Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback **Thread #4**

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 34 FrenchToast

 

In recent years, technological advancements have largely centred around computers and related digital devices. Computers were initially designed to replicate the functions of the human brain Not really. , but at higher speeds and with the ability to process far more information. Since creativity is characterized by independent, innovative thinking, it would seem logical to conclude that by allowing people to think less, computers diminish people's creative impulses. This statement can't be made without support. How exactly do computers allow people to think less? Although televisions were not initially digitized, they appear to impair creativity, as well. Aside from the occasional channel change, the role of the viewer is largely passive. He is told what to think and what should interest him. Often, while watching television, the quantity of thoughts running through one's mind is severely reduced. The reduced quantity of thoughts coupled with the passive role of the viewer severely impairs the creative process.

The argument overall is weak and is based on a number of faulty assumptions.

 

However, some technological advances can actually serve to improve creativity; they do so by putting the user in an active position and providing him with new tools with which to express creative thought. For example, Photoshop enables the average person to design digital media - including posters, websites, and greeting cards - even if that person lacks the physical ability to do so by hand. The user is provided with a blank slate and a battery of options to allow the innovative thoughts running through his mind to come to fruition. The program thus makes visual design accessible to all those who have creative minds, even if they do not have the best drawing skills. Photoshop does so by providing an active user with tools that promote his pursuit. Strong.

 

Since technological advances are vast and diverse, the role that they give the user is varied, as well. When the user is placed in a passive role in which minimal thinking is required, the conveniences of technology often obliterate the potential creative thoughts lying in the recesses of one's mind. In contrast, giving the user control over a situation and providing him with tools that allow him to implement his ideas makes creative thought accessible to all. Ultimately, the effects of technology depend on how the designer envisions the user: as an actor or as a viewer.

This resolution principle is strong. However, one of the requirements of the resolution principle is to apply your resolution principle to your two examples in order to create a contrast between them.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 34 Raiya

 

Technology has advanced at an ever increasing rate. As it progesses, it affects users like us who now heavily depend on such technology for everyday tasks. Despite its positive influence on our lives, it has also caused us to become intellectually challenged ????? , or less creative This is a poor definition of "less creative." . Creativity is the ability to produce intellectual thought processes and mental capabilities to deal with problems. This is not a good definition of creativity. With new technology that has started to dominate in the past decade, we are slowly becoming more handicapped and less critical Being less creative is not the same as becoming more handicapped. . For example, the recently developed global positioning system (GPS) is a satellite navigation system that can provide accurate location and destinations anywhere on Earth, in any weather at any time. Before the invention of this new technology, humans had to rely on their intellectual abilities to plan out directions and think of efficient ways to reach their destination. This involves a lot of mental preparation and communication with others for advice. With the advent of the GPS, our thought processing and critical thinking skills have slowly diminished. Our creativity in planning and determining the most efficient route is now simply governed by a swift click of a button. With new technologies like the GPS, it has minimized the our thinking process and intellectual capacity to contemplate and deal with problems. GPS does not have much to do with being creative. You need to focus more on creativity and not introduce tangential ideas such as critical thinking.

 

On the other hand, new developments in technology such as the use of internet as a tool to enrich creativity is also present. For example, Salman Khan, an American educator and the founder of Khan Academy took advantage of this newly developed technology and uploaded over 3000 videos online explaining a wide spectrum of academic subjects including chemistry, biology, economics, history, etc. He has attracted more than 355 000 subscribers on Youtube has gained popularity amongst students worldwide. Through this new innovative method of teaching on Youtube, he is able to reach out to an unlimited number of students with very little effort. Khan teaches in a clear and concise manner that may be difficult to find in a classroom or lecture hall. By utilizing new developments in technology through internet, paint and Youtube, it provides another method of reaching out to students and building their fundamentals in a very creative and efficient manner. This example could be strong but does not focus enough on creativity.

 

So where can we draw the line between when technology makes us less creative or more? The answer stems from how the new technology will affect the way we think. If the technology is capable of diminishing our own abilities to think and analyze, then it is capable of lessening our creativity. In the case of the GPS or any other electronic devices such as calculators, we have slowly lost our abilities to contemplate about how we can deal with problems without these devices. Because the problems can be solved with a simple touch of a finger, we lose the thought process that goes behind, for example, planning a trip or solving a simple mathematical problem. However, if the technology is capable of increasing knowledge and critical thinking, then it is in fact a benefit to our creativity. By utilizing the internet, the creative idea of teaching students online through Youtube videos serve as a perfect example of how a technology can create an innovative way to enrich intelligence especially for students who do not have access to classroom based education or who are simply interested in learning a new subject. Through this technological advancement of the internet, many educators like Khan and even medical school students have taken this opportunity to be creative and utilize an efficient and cost-effective way to reach out to communities worldwide. Thus, technology would make us less creative if it harms our ability to think critically, but would make us more creative if it enables us to elicit innovative ideas to solve problems.

The resolution principle is not very clear. It is vague and ambiguous. You should express the resolution principle clearly and completely at the beginning of your resolution paragraph. The weakness of the GPS example affects your resolution principle here. The application of the resolution principle requires work.

 

These two examples were used in essays that were posted before yours. Please do not take other people's examples as this diminishes the usefulness of the exercise for you.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3

[polarbear89]

Elected officials should not appoint their friends to positions of political power.

 

Elections are an important part of the democratic process; they allow for those in power to be chosen by the populace. Elected officials should not appoint their friends to positions of power, especially when the appointments result in an inappropriate allotment of power. For instance, in the Canadian government, elected officials appoint those with similar political view, often friends, to the senate instead of selecting people based solely on merit. The senator appointed often remains in power even after the current government is disbanded. When a new party is elected to government, the senators, who are often remnants of the former government appointments, often stands as a block for the current government’s ability to pass legislation.

 

On the other hand, sometimes elected officials should be allowed to appoint their friends to positions of political power. For example, John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, to the position of Attorney General, during his presidency. Though there was some controversy surrounding the appointment due to his inexperience, Kennedy’s appointment was for the benefit of America. As Attorney General, Robert Kennedy acted as a chief advisor for the president. Robert Kennedy played an integral role in the diplomatic processes behind the Berlin Crisis and the Bay of Pigs. He also later further cemented his qualifications by becoming a senator and a presidential candidate. Furthermore, though Robert Kennedy was appointed to a position of great power, his brother, the elected official, had the power to overrule him in a situation where Robert Kennedy’s choices were not for the greater good of America.

 

Whether or not an elected official should be able to appoint a friend to power depends on whether or not the person appointed is qualified for the position and if the elected official has the power to overrule the appointed person in a situation that his decisions do not benefit the country. In the example of the Canadian senate, the Canadian senators as a whole have power that the elected government cannot overrule. Because the senate is often full of friends of the former government, the senate can impede the legislation of the current, elected government and thus result in a non-representative decision-making process. However, in the situation where Robert Kennedy was appointed by his brother, Robert Kennedy both proved to be qualified for his position as demonstrated through his diplomatic handlings of the Berlin Crisis and the Bay of Pigs. Furthermore, his brother, the elected official, outranked his brother and thus would be able to interfere should Robert Kennedy decide to do something that did not benefit the country. Therefore, it can be seen that elected officials should not appoint friends to positions of power if the person is unqualified and if the appointment gives them power that can impede an elected official.

