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

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 36 blue181

 

A teacher is an individual who passes on knowledge that they have already accumulated to a group of students. For their teaching to be considered good, it should pass on this knowledge in a manner that is effective in preparing the next generation for contribution, and integration into society. Sometimes, the most effective way to teach is to be flexible in determining the breadth, and type of topics being covered in a particular class. This is true for advanced classes at the upper university, and post-graduate level. Many classes in the fourth and final year of university study are no longer lectures set to a strict curriculum or textbook. Instead, they are smaller, discussion based seminar classes. In these classes, depending on the field of study, professors usually present to students papers and research results that are recent, and in topics that are still very much open to discussion. These topics could change year to year, especially in fields like health, science, and technology, because research is always ongoing, and there are always new discoveries and inventions being uncovered. At upper university levels, professors need to prepare their students to be future contributors to such dynamic fields of study, and in order to prepare their students as fully as possible, they need to be flexible, and adapt the curriculum to match the current pursuits in research. So when it comes to higher level education, good teaching certainly requires flexibility. Excellent.

 

However, sometimes good teaching does not require flexibility. This is especially true when teaching basic level education in elementary school or high school. The type of information being taught at this level of schooling is very basic, and includes essential skills that almost all people will need to function in society later in life, or concepts that have already been proven countless times, like Newton’s laws for physics, the structure of a cell for biology, or rules of derivation for calculus. Since these concepts are the building block to any future pursuit within these fields, good teaching would concentrate on making sure students have a solid grasp on these fundamentals. For that reason, all grades in elementary and high school have set curriculums outlining exactly what knowledge a student needs to demonstrate in order to pass, and they are given marks to show the level to which they have mastered the material. In Canada these curriculums are set by the provincial government, and are not flexible as they do not change much from year to year, so when a student reaches a certain grade, they will be taught the same information as all others that have completed the grade. In this case, when teaching fundamental concepts, it is consistency, and not flexibility that is most important. Strong.

 

Overall, whether or not good teaching requires flexibility depends on if the material being taught is at an advanced or basic level. Good teaching in general should try to prepare students for their future, be it more education, or a career. At the advanced level of education in universities, especially in the upper years, the material being taught is usually no longer material that has been discovered, or accepted by the academic community for a long time, it usually concerns cutting edge topics that are still being researched. Professors can then no longer depend on a curriculum that has been set in stone, because the very natures of the topics which they are teaching are changing. Thus, in order to best prepare students to join the research after they are finished with education, they must be keep them up to date, which requires them to be flexible in what they decide to teach. However, at the elementary or high school level, the topics that are being taught are very fundamental to their respective subjects, and are not prone to change. At this basic level, preparing students for their future does not require the choice of material being taught to be flexible and dynamic, because the most important goal of the school system needs to make sure the students have grasped the essentials, and are prepared to pursue higher level education if they so wish. Excellent.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 5.5

Focus and coherence: 6

Grammar and vocabulary: 5.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 37 bored

 

Politics has evolved over time and much has changed in politics since the start of civilization. The French Revolution, arguably one of the most important event grammar of our history in shaping our present, started because of this uneven distribution What uneven distribution? you don't explain this until after. of political power. Due to problems with Hunger and the overspendings grammar of the Royalty and the Nobility, the peasent population, which accounted for 95% of the population of France at the time demanded a change from their king. This demand was in large due to the uneven distribution of political power at the time. Just before the revolution, the Royalty and the Nobility controlled all the voting powers of the whole country. The peasents did not see this is a fair deal because the Royalty and the Nobility only accounted for 5% of the population. Therefore, the King proposed giving the peasents 30% of the voting power while the rest of the 70% of the voting power was to be remained within the Royalty, the Nobility and the Clergy. This was again not fair to the peasents and thus started a 3 year revolution to end this unfairness. The king's proposal was unfair because King Luise the sixteenth decided to distribute power unevenly. This would mean that all the voting that would be done would be in favour of the Nobility and the Royalty. Though nothing could stop King Luise to make this decision, it was unfit for the people and they overthrew Monarchy in France. It is evident that uneven distribution of political power by giving political power to friends and family members have usually ended in a unfavourable situation. However, there are cases where this is legally allowed to be done and even encourged. This example could be excellent. However, it is poorly explained for the purposes of addressing the supporting task.

 

In a Cherity organization grammar , the founding fathers apply for some funding and also form the structure of the Organization. In modern Cherity Organization, there exists a Board of Directors which is composed of people chosen by the founder to vote on issues and to hire a CEO. The CEO is then paid to oversee all the organization's doings and consults with the board on major issues. The founding fathers of a newly made organization are required to make this Board. The Board consists of the Founders, their Family members and their close friends. This ensures that at all times when voting is conducted, the votes are in favour of the founders, because these are the people with the vision and are the people who were originally given the funding to start the organization. Even though the next board members are elected, the original board members are selected by the founders. This is often encouraged by the government and investors because this provides the path of least resistance to bringing the founder's vision into reality. This is okay but the explanation isn't very strong. This is especially true for the last part. What is the point of having a board if the board is always going to vote in a favorable way for the founder. That defeats the whole purpose of a board of directors.

