Sunday, September 30, 2007

"Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places."

Change is inevitable in the course of human progress. Societies undergo many changes in the course of human history whether it be social, political or technological changes. Formal and informal laws were created to ensure the well-being of a society as well as provide a guideline to prevent unhealthy deviant behaviors. Societies evolve; laws should evolve with society as well. Therefore I agree with the author’s statement that laws should not be rigid in order to take account of the various circumstances, times and places. Laws should not be rigid or fixed for they should be flexible enough to reflect the changes in the socio-political and commercial arenas.

Changes in racial and social landscapes are constant processes in many societies. As we strive towards modernization and progress, it is inevitable we undergo social revolutions to provide equal rights and welfare to everybody. Some revolutions happen faster than others. Some occur peacefully, whereas some others occur more violently. Societies evolve over time, and laws must evolve along with it in order to accommodate the inevitable changes that occur in racial and gender demography. Laws cannot remain static. A society that is progressive would understand this fact and have the flexibility to make law changes where it is deemed necessary. For example, if originally laws were never changed, women would still not be allowed to vote in America today, African Americans would still be subjected to racial segregation and there would be many other areas where a society would be stunted by detrimental traditional practices.

The laws should also be flexible enough to accommodate the changes in the commercial arena of society. With the advancement of technology, there is the emergence of new industries that had not existed in previous times. The emergence of these new industries has created a new set of conditions and factors that should be taken into consideration. For example, the rise of offshore factories has given way to a great number of issues like environmental and labor rights issues. The law and justice system should update existing laws to reflect the changes and establish rules and regulations to ensure fair and ethical corporate conduct. Pre-existing laws that might have been once been sufficient for business and commercial arena might not hold up for newer changes. Therefore laws should be flexible enough to make changes according to needs.

In sum, societies are constantly changing. Laws should be flexible and take into consideration the changes in circumstance, time and place. As illustrated in the essay above, the need for law adaptation and flexibility is clear in the socio-political and commercial contexts.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Most people live, whether physically or morally, in a very restricted circle. They make use of a very limited portion of the resources available to th

I am in concordance with the issue statement that most people live, whether physically or morally, in a very restricted circle and we tend not make full use of the resources given to us until we are confronted with problems or crisis. First, let us consider the first phrase of the author’s statement-- “Most people live, whether physically or morally, in a very restricted circle”. Restrictions and constraints are but a common component of human life. In terms of physical restrictions we are restricted by personal physical strength, which differs from person to person. We are also limited by our physical environment, in which we find ways to adapt to. Moral restrictions can refer to any number of things including social norms, written laws, etc.

Humans are creatures of habit and established beliefs. We create our world based on a framework that is fed to us by our society. We tend not to challenge or question the framework unless there is a need to do so. If the status quo is comfortable and serves our needs, there is no further need to tap on other resources. Take for example the country of Brunei. The nation is so rich that its citizens are not taxed. The government itself is sufficiently rich enough without needing to pull from the personal resources of its constituents. Similarly, this can be seen in the socio-political sphere of many countries. As an illustration, a nation that is ruled by a cruel dictator would see a need for an uprising of its people to make changes against a ruling that infringes on personal rights and freedom. A society that is content with their political landscape would not pool on their human and intellect resources to do so. Without that sense of urgency or crisis, people would not make use full use of their resources.

Likewise, on a personal scale, a person does not make full use of their resources until they face a problem or a crisis. “Fight of flight” is an excellent phrase to illustrate this point. The phrase indicates that a person would not use their full mental or physical capability until they are in a moment of great danger. A person being mugged in the back alleys of the city would fight her attacker as hard as he or she can to protect her life. A mother whose child is trapped in a burning building might suddenly find the courage to run in and save her child. Of course, a person need not only make full use of their resources during moments of danger. As mentioned above, we do not try to make changes or make full use of our resources unless we feel that there is a need for it. As an example, a person discontented with his poor uneducated lifestyle would want to change his or her situation by attempting to use the state resources to gain a scholarship to college.

In conclusion, we are living in a world that is confined by moral and physical restrictions. We do not make full use of the limited resources until we are confronted by the need for improvement or change, or unless in moments of danger. This can be seen on the larger framework of society, or on a personal scale.

Friday, September 28, 2007

Argument Analysis 5

According to a poll of 200 charitable organizations, donations of money to nonprofit groups increased by nearly 25 percent last year, though not all charities gained equally. Religious groups gained the most (30 percent), followed by environmental groups (23 percent), whereas educational institutions experienced only a very small increase in donations (3 percent). This poll indicates that more people are willing and able to give money to charities but that funding for education is not a priority for most people. These differences in donation rates must result from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institutions.