 

Thank you

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 34 dinosaur

 

Human technology has come a long way since the beginning of the 20th century. Whether it is the design of the engine or the emergence of mobile devices, humankind has greatly benefited from such inventions which greatly simplified daily activities and tasks. On the other hand, this easier lifestyle may have been a detriment to overall human creativity. For instance, before heavy machinery became an integral part of construction procedures, people had to be very creative and ingenious in order to complete the tasks at hand. Good examples of this are the pyramids in Egypt. With today’s tools, such an endeavor would practically be a piece of cake. Try to use more formal language in your writing sample essay. Back in the day, very intelligent and creative human beings had to design novel procedures in order to get the task done. This discussion has some ideas that could be excellent. However, the discussion is quite superficial and general. Develop your ideas more fully and add depth.

 

However, in other projects, new developments in technology are beneficial to overall human creativity; they serve as a stepping stone towards a greater invention or novel procedure. Creativity is not solely the capability of developing new ideas; it is also how one can use what is available in order to make something even better. With global competition of multinational companies, originality and creativity play a crucial role in maintaining financial viability. A stellar Again, try to use more formal grammar. example of this is Research in Motion (RIM) vs. Apple. In the early 2000’s, with the unveiling of the blackberry as a groundbreaking mobile device, RIM shocked the world and quickly rose amongst the elite of consumer electronics. Lately, due to their lack of creativity and the failure of their PlayBook, RIM is on the verge of bankruptcy with thousands of jobs on the line. During that time, Apple remains at the top, due to their originality, which allows them to release better products every year. You started off with the right train of thought and then the execution went downhill when you reached the discussion of RIM. Your example does not address the refuting task.

 

In conclusion, whether the new developments in technology have caused us to become less creative depend on the point of view. This is vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. Perhaps, due to our numerous tools, our daily activities have become trivial and do not require instant creativity due to an overly simplified lifestyle. But humans have always strived for more. Humankind will always improve on their technology by introducing new concepts. Every day we are pushing the boundaries of human knowledge which allows us to move forward. For instance, new developments are keeping companies afloat. Creativity is still at the forefront of new human technology, just ask RIM.

The resolution paragraph here is missing some necessary elements. There is a standard format for the resolution paragraph that should be followed to best address the resolution task.

 

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

 

Don't worry about asking me to bear with you. My responsibility is to teach and students need to make mistakes in order to learn properly.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[souljaboy]

Elected officials should not appoint their friends to positions of political power.

 

Describe a specific situation in which an elected official might justifiably appoint a friend to a position of political power. Discuss what you think determines whether or not elected officials should appoint their friends to positions of political power.

 

Elected officials represent the will of those that voted for them. Therefore they are trusted by those they represent to not abuse their powers. If an elected official directly puts their friend, who is not the most qualified candidate, into a position of power, then he would be wielding his power in a way not supported by those that voted for him. A former Ottawa mayor was exposed of attempting to place a personal friend of his into a coveted position on the parole board. The friend also donated a large amount in support of the mayors election campaign. There was a public outcry and demands for the mayor to resign. By giving the position to a friend who is not as qualified as another candidate, the mayor is using his powers for personal benefit. The public was right in heavily criticizing the mayor because the mayor is clearly not representing the publics interest.

 

However, if the friend of an elected official is by far the most qualified for the position, then the official would be within his duties to give the position to his friend. The official is not giving any preferential treatment to his friends in this situation because the goal is always to appoint the candidate most suited for the position. Unless there is a rule specifically forbidding the official from appointing a friend to political positions, then the official is simply doing what is best for those that he represents. The public may sometimes object to this, but this situation should not present any problems because the official, while doing something beneficial to his friends, is still acting in a manner that is in the best interest of the public.

 

Whether elected officials should appoint their friends to political positions completely depends on whether the friend is the most qualified candidate. He should be treated in the same as any other candidates in the process. The former Ottawa mayor who attempted to appoint a position to a friend did act correctly because he preferentially picked his friend for the position without considering other candidates seriously. However, if his friend was actually the most qualified for the job, then it would be perfectly alright for him to appoint the position to his friend, as long as the friend is not receiving any preferential treatment in the process due to their relationship.

[meniscus]

Thanks Raymond!

 

 

An elected offical is a person who has been voted into a political position by the the people he represents. Political power is having the ability to influence decisions at the political level, such as legislation in a city. Elected officials face a hard decision when deciding who to appoint to positions of political power, especially when they have friends who are running for positions they are responsible for appointing. In general, elected officials should not appoint their friends to positions of political power since if the friend does something that is illegal or unethical, the elected official who appointed him might turn a blind eye since he may not want to negatively affect his friendship. For example, when Mayor Tom Hurst of Windsor appointed Tim Fryer as a city councilor who also sat on the police misconduct council, Fryer supported one of the cops who beat up a innocent doctor since he knew the cop personally. Francis knew of this unethical behavior, but did nothing about it since he did not want to ruin his friendship with Fryer. To this day, the doctor is still trying to seek justice for his unprovoked beating by a cop, and Fryer's support of the cop is unfair to the doctor. Thus, elected officals should usually not appoint their friends to positions of political power.

 

However, there are some cases in which an elected officials might justifiably appoint a friend to a position of political power. For example, when mayor Ken Nam in Vietnam elected his friend Jin Pong as city councillor, Pong played a key part in helping his city be as safe as possible druing the Vietnam War. Pong had the same views as Nam and always ensured that Nam's family, his own family, and his contituents would be provided as much safety as possible. For example, Nam helped Pong prevent his kids from being enlisted in the war by allowing them to work for the police force in they city.

 

Thus, what determines where elected official should appoint their friends to position of political power depends if the safety of the constituency is at stake. When the safey is not at stake, elected officials should not appoint their friends to positions of political influence. For example, Mayor Eddie Francis should not have appointed his friend Fryer. Francis had a strong compulsion to not ruin his friendship with Fryer; thus, he ignored Fryer's unethical conduct as a member of the police misconduct council. Saftey was not at stake during this period so he did not have to be concerned about the safey of Francis and the residents of the city. When safety is at stake, elected official should appoint their friends since their friends would make sure the person who elected official's family is safe. For example Pong ensured the safety of Nam's family during the Vietnam war by allowing Nam's kids enter the police force instead of fighting in the Vietnam war.

[loopas]

Thank you Raymond!

