dicapino

Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development. Should governments place only few restrictions on scientific research and development? From the author's claim it is averred that governments should not place many restrictions on scientific research. While some persons would argue that government restrictions will stymie creativity and innovation in the field, others aver that such involvement is needed, as some of these researches create innovations that are harmful to humans. I believe government should place as much restrictions on scientific research because of the ethical and moral concerns that such innovations raise. Firstly, some scientific researches apply practices that degrade humanity and show no reverence for human life. Such unethical methods should be restricted by government. If a research, no matter how great its prospects are, uses methods that involve using humans as test subjects or guinea pigs, it should not be approved. For instance, cloning research during the nineties would have helped humanity in the production of tissues, and organs for transplantation; furthermore, it will also have aided unfertile couples with kids. But all these gains would have been at the expense of deformed babies and the loss of lives of thousands of babies, whose vital organs could have been used for transplanting. Furthermore, until this day one of the greatest product of scientific research is the atomic or nuclear bomb and its devastating and harmful effect was seen during world war two when it was unleashed on Japanese soil. Weapons like the atomic bomb are still been created as a result of advances in scientific research. When such weapons fall into the hands of extremists like terrorist groups they are use to cause mayhem and thousands of lives are lost. For example, mustard gas was used to kill civilians in Syria. This shows that governments must continue to place restrictions on scientific research, so as to check these kinds of atrocities. Proponents against my position argue that unnecessary interference in scientific research would stymie the creativeness of scientists. Although innovations due to these researches are beneficial to the public, governments have a right to set standards and guidelines to govern scientific procedures and methods employed in these ventures, so that the public are not victims of any insidious scientific process. In summary, government should place many, not few, restrictions on scientific research and development. Cloning and WMDs illustrates my assertion. Governments have an obligation to act as a watch-dog on scientific research; if scientists are allowed to be too creative, then they may take laws into their hands. ***** I think i have a problem. i timed myself, brainstormed my points in like 5 mins, then i started writing; i was able to complete the first 3 paragraphs, i wrote the other 2 paragraphs later. i am worried because i know its not a good thing. Any advice?

Awells thanks for the advice. working on my sentence construction, i just got a book on grammar. Thanks again. Hope you can critique other essays form just like this one.

Government are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to protection of national security. Is it pertinent for governments to break civil laws in the name of national security? While proponents of this assertions proudly asservate that the common good is of more importance than the individual good, others aver that such acts promotes illegality and impunity. I believe that it is both amoral and illegal for government to circumvent civil laws because it is undemocratic, and it can lead to autocracy and despotism. Although the national security of a nation of great importance in this century that has engendered dire security problems, for example, terrorism, it is still illegitimate for governments or their security agencies to circumvent rights of innocuous civilians in favour of national security interests. It is undemocratic for governments to break civil laws since it infringes on the rights of citizens. Government are placed in power to protect these rights and not degrade them, promoting such acts defeats and betrays the rubrics of democracy. For example, the revelations of the NSA scandal showed the wide scale impunity of the agency; from listening into personal conversations, to bugging homes, and reading messages and various other sordid acts all in the name of national security. If such acts are important measures that must be taken to thwart terrorist attacks, are over 50 million civilians terrorists? Civil laws should not be circumvented because of the protection of national security. Furthermore, if such acts are not checked and halted it could precipitate our present democracy to a system of autocracy and despotism. If such powers are left in the hands of individuals or groups it could be used for their personal agenda. The worldwide outrage at sordid details of the NSA scandals have raised suggestions that the US government has taken to a path of impunity and even compared this with SS secret agency of East Germany who were involved in spying and threatening thousands of civilians within that territory just before the fall of the Berlin wall. In summary, governments are not justified by breaking civil laws when they do so in the interest of national security. Such impunity is undemocratic and promotes despotism and autocracy. Although security is germane to the general well being of a nation, government should thread a thin line between ensuring national safety and breaking civil laws.