 

In both of the above situations, there is one thing in common. Both follow the Law and are legal. In France, the peasents, by revolting, drew the first step towards making modern democracy. This even distribution of power between all citizens soon became a law culmulating with the Decleration of Independence of America. The Founders of a cheritable organization also follow the Law when they appoint their Family members and their friends a position within the Board. Both situations follow the law and differ because of the different goals of various parties. This is vague and ambiguous. The Country can be run with fairness with equal distribution of power and a Charity organization can reach its goal the quickest by giving political positions within the company to their family and friends. Thus to decide between when power should be given to whom, one must first make sure that what they do is in complient with the Law as well as keeping the final goal in mind. There are a number of issues here. 1) You don't have a clear resolution principle. 2) The standard template for the resolution paragraph is not followed. 3) The idea of law is tangential and does not contribute to addressing the resolution task. 4) The resolution is poor.

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

 

Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is not addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 1.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 37 funtimess

 

In the often shady realm of politics, there is a constant drive for increased power and authority over the citizens of a state. In their efforts to control a population, many politicians may be dishonest about their goals and promises, while also seeking to increase their say in matters by appointing their friends to important positions. Abuse of political power through appointing like-minded acquaintances is a ubiquitous tendency of many political regimes. For example, the judiciary system in Afghanistan in the early 2000s was heavily biased as a result of favouritism. For the Afghani Supreme court, only those who had attended religious institutions to be well-versed in Shia law could be appointed by the elected government. Furthermore, liberalism was not tolerated and judges who did not rule in a conservative-enough manner would be removed from their position. The legal system had been abused to the point where women were outlawed from singing on television, and homosexuality was deemed a crime worthy of the death penalty. Although there have been strides in recent years to correct some of these problems, there is no doubt that it is dangerous to have one group of people controlling an entire aspect of the political system. Excellent.

 

However, in Canada, the differing political landscape offers further insight to the issue of appointed officials. For example, the Primer Minister may appoint whomever they wish into the senate. The Canadian senate serves as the 'sober second thought' to the House of Commons, and a majority vote in the senate could veto an otherwise agreeable bill from passing. It is important to note that the political power of one senator is nowhere near that of the person who appointed them, thus the power of the senate only becomes increasingly powerful when the same party has been in power for a long time. In such a case, the senate would likely buffer the government from vast changes that the Canadian people might not have thought through in the event of a sudden change in power - the sober second thought. Clearly, such a system has its benefits and is the direct result of politicians appointing friends with close political views into the position of senator. This example could be strong. However, why this appointment of friends is beneficial is not clearly explained and is not convincing.

 

 

While appointing like-minded people into political power is not necessarily bad, the possibility for abuse should be minimized. This is not the point of the resolution paragraph. In Canada, there is a limit on the number of senators that can be appointed, and these senators must vote alongside senators representing past governments from different political parties. Hence, there is a limit on how much power can be given to an appointed official. In Afghanistan, the lack of control on how to appoint judges to the court system led to a radical conservative system that resulted in biased outcomes. It is clear that what determines whether an elected official should appoint their friends are the laws of the country which justifiably limit the amount of power that can be obtained.

You get off-topic and do not address the resolution task. You do not present a clear resolution principle. You have some ideas that could work but the way this is written takes the essay off on a tangent.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is poorly addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 37 tberry3

 

The purpose of a democracy is ostensibly to create a government that offers fair representation to its citizens, and a good politician acts in accordance with the needs and desires of his or her constituents. In such a system of government, then, there should be no room for political cronyism - that is, the appointment of friends to positions of political power. This practice is in clear violation of the idea of representative democracy: politicians should be acting in the best interests of the voting public, not themselves, and the appoint someone to a position of power simply because of a personal friendship undermines the trust that the public has invested in that politician. One such example is John F. Kennedy's appointment of Robert McNamara as the Secretary of Defense. McNamara, a longtime friend of Kennedy, received the appointment despite his complete lack of experience in such a role, and despite his own admission that he was not qualified. Kennedy insisted that his friend accept the job, and the results are considered largely disastrous by many historians, as McNamara has shouldered much of the blame for the tactical nightmare that was the Vietnam War. In this case, Kennedy did not act in the best interests of the public when he appointed his unqualified friend to a position of power, and the country suffered as a result. Fantastic.

 

It is, however, not universally wrong for a politician to appoint personal friends to positions of power. If a politician's friend is truly the most qualified or deserving candidate for a given position, then it would in fact be a form of discrimination to disallow them from taking that position simply because of their social closeness to the politician in question. There are also certain situations in which it is better for both the politician and the public if the person appointed to a given position is able to get along well with the politician who appointed them. For example, during the 2008 American presidential election, future president Barack Obama chose Joe Biden to be his running mate (and future vice president, pending a successful result in the election). In selecting a right-hand man, it was important that Obama picked someone with whom he could get along well. He and Biden were longtime political allies with a good social rapport, and their agreement on core issues as well as a fundamental ability to communicate effectively with one another was crucial to their future success together. In turn, the public would benefit most by having a president and vice president who can work harmoniously and effectively together. Thus, this is a case where it was acceptable for a politician to appoint a friend to a position of political power. It is also important to note that, in addition to being Barack Obama's friend, Mr. Biden was a highly qualified individual with a proven ability to do his job effectively. This is another essential quality in any appointed official. Excellent.