Elections are exciting, they grip the entire nation and keep all citizens glued to their television sets. However, once the results are announced, not everyone is happy; elected officials represent the choice of majority of the nation but it is not necessary that all the decisions they make will garner support of the majority of the nation. Unfortunately, some elected officials make the controversial decision of appointing their friends of political power. These friends are often unqualified for the position and are simply hired to maintain friendship. For example, in many remote Indian villages, a leader is replaced every four years. Once the leader is elected, he replaces all the people in political power with his friends and relatives, who often have no qualifications or education to be in positions of political power. This creates great turmoil in the culture and economy of the village because the new government has different values and priorities than the previous government. In a village in Rajasthan, a state in the northwest part of India, the dowry system had been prohibited for several years until recently when a new group of officials permitted and encouraged dowry because they believed that dowry brought great wealth to villagers. They did not realize that with the reinstatement of dowry, the purity of marriage was sacrificed and many men began to get married to many different women in order to receive dowry. It has been proven by many studies in psychology that those who are friends or relatives often get along because they have the same values and ideals. Studies have also shown people blindly agree with their friends in order to maintain their friendship and avoid conflict. Thus, when an entire group of friends takes over the government, there is no one to oppose ideas proposed by the officials which often leads to radical ideas such as the reinstatement of the dowry system being approved.

 

In certain cases however, when elected officials appoint their friends to positions of political power, the citizens greatly benefit. In these cases, the elected officials only appoint their qualified friends. For example, in the city of Markham, the councillors are elected by their respective wards. The councillors then go on to appoint their committees. Each councillor is able too appoint anyone who he/she believes is qualified to serve in his/her committee. Ensuring that the appointed candidates are qualified is important because they are professional and do not mix their private friendship with their professional duties. In other words, qualified individuals are not afraid to disagree with their friends because they understand that disagreement will not compromise the strength of their friendship. Logan Kanapathi, the councilor of the largest ward in Markham is highly respected because he often appoints his friends but his committee is one of the strongest committees in Markham because they respond to citizens' needs the fastest and have the most innovative ideas. In addition, he makes sure that the the majority of committee members are not his friends to allow for new and fresh ideas. Most members of his committee are lawyers and have some experience in public relations.

 

Whether elected officials should appoint their friends to positions of political power depends on whether the friend has enough experience and is qualified in order to maintain professionalism. In the case of the Indian village, the elected official appointed his uneducated friends who were more interested in being friends with the person in power rather than concerned about the welfare of the village. In Markham however, councilors appoint their friends only if they are qualified and understand that disagreeing with their friend will not jeopardize their friendship. It is also important to remember that the majority of the members should be 'strangers' in order to ensure freshness of ideas.

[RaymondPrep101]

Because an opinion is shared by a majority of the people does not necessarily mean the opinion is correct.

Describe a specific situation in which a majority opinion was or might be correct. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a majority opinion is correct.

 

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 Wednesday, August 15.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Thursday, August 16.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 34 souljaboy

 

Technological innovations in the past 20 years has grammar made our lives easier, but it has also hampered our creativity by creating many commonly used items that replaces the need to create our own. This is confusing. Before major technological innovations in programming and hardware, video game developers always needed to rely on their own creativity to come up with a way to create their game. Different developers all needed to be creative and come up with their own coding and programming, leading to a games grammar that are always unique. Recently, the majority of developers license game engines from a third party, leading to many games that appear alike and have very similar mechanics because they are all built from a common engine. Developers and programmers are much less creative with what they do to make their game stand out because of the availability of this technology making the job easier. Strong. This could be excellent but the explanation needs to be improved.

 

In other cases. technological advancements has grammar increased our capacity to be creative in ways that was no possible grammar before. In the film industry, film makers have been able to use the advancements in technology to create films that are both ambitious and creative. James Cameron was able to use new 3D technology in an extremely creative way to make a movie that stands out from others. He used filming methods that were never used before to create the highly acclaimed film Avatar. While others detracted on the grammar technology, Cameron used creatively to make something oustanding. Avatar was not possible without the advancement in filmaking technology, but to make such a movie required the technology to be used in a creative way. Strong.

 

In the end, technological advancements mainly serves as a means to limit or expand creativity Not really true. , but everything is still dependent on the creativity of the person utilizing the technology. This is obvious and does not help to resolve your two examples. In the video game industry, many game developers use technological advancements as a way of making their job easier and allows it to limit the creative effort that they put into the game, so it appears that the technology has limited their creativity. On the other had, a director such as James Cameron manages to use the new 3D technology as a way to further his creativity, resulting in the highest grossing film worldwide. This resolution paragraph does not address the resolution task. You do not create contrast between the two examples and provide a rule that differentiates between them.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 34 meniscus

 

New developments in technology are suppose to advance human life in some way. A new devlopment in technology is a novel feature of a piece of technology. This is not a great definition. Novel developments technology grammar often cause us to become less creative. That is, our ideas become less original. This is a strong definition. For example, when microsoft publisher came out, it gave people the ability to print off cards for all sorts of events (e.g. birthdays, anniversaries, mother's day, etc.). Before this software came out, a number of individuals made cards by hand, designing and drawing the card by hand. However, when microsoft publisher came out, most of the people who made cards by hand decided to just print off cards from the software since it allowed them print grammar a card practically for free just like making a card by hand is free. So what was the advantage? Nonetheless, these individual's creativity skills decreased since they no longer had to think about how to design cards since they could select their card design with just a click of a button. Thus, these individuals become less original in their ideas even in their artwork for school. Thus, novel developments in technology have often causes us to becomes less creative. Strong. The explanation could use some improvement.

 

However, a new developments grammar in technology do not always cause us to become less creative. For example, the introduction of AutoCAD allowed one to create blue prints on a computer for a number of structures, including houses and cars. This software allowed one to visualize what their designs would look like virtually and to make adjustments to thier liking. It also allowed them to see minute details that would be difficulty to grammar see on paper. Additionaly, it gave them the capability to see their designs from variety of angles grammar just by rotating their desings on the monitor. AutoCad allowed car designers to come up with their own styles for car parts, making them more creative in designing cars since drawing blue prints by hand and picturing visually grammar is just too much of a hassle, time consuming, and much more inconvenient to make changes to a designer's favour. This is strong but it has an above average number of spelling and grammatical mistakes.

 

Thus, what determines when new developments causes us grammar to become less creative depends if the development offers humans a idea that could not be done by humans by hand. This is an awkward idea. It is vague and unclear. Furthermore, you said yourself that people could draw blueprints by hand, it is just time consuming. For example, the card print ability of microsoft publisher was a novel idea, but cards can also be made by hand and be made just as nice as printed cards. Thus, microsoft publisher made a number people who use to make cards by hand less creative since they no longer had to think of designs for cards. That is, they no longer had to use their brains as much. However, the introduction of Autocad offer humans the ability to see their blue prints in a different perspective and modify their designs very quickly in order to experiment with new designs. The capability of this software could not be offered by pen and paper. This point is contrary to what you said earlier. Thus, it made people more creative since it was something truly novel that enhanced designer's ability to play with new designs in a convenient way.

