-American who led the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. King organized and led marches for basic rights for African Americans, such as blacks' right to vote, to end desegregation and racial discrimination in the workforce, labor rights, and other basic civil rights. King worked extremely hard to force the American Government to recognize not only African-Americans, but other disadvantaged Americans, as valuable, hard working members of American society. His efforts were rewarded with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Acts that outlawed discrimination against African Americans and women, ended racial segregation in schools and the workforce, and gave blacks the right to vote. Thus, it is clear that a positive social change requires a great leader.

 

Yet, there are also examples in (recent) history that positive social change can be achieved without a great leader. The Egyptian Revolution of 2011 is a clear example of this. In January 2011, thousand of Egyptian civilians led a historical protest against the horrific regime of Hosni Mubarak, the then Egyptian President. The uprising was a result of Egyptians becoming fed up with the appalling political and social state of the country, a country plagued by corruption, police atrocities, restriction of elections, extreme unemployment, etc. The Egyptians united and together, rallied against Mubarak's regime. The protest was a sucess; eventually Mubarak resigned from his post, a post he had held for two decades. A positive social change had occurred without the need for a single leader. This was a historical moment, and influenced other Arab countries to follow suit, such as Libya and Yemen. The year of 2011 was dubbed as "The Arab Spring", recognizing several protests and rallies that erupted in 2011, demanding the removal of current rulers in the Middle East.

 

Positive social change can occur with or without a great social leader. The factor that determines if positive social change requires a great leader depends on the time. In the past, the people of a nation were subservient to their nation's laws, even discriminatory and quesitonable laws, due to fear, a fear of what could happen to them if they spoke out. In the past, a great leader was required to enact social change because the people of the country were afraid to do so on their own. Martin Luther King, a civil rights activist, was inspired by the non violent civil resistence methods employed by Mahatma Ghandi, another great civil rights activist. At a time point in history where discrimination against blacks was the norm, King rose up to lead African Americans, who would otherwise be afraid of rebellion, to demand the rights they deserved. In the current day, however, people are no longer afraid of the repurcussions of rebellion; they have learned from the past that civil disobedience and protests can lead to positive results. In this day and age, people are also more self reliant and can organize amongst themselves a mass protest or rally using communications technology. Thus a leader is not necessarily required in this day and age to result in a positive social change

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 ann2012

 

There is an old saying, "money cannot do everything, but nothing can be done without money." Nice line. 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. It is strange that you transition from talking about money to education. 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 grammar should have. The discussion started off strong but fell flat when it came to the example. The example is too simplistic and doesn't address the supporting task well. You do not make a strong argument that financial stability should be the first priority in life.

 

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 grammar , 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. This discussion is better than the last one. However, the example lacks depth and complexity.

 

In conclusion, when people's safety or survival is not an issue, then people would prioritize their plans to first satisfy their financial needs. This is strong. 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. This is off-topic. However, in cases such as kidnapping, when people's safety or even survival is in immediate threat grammar , then people would put safety instead of money as their first priority. It is only when one has survived grammar then can he have grammar concerns about his financial status.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 3

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 29 mandm_user

 

In today's modern society, everything surrounds word choice 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. Your introduction is too long. The discussion of the example should be the primary focus of your paragraph. 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. The example lacks depth and needs to be elaborated upon. You do not make a strong argument that financial stability should be a person's first priority.

 

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 word choice 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. This discussion is a little bit better but still has issues. This is essentially two separate examples. You started off with a good example and you should have continued elaborating upon it rather than going off on the lottery tangent.

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. This is vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. If a person decides to establish his life and future in capitalist society grammar , 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 word choice for money. This is okay but too general. However, many people build their own little communities and tribes that provide all the essential food and material for their members to survive. You did not discuss this in your earlier paragraphs. The resolution paragraph is not the place to introduce new examples. Such environment does grammar 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.

 

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 somewhat addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 3

[donna71]

Positive social change requires a great leader.