As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious. A popular saying states that 'knowledge is power'. Knowledge gives man understanding of the environment in which he exists. While some persons would argue that technology still has many complexities, others aver that knowledge helps to disambiguate such complexities, and this is evident throughout human history, man has made many unknowns known. I believe things become comprehensible to man as he gathers more knowledge, this is shown in the forays made in the understanding of the universe and medical research. Scientists like Newton and Galileo, who are among the pioneers in the studying of the universe, surely had the handicapped of a little knowledge base for their experiments. They studied the heavenly bodies, they wanted to know how the earth moved, they wanted to know of other bodies in the universe, but they didn't have enough knowledge to decipher these complexities completely. In contemporary times man has a better understanding of his immediate universe, man has gone to the moon, man has sent many space probes missions to various heavenly bodies and the list goes on. All this were accomplished because man has acquired more knowledge and technology. The universe that was complex to man of the Middle Ages is lucid to man of the twenty-first century. Furthermore, the medical science has improved exponentially, during the middle and medieval age illness like small pox and fever was a scourge to many persons. Many deaths were recorded then because physicians did not have enough knowledge to tackle such diseases; but with more knowledge in modern times death rates are low, even small pox has been eradicated worldwide. Furthermore, virulent illnesses like cancer and AIDS are continually been researched by scientist and headway is been made, cancer can be treated by chemotherapy if detected early, and AIDS can be managed. This shows that as we acquire knowledge we get more understanding. In summary, as we acquire more knowledge, things become more comprehensible not complex. Improvement in the medical sciences aptly illustrates my assertion. If man gives up due to these complexities, more inventions will not be created and this would have a deleterious effect on our humanity.

The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves. Does the rapid pace of life today create more problems than it solves? While some persons would argue that technology has continued to help humanity overcome problems than do harm, others argue that the human race has more problems than before, citing family, health and social problems as products of such modernisation. I believe that the rapid pace of life is an aftermath of technological development has done more harm than good to the human race. Firstly, it creates family disruptions and issues. In contemporary times parents are so engrossed with their jobs that they forget about their families. They leave no time to be with their families, and everyone is trying to make ends meet and is always busy. This creates disruptions in many families, especially in urban centres, were parents get to their workplaces early and come back late at the night; they are not on the same page with their kids and this create discordance between parents and children, coupled with the fact that parents don't notice if their kids have picked up bad habits and made bad friends. Furthermore, divorce is brought to the table when couples feel that they are not receiving the right attention from their partner and spend less time together. A recent study revealed that divorce issues start up between couples that don’t spend enough time together. Also, we have to consider the social problems that are engendered by a rapid pace of life. With the continuous development in technology, many kids have access to different products that this technology espouses: facebook, Skype, twitter and so on. Not saying that such avenues are not beneficial, but many kids exposed to such mediums use them for scamming, pornography and also use it to show their virulence by making hate comments online. Kids are able express and learn attitudes that are supposed to be controlled by their parents. At an earlier time when technology was not this developed, such character would surely have been controlled or at least won’t be placed on social media. Although a rapid pace of life has brought many conveniences to man; telephones and automobiles make man conduct his affairs with ease. Yet some of these luxuries are misused by certain persons and this creates adverse problems; individuals driving under the influence which leads to accidents and a more egregious example is the use of phone calls and internet facilities to mulct naïve persons. In conclusion, surely the rapid pace of life has created more problems than good. 30mins

