Jump to content

SamanthaRosochacki

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SamanthaRosochacki

  • Rank
    Decaf

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ypsilanti, MI
  • Application Season
    2019 Spring
  • Program
    Occupational Therapy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am using Magoosh right now and absolutely love it. I took the GRE once before and used Kaplan to study and did not get the scores I wanted. So this time I started studying with Magoosh and love it and see myself improving. Totally worth spending the extra money.
  2. "Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Just because there has been an increase number of skateboarders does not mean that is why the sales of Central Plaza have decreased. There are many things that need to be taken in account in order to make this a valid argument. Things change greatly in the result of two years. The assumption that the number of shoppers has decreased in two years because of the skateboarders is too vague. What was the economy like two years ago? The economy might have been better two years ago than it is now, resulting in fewer shoppers. If the shoppers of Central Plaza are not making the same money they were two years ago will decrease their shopping. If, the argument states that the economy has not changed or has gotten better would give this argument more validity. The author made another vague statement discussing the increase of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. With no evidence to back up this statement does not result in it being the fault of the skateboarders. If the customers are the ones that are littering or vandalizing the plaza, then that is not because of the skateboarders. Also, has the town that the Central Plaza is in, has had increased crime rates? If so, that would be a possible explanation to why there has been an increase in litter and vandalism. By making the assumption that the litter in the plaza is because of the skateboarders and that is resulting in decreased sales, weakens the argument. Also, how much has the number of skateboarders increased? With no statistical data, it does not show how ‘drastic’ the increase of the skateboarders was. If it turned out to not be that big of an increase it would further weaken the argument. Finally, another possibility to take into account is if the demographic has changed in the last two years. Has there been an increase in young residents in the area? If so, that could result in the plaza not having as much business. If the stores within the Central Plaza are not intriguing to the residents, they will not want to shop there. Also, another risk to take into account, is if there have been any new plazas built in the area. With that being said, may result in the shoppers at the Central Plaza to travel to the new shopping plaza. The authors assumption that the increased number of skateboarders is what has caused the decreased number of shoppers at the Central Plaza is too vague and does not provide any support.
  3. Topic: Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. The government has always had a strong hold on all areas of research and development. But, what if the government had few to no rules on scientific research and development? There are many potential risks and disasters that could result if there are no regulations on scientific research and development. The government needs to focus on the common good and limits in order to protect the societies safety. The government needs to have restrictions on all scientific research and development. If there are no restrictions on scientific research and development the results of the research may not be for the common good. Having no limits on scientific research allows invasive testing on humans. For example, if a scientist wanted to test a new medicine on a person and did not have any regulations to go through in order to test this medicine, it could possibly harm another human greatly. Also, having no restrictions on research could increase the extinction of animals. If there are no rules on how many rabbits or birds a scientist could try chemicals on, that could kill more animals and increase the chances of extinction. There needs to be limits to all scientific research and development in the interest of the common good. How far is too far? A society relies on rules and regulations. If there are no rules how far could a person go? We have seen from time and time again that the world cannot live without rules. There has been no time in history where a society has worked without having any rules or limitations. If the world cannot live without regulations, how can scientific research and development? The government not having any control of scientific research in any capacity could harm the society. It can be said that having no regulations on scientific research and development could allow scientists to discover things quicker. But, finding things quicker does not mean they are ethical. Where do we draw the line? Allowing a scientist to do whatever he or she wants, brings a potential risk to the society. If there are no inspections or rules to follow, how does a scientist know what he or she is doing is safe? For example, is a scientist is researching a chemical and had no rules on how he or she can or cannot practice with this chemical and ends up getting sick and dying or endangering others in the building? There needs to some type of rule in order to make sure everything is safe. In order to live in a safe and secure world there needs to be regulations and rules. It is very important to have these rules in place for the common good. The government needs to have restrictions on all scientific research and development.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.