 

What, then, determines whether it is acceptable for a politician to appoint their friends to positions of political power? Ultimately, the main factor should be whether that person is qualified to hold the position in question. When John F. Kennedy chose Robert McNamara to be secretary of defence, he knew that they would work together because they were good friends, but he failed to consider that Mr. McNamara was unfit to hold the position to which he had been appointed, and in doing so he let down the American people. On the other hand, when Barack Obama chose Joe Biden to be his running mate and eventual vice president, he chose someone who not only a personal ally, but who had a good deal of political experience and was considered by most people to be a highly qualified candidate. These contrasting examples show that politicians can either help or hinder their country's success by appointing friends to positions of power, and they highlight the importance of ensuring that first and foremost, appointed officials should be highly qualified individuals with a proven ability to perform their duties. In a democracy, this reflects the integrity that all voters should demand of their politicians. Excellent. Some more elaboration when you apply your resolution principle would be nice.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 6 All of the tasks are completely addressed.

Depth: 6

Focus and coherence: 6

Grammar and vocabulary: 6

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 37 sam07

 

In a truely democratic system, where sometimes the elected officials are bestowed with extremely high-power positions, the officials should be catious not appoint friends grammar to political power positions merely on the basis of friendship or personal gains. The issue is of a high moral importance, as it touches upon the trustworthiness of the elected official in electorates' grammar mind. Additionally, the elected officials may risk their career, even if they appoint friends not just based on personal gains, because of extreme media scrutiny they may face if anything goes wrong with the appointee. Take the hot topic nowdays in the Quebec provincial election, where the primier of Quecbec from Libral party, is extremely under fire due to his personal connection with at least a couple of construction-related positions in the province. He may lose the election due in September, either rightly due to the corruption charges that may eventually stick to his party, or wrongly because of loss of temporary trust of public that may not be gained quickly enough by the election time in the fall. This example could be excellent. However, the explanation needs improvement. The details are just not well explained and the example is not well executed.

 

In the meantime word choice, appointment of a friend to a position of political power may be justified if a case is made that the appointee is the only competent candidate for the job. In such a case, the public rightly expect from their elected officails to ensure that public services are properly managed, and thus appointment of the most competent candiate is expected for all political positions. So the appointment of a friend carry less risk grammar and may not undermine the electorate trust in the elected official. A good example is the appointment of Steven Chu as the Energy Secretary in the US by presdident Obama. Speculations about their friendship has circulated in the media from the beginning, however, Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize winner in Physics, has solidified his background as the competent candidate for the job. Consquently, despite fierce Republican oppositions to Energy policies of President Obama and hard questioning of Mr. Chu's grammar in the congress, the public seems to be very supporting of the Energy Secretary, as an extremely well-educated expert in the field. Strong.

 

So to determine whether or not an elected official should appoint their friends to positions of political power, the elected official's primary concern must be to fill in the position by the most competent grammar candidate. Merit-based appointments to positions of politcal power gaurantees satisfaction of voters, as well it provide a good defensive point for the official in case something goes wrong. Additionally, it would be an expectedly moral thing for the elected offical to do. Thus, in most cases, it is wise for the elected officals not to appoint friends to the position of political power if they have options. However, in a very rare situation, where a friend is the only option as the only expert deserving the job, then such an appointment may be acceptable. You have an okay resolution principle. However, you need to apply your resolution principle to your two previously discussed examples to create contrast between them. Try following the standard template for the resolution paragraph as it is the most effective format.

 

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

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 2.5 You have a higher than average number of spelling and grammar mistakes.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 37 Raiya

 

In a true democracy, the goal is to serve and protect the public and the interest of the public. Under these circumstances, an elected official should not appoint their friends into the system. Appointing like-minded acquaintances is unfortunately common and often detrimental to society. For example, in the judiciary system in Afghanistan, a common practice is to appoint close relatives or friends. By abusing this practice, the judicial branch started to deterioriate since the group were incapable of managing the existing laws and thus, many criminal cases remained at large. The officials along with their like-minded appointees clearly had difficulty in handling these issues. Most of the time, the appointees were inexperienced in this field and were elected purely based on favouritism. The judicial system was not able to help serve and protect the public, but instead brought chaos and disappointment to the community. This example could be strong. However, there are not enough points that are directed at why appointing friends in this case is a bad idea. Only one point directly addressed this.

 

However in some cases, elected officials should appoint their friends to positions of power. For example, Norm Kelly an experienced Canadian historian who had extensive experience in the area of conservation and natural sciences was appointed to chair the Committee of the Parks and Environment by a close friend and Toronto mayor, Rob Ford. Ford chose him because of his past success in leading various committees including serving under the Right Honorable Pierre Elliot Trudeau. His long term dedication to conservation and protection of parks and reserves has won him strong ties with Ford. Here, because of the close friendship that Ford has with Kelly, which enabled Kelly's success, this brought immense support and praise from Toronto families and communities who were collectively all striving to conserve and protect the existing parks and natural sites. Again, this example could be strong but how you closed the argument was weak.

 

Thus, the determining factor to govern whether or not elected officials should appoint their friends is dependent on the background experience of the appointee. In cases where a friend is elected solely on the basis of favouritism, and not based on knowledge, expertise and experiences, this will not reflect and facilitate a true democractic system. This can be seen in the judiciary system in Afghanistan as well as other political systems that base their elections on personal biases. However, sometimes elected officials appoint their friends based on their skills and abilities to serve the interest of the public. In the case of Norm Kelly, because of his extensive background in conservation and leadership involvements, Ford chose him to chair the committee of Parks and Environment. Because Kelly was able to freely apply his existing knowledge and prior experience in the political arena, it sparked an overwhelming support and praise from the Toronto community. Thus, deciding whether or not to elect a close friend will very highly depend on their past experience and their abilities to serve the public in their best interest. Strong. However, your application of the resolution principle to your refuting example needs improvement.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[meniscus]

Thanks Raymond!