The resolution principle needs to be rephrased. It would work if you did not undermine the argument with some of the points in your refuting paragraph.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 34 polarbear89

 

Technology has rapidly evolved during the past 100 years. Though many people consider the evolution of technology to be a positive one, the new development of technology may have actually caused us to be less creative. Firstly, the coming of the television marks the departure for people to actively engage in finding an entertaining activity. Compared to now, people used to go outside, invent games and pursue intellectual activities more often and engage their thought process grammar . Furthermore, the use of television as a form of entertainment has vastly overridden the time people spend reading books and listening to the radio. Watching television does not require any imagination and any aspect of creativity on behalf of the watcher is removed from this scenario and passively accepts grammar the information given to him. On the other hand, listening to the radio or reading a book gives much leeway grammar to the listener or reader. They can interpret the information they are given and imagine the scenes that are occurring in their own unique way. The experience from reading and listening to the radio are much different from when one is watching television. Television, in fact, is a medium that distracts the watcher from life and does not allow the watcher to engage in real life and have creative thoughts. In terms of seeking entertainment, technology has caused us to be less creative by limiting the mental engagement we have with the technology. The points here are strong. However, the organization is very haphazard and the arguments do not progress in a logical fashion.

On the other hand, technology also has allowed us to tackle our difficulties and find ways to overcome them. This is not close enough to the refuting task. For example, a computer that has typically been used for word processing has evolved into a communication device that can be used creatively to overcome our difficulties. For example, shy people have always been at a disadvantage when it comes to in person interactions. A study has recently been done that shows that if a shy person uses online communication methods, the barrier that the shy person experiences in in-person communication dissipates and this puts them on an equal level with extroverts. The study also examined dating websites and found that once these online relationships were translated into real life, the shy people did not lose the advantage they found by using online communication and their relationships translated just as easily from the online medium to the in-person medium as an extrovert’s relationship. In this situation, the online medium does not detract from the person’s interactions with the other person, it merely supplements it and allows them to continue to engage and communicate without the barrier they face in real life. By allowing the person to engage with the medium, the person’s creativity is not stifled, they are still actively participating and engaging with the other person. In fact, their creativity is enhanced because the use of this medium allows them to overcome barriers and interact with the other person with their full potential. This example is not focused enough on creativity. Only the last few points attempt to address the refuting task but the points stand alone from the example which makes them less effective.

 

Whether or not a technology causes us to be less creative depends on whether or not the technology removes the person’s engagement with the medium or supplements the process. This is vague and unclear. You want your resolution to be clear and easy to apply. In the instance of television, the direct deliverance and passive acceptance of the information by the viewer does not allow the viewer to engage critically and engage creativity. However, in terms of online communication for shy individuals, the computer is merely a medium, which allows the individual to overcome their barrier and allows them to actively engage in a conversation with another individual. The use of technology as a way of overcoming our barriers does not cause us to lose our creativity, however, if a technology does not allow for our full intellectual engagement while using it, it may cause us to be less creative. The weakness of your refuting example comes back to affect your resolution paragraph.

 

Your resolution paragraph is too short, especially compared to your other two paragraphs.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is not addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 34 perspectives

 

Advancement and progress in technology is perpetual in society and it has been a strong dictator of how humans currently live. One of the growing concerns is the fear that the new developments in technology may have caused humans to become less innovative. A loss in creativity would be indicative of humans ability to innovate and produce novel ideas. This sentence doesn't make sense. An example of such an incident is evident in the field of Archeology. New advancements in technology have allowed us to gain a much stronger understanding of indigenous people and their cultures. Technology has allowed us to trace many facts about the prehistoric nature of the Earth, and thus new theories or ideas are no longer produced to fill the voids in our knowledge. In the field of Archeology, creative theories to explain unclear phenomenons are no longer required due to the discoveries revealed by technology. This example is not good and does not address the supporting task. Creative theories not being necessary because the facts are available is not considered a decrease in creativity.

However, there are also situations where technology has allowed humans to become more creative than in the past. Technology has provided humans with the ability to visualize and test certain theories that would not have been feasible without the new developments. The new advantaged grammar gained from technology may stimulate new ideas and thus improve creativity. Such an example includes the idea of DNA and medicine. New technology has allowed humans to view the human genome in its entirety and provided scientists with new clues on novel treatments to many of the pertinent ailments in today's society. An extreme example can be seen in the Ultimate Spiderman movie where a scientist tests theories of inter- species recombinant DNA in order to try and reproduce a lost limb. This discussion started off strong. But overall it is too general and the last part just does not fit in.

 

Therefore, it can be seen that technological developments have contributed to losses and gains in creativity depending on the field the technology is applied. In the field of science, where many theories are unverifiable and tests impractical, technology has given us the ability to put those theories to the test. The new knowledge gained will only continue to stimulate new ideas and new research as the boundaries of science are unforeseeable. In the field of archeology, the study of prehistoric people and their cultures, everything has already taken place and set in stone. Technologies ability to allow us to go back in time and unsheathe the truth diminishes the need of creative thinking in this field. This is not really true. When is it then, that technology decreases creativity, depends on the field of interest and whether it is limited in its growth or not.

The resolution principle is too narrow and therefore lacks depth. The weakness of your supporting arguments comes back to affect your resolution paragraph.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is not addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 34 baseballbears

 

In modern society, technological developments are often welcomed with open arms, another invention that will somehow improve our lives. Awkward phrasing. However, technology also brings with it many potential problems. One adverse effect of new technology is that it may lead us to become less creative. At the same time that a technological invention might simplify a process of creation, it can also lead creators to become more lazy and innovate less. The modern music industry is a good example of this. With the help of computer audio systems, songwriters and producers can write, record, and edit new songs faster and more easily than before. At the same time, it has also become easier to recycle music, creating songs that are a rehash of already-existing music, with just enough modifications to make it passably different. Many modern pop songs sound similar, as a result of this type of assembly line production. Although technology has made it easier for songs to be written and recorded, it has also arguably lead to a decline in the quality of songs that are made. Strong.

 

However, not all technology hinder grammar creativity. When a piece of technology allows people to do what was previously impossible, a lot of innovation can happen. The use of smart boards in classrooms is a good example of this. Smart boards are sort of like whiteboards connected to a computer. In addition to allowing teachers and students to write and draw on it, smart boards also allow for multimedia to be presented in an engaging manner. The technology of smart boards allow for a more innovative learning experience and bolster creativity, rather than stifle it. This is okay but not great because the discussion is underdeveloped.