In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people. Should the merit of an artwork be based on lucidness to its audience? While some people would argue that artworks need not be totally understandable since it is created for an intent that exceed clarity to the human mind, others argue that for it to be accepted most of the public should be able to decipher the artist's intent. I believe that artworks are the emotions and imaginations of their creators; thus, their merit should not be based on the ability of the public to understand the author's inner thought alone. Firstly, consider classical music like Handel's Alleluia chorus, in contemporary churches when a choir give a rendition of this majestic piece of art, there is always that frenzy and excitement in the congregation and this is not because they all have degrees in music to completely understand the different changes in rhythms and notes which the choristers must replicate to produce Handel's masterpiece, but this is due to the emotions ,joy and happiness this rendition exudes in the congregation, and its ability to mesmerize them to say ' oh, what a wonderful composition'. This in simple terms is the effect art should have on an individual. Furthermore, consider great paintings like Davinci’s Mona Lisa and the works of Di Angelo that makes thousands of people travel great distances just to view them and also how priceless these artworks are. If their merit was based simply on how lucid they are, they surely won’t have received such acclaim. Looking at the Mona Lisa you see a lady sitting, no name and nothing fantastic. But what holds the viewers spellbound is the simplicity and sublime beauty that this renowned painting evokes. And there are many other painting and artworks that don’t give themselves to a thorough explanation. Also, to ask for clarity as a criterion for the merit of an artwork is difficult because it will require knowing the artist’s emotions and disposition at that time which in most cases is hard to decipher. Historians have searched relentlessly for Davinci’s intent and who the lady may have being, they have no clear-cut answers. Proponents against my view argue that like literary works all artworks should be a bit understandable, well great writings are lucid because the public are conversant with words. Yet it cannot be said that such literary works possess only clarity, if you remain the same after reading a great work of art, then that writing was probably not creative. Writing also speaks to the emotions of its readers and in this lies the true merit of this art form. In summary, an artwork does not need to be lucid to have or gain merit. Examples like Handel’s Alleluia chorus and Davinci’s Mona Lisa aptly illustrate this assertion. An artwork is an outward expression of an artist’s inner thoughts and it is only proper that we receive such a gift with our heart and spirits and not necessary with our intellects. 30mins

Do they give grades for AWA section of their practice test? i have a copy of cracking the GRE

Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed. Should public funds be used to subsidize artworks when significant numbers of the population are in abject poverty? While some persons would describe government using of taxpayer's money on sectors that will not provide jobs as profligate, others aver that public funding of the arts is germane to the overall well-being of the nation. I believe that government should not stop the funding of the arts just because of impecunious situation of its citizens. Government funding of the arts helps to exhort and attract creative minds to the arts. Many persons are scared of taking up careers as writers, painters and sculptors, as they feel it may be difficult for them to raise income and live comfortable lives in the future. But with government funding it would be easy to train to become an artist and this would create more improvement in the art sector of a nation. Also, the nation will be able to produce artists of international repute that will bring adulation to both themselves and the nation. For instance, Wole Soyinka and Chinua Achebe are Nigerian authors, the former won a Nobel Prize, while the latter got a Booker Prize. They both were sponsored by the government early in their career, there are many more like them. Furthermore, government subsidizing the art is also important to the general wellbeing of the nation. It provides an opportunity for citizens to experience the abstractness and imaginative effect these art works exude; it would also provide a means of relaxation for the populace. This affects the well being of the nation positively, as individuals are enlightened about what the arts are about. For instance, the Mona Lisa, the lady with the hidden smile, has been said to have a relaxing effects on persons. Proponents against my views argue the it is inhumane for public funds to be use the arts when there are no jobs, there is even the saying ' can art put food on my table' ; but the opposite is the case in some situations as funding of arts help provide jobs for citizens of communities that host these art works. For example, in Brazil, the government in collaboration of the steel magnate, Bernado Paz, recently commissioned an art haven called Inhotim in the Brazilian hinterland, it has created job opportunities for the host communities, from curators at the establishment to travel guides at the local airports. This I believe has assuaged the situation of the citizens. In conclusion, government should continue to subsidize art work, so as to encourage our younger generation to have a predilection towards it and provide a means of relaxation and enlightenment. The arts help to preserve national cultures and traditions and all these would be lost if adequate funds are not provided to sustain it.

Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts. Is government funding of the arts necessary for it to flourish or does it threaten its integrity? While some persons would argue that public funds are necessary in the arts so that artworks are accessible by the public, others argue that such funds affect the impartiality of the arts and allow political interest to overshadow its candidness. I believe government funds affect the arts objectivity, artist's creativity; also, illegitimate regimes can use it as a means for propaganda. Firstly, government could make artist eschew objectivity and impartiality from their work. Artworks should among other things depict society; its character, problems and aspirations. If its leaders fail to meet the expectation of the citizens, it is the job of the artist to speak out with their art works. But this won't be the case when majority of the funds that artist realize for their works are from government coffers, artist may have to be biased in favour of their benevolent patron to the detriment of the public. Political involvement in arts surely threatens the integrity of the arts. For example, in North Korea, were government is in charge of everything, artworks are in favour of the regime in contrast to the real suffering of the masses, imagine Kim jong un unveiled a painting of a prosperous country. Furthermore, government can use such opportunity to spread propaganda to the citizens. The arts imaginativeness and abstractness is able to pervade through the populace and send messages that can affect their outlook on various topics like: culture, racism, slavery and the rest; most of these evil were abolished by art works that enlightened the public. Therefore, putting the apparatus of art in the hands of a despotic government, it may be used to send propaganda to the public. For instance, Hitler's Mainz Kempt that exuded his virulent Anti-Semitism to many Germans and the works of other Nazi artists during this period was an important prelude to World War two. Proponents against my idea argue that such funds will make the arts flourish since it will help subsidize art works, museums, galleries and the rest. But still I argue that such magnanimity can come from private hands that have the means and good intention towards the arts. For instance, during the Medieval Age powerful Italian families help artists like Di Angelo and his contemporaries in carrying out their craft. In summary, government funding of the arts threatens its integrity and objectivity. Funding of the arts should be put in the hands of private individuals, so as to retain the objectivity and impartiality of art works.

other essays. TOPIC:It is primarily in cities that a nation’s cultural traditions are generated and preserved Are cities the custodians of a nation's cultural traditions? While some people would argue that cultural norms are not fully expressed in modern cities due to the luxury of present day life, others asservate that major cities are cultural centres due to their high populations. I believe cultural traditions are not primarily generated and preserved in cities because of modernization of these major cities and actually they are preserved more by rural communities. Firstly, culture, by definition, is the way of life of a people; that is, their art, foods, norms, beliefs and fashion. Cities are centres of high population density and consist of an eclectic mix of different cultures. The nation's true culture surely will not truly be practiced in such cities with such dissimilarities, with time these cultural traditions will begin fade out. For example, in a city like London were there are Africans, Asians and Arabs, will the actual British culture be preserved in such communities? Such migrant communities will make effort in preserving their own culture in a foreign land. In contrast, cultural norms are preserved and adhered to in rural communities of these nations. For instance, the Aborigines population of Australia have continually moved farther from large cities like Sydney and Melbourne in order to avoid influence on their cultural tradition; thus, making effort in preserving their culture. Furthermore, the earth is colloquially called a ‘Global Village’. With the advent of technology and the internet; innovations like social media has made communication between people in different parts of the earth look commonplace. With this comes easy access to transfer of different trends or culture from a city to another. This has insidious effect on the home country's culture because individuals exposed to such technology gather such information and use as a substitute for their indigenous culture. This is very rampant in various major cities. For instance, in West Africa there is a gradual trend in major cities like Lagos and Accra favouring hip-hop music due to the effect of pop culture imported from the US, the local ‘juju music’ is now put to the background, and are only patronised by local communities. Opponents against my view argue that cities have high population densities and thus are where cultural norms are expressed. Although this may be the case in places like the US, for example Hollywood and Motown are the embodiment of their film and music culture, but in other parts of the world that are not as developed, cultural norms and traditions are endemic in bucolic communities. In conclusion, cultural traditions are preserved and generated not in cities but in rural communities. The luxury of modern life has taken this away from cities.

took the practice test in my princeton cracking the Gre today. i am really disappointed, solving questions under timed situation is different got average marks on both quant and verbal. wonder how the real thing will be like. well the good thing is that i have seen i need more practice question cos i didnt finish some sections and i missed some easy questions especially on my reading comp. Any advice i feel like giving up.

well i am struggling with the Verbal and AWA. would you be of help to me?

i normally put my counter argument as the third paragraph, i get tired there and i guess that why i goofed but any way thanks. Also, i am using the cracking the GRE princeton review......do feel its okay for the for the AWA. i use their format.

thanks,i will start doing that with these thread.