 

Most people want society to be well served. The good of a society means that the society is viable and people are at least somewhat happy. Individual rights are rights the are entitled to an invidual. For example, freedom from discrimination during hiring is an individual right. Usually, the society is well served based on the defense of individual rights. For example, back in the 1980s, the Windsor Raceway did not hire asians. Employers of the Raceway were discriminating against asians because they felt that that they could not serve customers as well as non-asians; the employers falsely believed that asians could not adapt to the Western culture. Thus, one asian appplicant brought a lawsuit against the Raceway for discrimination based on nationality, and the Raceway thereafter hired asians. This issue caught the attention of other employers who also discriminated during hiring based on nationality. From that point forward, most employers in Windsor were non-discriminatory during hiring. It was that one asian applicant's defense of his individual right to not be discriminated that contributed to the good of society (the city of Windsor).

 

However, the good of society might not depend on the defense of indivdual rights in some cases. For example, in Vietnam, society is well served by citizens simply following the laws and not rebelling with the government. When some rebels against the communist government, the rebel can be incarcerated and even be slain immediately. When citizens abide by the law, the police and government officials respect the citizens and let citizens do as they choose. Citizens are able to enjoy their life by just following the rules of society in this case. In this country, people do have individual rights, but the laws of government have a precedence over their individual rights. So, if a white Vietnam tries to defend that he should be hired for a government position even though the government requires applicants to be asian, the applicant can be incarcerated since he is not abiding by the rules and is causing the government trouble. This in turn actually makes society worst since people complaining about the commmunist government makes the government more strict up on society.

 

What determines when the good of society is based on the defense of individual rights is on type of government. If one lives in a democratic society, then the defense of rights serves society well. For example, the defense of not being discriminated in hiring process in Windsor brought a positive result to Windsorites as that brought a near end to discriminating in the hiring process in Windsor. However, in a communist government, the good of society does not depend on the defense of rights. One just needs to follow the laws and not rebel against hte government in Vietnam to live a fairly good life.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 37 #Cevapi

 

It wouldn't appear to be favourable for an elected official to appoint their friend(s) to positions of political power. This type of action would be considered foolish by many citizens who are already critics of the entire political scene. Just the thought in and of itself seems unfair and biased that an elected official would appoint his/her friend to a powerful position in the realm of politics. This introduction is a bit too absolute. You do not want to argue one side of the issue too strongly or else it will undermine your counterarguments in the next paragraph. This issue brings up immediate questions of whether or not the friend of the official is qualified enough to step into a position of power. Ultimately, though, elected officials are free to make the decision they feel is best for the current situation that the particular nation/city/state is in and it is highly unlikely that the official would appoint one of his/her friends unless the friend will be a benefit and a great person for the particular position of power. This last sentence does not address the supporting task. The discussion is weak overall. Everything is so general and vague that it sounds like one big introduction. No focused argument is presented.

 

There are, of course, positive and negative situations when it comes to an elected official appointing a friend to a high position in politics. As an illustration of the former, consider a typical situation occurring in the City of Windsor, Ontario, where the Mayor of the city is Eddie Francis. There has been speculation in regards to the decision Mayor Eddie Francis made in appointing the head of finance of the city. Francis claims that the individual is extremely qualified for the position due to an extensive history of head finance positions for many top firms throughout the Southwestern Ontario region. However, a large percentage of citizens are not happy with the decision because of the assumption that the particular individual and Mayor Eddie Francis go back a long ways and have been great friends for the majority of their lives; suggesting the decision was entirely biased and not fairly decided. You are suppose to argue: "Describe a specific situation in which an elected official might justifiably appoint a friend to a position of political power." You do not present a strong argument.

 

The entire situation depends on whether or not the individual being appointed to the position of power is qualified to the point that they are clearly the best individual for the position. It is not the officials' fault that the particular individual just happens to be their friend and they are a great candidate for the job. The appointment process must be free of any potential biases that may be given to the candidate as a result of his/her friendship with the elected official. Instead of proceeding to the conclusion that it is wrong for the official to appoint his/her friend to the particular position of power, it is essential to analyze whether or not the individual is actually suitable for the job. If they have an extensive history of carrying out similar tasks and have succeeded at doing so, then the case rests itself and the official should not receive a negative spotlight.

You have a resolution principle. However, you do not apply it to your previously discussed examples to create a contrast.

 

I think there is some unfamiliarity with what the writing sample is looking for in each of the three paragraphs. I would strongly recommend starting with the basics.

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

Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is not addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 1.5

Focus and coherence: 1.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 37 polarbear89

 

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. This is okay. However, there should be more specifics to add depth. The discussion also feels a bit short and the argument doesn't seem complete. It seems to just cut off at the end.

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. This example could work but the way it is explained is kind of weak. Just because things work out in the end does not make a questionable choice justified. As an analogy, I could bet all of my life savings on red at the roulette table. However, just because I double my money does not make it a smart choice. The last sentence also does not do anything to aid the argument. In other words, from this discussion, I would not be convinced that JFK was justified in appointing his brother.

 

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. This is two separate resolution principles. You want to focus on one well developed resolution principle. Again, the overruling part is not a good justification. 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.