My response:

In the argument prompt, the author concludes that educational institutions receive lesser amounts of donations as compared to other charitable organizations due to the perception that educational institutions are in lesser need of donations. The author based his or her conclusion on the results of a poll that was conducted on 200 charitable organizations. The author’s argument stands weak as the poll is full of flaws and loopholes which render the author’s claims weak. The fallacies of the author’s argument will be presented as below.

Firstly, in order to determine the authenticity of the author’s claims, one must look at the manner the poll was conducted. One of the questions the reader should ask is: Where was the poll conducted? If the study was conducted in a specific region, it could present a skewed result. For example, if the study was conducted in a conservative area with more religious citizens, the citizens therefore have more of an inclination to donate to religious groups. If the poll was conducted in an affluent area, there would be less need for donation funds towards educational institutions, as usually affluent areas provide better educational facilities and resources.

Also, one must look at the characteristics of the data itself. The author failed to mention the breakdown of the types of organizations within the 200 charitable organizations the poll was conducted on. If there was a larger number of religious groups that was included in the poll as compared to other types of organizations that would surely affect the accuracy of data that was depicted.

The author claims that the poll itself is a strong indication of people’s perceptions that educational institutions are in less need of donations as compared to other institutions. The poll itself is insufficient for me to draw my conclusion on proposed statement. There could be another reason why there are lower amounts of donations for educational institutions. It could be due to the fact that educational institutions do not advertise and promote themselves as much (for example through charitable campaigns, fundraisers), thus leading to less visibility for them. People who are unaware of the donation needs of educational institutions would not donate to them otherwise.

In sum, the author’s argument stands weak. The author should provide stronger and more detailed statistical evidence to buttress his or her argument. Had the author taken the above factors into consideration, the argument would have been rendered irrefutable.

"Important truths begin as outrageous, or at least uncomfortable, attacks upon the accepted wisdom of the time."

The introduction of new ideas and theories is inevitable in the course of human progress. Whether it is in the scientific, the socio-political or the philosophical sphere, new truths or ideas are always generated to challenge old conventions. However, these introductions of new ideas and theories are often met with dissent and incredulity. I am in concordance with the statement presented by the author for there is a recurrent pattern in history that proves that new ideas are often met with rebellion and opposition. Also, new truths are also seen as a personal attack on societal established habits and beliefs.

Looking through the threads of human history, there is a recurrent pattern where new concepts have always been challenged by people who have held on to traditional wisdom. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution has been disputed for years. Not only that, the debate is still ongoing. Religious groups have figuratively stoned the idea, calling it heretic and blasphemous. It was difficult for the religious to believe in the possibility that man might have originated from primates and not from the hands of God. The same pattern is recurrent in other areas of societal development as well. In psychology, Sigmund Freud’s theories on psychosexual development also received much opposition and controversy when it was introduced in a very conservative Victorian era.

One of the main reasons that new truths are often seen as iconoclastic is the fact that it is seen as an attack on the established attitudes and beliefs of man. Humans are creatures of habit and established beliefs. Often times their framework of understanding are fed by the current society at the time. The introduction of a new idea, whether it be proven true or not, shakes the foundation of their understanding and creates a dissonance between their established perceptions and reality. That dissonance creates fear and confusion. Not only that, new truths are often also seen as an attack on powers of authority. As an example, the advent of the Renaissance era was seen as rebellion against the institution of church and traditional paradigm.

Change is inevitable. We do not live in a static world. We progress by building on conventional wisdom and constantly testing and retesting its validity in order to achieve greater heights. Important truths, though often deemed as outrageous when initially introduced, eventually integrates into the accepted wisdom of the time. There are many theories that were once challenged during its time which are now considered commonplace.

In summary, there have been evidence in history to prove that important truths have often been met with opposition from people who hold on to conventional ideas. This is due to the fact that people have established habits and beliefs, and introduction of new ideas are seen as an attack on them.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Argument Analysis 4

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper.

"Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in the United States is misleading. The article gives the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. But this impression is contradicted by a recent report on the United States economy, which found that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. The report also demonstrates that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. Two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time."

*Downsizing is the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the number of their employees.


My response:

The author of the letter concluded that the newspaper article misrepresented the situation of corporate downsizing in the U.S. The author supports his or her claim by referencing a recent report that was conducted on the U.S. economy. However, the study that the author of the letter used to back her claims are full of flaws and loopholes which weakens the author’s stand on the issue. I shall present the fallacies of the author’s claims as below.

