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

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 27 Sharpshooter

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

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

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

Overall Mark: 4.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a 4.5 )
Breakdown (out of 6):
Addresses tasks: 4.5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is well addressed.
Depth: 4
Focus and coherence: 4
Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 27baseballbears

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

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

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

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P)
Breakdown (out of 6):
Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is well addressed. Resolution task is completely addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.
Depth: 3
Focus and coherence: 4.5
Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 27 drrd

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

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

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

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P )
Breakdown (out of 6):
Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is completely addressed.
Depth: 4
Focus and coherence: 3.5
Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 27 loopas

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

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

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

Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O )
Breakdown (out of 6):
Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed.
Depth: 3.5
Focus and coherence: 2.5
Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 27 medhopeful64

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

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

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

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P )
Breakdown (out of 6):
Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is well addressed.
Depth: 4
Focus and coherence: 3.5
Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 27 tms

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

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

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

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


Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R)
Breakdown (out of 6):
Addresses tasks: 5 All of the tasks are strongly addressed.
Depth: 4.5
Focus and coherence: 4.5
Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 28 doctorbetty

John Stuart Mill believed in not interfering in individual freedoms such as freedom of speech - as long as it did not cause direct harm to other people. Freedom of speech is an important freedom in most liberal democracies and currently falls under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This freedom allows citizens to speak up when they disagree with government or if they believe that changes are imperative. Without this freedom, the Canadians who protested for gay marriages, for example, could have been prosecuted. Instead, this freedom ensures that all voices are heard, which contributes to a more meaningful democracy.
This discussion does not make a strong case that freedom of speech should never be limited. In other words, the argument made is not strong enough. The discussion is also too sparse.

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

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

I would recommend starting with the basics and practicing the standard format/outline for each of the three paragraphs. Please refer to this link:
http://portal.prep101.com/Forum/yaf_...le-essays.aspx

Overall Mark: 2.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a M )
Breakdown (out of 6):
Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.
Depth: 3
Focus and coherence: 2.5
Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 28 ann2012

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

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

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

Overall Mark: 2.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a M)
Breakdown (out of 6):
Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed.
Depth: 2.5
Focus and coherence: 2.5
Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[blue181]

Thanks Raymond!

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

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

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

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

[acidflower]

Prompt #29

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

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

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. Please be harsh.