 

Although technology helps to simplify our lives, sometimes technological advancements can limit our ability to innovate and improvise. What determines whether a technological development encourages or discourages creativity? One important consideration is whether the technology completely changes the way things are traditionally done or if it only makes an existing process easier. This is vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. When technology changes the way we traditionally do things, it creates room for creativity. Smart boards are a huge departure from traditional teaching tools of blackboards and overheads. This is questionable. Because it allows teachers and students to do things in a novel way, it encourages experimentation and creativity in the classroom. On the other hand, when technology only makes an existing process easier, it only serves to make creators more complacent. The smartboards seem to make teaching a little bit easier and are not revolutionary. Computer software that aids in music composition and mixing makes it easier for producers to put together songs from recycling tracks, but at the same time, makes it less likely for producers to put in the effort to create music that is completely new. The quality of the arguments and the applications need improvement.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 34 blue181

 

The field of technology is incredibly fast-growing, and many efforts are placed on creating new technologies that can make people’s lives more manageable. From cell phones, to cars, to microwaves, these technologies all make the basic human tasks of communication, transportation, cooking etc. easier to accomplish than before. However, a possible drawback of these widely available and simple solutions could be that they reduce the need for people to be resourceful in creating their own solutions, thus reducing their creativity. Evidence for this reduction in creativity can be seen in children who have access to video and computer games. The introduction needs improvement. You go from talking about devices that make lives more convenient to a different topic in video and computer games. These games have preset functions and storylines, which in many cases take away the need for children to engage their own imaginations and create games from ordinary objects like children did before this technological age. For example, in her autobiographical novel “Little House in the Big Woods”, Laura Ingles Wilder described her life growing up as an early American pioneer. She described how she and her sisters would clean the bladder of a butchered pig, and tie it into a balloon to play with. Since they did not have the multitude of gaming options that technology has provided children with nowadays, they had to be creative, and worked with what they could find. Video and computer games reduce the need for children to use their own imaginations as it gives a simple solution to the task of finding something to play with, and cuts out most of the creative process. So in this case, new technological developments have caused people to become less creative than they were before. This is strong but the execution and organization are haphazard. The argument jumps between ideas and the flow of the discussion is poor.

 

However, some new developments in technology can enhance people’s creative ability. This is especially true for technologies which are tools that allow better application of imagination and creativity, like Adobe Photoshop for example. Photoshop is a computer software program that is quite technologically advanced because it allows just about any photographer, whether professional or amateur, to edit and manipulate digital photographs. These functions include, but are not limited to adjusting colour and contrast, erasing mistakes, layering multiple pictures, creating special effects with texture, and drawing by hand, all of which allow people to create interesting, and unique works of art. Before the advent of Photoshop and digital photography, it was quite difficult just to develop film, as special equipment and a dark room were required. Creating special effects like those made possible by Photoshop were even more difficult, and could only be done with professional expertise. With Photoshop, however, being imaginative and manipulating photography becomes as easy as clicking a few buttons. In this case, Photoshop is a technology that encourages the creative process instead of bypassing it, thus allowing more people the opportunity to be more creative than previously possible. Excellent.

 

Overall, although new developments in technology generally make people’s lives easier, whether or not they cause people to become less creative depends on if the technology bypasses the need to engage the imagination or encourages it. This resolution principle is too narrow and therefore lacks depth. If a technology offers a straightforward solution to everyday tasks, like video games that offer children and easy grammar choice of play, they can cut out the need to be creative and utilize their own imagination to come up with a solution, since one has already been given. In this case, technology has caused children to become less creative than they could have been without access to technologically advanced games. However, with technology like Photoshop, instead of offering a bypass to being creative it is a tool that can be used to unleash the imagination, and create works of art with photography that would have been difficult to accomplish previously; thus it actually enhances creativity, instead avoiding it grammar . This discussion is okay but is a bit too simple. One of your goals in the writing sample is to demonstrate complexity of reasoning.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 34 ann2012

 

Developments in technologies have brought much convenience to people throughout history. However, not only have these developments made life easier for people, it also has restricted people's creativity. In this case, creativity can be interpreted as uncovering new purposes or uses for existing technologies. Take paper making technology as an example. Ever since people discovered the method for paper making, they have tried to develop the paper making technology in order to accelerate the process of paper making, to make stronger papers, and to make paper with less cost. However, no matter what kind of development people had for the paper making technology, there have been little changes made regarding the purpose of paper. Since the paper making technology serves limited purposes, the developments in such technology can only go in one direction and creativity is restricted. The argument is not good and isn't logical.

 

On the other hand, development in technologies that may serve multiple purposes would not restrict creativity. For example, the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) technology was originally used in organic chemistry laboratories to measure the components of a molecule. However, later developments opened it's grammar doors into the medical field. The NMR technology is now commonly known as Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology, which is used to distinguish between diseased and normal tissues in living organisms by forming 2D and 3D images. The same principle technology is involved in both NMR and MRI, but with development in the NMR technology people discovered it's new use in a different field and led to creation of the MRI machine. Since the NMR technology has the potential to serve multiple purpose, development in such technology will not restrict creativity. This is okay but the example lacks depth and is not strongly convincing.

 

Therefore, whether development in technology will restrict creativity depends on whether the technology serves a single purpose or multiple purposes. Development in technologies that only have limited uses, such as paper making technology, may lead to restricted creativity. Since such technologies can only serve the existing purposes, development in such technologies are only making modifications to the current ones. However, development in technologies that have multiple uses, such as the NMR technology, would not necessarily restrict creativity. Since these technologies have potential to lead to new discoveries, which will eventually lead to a new use of these technologies, they would not limit creativity. As such, people's creativity can never be restricted when there is still room for new discoveries to be made. Similar to before, this is okay but a bit too simple and lacks depth.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3 Supporting task is not addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[Economist]

Because an opinion is shared by a majority of the people does not necessarily mean the opinion is correct.

 

 

An individual's perception of right and wrong can sometimes be largely contributed to the majority's opinion on the issue. In 2001, an anthrax outbreak occurred in the United States, alarming millions of citizens into a state of bioterrorism. Majority of the US citizens believed that the anthrax was fatal and that thousands of people were dying as the result of anthrax. People refused to open their mail in fear of random anthrax mail bombs and line-ups for anthrax vaccine stretched across the cities. Despite the fact that most people did not know about the specifics of the anthrax, majority believed the outbreak to be much more serious than it actually was.

However the actual anthrax outbreak was minimal and only five individuals have died as the result of the outbreak. In this example, although the majority of US citizens believed that the anthrax outbreak was fatal, it was not necessarily true.

 

 

Sometimes an opinion may be correct when shared by the majority. In stock market, the value of a company rises and falls based on the demand and supply of the shares. Value of each share is therefore determined by the opinion shared by the majority. If majority believed that the share is worth more than its current value, then its value will rise due to the increased demand. For example, before the official premier of the highly anticipated movie "Spiderman 2", majority believed that the Marvel Comic's value would rise as a result. Because of the majority's opinion on the value of the company, the company's net worth spiked in millions before the movie was released, despite the fact the company itself has not changed. In this case the Marvel Comic's value in fact did rise because the majority believed it was worth more.

 

 

Whether an opinion shared by the majority is correct or not depends on the effect the opinion has on the validity of the issue. For the anthrax outbreak, its actual threat will not have been changed by the opinion shared by the majority. Whether the majority believed it to be deadly or not, it does not have an effect on the validity of the deadliness of the virus. Therefore the opinion shared by the majority may not necessarily be true. However for stock values, the majority's opinion has a direct effect on the validity of the stock values. Since the values are in essence based on the majority's demand, the opinion shared by the majority validates the value of the stocks. In this case the opinion shared by the majority is correct.