The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizens. Is the effectiveness of a country’s leaders best measured by the well being of its citizens? While some persons would argue that public well being consisting of security, availability of jobs and infrastructure must be met by government, others argue that not all government decision would directly affect public well being and thus should not be used as a yardstick for effectiveness. I believe that government effectiveness can be measured by examining the positive effects that their decisions have on public well being. Leaders are elected into power so as to help citizens achieve their aspirations. A nation where there is a scarcity of jobs, inadequate education facility and poor infrastructure shows that public well being is not salutary and that government is not effective. An effective government should implement policies that would ameliorate these dire conditions of its citizens. For example, the effectiveness of Obama’s administration was viewed from its inception through the critical lens of unemployment ratings in the United States. His leadership has been able to assuage the unemployment situation that was created by the recession. Furthermore, effectiveness of leadership can be assessed by the security situation in the nation. Government must able to assure the populace of adequate security of lives and property, as this also has an effect on their social well being. Government cannot claim to be effective when its country is in turmoil or when it fails protect its citizenry from external attacks like terrorism and internal conflicts. Such situations are a clear yardstick of how effective or strong willed a nation’s leaders are to making the citizens live comfortable lives. For example, countries like United States, Russia and the United Kingdom are able to assure its citizens of safety against external threats and as such their leaders are to an extent seen as effective. Proponents against my views argue that not all government actions will affect public wellbeing. But they fail to recall that all actions, be it, signing a treaty or going to war with a foreign country has direct or indirect effect on the citizenry. For instance, the effect of the Ukrainian government not signing a treaty with the European Union received tirades from the citizens. In conclusion, the well being of citizens is to an extent tantamount to the effectiveness of their leaders. Examples like public security and unemployment shows that government must solve these problems to be effective. Government has an obligation to make the lives of citizens conducive by creating an enabling environment for their goals and aspirations to be achieved.

When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings Should older buildings give way for modern development or be given precedence over modern buildings? Some persons would argue that old buildings should be kept standing, so as to preserve culture and history for future generations, but others aver that modern development should be given precedence, in order for government to use these grounds for buildings that provide social amenities like hospitals and social centres to the public. I believe old buildings should be given precedence over modern development. First, old buildings in different cities help preserve history and cultures for future generation. In the present digitalized world where life moves at the speed of light, certain buildings are, in some cases, stores of many historical facts that will help future generations have an insight on past centuries. Buildings like the coliseum and senate of the Roman Empire at the centre of Rome are clear examples of the historical content of old buildings. Apart from reading history books on the Roman Empire, students can visit such buildings to reinforce their knowledge on how early Romans were the earliest proponents of democracy and how they created ‘fun games’ at the coliseum. Old buildings preserve human history. Furthermore, such buildings are source of tourist attraction. Pulling down old buildings in favour of modern ones could have a negative impact on tourist activities. Some tourist hotspots are home to buildings that may be the driving force of influx of tourists into these cities; thus, modernization could stymie such activities. For instance, in Paris there is the nostra dames cathedral that draws certain individuals to the city, even though it is home to the Eiffel Tower; also, the Coliseum is a major tourist attraction in Rome. I imagine pulling down such structures could reduce the myriad of tourism seekers that visit these cities. Therefore, modernisation could be bad for business. Opponents against my position aver that old buildings should be pulled down, so that social amenities like health centres and schools can be built in communities with old buildings. I oppose such thoughts and believe government should look for better means of solving these problems and such solutions should not be at the expense of old structures. In conclusion, old buildings should be given precedence over modern ones. Examples like the Coliseum and nostra dames buildings are custodians of historical knowledge that could benefit future generations. Instead of breaking them down, governments should help to preserve and renovate these buildings, so they can withstand the test of time and provide more historical knowledge and revenue for the nation.

thanks. i make my essays longer and state a clear position and avoid vacillating. take these two points seriously

thanks......expect a reply

thanks. well @ratlab for that sentence i gooffed, i shouldn't have used that. i wrote this essay under a timed situation, i was seriously rushing to meet 30mins. but please won't i get a 3.5 or 3 on these essays. for that statement it was rubbish, sorry for that. thanks again for looking through, hope to get a reply back