The arguments are okay but not great.

 

The primary issue here is that the basis of some of the arguments is questionable.

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: 3

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 37 souljaboy

 

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. This example is okay but lacks depth. There are no specifics and one of the ways to increase your score on the writing sample is to demonstrate that you have in depth knowledge of the example you are presenting. In other words, everything here is too general.

 

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. Too general and basic. One of your goals in the writing sample is to demonstrate complexity of reasoning. This discussion will not stand out in the marker's mind.

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.

 

Everything is too vanilla. There is no depth and nothing that makes the essay stand out.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4 All of the tasks are adequately addressed.

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 37 meniscus

 

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. Strong.

 

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. This example doesn't do a good job at justifying the appointment of friends to positions of power. The last part in particular undermines your argument because Pong's kids are gaining an unfair advantage because of their father's political connection.

 

Thus, what determines where grammar elected official should appoint their friends to position of political power depends if the safety of the constituency is at stake. This is vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. 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. This is not a good application of the resolution principle to your example. You need to explain why your resolution principle works. 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. This is unfair to the population and is not a good reason to appoint friends. In fact, this is the definition of abusing ones power. 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.

 

Your Vietnam example is an example of abusing political power. The example illustrates why elected officials should not appoint their friends to political positions.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 37 loopas

 

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. This introduction although interesting isn't very relevant which is an issue. Unfortunately, some elected officials make the controversial decision of appointing their friends of political power Revise.. 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. Strong. It would be excellent, however your discussion is cluttered with different ideas. The argument is not cohesive and is unfocused. More is not always better. Sometimes less is more.

 

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. What guarantees are there? 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. This is an assumption. Just because someone is a professional doesn't mean they will not think about their friendship first in a disagreement. 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. This just undermines your argument. Most members of his committee are lawyers and have some experience in public relations. Overall, the argument is shaky and is based on a number of baseless assumptions.

 

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. This again is an assumption. In Markham however, councilors appoint their friends only if they are qualified and understand that disagreeing with their friend will not jeopardize their friendship. Another assumption. Even professionals feel the pressure of friendship in disagreements. It is also important to remember that the majority of the members should be 'strangers' in order to ensure freshness of ideas.

 

The issue here is that the arguments are based on assumptions rather than evidence. That is a shaky basis and does not provide a foundation for a strong argument. You state certain things as facts when they are not.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[ann2012]

Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. In a democracy country, protection of individual rights is the foundation of the good of a society. In this case the good of a society can be defined as the equality of the people within the society. Equality of a society cannot be achieved when people do not have equal individual rights. For example, the Freedom movement of African Americans led by Martine Luther King was achieved not only because Dr. King's great leadership, but also because it was a movement towards equality of the American society. Dr. King gained supports because he was trying to protect the individual right of the African Americans and to achieve racial equality. His act and leadership in the freedom movement was admired by a lot of people because he made the American society at the time a better and more equal society without any violence or damage to the society. Thus, it is only when individual right of everyone in a society is protected, can equality of a society be achieved.

 

On the other hand, defense of individual rights may not always be a primary factor in determining the equality of a society. For example, prisoners’ right to movement is limited and their actions in jail are restricted by certain rules. If prisoners were granted the same rights as the free citizens of the society, which means to not limit their movement or restrict their actions. Then the prisoners who were once criminals of a society would cause serious issues within the society and would be a threat to other free citizens within that society. Thus, to protect the individual rights of the majority of society, the wrongdoers of the society can only be granted with limited rights.

 

Therefore, whether protection of individual rights is the foundation of equality of a society depends on whether the people being protected become a threat to social security. When protection of individual rights is used to achieve a better overall social equality and does not threat social security, such as the freedom movement led by Dr. King, then the defense of individual rights would promote equality of a society. However, when protection of individual rights would lead to threat to social security and would harm others' individual rights, such as granting prisoners the right to movement, then defense of individual rights would not be the primary concern. Equality of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights, but in extreme cases individual rights may be limited to ensure social security.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 38 Economist

 

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 This needs to be rephrased.. Majority of the US citizens grammar 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 grammar 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. Strong.

 

 

Sometimes an opinion may be correct when shared by the majority. In stock market grammar , 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 grammar 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 grammar 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 grammar before the movie was released, despite the fact the company itself has not changed grammar . In this case the Marvel Comic's value in fact did rise because the majority believed it was worth more. Strong.

 

Whether an opinion shared by the majority is correct or not depends on the effect the opinion has on the validity of the issue. This is vague and ambiguous. What does this even mean? You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. 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. This resolution principle doesn't really apply well to your supporting example. This is an odd and ineffective application. 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. This is not true. For example, before the financial crisis of 2008, many people thought credit default swaps were great and AAA investments. However, most of them ended up being junk because the majority opinion did not change the intrinsic worthlessness of the stocks.

Overall, your resolution paragraph is the weakest part of your essay because the resolution principle is awkward, unclear and ambiguous.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3 There are a lot of minor grammar mistakes that add up to be distracting overall.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 38 funtimess

 

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. Excellent.

 

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. This is okay but the explanation needs improvement. There are parts that are not relevant to addressing the refuting task.

 

All citizens of the Earth would like to see others act in a way that respects their opinions and beliefs. This is not a good transition into the resolution paragraph. 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. Excellent.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 5.5

Focus and coherence: 5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 38 Raiya

 

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.

Excellent.