[funtimess]

Because an opinion is shared by a majority of the people does not necessarily mean the opinion is correct.

 

 

It is often said that there is strength in numbers. In modern society, strength in numbers translates to a higher number of votes, and hence a bigger say in the politics and resulting policies. A bigger say in such matters of grave importance does not always result in the most correct outcome. For example, in the 2007 provincial elections, liberal leader Dalton McGuinty and the conservative leader at the time, John Tory, had a fierce debate over whether or not faith-based schools should be funded by the provincial government. McGuinty cited that there was a need to keep children of all faiths together, to add to diversity and multiculturalism that could not be accomplished by segregation into faith-based schools. However, Tory was quick to point out that many parents are already paying out of their own pockets to send their children to these schools anyway, and that it was unfair that Catholic schools were funded by the government while other faiths were not. Ironically, McGuinty's own children attended a publicly funded Catholic school. The conservatives ended up losing the election by a significant margin as the polls became merely a referendum of whether the schools should be funded or not. Since only a minority of Ontario would benefit from the faith-based schools, it was denied funding even though there was clear discrimination - either all faith-based schools should be funded, or none should. Clearly, this case exemplifies that a majority opinion can be unfair, and even discriminatory.

 

On the other hand, strength in numbers is often the result of a very convincing mantra towards an opinion. For example, the theory of evolution has increased in its acceptance over the years, to the point where even the Catholic church recognizes its basis. Evolution did not start off this way - in its infancy, Darwin was ridiculed by this same organization, and other religious institutions. However, as the evidence supporting natural selection improved through the discoveries of fossils and cultural relics of the past, more people became swayed to accept the idea that we evolved from a common ancestor to the other Great Apes. In fact, the current opinion in the matter is that our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee is named Sahelanthopus Tchadensis, which is thought to have lived over 6 million years ago. While not every detail or every finding in human evolution is accepted by certain people, the overall theory has received widespread acceptance throughout most of the educated world. It is evident that a majority opinion is most likely correct in such cases backed with many pieces of proof.

 

All citizens of the Earth would like to see others act in a way that respects their opinions and beliefs. However, what determines whether what the majority believes is correct lies with whether there is a factual basis for the opinion. In the case of faith-based schools, there is no good reason why one faith should be funded and another should not be, because faith is an independent belief system that cannot be proven true or false in the physical world. If a majority is of one faith, like Catholicism, that does not give them the right to determine whether other faiths should or should not be funded. However, in the case of evolution, the majority opinion is likely correct. Evolution has an astonishing amount of evidence to support its claims, such as the extensive fossil record to date. As society we should realize the difference between what we want to think is right, to what can be proven to the point where there is not much doubt.

 

Thanks so much, Raymond!

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 35 tms

 

In democratic societies, politicians are voted into power by the constituents. The primary goal of a politician is to lead the nation by making crucial decisions on the behalf of the masses. Such decisions tend to have the potential to make a great impact on the daily lives of the citizens. In developed nations such as Canada, success in politics can be attributed to personal influence. This is an absolute statement. You should soften your language. Citizens of developed nations are often seeking improvements in existing policies and public services. For instance, the primary concern of citizens in Canada is to ensure that public services such as public education, universal health care and public transit are provided to all citizens at the best possible standards. As a result, they are seeking a candidiate who also shares similar views and set of needs since such an individual is likely to work towards goals of improving and ensuring long-term existence of such services. For example, Stephen Harper, leader of the Progress Conservative Party is the current Prime Minister of Canada. He is often portrayed by the media as a family man with two young children. Such portrayal makes it easier for the general public to relate to Mr. Harper. In fact, a post-electoral survey following the 2010 federal elections was conducted by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC). The results of the survey revealed that a shocking majority of citizens voted for Harper due to his personality and public image. This example illustrates how the personal influence of a politician via their personal image and a general sense relatability to the leader can result in ones success in politics.

This discussion does not work. The discussion does not talk about personal influence (ie powerful friends or connections). It also does not address the good ideas component of the prompt.

 

However, in relatively young and developing nations like India, good ideas are an important determinant of success of a politician. For example, India is a relatively young nation in Southeast Asia that won its independance from British authorities in 1947. At present, Dr. Manmohan Singh, a member of the Congress Party is the current Prime Minister of India. Prior to taking office as a Prime Minister for his first term in 2003, Dr. Singh served the nation as a Minister of Finance. He is known for his great work in leading the nation on a path of economic success and prosperity. In fact, he holds a doctorate degree in economics and political science from Harvard University. During the early 2000’s, As a Minister of Finance, Dr. Singh proposed a number of modifications to the existing economic policies to help boost interest of foriegn grammar investment in the nation. His ideas of policies that attract the attention of foreign investment from multi-national companies was the primary force that has led the nation to become an economic powerhouse. Furthermore, it is important to note that Dr. Singh is a member of the minority religious group in India. He is the first member of the Sikh religion to ever become Prime Minister. He is also known to be a soft spoken man in his 60’s and many citizens in India do not relate to him on a personal level. However, he has been successful in winning two federal elections due to his past performance record as a Minister of Finance and his intellectual abilities in turning the country around in terms of its economic state. As a result, India has been able to make a tremedous mark as a booming economy on the global scale despite the fact that it is a relatively young nation. In this case, citizens are seeking change and initiative on the part of the government to lead the nation into sucess as well as result in overall improvements in the standard of life for all citizens. As a result, they are looking for a leader with goood ideas rather than personal influence. Excellent. However, your discussion was too long. More is not always better. Eventually if your discussion is too long, it negatively affects clarity.

 

In conclusion, whether good ideas or personal influence leads to success in politics depends on whether the country in question can be classified as a well-established developed nation like Canada or a relatively young developing nation like India. In the case of a developed nation like Canada, success of politicians including Canada’s current Prime Minister Stephen Harper can be attributed to personal influence on the public. Harper is a leader with whom the public can relate to on a personal level and such relatability has led to his success during the last federal elections. The primary concern of citizens in Canada is to ensure that public services such as public education, universal health care and public transit are provided to all citizens at the best possible standards. As a result, they are seeking a candidiate with whom they can realte to on a personal level and hence, personal infleunece plays a greater role in determining success in such situations. In contrast, for young developing nations like India, news ideas are the primary determinant of success of politicians. In such nations, citizens are often seeking change and initiative on the part of the government to lead the nation into sucess as well as result in overall improvements in the standard of life for all citizens. As such, they are seeking a leader who has great ideas and the abilities to act on those ideas to lead the country into sucess. As seen in the example of India’s current Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, it is not his public influence, rather his good ideas that have led the nation into economic prosperity and his individual success in politics by winning two federal elections. Overall, the needs of citizens differ in a developed nation versus a developing nation and hence, they are seeking a leader with a different set of qualities. The resolution principle is excellent. However, the weakness of your supporting example affects your resolution paragraph here as well. Similar to before, your resolution paragraph is too long. Concise arguments have more impact and clarity.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 35 Drew92

 

Success in politics can be measured by a number of metrics. The approval of the public and one's peers, for a politician and the changes he brings, is a good measure of it. One may expect that bringing forth good ideas would most directly lead to success. Good ideas can be said to be ideas that contribute to the well-being of a public. However, there are many examples that suggest that it is the personal influence of a politician that leads to success. When the late Jack Layton became the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, it could not be said it was solely because of his good ideas; he often advocated extreme socialist ideas, such as the idea that health professionals should earn the same as fast food restaurant employees. However, his charisma allowed him to build personal influence that paved the way for his ascension through the party. His ideas were sometimes seen as too left-leaning, but his interactions with his fellow politicians made it clear that he was an effective leader. His ability to influence how others viewed him, in this way, negated their lack of respect for his ideas, and led to his success. Upon his death, the nation mourned for the loss of a great leader, and supporters of the NDP wondered if the party could recover without his strong leadership. The effects of his charisma, before his untimely death, could be seen not only in his influence with the party but eventually his influence with the public. Strong.