In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. Before stepping down from power, Nelson Mandela, was pleaded with to seek reelection for a second term of five years, he simply said “young people should be allowed to bring in new vigour into governance”. While some persons argue that people in power should rule for more than five years so as to ensure stability, others believe that leaders should step down to allow for renew zeal. I believe in government leaders should step down after five years, but in businesses leaders should stay longer to ensure stable enterprise. Firstly, Nelson Mandela and South Africa is a lucid example why leaders should step down. After leading his people out of apartheid, he became the first black president of the country. He did not seek reelection after his first tenure, he pass power to a younger Thabo Mbeki, who was able to bring in new and modern ideas on how South Africa was to be relevant in the 21st century. Today, south Africa can boast the most buoyant economy in Africa and low poverty level in a continent were penury is rampant and other Africans see the rainbow country as the United States of Africa. In contrast with South Africa, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has been in power for over 40years and has not changed the fortune of the country. Zimbabwe has the highest inflation rate in the world, venality thrives in that country and he has not been able to solve these problems even with the amount of time he has spent in power. This all shows that there is a dearth of new ideas available in leadership when politicians stay too long in power. Business leadership should stay longer in power so as to allow for stability. In the business world changing power frequently is a sign of weakness. A change in leadership in such organization may lead to structural changes that may affect business negatively as new employees are hired and there might be a time lag for there to be understanding. For example, Microsoft plans to change its CEO in 2014 after over 20 years at the helm of affairs. This shows that stability is taken seriously by large corporations. In conclusion, leaders in government should step down after five years, but those in business should be allowed to stay longer. Examples like Mandela, Mugabe and Microsoft aptly illustrate my views. Politicians should not stay too long in power as this may lead to impunity, but business leaders should stay longer, so that the longevity of such corporations are assured.

A true university education encompasses far more than the narrow, specialized study of a single discipline. Only through exploring the broad spectrum of liberal arts courses can students be truly learned Is true learning one that explores liberal arts courses or just simply focus on a specialized study of a single discipline? Some will argue that true learning should not include courses that are not related to an individual's discipline, but others state that a proper education should include the liberal arts in respective of the discipline. i believe for an individual to be truly learned liberal art courses should be offered, so as to have a vast knowledge base. Firstly, offering the liberal art courses will make students have a broad knowledge base. Taking course outside their specialized discipline will allow students encounter thoughts and ideas in literature and poetry. This will make such knowledge less mundane to them; also, they can relate with their contemporaries on issues outside their specialized field. For example, science inclined students will have a predilection towards artworks and pick up habits of visiting art galleries. Furthermore, it will help make it clear to students that the boundaries between various fields have been lowered with the effect of modernization. What happens in a particular field has an effect on the other field. For instance, before a project is developed by a science team, there has to be knowledge of what the basic needs of the community are. Science projects have to affect the citizens positively; thus, scientist should have understanding of social behaviour of individuals through the liberal arts. In conclusion to be truly learned an individual should take liberal art courses in respective of their specialized discipline. It helps the individual create a vast knowledge base and if such programs are fixed into the curriculum, it will help produce bold individuals rather than the wacky nerds that singular specialized disciplines produce. i did this essay in like 30mins. hope its okay

Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could Scandals, by definition, are moral wrongdoings of public officials and personalities. Some would argue that scandals focus public attention on problems in public office, but others would state that public speakers are more effective at creating such awareness. I believe that scandals draw public attention to malfeansce in public office and also create the required reforms clamoured for by reformers. Consider the recent NSA scandal engendered by Snowden’s divulging of classified documents that revealed sordid details of methods employed by the security agency to gather intelligence. Such methods included reading personal emails, listening to phone conversations and even spying in other countries, not to mention the alleged bugging of Angela Merkel’s phone. Such putrid details has created an awareness within the citizenry of the extent to which their constitutional right to privacy is being trespassed upon, also there has been concession from the White House and NSA on the veracity of the claim, with the former promising to implement reforms that would put the NSA on a tighter leash. Another lucid example is doping by sport athletes. Before the prolific cyclist Armstrong, winner of about ten “Tour de France” titles, was indicted for doping, major sporting organisation failed to issue clear and strong statements against doping, except for athletics of course. The Armstrong imbroglio has created a greater awareness on use of energy enhancing substance in different sporting activities and made the public incredulous to genuineness of supposedly prolific athletes. Most sporting bodies have setup committees to help check the rising trend of use of banned substances. Opponents against my view would cite that certain reformers have made great strides in galvanizing public awareness on problems, but in most cases such speakers fail to tender facts to support their claims; thus, their actions does not amount to much. The Occupy Wall Street campaign is a lucid example. In conclusion, it is clear that scandals focus public attention focus public attention to problems better than a reformer or speaker ever could. Examples like the recent NSA and Armstrong scandal clearly buttresses this fact. Occurrence of scandals provide the public an avenue to judge the public life of supposedly important individuals.

Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve. Should government officials rely only on their personal judgement or listen to the will of the people? While some people argue that politicians should consider only their judgement on issues that affect national security and the economy, others argue that democratic ideals make governments amenable to public opinion. I believe governments should both be inclined to public opinion and follow their own judgement on certain issues. Firstly, democratic ideals make government amenable to public opinion. A democratic government is one by the people and for the people, as such, politicians should consider public will in their decision making. When government tend to impose their own judgement over public opinion, they lose their legitimacy of being democratic and slowly thread a path that leads to despotism; furthermore, such decisions are sometimes wrong and the aftermath of such intransigency is catastrophic. For example, Hitler imposed his own judgement on Germans and was antithetic to public sentiment against going to war, his decision was wrong and the calamity of World War two is immeasurable. A less egregious case is George Bush taking the United States to war in Iraq on the suspicion of WMDs, while the American public were hostile to this action and till this day no such weapons have been seen in the Middle-East. On the other hand important questions are created. Should officials consider public will when it comes to matters of national security? One thing is certain, on issues of national security, there is no need for public opinion and officials have more information than the public. Government has an obligation of guarranting the safety of its citizen and with the sufficient information available they should make prompt decisions on what action to take. For example, the United States in its war against terrorism, has used drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan, to squatter many terrorist plot against its home soil, even when some section of the American public are against its actions, on the long run the judgement of officials that ordered these actions is keeping the American public safe. Furthermore, take the example of the Greek bailout plan during the recession, the IMF released funds with assurances from the Greeks they would cut spending- meaning many citizens were to lose jobs. This lead to wide scale protests, but the government had better information that if these measures were not taken, it might not be able to run the country. In conclusion, government own judgement is important on certain issues and also public opinion must also be considered. If citizens are to enjoy the dividends of democracy, government must try to balance between considering their own judgement and public opinion.

thanks, will work on that

Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places Laws, by definition, are rule and codes that help regulate and guide the social behaviour of man. While some persons prefer laws to be rigid and clear, others argue that laws should consider disparities in cultures, social norms and times. I believe laws should be flexible, so as not be seen as unjust; and rigid, so that clear statements are made against many social ills and crimes. Firstly, the Bigamy law, a law that prohibits a man from marrying multiple wives, is a clear example why laws should be flexible. In the West this law is effective because Christianity has propagated this doctrine for many centuries. Such a law would be unjust in the African setting, a continent were many, if not all, traditions and cultures see polygamy as way of life. It will be harsh to indict or punish an African man because of his beliefs, this norm were passed down to him from successive generations and if such laws are to be legislated, politicians must consider these sharp cultural differences, so that the law is not seen as a punishment by the public. To further illustrate my point on flexible laws, take the example of traffic laws. Should the traffic law in Newyork City be similar to that in a small county or town? While it may be argued that strong traffic laws help abate myriad of cases drunk-driving and road accidents in a large city, there fails to be lucid reasons why such laws should be replicated, word for word, in a place where the population density is less, fewer cars taxing the roads and much less accidents. Such strong laws will be harsh in these situations and the public do not view the law as a corrective tool but with fear. On the other hand, rigid laws are important because certain social ills and crimes have to be counteracted with laws that make strong and clear statements. For instance, issues of domestic violence and terrorism should not be treated with kid gloves and when such laws are broken, culprits must face the rule of law, thereby, dissuading and curbing such heinous acts within the populace. We are aware of the effects of flexible gun control laws in the United States, ordinary citizens have access to military grade guns and this have trickled down into the wrong hands, leading to unnecessary deaths in public places; the Colorado theatre shooting is a vivid example. In conclusion, laws should both be flexible and rigid. Examples like the Bigamy law, traffic law and gun control law reinforces this view. Legislators must find a balance between rigid and flexible laws, as laws lose their legitimacy when considered harsh; also, can be seen as unjust by the public and can be manipulated when too flexible.