Firstly, the author referenced a report that was conducted over the span of 15 years. (1992 to 2007) Since the study was conducted over such a long period of time, it is unable to give a current depiction of the employment state of the current year. The data of the study was probably averaged over that period of time, and one year’s state of employment could differ greatly from the next. For example, the economic downturn of 2001 could change the employment and downsizing rates drastically but the economic has picked up since then. In order to strengthen her argument, the author should produce a current study that analyzes the economic situation of the current year.

Secondly, the author mentioned that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. The author further referenced the above-average wages of the newly created jobs, leading readers to assume that retrenched employees were the ones who took on the newly created positions with offer good wages. This assumption is weak for the author failed to mention the a) the standards of living of the retrenched workers, b) types of employment taken on by retrenched employees or c) the percentage of the retrenched employees that actually managed to land a job in the newly created positions. We cannot assume that the retrenched workers actually benefited from the high wages of the newly created positions. After all, the newly created positions could be filled by retained employees of the company.

Lastly, in order to evaluate the validity of the report, one must also consider the manner the report was conducted. Was the study conducted by an unbiased party?

In sum, the argument presented by the author stands weak. Had the author taken the above factors into consideration, it would have rendered his or her argument irrefutable. As it is, the author came to his or her conclusion by resting his assumptions on a number of inconclusive information.

"It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician."

"Politics is a dirty business.” That is a phrase that we’ve heard many times before, leading to the fact that many to believe that politicians are incapable of being honest. Honesty and ethics is an important element in politics, for the constituents of a society expect nothing less than the truth from the people they have elected into office. However, is complete honesty really a virtue for all aspects of the political sphere? The author of the topic statement above claims that it is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. I agree with the statement for there are some areas of politics where complete honesty is not applicable for it can compromise national safety as well as create a situation of mass panic.

Political leaders are often exposed to matters related to national security. Due to security reasons, complete honesty would not be a virtue. In a situation like this, the safety of the nation should be given top priority over people’s right to information. The safety of the nation would be compromised should information be leaked out to unscrupulous parties. Also, a country’s defense secrets are essential as it can create an illusion of strength to the eyes of the other nations. This was the tactic engaged by the U.S. nation and the Soviet Union and their allies during the Cold War. As much as citizens of the world idealize a world of harmony and open information between the nations, the fact is this: Each country is a separate entity with separate agendas. Each nation has their own interest to protect. To be entirely forthcoming with a country’s national secrets is to expose a country’s weakness to enemies who would use the opportunity to further their interests, possibly with underhanded means.

What about situations where national or state crisis are involved? Some years ago, the pipelines carrying petroleum had burst in California, thus affecting the supply of gasoline in Arizona. People reacted in panic to fear of gas shortage by filling up the gas tanks of the cars to the brim and hoarding additional gas supply in gasoline containers. There would have been sufficient gas supply to tide the state over until the pipelines was fixed but due to the reaction of panic and hoarding the supply of gas ran out earlier than anticipated. That is simply one illustration of the reaction of people in urgent situations. Members of a society, especially in large masses, react to contingency situations in unpredictable ways that could be detrimental to the well being of the society. Complete honesty in situations of national crisis could potentially produce situations of mass panic and chaos, which can impede corrective actions or policies. Honesty is a virtue. However, a politician should have the discretion of deciding the level of honesty that is needed by the society without causing mass panic.

In conclusion, it is not beneficial for a politician to tell the truth all the time. As illustrated above, there are some situations where complete honesty is not a virtue for it can compromise national security and create an environment of panic and chaos that is detrimental to the health of a society.

(Time: 1 hour)

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Argument Analysis 3

The article entitled "Eating Iron" in last month's issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.

My response:

Based on the statement above, the author concluded that there is a correlation between the consumption of red meat(which contains high amounts of iron) and increased risk of heart disease. The author based his or her assumption on the findings of the study produced by Eating for Health magazine. However, there are many flaws and loopholes in the study that weakens the author’s arguments of which I shall present below.

The study produced by Eating for Health attempted to establish a strong link between large consumption of red meat and heart disease. The sentence was phrased in a way to mislead readers into believing that the consumption of red meat was the primary link to heart disease. However, this assumption could potentially prove erroneous. There are number of reasons for this.