 

Society undergoes continuous growth and subsequently social change may be an accessory to this progress. Sometimes social change requires and/or must be instigated by a leader. Take for instance the civil rights movement in the 1950s when black Americans did not experience the same equality of rights. Today's relative level of equality was possible through the efforts of leaders such as Martin Luther King who was passionate and persistent in his fight for greater rights and risked his life doing so. Though many black Americans were discontent with the prevailing social conditions, change was not likely to happen without an identified and bold leader as King. Positive social change requires a bold leader who will defy the social conventions or norms of society in order to set a positive example for others to follow. Furthermore leaders with the courage to redefine the values by which society lives helps to challenge and adapt our cultural values for the better.

 

On the other hand, not all positive social change requires a leader but may be led or instigated by ordinary citizens of a leaderless mass. In recent years, Iran has seen a decrease in the rates of marriage and an increase in acceptance of single women who have begun to enter higher professions and education. Marriage was once a measure of female success but the perception of marriage has changed through exposure to Western values so that women have now acquired a greater degree of independence. Female students have slowly gained this independence by circumventing restrictive customs to live alone while studying by donning a ring as a sign of marriage and thus of privilege. Positive social change for women does not necessarily require an identified leader but may arise through education and the decision to take initiative to define success for one's own life.

 

Positive social change may be a necessary and inevitable consequence of societal evolution. What determines whether social change requires a leader or not depends on if the change in question pertains to rights or privileges. Should it be the case that society is in need of a change of basic rights, such as in the movement for civil rights in the USA during the 1950s, then a leader may be required in order to stand up and provide a voice for a discriminated minority group. However should it be the case where the change pertains to privileges, such as Iranian women being able to travel independently or study abroad, then it may be the case that such social change does not require a leader but rather through individual actions that collectively gain force. Positive social change should be embraced and accomodated in order to further peaceful progress.

[blue181]

Thanks Raymond

 

Positive social change requires a great leader.

 

Positive social change in a country generally means movement towards a society that can better serve its citizens, and allow them to have an improved quality of life. These changes could include movement towards equality, increased human rights, a more stable economy etc. Usually, in order for this kind of revolutionary change to occur a single, great leader must take command so as to ensure the efforts of the nation are focused on a main strategy for change, instead of dispersed among other ideas. Deng Xiaoping, a former leader of the Communist Party of China, exemplifies this type of great leader. In the 1980’s, he led China towards a complete market reform that renewed the country’s prosperity. Before this great economic reform, China functioned under a planned style economy, where the government alone dictated the use of all resources, as well as controlled their distribution and pricing. There were no private enterprises, and the country was closed to foreign trade. While this type of economy coincided well with Communist ideals, it simply did not provide enough jobs, resources, or money to support China’s huge population, and as a result the people suffered. However, under Deng Xiaoping’s leadership, he developed a strategy that would slowly, but surely move China towards a more Capitalist market economy. Included in this strategy was the opening up to foreign markets, handing over control of resources to private corporations, and focus on modern technological developments. With these changes, control of the economy was handed from the government to the people. The country’s wealth grew exponentially along with the wealth of its citizens, and the country’s growing prosperity greatly improved the quality of life of its people. In this case, the positive social changes in China that occurred along with its economic reform could not have happened without Deng Xiaoping’s leadership, as it was his vision and long-term strategy that allowed China to move away from its ailing, out-dated economy, and began its reform into a more prosperous market style economy.

 

However, sometimes a country can undergo positive social change without the need of a leader. The revolt in Egypt that occurred last year is an example of how the citizens of Egypt used strength in numbers to bring down the government of President Hosni Mubarak. Before the revolt, Hosni Mubarak had been president for decades. During his rule the Egyptian society was very unstable; the country suffered from poverty, unemployment, and rampant government corruption. The people realized that there needed to be a change, and it had to begin with overthrowing Mubarak’s failing authoritarian regime. Thus, early in 2011, without a leader the people of Egypt took to the streets of Cairo to protest regarding the poor state of their country, and the fraudulent nature of the government. Citizens were motivated to join the protests through messages on social media networks like Twitter and Facebook, but there was never a single leader who stood out to lead the revolt – it was a joint effort by all the citizens. Because there was not a leader, the protests became chaotic and almost out of control, but in the end they served their purpose as Mubarak eventually agreed to step down. In 2012 Egypt held their first presidential elections since Mubarak’s dominating rule. Thus, it would seem that overthrowing Mubarak’s corrupt government was a huge, positive step towards a freer and more democratic society, as it created hope for a more prosperous future. In this case, Egyptians were able to create a positive social change in their society through mass revolt, without the need of a single, unifying leader.