 

This is not always the case, for there are examples of good ideas leading to success in politics. Tommy Douglas, the first leader of what is now the New Democratic Party of Canada, was a relative unknown when he entered the political scene. The government had been run alternatively by the Liberal and the Conservative parties of Canada, so Tommy Douglas, and his party, had very little relative influence. However, he did have the idea of universal healthcare throughout the country. This idea was initially met by stiff opposition, especially from politicians from other parties and medical professionals who saw it as unfeasible. However, the public began to take note of what they thought may be a good idea, which caused public healthcare to be implemented in a few provinces. Their success led to the spreading of the good idea, which caused nationwide approval for it to soar, making Tommy Douglas a well-loved politician. The public demanded for his idea to be implemented nationwide, and politicians followed suit. A CBC poll of Canadians, decades later, announced Tommy Douglas to be "The Greatest Canadian Ever" because of his commitment to his one good idea. The support he received then and continues to receive today is a mark of his success in procuring public approval, both in his political life and well after. Excellent.

 

Success in politics thus hinges on different factors of one's life; one's good ideas and one's personal influence. What determines when good ideas or personal influence leads to success is whether a politician is aiming to gain the approval of the public or his fellow politicians. When trying to move up the ranks in a party, personal influence plays a larger role than good ideas. Jack Layton is an example of this. His ideas were seen as extreme, even to those in his party. However, the personal influence that he was able to obtain through his charisma led him to become the leader of the NDP. However, in Tommy Douglas's case, he was already the leader of a party with separate goals from the two dominant parties in Canadian politics. He did not want to join them, and ascend the ranks of the Liberals or Conservatives; his aim was to gain the approval of the public to make a name for himself and his party, and to do this he had to present a good idea that would win the favour of the public. Universal healthcare is today seen as grammar an excellent, visionary idea. It was seen the same way by the public soon after it was implemented. It allowed for Tommy Douglas, and his party to become more powerful players in national politics, which had been dominated by two parties until then. This success in gaining the approval of the public came from a good idea; Layton's success in gaining the approval of his peers came from his growing personal influence over them during his time in politics. This is strong. However, Jack Layton not only sought the approval of his fellow politicians. He of course would also be concerned with the approval of the public.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 5.5

Focus and coherence: 5.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 35 RMAC13

 

Personal influence in politics is characterized by an individual's heavy involvement to have their beliefs implemented. This is not a good definition of personal influence. People who lead by example and are actively involved in promoting their views can often have monumental political success regardless of whether or not they have good ideas. Nelson Mandela was one important figure who achieved outstanding success in politics as a result of his personal influence. Prior to his election as President of South Africa, he was the leader of the African National Congress, and played a major role in fighting against and ending apartheid. Although being initially imprisoned for leading these violent uprisings, he was eventually released and elected President. He continued to push his policies that led to success in combating inequality in South Africa. This does not address the supporting task. Problems:

1) You have misunderstood the meaning of personal influence. Personal influence has to do more with personal connections and powerful friends or being powerful in general.

2) Nelson Mandela had good ideas. Ending apartheid was a good idea and his championing this good idea is what made him successful.

 

However, often times it is an individual's good ideas, rather than their personal influence, that leads to success in politics. Mikhail Gorbachev was one politician whose ideas were essential to social change and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He was the first leader of the USSR who had not been born during the Russian Revolution. Gorbachev's ideas of perestroika and glasnost You have to describe these ideas or else your marker will probably not know what you are talking about. were monumental in restructuring the economy and establishing greater freedom among the Soviet people. His reorientation of Soviet strategic aims also helped to end the Cold War. Gorbachev's success in politics was validated by numerous prestigious awards including being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This example could be excellent but the execution needs work and is incomplete as it stands.

What then determines whether it is good ideas or personal influence that leads to success in politics? In the case of Mandela, many people recognized the clear injustices of that time and that change was required to achieving greater equality. The circumstances required a strong leader, in Mandela, in order to achieve this change, which lead to his success as a politician. In the case of Gorbachev, the process of achieving positive social change was less clear and his ideas were fundamental to achieving successful change. Both good ideas and personal influence are important to acquiring success in politics, but the degree to which each is required depends on the clarity in how to achieve political goals. When the process to achieving these goals is clearer, personal influence plays a more important role. Issues: 1) The resolution principle needs to be expressed at the beginning of your resolution paragraph. 2) The resolution principle is vague and ambiguous. 3) There is not enough contrast created between the two examples.

 

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

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[Raiya]

Because an opinion is shared by a majority of the people does not necessarily mean the opinion is correct

 

Who is to say something is right? Because an opinion is shared by a majority of people, it does not necessary prove its validity. In Ancient Greece, for over 1500 years, the predominant cosmological thinking back then was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. But in the 16th century, after the invention of the first telescope, Galileo Galilei proposed a heliocentric model, which is an alternative system stating that it was the planets that actually orbit the Sun. Despite his claim, Galileo was vehemently criticized and met with strong opposition in the society. He was forced to recant and was placed under house arrest for a theory that was correct, but was not deemed so by the majority of people. The majority of people still considered the geocentric model to be valid due their influence from Aristotle as well as the lack of modern technological feats and rigorous mathematical proof regarding planetary movements.

 

On the other hand, sometimes when an opinion is held by the majority, it does necessarily mean that it is correct. For example, in our century of cutting-edge technological feats, astronomers and physists were able to prove with accuracy that all the planetary systems revolve around the Sun. Because of this confirmation based on rigorous testings, modern telescopes and outerspace explorations, the majority of the public now share similar opinions on this matter. But this time, their opinions are backed up by legitimate scientific studies and confirmed by recent technological advancements.