Firstly, it was not mentioned that red meat was the highest of all amounts of food types consumed by patients with heart disease. The study did not provide concrete evidence and hard numbers in order to strengthen their case. The study did not mention percentages of other food types that patients with heart disease could be consuming, or breakdowns of all food groups that are in the patients’ diets. For all we know, the risk of increased heart disease could be caused by any other types of food.

Even if the increased risk of heart disease was attributed to the consumption of red meat, to assume that the iron content in red meat is the primary cause of increased heart disease is wrong. Red meat is a composite of other minerals as well, any of which could be the cause of increased risk of heart disease.

Also, one must consider how the study was conducted. The author failed to mention the sample population of the study, or which region or regions the study was conducted in, or even who conducted the study. Without taking those factors into consideration, the results produced by the study could be potentially inaccurate and biased.

In sum, the argument stands weak. The author came to his or her conclusion by resting his or her belief on a number of vague assumptions. Had the author taken the above factors into consideration, the argument would have been rendered irrefutable.

Monday, September 24, 2007

"Choice is an illusion. In reality, our lives are controlled by the society in which we live."

Choice is a matter where we exercise our decision-making power on. Some argue that choice is an illusion and that our decisions are shaped by the constraints of the society we live in. Others argue that choice is a basic right and we have the power to make a choice in everything, no matter what the circumstances are. The author takes the former stance. However, I take a more moderate view between the two. I believe that there are both formal and informal forms of social control that affects our choices in many areas of our lives, whether directly or indirectly. However, to claim that choice is nothing but an illusion is an exaggeration for there are some areas of our lives where we can exercise our power of choice on.

Societies have formal forms of social controls that are created for the purpose of maintaining stability and peace in the community. These are the direct forms of social control that members of a society are made aware of. They can take the form of written laws and regulations, bodies of authority and power, judicial systems, punishment systems and so on. These systems serve to condition members of a society against aberrant and deviant behaviors that are detrimental to the well being of a society. In this sense, our power of decision is tempered by the rules and conditions laid upon us by our society. For example, we cannot kill as we like for it is a criminal action and punishable by law. This is not to say the acts of crimes do not happen at all but at the existence of social control tends to affect how we make our choices.

Of course, when discussing the freedom of making choices, we must also take into consideration the degree of freedom allowable in each society. Degree of freedom varies from society to society. Liberal and democratic countries provide more areas of exercising the power of choice on such as political and social sphere. Societies that are more conservative and autocratic tend to infringe on more areas of personal freedom. For example, the ‘fashion police’ of Afghanistan are created to ensure that women are dressed appropriately in public. Different societies have different standards as far as power of making choices go. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” is a very apt saying that exemplifies the notion of conforming to the rules of one society. The point is, no matter how disparate societies are in terms of social control, there are always various forms of social control that influence our choices in how we dress, the way we conduct our behavior for we fear repercussions from powers of authority.

In addition to the formal social control that are set by governing powers, more informal methods of social control take in the forms of norms and mores. Social norms and mores are the unspoken guide of social conduct which was formed over time and derived from established practices. While some behaviors are not considered criminal, it is not exactly sanctioned either and is frowned upon. As an illustration: The act of picking the nose is considered disgusting and most people avoid doing it (or at least in public) to avoid disapproval from others. Humans are social creatures and want to belong in a collective group. In order to gain approval from their peers, they will conform to these unspoken rules. These ‘soft’ rules condition our actions and affect our decisions and interaction with others.

All the abovementioned factors influence the way we make our choices. However, to claim that we not have the ability to make any choices at all is false. There many are areas where we get to exercise our power of choices in. However, our choices are from a limited range and are in a controlled environment. Even so, there are many ways for a person to make a choice that is purely his or her own without any influence from society. Take the example of the Amish people. They are a subculture group that chose to live their lives in a more primitive way without modern facilities. Their method of living defies the conventions of the majority social norm but it is also a choice that they have made.

In conclusion, choice is not necessarily an illusion. It is undeniable that there are forms of societal controls that influence our process of decision making. However, we are still able to make choices in many areas of our lives that are free of influences of society.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Argument Analysis 2

The following is a memo from the principal of Academia High School.

"Academia High School should abolish its after-school performing-arts programs and replace them with computer-technology programs. When nearby Techno High School did so last year, total enrollment in all of its after-school activities remained about the same. Moreover, on entering college, many Techno students chose a major directly related to their after-school activities. On the other hand, last year only 10 percent of Academia's graduating seniors chose performing arts as their major field of study in their first year of college, clearly indicating that most students do not have a strong interest in the performing arts."