 

Overall, whether or not positive social change needs a great leader depends on if the change requires a strategy to accomplish or not. Social changes like the economic reform of China are accomplished over many years, and require specific and complex economic strategies that not all citizens would understand. Thus, there needs to be a leader like Deng Xiaoping who can continuously unify, and guide the country through the strategy in order to steadily work towards a positive change without disrupting the political stability of the country. However, the revolt in Egypt was not an organized revolution. The Egyptians were not concerned with maintaining any kind of order or stability while working towards a social change, they simply wanted to overthrow their government, and were willing to do anything to accomplish that task. Thus, their protests were driven by fury, not by strategy. In such a case, when a clear strategy to follow is not needed, neither is a leader.

[meniscus]

Social change is brought about by leaders. This type of change affects the majority of citizens in a city, province/state, or country. Beneficial social change usually needs a great leader. For example, Mayor Eddie Francis played a key part in helping the city of Windsor get more bike paths on the streets. Before bike paths were made, cylists just rode their bikes on the road and cars had to swear around these cyclist to pass them. Some cyclists have been hit by careless drivers, who did not leave enough spaces for cyclists on the roads. Francis listen to citizens complaints about road safety for cyclists and gave the ok to make multiple bike paths in the city. Leaders of cycling shops were not sucessful in getting bike trails on their own because they were not able to show that other citizens were also concerned about road safety for cyclists. Eddie Francis is well liked by Windsorites and demonstrates great leadership by sitting on multiple councils in the city and doing his best to make the city better. For instance, he also sits on the police fraud committee and helped a local doctor seek justice for a dirty cop who beat him on the ground for no apparent reason. Therefore, positive social change requries great leaders.

 

However, positive social change does not always require a great leader. For example, past Thailand Mayor Lo Ng helped pass a law would prohibit prostitution in the city of Hong. He passed a law that would find citizens $500 and a one month prison sentence. In the past, there have been a number of sexually transmitted infections passed on from prostitues and health offical were concerned of the life threatening infections. Ever since the law has been passed, there have been prostitutes have been rarely seen on the streets or operating privately. However, the Mayor was not sucessful in decreasing illegal drug sales in the city even though many citizens complained of the black market sales of drugs. The Mayor only had a limited amound of funds to enforce laws due to the the poor state of the country. Thus, he was only able to address a few issues. However, it was believed that if he allocated the city's funds, he would have been able to address all the major issues in the city, which include drug sales and prostitution.

 

Thus, what determines whether positive social change requires a great leader or not depends on the wealth of the city. In a wealthy city, great leaders are need to bring about positive social change. In a poor city, a great leader is not required to bring about positive social change. In the city of Windsor, a relatively wealthy city, Mayor Francis led through his great leadership and implemented bike paths onto the city roadings, making the roads safer for Windsorites. In the city of Hong, a poor city, Mayor Ng failed to address all the important issue in the city, but was able to ban prostitution and decrease the spreading of STIs.

 

Thanks!

[Raiya]

The object of education should be to teach skills, not values.

 

Education is a crucial aspect to students of all ages. The purpose of an education is to lay down the skills and not values for an individual to be successful. Skills is defined as a set of tools that are the foundation of student's education. It is largely reinforced by repetition and memorization, and can allow the student to expand their basic understanding as the years progress.On the other hand, value is a slightly more advanced set of tools that we use to make everyday decisions in society.

 

An example of where skills are taught is during the early years of elementary school. In the Ontario education curriculum, grade 1-9 students are required to take English and Mathematics courses every year. These courses both build on a student's foundation to enable them to get a holistic and solid grasp on a language that they will commonly use and mathematical tools that will allow them to develop logic thinking and numerical understanding. These set of skills are important at this age because with a solid ground of knowledge, a student can easily succeed and continue to develop.