 

So what is the determing factor that governs the validity of opinions shared by a large group of people? It depends on how educated the public was at that particular time frame. In the early 16th century, a time when technology is still developing and education not widely available, the majority of people were largely influenced by major philosophers such as Aristotle, or Biblical references. So, when Galileo introduced the unexpected finding, the majority were not swayed by his claim simply because of their prior influences and the lack of astronomical evidence at the time. Thus, many still held on to their opinion of the geocentric model. However, as centuries passed along with the advancement of technology and accessibility of education, majority of the people can now make judgments based on concrete scientific data. With the new era of technological feats in the modern telescope, and space explorations, the majority of people will have opinions that are valid and based on solid proofs. Thus, whether an opinion is necessarily correct in a majority of people depends on how educated they are in that particular time frame.

 

 

Thanks !

[DaKirbster]

I am just posting to say thank you to Raymond and Prep101 for offering this service - I just got the results back from my MCAT today and I got a Q in the writing sample. As someone who chose to self-study as opposed to take a prep course, this service was especially valuable to be as otherwise I would not have had any critical feedback on my essays.

 

Thanks guys!

[meniscus]

Thank you Raymond!

 

Opinions can often create quite a stir between people. An opinion is one's idea of something that cannot be determined to be true or false at the current state in time. Usually, just because an opinion is shared by a majority of the people does not necessarily mean the opinion is correct. For the 2010 Winter Olympics held in Vancouver, a majority of Ontario citizens thought that Canada was going to own the podium since they created an initiative called "Own the Podium," in which they invested additional funds in order to increase the chances of success for Canadian athletes. However, Ontario citizens did not know how well Canadian Olympians were ranked going into the Olympics. In the end, Canada did not own the podium since Canada did not win the most medals at the Vancouver Olympics. Thus, usually, just because an opinion is shared by a majority of the people does not necessarily mean the opinion is correct.

 

However, a majority opinion might be correct in some cases. In the most recent National Basketball Association (NBA) season, the majority of basketball fans had the opinion that the Miami Heat was going to win the NBA championship going into the playoffs. Fans saw that the Heat were playing really well as evidenced by their energy and they were seeded as one of the best teams going into the playoffs. In the end, the Miami Heat did win the NBA championship.

 

Thus, what determines whether or not a majority opinion is correct or not is whether the opinion is justified with statistics or evidence. When the opinion is not justified by statistics or evidence, the majority opinon is likely false. For example, the majority opinion that Canada was going to own the podium at the Vancouver Olympics was not backed by statistics of how well the Canadians atheltes were ranked going into the Olympics. Thus, despite Canada's "Own the Podium" initiative that gave the majority of the Canadians the false thought that Canada was going to finish at the top in the medal standings, Canada did not win the most metals. When the majority opinon is justified by statistics, then the majority opinion is likely true. For example, the majority opinion that the Miami Heat was going to win the NBA championships was backed by their top seed in the league and their top statistics in the league, and the Miami heat did win the championships.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 35 Raiya

 

In order to achieve success in politics, a politician should have good ideas to persuade public opinion in his or her favour. However, sometimes personal influences can play a greater role in achieving this. Personal influences are characterized by emotional attachment and one-to-one connections created by the politicians and his or her supporters. Take for example, during his 2003 campaign, Jack Layton visited downtown Toronto and connected with university students and built personal connections on a one-to-one basis. The students, mainly occupied with studies and school activities are limited to understanding of the political arena and policy making. Thus, it is harder for teens to become attuned to what exactly the politician has to offer. Thus regardless of his campaign promises, in 2003 Layton was able to win the votes from many adolescents due to the strong emotional attachment that he has established with them. In this example, emotion triumphs over reason and thus personal influences become a more powerful determinant of a politician's success. Strong.

 

However, good ideas in politics become an important factor when the public is consciously awareness of the subject matter at hand. This is kind of vague and ambiguous. In other words, the idea is not expressed in a clear manner. For example, the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty recently implemented a 30% tuition rebate off of postsecondary studies, to make education more affordable and accessible. More than 300 000 students were eligible last year and those numbers are growing. Financial issues such as paying tuition is a topic that students are acutely aware of. Since students tend to give more attention to aspects that highly relate to their education and well-being, these good ideas proposed by politicians come through very successfully. Regardless of whether Mcguinty appealed to students' emotion, he would still have won the vote with an idea that strongly affects the student body. Many have accredited grammar Mcguity for pushing this idea foward helping his reputation in politics and also progress of society. Strong. It would be excellent if you could add more depth.

 

Whether good ideas or personal influences lead to success in politics would depend on the public. This is vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. If the public is completely unaware of politicial situations simply because it is not relevant to them or because of lack of time, personal influences would achieve more in wining their votes. Personal influences can reach to others through emotions and one-to-one connections, something that can create a spark regardless of what ideas the politicians may propose. In this case, emotion over reason can achieve success in politics. However, if the public is very aware of the advocated subject, this means that they understand the ups and downs of the idea and its implications. Thus, the idea itself should be convincing and sensible in order to win voter's approval. In this regard, personal influence does little to a knowledgeable audience because reason in this case triumphs emotion. This is okay. Your resolution principle works but you did not express it in a clear manner at the beginning of your discussion.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

 

 

[souljaboy]

Because an opinion is shared by a majority of the people does not necessarily mean the opinion is correct.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a majority opinion was or might be correct. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a majority opinion is correct.

 

 

To be able to have an opinion on something, a person needs to have access to at least a small amount of information regarding the topic. People's opinions on many issues are heavily influenced by the information they have access to and can be incorrect if they are not fully informed. After the Communists ousted the Kuomingtang from power in China, they established a firm control on information regarding the Kuomingtang in the next few decades. Television, newspapers, and even schoolbooks would all portray the Kuomingtang as an almost evil quantity. As a result, most Chinese citizens of the time regarded the Kuomingtang in a severely negative light due to the limited information they have access to. This opinion of the Kuomingtang differs vastly from what an impartial observer who has access to all the information would see. By knowing the whole transgression during the decades surrounding the Chinese civil war, it can be seen that the Kuomingtang is simply another party that conflicted with the Communist party's views and lost the resulting battle. Nothing historically would show the Kuomingtang to be any worse than the Communist goverment.

 

In situations where the people have access to all the necessary information required for them to have an informed opinion, it can be expected that the majority opinion is the correct one. During the Quebec Referendum on independence in 1997, the voting population were able to see all the information from both sides of the argument prior to voting day. Information on the consequences and benefits of independence was presented on TV, in newspapers, in meetings, and in many other forms to those that need to make the decision. The voting public was as informed as they can possibly be prior to the referendum. The result of the referendum was that the majority of the voters decided against independence. This opinion of the majority of Quebec citizens can be seen as the correct one because they were given all the necessary information regarding the consequences of independence. The majority saw the negative aspects of independence outweighs the positives, and in the end made the correct decision.

 

Whether a majority opinion can be seen as correct rests largely on how well the people are informed regarding the subject. A very biased opinion would be the majority in a population that only has access to one side of the information, as evident with the Communist propoganda causing the Chinese people to have an untrue negative opinion on the Kuomingtang. When the people have access to all the information they need on the subject, such as the issue of Quebec's independence, then the majority decision can be seen as the correct decision. By knowing both sides of the argument, people can form unbiased opinions, which is the most correct type.