My response:


The memo concludes that Academia High should abolish its after-school performing arts program and replace them with computer-technology programs. The principle/writer of the memo supports his argument by referencing anecdotal evidence of another school who has adopted the suggested abolishment as well as the small percentage of Academia graduating seniors choosing performing arts as a college major. The argument presented is weak and unconvincing for it contains a number of inconclusive assumptions. I will analyze the assumptions as below.

Turning to the first anecdotal evidence, the principal of Academia High pointed out that of Techno High School's total enrollment in all its after school activities remained the same after abolishing their after school performing arts program. The memo failed to mention the actual numbers and hard statistics of Techno High's total enrollment. Instead, they referenced the enrollment level vaguely, leading the readers to the belief that the total enrollment statistics was a positive one. However there are factors to be considered. What was the actual number of enrollment of students in relation to the entire population of the school? Were there only a few students that enrolled in the after school programs, thus undermining the effectiveness of the abolishing the performing arts program? To convince me of the effectiveness of abolishing the after school performing arts program, the principal would need to show me that actual statistics of Techno High's enrollment was a positive one.

Secondly, the memo points to the evidence that many Techno High students chose a major related to their after school activities upon entering college. The argument rests on the assumption that Techno's students' choice of major is directly caused by their choice of after school activities, rather than any other reasons. A student's choice of major could be caused by employment trends where many potential employers are hiring students studying technology-based majors, thus influencing their decision Also, the memo did not mention which the sample size of the study or where the study was conducted. If the study was only conducted on one college in one specific region, it might produce results that are insufficient to draw a definite conclusion on. Besides, even if the abolishment of performing arts program does prove to be successful at Techno High, the same success cannot be guaranteed for Academia High.

Looking at the final evidence presented by the memo. The principal references the small percentage of Academia's graduating seniors choosing performing arts as their major, inferencing that most students do not have an interest in the performing arts. This assumption is full of loopholes. This study was only conducted on the sample of first-year college students, not taking into consideration the possibility of students switching majors in their later years. Not only that, the study did not mention the number of students who were doing double majors; it did not mention if there were any students who did both performing arts and some other major as a choice. That percentage is not sufficient enough to indicate that there is a relation between Academia's student major of choice and their interest in performing arts.

In sum, the argument presented is weak. The argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the principal has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. Had the principal taken the above discussed factors into view, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. But whatever presented fails to provide a holistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.


Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Argument Analysis 1

The following appeared in an editorial in the local newspaper of Workville.

"Workers should be allowed to reduce their workload from 40 to 25 or even 20 hours per week because it is clear that people who work part-time instead of full-time have better health and improved morale. One store in Workville, which began allowing its employees to work part-time last year, reports that fewer days of sick leave were taken last year than in previous years. In contrast, the factory in Workville, which does not allow any of its employees to work part-time, had a slight increase in the number of days of sick leave taken last year. In addition, a recent survey reports that most of the store employees stated that they are satisfied with their jobs, while many of the factory employees stated that they are dissatisfied with their jobs."

My response:

The argument above proposes the idea that reduced workload hours from the regular 40 hours per week would help boost employee health and morale. The author produces two seemingly cogent evidences to support her claim. The first: the fewer sick leaves taken by employees of a store that allows part time work policy as compared to employees of a factory that does not. The second evidence: reported higher job satisfaction of the store employees as compared to the factory employees. The argument as presented by the author is not sufficient enough for the evidences produced are fragmentary and full of loopholes. I will analyze the fallacies of the argument as below.

Based on the anecdotal evidence collected by the author, the author immediately assumes that the number of sick days taken are directly related the workload of the employees. The number of sick days taken could be related to any other amount of reasons. For one thing, the author failed to mention the conditions of the work environment of each work place. Is one workplace more hazardous than another? Could the factory be a more hazardous workplace than the store? For this very reason, the number of sick leave taken by factory workers could be significantly higher due to the frequency of work related injuries.

Another reason why the argument as presented by the author is insufficiently convincing is the size of the sample study. The author based his or her opinions based on the study of one single store and factory in a single region. If the study was conducted elsewhere, would the results be the same?Also, the study is flawed because the study is comparing two different types of businesses and work environment. To convince me of the solidity of the argument, the author should present a study that compares the effects of reduced workload of two similar businesses. Even if the statement that reducing workload would better employee morale and health, that policy might not hold true for a business of a different type.