 

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. This needs to be revised. Because of this confirmation based on rigorous testings grammar , 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. This is a bit too simplistic and is underdeveloped. Furthermore, you should try choosing an example that is a bit farther removed from your supporting example so as to make creating contrast easier in your resolution paragraph.

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 grammar 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.

Excellent.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 5

Focus and coherence: 5.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 38 meniscus

 

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. This is strong. However, I sincerely doubt that the program "Own the Podium" was aimed at winning the most medals.

 

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. This is too short to form a strong argument.

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. This may be a bit too simplistic. 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. Strong.

 

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 somewhat addressed. Resolution task is well addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 38 souljaboy

 

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 grammar . 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. Excellent. However, you should end with a concluding sentence to wrap up your arguments.

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. This is okay. However, there are a few issues here. Quebec independence is a hot button issue and which side is correct is hard to say and depends heavily on the viewpoint. There is no "correct" opinion in this case. The referendum was actually razor close. Of course, your American marker may not know that but this discussion glosses over that.

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. Strong.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4.5

Focus and coherence: 5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[souljaboy]

The defense of fundamental human rights in the North American society is one of the most important functions of our society. These rights are the most basic of our society, and their defense is essential in maintaining the good of our society. Each individual in America is protected by the individual rights stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These rights are designed to maintain the freedom that the founders envisioned for the citizens of the country. These rights are defended for almost everyone, even those accused but not convicted of committing crimes. The importance of this protection cannot be understated; as long as an individual is still deemed a normal member of the society, he will have access to the freedom afforded by the individual rights of the country. Freedom is by far one of the important parts of a good society, and by protecting the personal freedom afforded by the Constitution, the good of the society is maintained.

 

In some cases, the individual rights of certain people cannot be fully defended due to their actions that violate the rights of others. Everyone has the right to life and freedom, which are among the most important individual rights. An individual who deliberately harms another of the society completely violates that person's right to life. In order for the society to still be good, the person who violated another's individual rights need to be punished. This punishment is most often a limitation on their individual rights, as is the case when a criminal's rights to freedom is limited when he is put into prison. The society is certainly not defending certain parts of the criminal's individual rights, but good of the society is undiminished.

 

The good of our society must depend on the protection of individual rights unless the person in question acted to violate the rights of other members of society. American citizens who are not convicted of any crimes have their individual rights as stated in the Constitution protected by the government itself. The protection of personal freedom makes the society good. When an individual acted willingly to violate the fundamental rights of others, he is no longer a normal member of society, and his individual rights often must be limited in order to benefit the society as a whole. The society is definitely not fully defending a criminal's individual rights, but the good of a society is not affected by this special case because it is acting to protect every other member of the society.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 38 ann2012

 

Most frequently in science, only one exception needs to be found before proving a long-standing theory to be wrong. An opinion that is shared by the majority for a long period of time does not necessarily mean it is correct. In this case, a majority opinion can be defined as an idea or belief that gained the majority of the public's support. Take the "flat earth" theory as an example, until the 17th century, most people including scientist in North America believed that the earth must be flat. They believed that since the ground is flat, the earth must have a flat shape and the sky is somewhat like a lid that covers over the earth. Even though most people at the time believed strongly in the "flat earth" theory and refused to acknowledge any new theory regarding the shape of the earth. The "flat earth" theory was eventually proven wrong however, after a number of new discoveries including the famous discovery of gravity. Example like grammar the "flat earth" theory is not rare in the scientific field, because a scientific theory can never be proven correct, but can always be challenged by the infinite possibility of exceptions word choice, and innovation and challenges to the existing beliefs is necessary to bring improvements to the existing knowledge. Thus, in an ever-changing field like the scientific field, a majority opinion is not necessarily correct, and can be proven wrong with new discoveries. Excellent.

 

On the other hand, majority opinion could be correct in term of grammar moral and ethical beliefs. For example, cheating is wrong is a belief that is shared by the majority, and it has long stood correct on the basis of norm and ethics. People have created norms for themselves to follow, because they believe that these norms are meant to make them better people and to make their society a better society. Such norms shared by the majority of the public then developed into rule or even laws, and these rules are to promote grammar orders in society and to protect people against harm or harming each other. Then norm and ethics as the basis of the laws are not likely to change, just like the belief that cheating is wrong, because once changes in ethical beliefs may grammar lead to changes in social order, and changes in social orders may lead to serious social issues. Thus, majority opinion in norm and ethics as the basis of laws will not likely to be proven wrong, because these beliefs were created by the people and changes cannot be easily made without experience changes in the order of society. The problem here is that this argument doesn't actually work in a lot of cases. For example, slavery was once legal and thought of as right in Europe and the United States. Another example is racial segregation. This was believed to be moral and ethical but was clearly incorrect. Even what constitutes cheating changes quite a bit over time.The writing style also needs improvement because it is not clear and concise. The writing style is also repetitive.

 

Therefore, whether a majority opinion is correct depends on whether the opinion takes place in a fast-changing field or not. In a fast-changing field, such as the scientific field where challenges to the existing beliefs are needed for improvements, a majority opinion is not necessarily correct and can always be proven wrong with new innovations. However, in an area where changes are rarely seen, such as the ethical beliefs that people have, a majority opinion may be correct, because norms are created by people based on their beliefs, and people's beliefs have had little changes throughout history.

This resolution principle is decent. However, this paragraph is too short especially compared to your previous paragraphs.