 

However, there are situations where the purpose of education may be to teach values rather than skills. For example, at the University of Toronto, the education system encompasses broad spectrum of courses that enables the students to learn more about values rather than skills, which they have already acquired. For example, courses such as Bioethics or Sociology that students take focus highly on teachings of moral reasoning and social behaviour. The course really allows the students to develop in mature adults in knowing how to behave, communicate, empathesize and care for others based on certain values that the courses teach. Teaching a skill in this scenario would be futile because every scenario in society concerns different factors and learning to memorize a certain skill would not be useful in this case.

 

Where does education draw the line? At a young age, when the brain is primed for absorbing basic and fundamental knowledge, the purpose of educating a skill is much more valuable than introducing values. A skill is solidified by repetition and rote memorization which is easily strengthened in younger age groups. As the student advances to adulthood, values are more important for them since they are starting to understand the society and are learning how to apply themselves based on the values that they have been taught.

 

Thank you!!

[perspectives]

Positive social change requires a great leader.

 

Positive social changes have contributed to a rich history of improvements in our society and thus leading to a better place to live. Often, these changes require the actions of a great leader; someone with a vision and the ability to execute his/her plan. A great leader is often required in order to initiate the changes as it may be risky to challenge the status-quo. Take for example Martin Luther King Junior, who led the Civil rights movement in order to pursue changes that would bring about greater equality. Martin Luther King was at the forefront of the movement, often leading protests demanding equality and giving speeches to motivate others to join his fight to end racial discrimination. Martin Luther King's actions as a leader for the Civil Rights movement were necessary and required for the eventually passing of bills that finally freed African- American's from segregation and discrimination.

 

However, there are also instances where a great leader is not required for positive social change. One specific example of such is the recent incident over post-secondary education tuition fees in Quebec. They are fighting for a beneficial social change in that every Quebec resident will have a chance at an education without paying extravagant fees. However, up to this point there is no recognizable face to associate the movement with. There is no leader that has spoken out or led marches publicly to fight for this movement such as the way Martin Luther King did. This incident shows that although although a leader if often necessary, it is not universally true.

 

Whether or not a great leader is required to initiate positive social changes is contingent on the scale of the changes desired. For changes that affect the entire nation, a great leader is most likely required in order to motivate others and gaining support from others. Such is the case for Martin Luther King and his Civil Rights movement, which affected the entire economic and social landscape of America. In a more local and smaller scale of change, such as in the tuition hike movement in Quebec, a leader may not be required to reach the desired goal. Therefore, one can see that positive social changes may come about whether there is a great leader or not.

 

Thanks Raymond, sorry I'm a bit late. Hope you will mark this!

[ZiranMeng]

Thank you so much Raymond!!!!!!!!!

 

 

They marched for over four hundred kilometers. It was a march against oppression. It was a march against the egregious injustice of tyranny. Under the sweltering heat of Southern India, these millions upon millions of individuals marched for freedom. At the helm of the Indian Independence Movement was a man by the name of Mahatma Ghandi. Loving, caring, and selfless, it is indisputable that this visionary was a great leader. His legacy reverberates through time and space. Decades later on the other side of the globe, hundreds of thousands gathered at Lincoln Memorial to listen to a man influenced by the teachings of Mahatma Ghandi. The man spoke of a dream, of equality, and of the unalienable rights of man; he spoke of freedom. There is also no question that Martin Luther King Jr. was also a great leader. Without these great men, the positive social changes of the Indian Independence Movement and the American Civil Rights movement would not have been possible.

 

However, not all positive social change requires great leaders. An example would be the Potatoes for the People group based in Calgary, Canada. The group takes abandoned and derelict lots and transforms them into mini-farms whereupon they grow produces such as potatoes. They then send their products of labour to local homeless shelters such as The Mustard Seed. Potatoes for the People is led by ordinary volunteers from the community, showing that not all positive social changes require great individuals.

 

Whether or not positive social change requires great leaders or can be initiated by ordinary citizens depends on the scale of the change. If the change is earth-shattering, and goes against the pre-existing political and social conditions, then great individuals are required. However, if the change builds upon the current infrastructure then ordinary individuals will suffice. The Indian and American movements resulted in changes that shook the foundation of their respective societies. The former ended centuries of colonialism by the British; the latter pushed American society further towards racial equality. On the other hand, the Potatoes for the People group were merely improving upon the cleared lots that have already existed. Thus, it seems that the leader befits the change.