Lastly, the author tries to imply a relationship between job satisfaction and the amount of workload. The level of job satisfaction might not be necessarily tied to the amount of workload a worker has. The level of job satisfaction can be due to any number of other reasons including monetary compensation, amount of vacation days, work environment and so on. The author should analyze the factors of what affects job satisfaction before making a definite judgment on the matter.


In conclusion, the author made her assumptions based on a number of data that did not take the above factors into consideration. The author should strengthen her stand by taking on more detailed studies and surveys that do not provide inconclusive evidence.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

"Students should bring a certain skepticism to whatever they study. They should question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively."

Some believe that it is more conducive for students to accept what they are taught passively. Some others believe that students should bring certain amount of skepticism to whatever they study. The debate between these two school of thoughts is a contentious one. However, I believe that skepticism is a constructive learning mechanism. A certain amount of skepticism in the process of learning is healthy for it promotes critical thinking and reasoning. It encourages the students to question and tests validity of subject matters. However, too much skepticism can impeded the process of learning. I will discuss all of the following below.

A certain amount of skepticism is healthy for it encourages the student to think. Skepticism fosters critical thinking and reasoning. Skepticism teaches the student to test and validate the information that he or she has learned. A passive learner would simply absorb facts without questioning anything twice, even if the content of the subject was grossly incorrect. What if no one ever had the curiosity to question the theory that the earth was flat? People would be too afraid to explore other lands for fear of falling off the edge of earth. Critical thinking and reasoning has led to new discoveries and progress. New discoveries are made in the scientific field almost every day. Theories are constantly tested and limitations pointed out which leads to further understanding of the subject matter.

Thinking leads to asking. Asking is one of the oldest forms of learning. Socrates, who is considered one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy and thought had preached the Socratic method—a form of philosophical inquiry. Questioning opens the floor for debate and encourages a healthy flow of ideas and opinions from differing parties. This can benefit both the educator and the educatee for everyone has something new to bring to the table. The act of questioning, which encourages the student to approach their area of study in a critical manner can help the student gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter. A passive learner who merely absorb facts only understands a subject on a superficial level. He or she might understand the theories and mechanics of the subject matter but might not necessarily know how to apply the knowledge on a real life basis. Take for example a doctor. He or she might memorize and know all the components of a human body but the fact is every patient is different. Following details by the book might not necessarily be the best approach in such situations.


Skepticism, in appropriate amounts can promote healthy curiosity. However, too much skepticism can actually impede the process of learning. A person who is continuously questioning and arguing facts would not have the time to absorb information, even though the information is beneficial to them.

In conclusion, skepticism in healthy doses promotes good analytical thinking and reasoning skills. Skepticism can lead to questioning which helps solidify a student's understanding of the subject matter. However, too much skepticism is unhealthy for it impedes the learning process.

Monday, September 17, 2007

"Contemporary society offers so many ways of learning that reading books is no longer very important."

The above statement implies that the author feels that reading as a form of learning is a dying trend. With the advancement of technology within the last few decades or so, many forms of educational tools have emerged. In the era of information overload, a person can learn from so many different mediums. Among them are the Internet and other various forms of media like the television and radio. Books are merely one of the contenders of being an educational tool. To say that reading books is no longer very important in this time and age is an erroneous one for modern mediums are unable to capture the abstract values of books. Also, not everybody has access to contemporary ways of learning.

Man have been recording information through writing for hundreds of years. The most primitive knowledge on astronomy are recorded in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Laws were inscribed on great stone tablets during the Mesopotamian period. Great men like Sir Isaac Newton and Leonardo da Vinci have been recording their discoveries and ideas onto manuscripts that are passed down to future generations—us. Writing is one of the oldest ways to disseminate information. The creation of the movable printing press sped up the way literary material were produced and enabled the dissemination of information on a larger scale.

To claim that reading books is no longer very important is to say that historical and cultural values are worthless. Books and texts contain both historical and cultural values that cannot be replicated by modern mediums. The written word represent the collection of theories(proven and otherwise), ideas and perspectives of authors of past and the present. There are many classical texts that are preserved in their original form that are in existence today—many of which scholars still pore over and glean knowledge from. Innovations in technology has given the modern person the more options of learning but can it capture the essence of the abstract values? Take for example the Bible. The book itself represents a physical symbol of the Christian faith. Though the person might be able to fortify their knowledge through religious educational TV shows or Internet articles, ultimately reading the physical book carries the connotations of their faith and beliefs.