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 38 #Cevapi

 

An opinion that is consistent with the views of the majority of people does not preclude the existence of an alternate opinion. This is not a good introductory sentence because whether or not alternate opinions exist is not the issue of concern. Though the likelihood that the opinion is correct increases as the number of individuals in favour of the opinion increases, it is essential to explore alternate viewpoints in order to gain a greater level of understanding of the particular topic in discussion. Again, this is different from what the supporting task is looking for and actually hurts your argument. The more information that is able to be ruled out will bring you closer to reaching an ultimate conclusion of the issue. Consider a coroner facing the task of analyzing the body of a deceased individual, who supposedly passed as a result of heart failure. Even though the majority opinion is that the individual's cause of death is heart failure, it is nonetheless necessary for the coroner to analyze the individual's arteries surrounding the heart to rule out the possibilities of atherosclerotic blockage or even valve malfunctioning of the heart, among other things. The majority opinion is a great place to start when trying to reach a particular conclusion, however, it is not the sole determinant of what decision needs to be made. This does not address the writing task. You go off on a tangent. Make sure that you understand what the prompt is asking for so that you do not write a essay on a different topic.

 

The greater the number of individuals that possess a certain opinion, the better the chance that opinion is the truth. This is not always true which is what you were suppose to have argued in the first paragraph. When considering the origin of the universe, the opinion shared by the majority of the modern scientific community is the Big Bang Theory. This majority opinion when it comes to the existence of the universe is that everything began as an extremely dense mass that exploded and hasn't stopped expanding ever since. The scientific community, particularly physicists, have essentially taken this theory to be the truth as a result of the great body of evidence pointing to its truth. However, just as its name implies, it must be understood that the concept of the Big Bang is only a theory and cannot be taken as being proven, rather, the evidence discovered provides support for the theory. In this illustration, the majority opinion may be the correct opinion, but that is far different from saying that it is definitely the correct opinion. You were suppose to argue here that an opinion held by the majority can be correct. Obviously the big bang theory has not been proven to be correct. You undermine yourself in the last part of the paragraph.

 

Whether or not a majority opinion is the correct opinion comes down to breaking down the situation into the different possible opinions that surround the issue. This is vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. To come to an ultimate conclusion, the weaker opinions must be ruled out with confidence, which can only be done after a great deal of evidence points to a certain opinion being correct and the weaker opinions clearly being incorrect. If there is only a limited pool of information on the issue in discussion, a conclusion should not be reached based on the majority opinion. As the level of information rises, the likelihood of the majority opinion being correct increases proportionally. If the level of information reaches a point where multiple opinions on the issue can be formed but there is still an overwhelming wave of evidence shifting to the majority opinion, it would be reasonable to conclude that this particular opinion is correct. Again this is not what the resolution paragraph is looking for.

 

The issue here is that you tried to be clever and ended up writing an almost philosophical essay which ultimately had little to none of the elements required by the writing prompt. Being creative is great but you took it too far and got lost.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1 None of the tasks are addressed as the essay goes off a number of tangents.

Depth: 1

Focus and coherence: 1

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 38 loopas

 

In current society, a democratic government is considered a basic necessity; democracy is often the first step in advancing towards a bright future grammar . The basis of democracy is the majority vote. The opinion shared by the majority of people, however, is not always correct. For example, during the 20th century, Rosa Parks, an African-American civil rights activist refused to obey bus driver James Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. Rosa Parks did not believe that black people were inferior to white people; she believed that the opinion shared by the majority of people was incorrect. Rosa Parks' protest against the law of segregation led the Supreme Court to abandon the law which forced black people to give up their seats to white people. The opinion held by Rosa Parks was correct because it allowed for equalization of rights. Because Rosa Parks protested against the opinion held by the majority, she was able to introduce change into society. Strong. However, the explanation should be more directed at addressing the supporting task. One way to do this is to use more of the key words of the writing prompt in your discussion.

In some cases, however, the opinion shared by a majority of people is correct. For example, in India, female fetuses are often killed in the womb because male children are preferred since they carry on their family name and are considered to be the superior sex. Though sex determination and female foeticide has been illegal in India since the early 1990s, this practice continues because doctors are bribed by wealthy elders in the family to determine the sex of the baby. The majority of people consider female foeticide to be morally wrong and want justice for female fetuses. After the national broadcast of a documentary describing the plights of women affected by forced abortion, this majority came together and demanded tighter rules and careful monitoring of doctors who still participate in sex determination. The strength of the majority resulted in stricter laws regarding female foeticide being implemented right away. The opinion shared by the majority was correct because it gave all fetuses an equal right to live. This is strong. Again, the explanation needs improvement. The progression of ideas and organization of the discussion need improvement.

 

The opinion of the majority is often considered to be correct but this is not always the case. What determines whether the opinion of the majority is correct or incorrect is the issue being contested. This is vague and ambiguous. This actually says nothing useful and is not an answer to the question posed. The correct opinion favours equal rights for all citizens. The opinion of the majority regarding African-Americans was incorrect because they segregated blacks and did not allow them to have equal rights. Rosa Parks' opinion was correct because she lobbied for equal rights of African-Americans and Caucasians. The majority of the opinion was correct in India because they wanted equal rights for female and male fetuses. Though democracy is important because it allows all citizens to contribute equally to political decisions, it would be useless if the decision of the majority ostracized a group of people and denied them equal rights. The resolution paragraph is the weakest part of your essay. You had some ideas that could be translated into a solid resolution principle but did not do so.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[nm2quasi]

A common conception of a good society is one that defends the rights of all (or at least most) individuals. Rights are inherent powers given to society members in order to protect them from discrimination and other immoral acts from the government as well as other groups. Canada (an arguably good society) is well known for protecting the rights of individuals. For instance, Canada is widely acclaimed for protecting the rights of homosexual individuals to marry. It might seem like such acts are not for the improvement or worsening of society, however it is clear that a greater society is created because it constructs a moralistic society in which individuals are allowed to practice their beliefs and not be ridiculed for doing so.