Another fallacy in the author's statement is this. The statement implies that everybody has access to contemporary learning tools. Let us take a look at the examples of modern forms of learning. In modernized societies, a person can learn from surfing the Internet highways or through virtual universities, or through listening to the news on the radio or on television. What about poorer societies out there that do not even have access to such amenities? Poor villages where educational opportunities are scarce and hard to come by. The issue of the 'digital divide' between the modernized societies and the ones that are less fortunate are very real and rampant. In such contexts, books might be the only and most feasible access to learning.

It is true that contemporary society has provided many ways for learning. However, it has not lessened the importance of reading books as a form of learning. Reading books—the more traditional way of learning is important for it imparts the historical and cultural values that cannot be duplicated by modern mediums. Also the function of books are still important in countries which do not have access to modern learning tools.

Friday, September 14, 2007

"People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are the most critical of it."

People make commitment to different ideas or policies all the time. The idea can be anything; a political ideology, a business proposal or even choices in personal relationships. A person is most committed to an idea or policy because they have some sort of personal investment in it. They are therefore most critical of an idea/policy because it is a mechanism to ensure that the idea/policy is as perfect as possible.

When a person is committed to an idea or policy, there is an understanding that the person has some sort of personal investment in it. The personal investment can be in the form of emotional, physical or financial investment. Being humans, it is only natural that the person or persons who invest into the idea/policy expect some sort of return. This investment serves as an insurance of the person’s commitment to seeing the policy or idea is successful. Of course, this is not to say that the person is necessarily coerced into believing in the said idea or policy but it is a matter of personal choice. Humans are logical creatures and they make their choices based on their analysis of the pros and cons of an idea.

People put their full most effort into making an idea or policy come true when they are most critical of it. There are two elements to this. Firstly, the person must have belief in that idea or policy. How can a person even start committing to an idea/policy if he or she did not believe in the feasibility of the idea in the first place? After all, no one wants to back a losing horse. The second element is the concern for the workings and the mechanics of the idea. In order to see their ideas and policy come to fruition, they have to be critical and analyze the idea from all angles possible to ensure that the idea or policy is as perfect as possible.

Truth is, people are most involved in matters that affect them the most. Criticism of the idea or policy serves as a mechanism of working out the idea to ensure that the idea/policy has a chance to work out the kinks and imperfections before presenting the final product to others.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

"Over the past century, the most significant contribution of technology has been to make people's lives more comfortable."

Tracing through the timeline of human history, it is obvious that man have always been inventing. There are historical artifacts to show evidence that man have continually looking for ways to make lives more comfortable for them. Whether it be something as primitive as the creation of the first pulley system or the creation of automotives, men are always seeking ways to make life easier.

Technology has affected many areas of the life of the modern person, among them being communication, transportation, factory production and many others. Technology is always evolving, and each step takes us towards standards of better and more comfortable living. From the Stone Age to the cyber era we now live in, it is undeniable that advancements in technology have had a great impact on how we live our lives. Advancement in transportation has made it easier for people to get from one place to another, and to visit places that would not have been feasible in the olden times. Advancement in communications has enabled us to pass knowledge and information as well as break down physical and cultural boundaries.

The effects of technology on man are not minor. Thanks to advancement in technology, people from different ends of the world are able to talk almost instantly, information is disseminated a lot faster, and traveling takes a shorter time. Thus the term ‘globalisation’ was coined. The world is in effect, one large marketplace. Countries with ‘closed door’ policies are opening up to the vastness of business opportunities that were previously not available. People are being exposed to languages and cultures of different nations. Goods are being produced faster and on a larger scale and distributed at a faster rate.

Despite the advancement in technology over the years, not everybody benefits from it. Ideally, the process of globalization pushes the world to a borderless state where information and wealth are shared among the nations. However, that is not the case. Some countries progress faster than others, and in effect create a disparity between the nation that is more technologically advanced than the one that is not. The disparity upsets the power balance and a small number of countries control the majority percentage of wealth.

Even though advancement in technology does have its negative effects, it is undeniable that technology does better the lives of people. The question now is how to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to benefit from it.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

"Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other."

Morality and politics- are they both really different? Politics can be defined as the science of governing a body of people and policy making. Morality on the other hand can be defined as a set of rules and principles of good conduct that guide our daily lives. Morality and politics are not necessarily exclusive of each other for one affects the other in the process of decision making. Morality provides us the framework of right conduct on an individual scale whereas morality affects the decision of politics on a macro scale.

Regardless whether a person is a religious or not, a person has a set or morals that govern his or her choices in life. We have been taught that greed is excessive, lying is bad, killing is evil… the list goes on. Morality instills within us a sense of conscience. This conscience is the factor that regulates and checks our behavior and our interaction with people. Of course, this is not to say that everybody has the same standards of morality. One religion’s teachings might differ from another. However, the universal understanding is that a good sense of morality provides us the framework on making the right and just choices in life.

An individual makes individual moral choices that his or her personal life. Politics can be seen as an extension of that except for the fact the choices made affect the lives of many others. Without a good sense of morality, politicians will make unjust choices that will adversely affect the society. Humans are essentially greedy and want benefits to be tipped to their favor. People make selfish choices. Politicians are only human and they make the same mistakes. A good sense of morality tempers the innate selfish instincts of a person. A politician with kindness and compassion for his fellow people will attempt make the best choices for his fellow constituents.

Basically, both politics and morality boils down to how we treat our fellow brothers and sisters. Politics are dependent on morality, for without good morals it is impossible to make correct and just choices that would benefit the society.

Saturday, September 8, 2007

"Artists should pay little attention to their critics. Criticism tends to undermine and constrain the artist's creativity."

The argument of the relationship between the artist and the critic has been long debated. Many have asked: are critics helpful or detrimental in promoting an artist’s quality of work? On one hand, criticism, when used constructively, can be used as a tool to analyze the strength and weaknesses of an artist which could lead to the betterment of the artist’s skills. It can also provide new perspective and view of looking at an artist’s works. However, on the other hand, criticism can undermine and constraint the artist’s confidence and creativity which could lead to poor work quality.

Criticism does not necessarily have to have a negative effect on artists and their work. After all, who is the artist trying to sell and expose his or her art to? The public. The critics represent nothing more than the voice of the public evaluating the work and the marketability of the artist. The criticism or praise garnered can be used as tool by the artist to analyze their strengths and weaknesses. It is undeniable that evaluating one’s own work is not an easy thing because personal bias and ego would come into play. This is where an external opinion from an impartial party comes in; the criticism or praise received can be used to build on the artist’s strengths or as an indication for the artist to work on their weaknesses in certain areas.

Not only that, criticism gives an artist the opportunity to look at their work from a myriad of perspectives and views they might not have otherwise seen. Criticism is a form of healthy debate to bring in fresh ideas and perspectives of looking at the artist’s works. After all, perhaps the artist is only approaching his or her work from one angle. The opinions and ideas generated by his or her critics could potentially give the artist inspiration fodder for future works.

However, not all effects of criticism are positive. Criticism could also work adversely against the artist. Artists are only human and are not impartial to the psychological effects of harsh criticism. This could in turn affect the artist’s quality of work. After all, what is art but an expression of the artist from within. Criticism could undermine the artist’s confidence and make him or her doubt their ability.

The truth is this: criticism is a double edged sword. Criticism can be taken as a positive instrument for analyzing strengths and weaknesses. However, it can also affect the confidence and self esteem of the artist, which could in turn affect their work. In the end, criticism is what the artist chose to make of it.

Friday, September 7, 2007

"The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority."

A society is a constantly evolving mass, one with dynamic rules and ideas and opinions that come from the people that make up that mass. The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority, but only under the condition that the body of authority shows respect for the opinions of the people and take into consideration the voices of the people during policy making and implementation.

The act of questioning authority is healthy for there is a constant need for people to test the validity of existing rules and policies. It is true that sometimes the power in authority might not always have the society’s best interest at heart. Sometimes questioning the authority is needed for it has the ability to spark the start of a revolution to create or change something for the better. Many instances in history have proven this point from political revolutions to overthrow a cruel dictatorship to fights for a country’s independence. On a large scale, questioning the authority can change the global landscape. For example, think about this. If colonies did not rebel against the idea of colonialism, would imperialism still be large and strong? Would the world as we know today exist? On a smaller scale, questioning the authority can change policies that affect the individual like tax laws, voting rights, abortion rights, etc.

On the flip side, the act of questioning authority can have adverse effects on a society as well. A healthy society works best where a majority of its people are in accord with the government. The key phrase here is this: the majority of the people. What about societies that consist of numerous sociopolitical groups that have conflicting views and agendas? In each trying to push their own ideas and opinions, this conflict could undermine the power of local governance and interfere with implementation of policies even though the policies are good for the society. In worst case scenarios, the situation could potentially escalate to war and internal strife.

Ultimately, for the most part I believe that it is healthy for the people of society to question authority. It is a form of regulating the power of governance and to drive them to continually improve things in order to bring better benefits for its constituents.