 

On the other hand, society can not always protect the rights of individual if it seems like the individual is using his/ her right to infringe on the rights of others. Reports about polygamist communities in Canada have claimed children were barred from schools, and girls were forced into incestual marriages. As a result, polygamist leaders are banned from preaching their religion and spreading their beliefs on polygamy because of harming the human right to education and freedom to marry whomever you please. This in turn is a better society, because it looks to protect the individuals who are in dire need of help and care.

 

As a result, a good society will always look to defend the rights of individuals as long as it serves to not infringe on the rights of others. Canada, a nation that strives to spread equality, continues to promote the homosexual rights, education rights, and in turn looks to create a better and tolerable society. Simultaneously, Canada looks to deprive individuals of rights who take advantage of societies freedoms and willfully violate the rights of other humans, such as the polygamist leaders previously described. We all know as members of society that we have our naturally given human rights, but it is also our duty to create a good society by protecting our rights and additionally protecting the rights of others.

 

-- THANKS RAYMOND =D

[#Cevapi]

In order for a society to be considered "good", it should, on the most part, respect the rights of an individual and defend those rights. A good society should promote freedom and protect the rights that its citizens are entitled to. The majority of states in America have put an end to their laws against same-sex marriage. The governmental bodies in these states have realized that all American citizens have the right to be in a relationship with anyone they wish, which constitutes a good society because it promotes freedom. Though it used to be permissible to treat homosexual men and women harshly (millions suffered abuse and punishment as a result of their sexual orientation), the majority of societies now defend and accept same-sex marriage. Still today, there are certain states in the South which continue to enforce laws that disallow same-sex marriage and have no laws in place to protect the sexual orientation of citizens. These particular societies would not be considered good because of the lack of freedom on the part of the individuals.

 

In certain situations, it would be feasible to consider a society as being good even if it does not defend individual rights. In 2008, elementary school students in Detroit were frequently coming to school wearing shirts which promoted negative messages of sex, money, and drugs, which concerned the teachers. The parents of these children were fully aware of the issue but did not see a problem because they felt that their children had the right to wear whatever they wanted. The issue eventually reached the Detroit School Board, ultimately resulting in a set of restrictions that were put in place to prevent this type of provocative clothing from being worn in any public schools. This situation illustrates that the School Board made the right decision to restrict provocative clothing even though it went against the rights of the parents and students. The society in this case is shown to be good without dependence on defending individual rights.

 

In determing when the good of a society depends on the defense of individual rights, it is important to analyze whether the situation has the potential of producing a negative outcome in the society or harming the society in any way. In the case of the same-sex marriage laws, in order for the societies to be termed good, it is necessary for the societies to defend the individual rights because there are no reasonable negative effects that may arise in the society with same-sex marriage. In the Detroit School Board example, the societies do not need to defend the rights of the individuals, who claim that they have the right to wear whatever clothes they desire, because this would result in further pollution of elementary schools with provocative clothing which would promote negative messages. It is necessary to understand the context in which the individual rights are being fought for.

[sam07]

Many arugments have been put forward on how to measure the well-being of a society. Measures such as the gross domestic product, a purely econonic concept, or the index of happiness have been strongly argued for. However, the good of a society, can equally be determined in terms of efficient use of resources as well. What is key from this interpretation of the societal good is then the indvidual rights - more specifically the individual's property rights. The main argument is that individuals who own resoures are most efficient in managing a resrouce when they personally own it and care for it. Thus, the overall good of a society depends on protecting the indidual rights, because the individuals ensure the proper management and efficient use of resources that are collectively owned by the socieity.

 

On the other hand, it is not universally correct to argue that the indvidual rights, or protecting the property rights is the only way to ensure the good of a society. From a sociocultural perspective, societies that tackle the question of the good of the society based on a socialism approach have shown that abolishing absolute property rights have positive effect for the society. Latin American countries, which after the collapse of Soviet Union, were forced to look into their politcal systems, and whether the continuation of the socialism still benifited them, have shown that by nationalizing public resources, such as oil, the goverment can better manage rather than the individuals the collective resources of the society. So in this case, the good of the society, as measured by the protection of public resources, does not depend on the defense of individuals right.

 

What, then, determines when the good of a society depends upon the defense of individuals rights? The answer seems to lay on whether a society approches the questin itself from an individualism's perspective or a socialism's. In the former case, the defense of individual rights seems inevitable; while in the later case, the defense of the individuals rights does not gaurantee societal good. An indivdualism approach in the society gives autonomy to individuals to care for themselves, and thus forces them to be good gaurdians of the society's resources. However, a socialistic approach would be concerned about the resources in a collective way, and thus the society collectively would try to manage the good of the society. In either case, the society tries to ensure the resources are managed properly for the good of its members.

 

Thanks very much again!