Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which books might educate students better than practical experience. Discuss what you think determines when practical experience provides a better education than books do.
Education comes not from books but from practical experience.
Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-1
The statement means that at times practical experience can be a better method of education than pure classroom work.
The use of books to present abstract ideas is one kind of education that is better to learn from books than practical experience. Take math, for instance. Math concepts are best learned from books rather than practical experience. Also, history is best learned in the classroom since a person can't physically go back in time and watch a war.
Certain professions are learned on the job, like carpentry and plumbing. Practical experience is the primary method of education. It is the same way for surgery. You wouldn't want someone to take out your appendix unless they had practiced this procedure many times on someone else.
In certain circumstances, books and practical experience go hand in hand so that students can learn from both. Mostly this is also true in medical school. You read books about anatomy and learn where the organs are located. This is very helpful. Then you dissect dead bodies and get the practical experience of seeing where the organs are in the body. Only then are you ready to perform surgery.
Education comes not from books but from practical experience.
Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-2
Both books and practical experience have important roles to play in the educational process of an individual. Books serve as a foundation of knowledge. Books are also helpful in situations where experiential learning is impractical or impossible. On the other hand, experiential learning is more personal and absolutely necessary in the development of certain skills.
Practical experience is critical in order to learn skills that involve physical abilities and require dexterity. For example, carpenters learn on the job. One can read books about how to construct a house, but no one becomes a master carpenter unless he or she has mastered the use of a hammer, power saw, and measuring tape. Similarly, a medical student can read about anatomy, but surgery is performed in operating rooms, not libraries. In this case, hands-on experience-literally “hands on,” in fact-is the best way to learn. Competence is attained through practice, and experience is required if one is to master the surgeon's trade.
It is true, however, that certain subjects are best learned through books. Math is a subject that requires the understanding of abstract concepts and formulae. Most students are introduced to mathematical principles in math textbooks. These books also provide problems for the student to work so that he or she can apply the rules that have been taught. History is another subject that is best taught through books. We can read about past events, like wars and peace treaties, without having directly participated in the event. A book about Vietnam by a veteran who served in that conflict would be one way to learn some of the important facts about that war.
What determines which is the better way to learn depends on several criteria. Obviously, it depends on the material, subject matter, or skill to be learned. It also depends on the student, or person, doing the learning. Some people like to read books and can absorb vast quantities of information and apply it immediately to relevant tasks. Others learn by doing, by making mistakes or having success. In most cases, however, a combination of the two approaches works best.
Education comes not from books but from practical experience.
Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-3
There is a basic philosophical tension between theory and practice, basic and applied science, learning and doing, head and hand. Not surprisingly, professors hold books in high esteem. But students are often frustrated by the abstract, seemingly impractical nature of traditional instruction through textbooks and assigned readings. Students hunger for real experiences that teach practical skills and demonstrate clear links between classroom work and practical application.
Tomorrow's leaders and professionals need to work with the tools of their trades, to develop the crucial personal qualities-interpersonal skills, moral judgment, decision making under pressure-that are required for success in real world situations. In fields as diverse as construction and medicine, one thing is certain: experience counts. No matter how many blueprints or books on architecture an aspiring carpenter reads, there is no substitute for working on a construction crew. The same is true for the aspiring physician. An effective bedside manner is learned next to the patient's bed, not in a study carrel. Doctors must read case histories and study theories of treatment, but doctors also need to see patients, listen to them explain their symptoms, and see the outcome of various therapies. Doctors can't just read about how to perform surgery; they need to practice their artistry with a scalpel in hand.
Despite the immense value of practical experience, it must also be acknowledged that books provide the basics. Certain fundamentals are required in any course of study, and books are an appropriate starting point. For instance, in preparation for a medical career, one must be familiar and comfortable with many facts of science. Without a thorough understanding of biochemistry and anatomy, one can hardly be expected to learn much through practical experience. In this case, the professors are right to stress the importance of books. Mastering the content of a subject is a vital first step.
Beyond content, books also educate by teaching students how to think, not just what to know. Often books are the stimulus for creative processes, and they are also a medium for reflection on past experiences. Ethical and moral dilemmas are explored in literature, for example, and the perceptive student who ponders these questions will be better prepared to face them in practical situations. Furthermore, medical students, as well as trained physicians, will find it valuable to read of new discoveries, theories, and the outcome of various studies in the hundreds of books published each year in the medical field.
Reading and doing, head and hand, these seemingly polar opposite approaches to learning, are actually complementary. What we learn from books prepares us for applying that knowledge in real life situations. Similarly, our experiences "on the job" may send us back to books for deeper study or thoughtful contemplation.
Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.
Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-1
The prompt means that generally speaking a scientists job is to discover new things but not to pursuit a threat to human life. Discovery is important but not costing human life. For example, what the Nazis did to prisoners was wrong to them.
Sometimes a threat to human life is tolerated when the scientific discovery can help many people at one time. Such a specific situation might be if a scientist thinks he has a cure for AIDS but needs to test it on people who are not HIV positive. In this case and others where humans might be helped, scientific discovery can be pursuit even if there's a threat to human life because maximum benefit might occur.
A scientific discovery can overtake a human life only in certain cases that occur when scientists can see benefits from their experiment. Such as if there's a cure for AIDS.
Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.
Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-2
Scientific discoveries have always been important to the advancement of society. Every scientist is a kind of explorer trying to discover new truths about the natural world that can be applied to how we live. This is how we invented the light bulb and learned about space. This statement claims that scientific discoveries are important, but not so important that a threat to human life is caused. A threat to human life simply for the sake of exploring and discovering is intolerable.
Some research doesn't involve humans, like making better computers or inventing software. But in World War II, the Nazis experimented on live prisoners and used them like guinea pigs. The results were horrible. On the other hand, I believe there are situations in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. I think that patients suffering from terminal diseases like cancer or AIDS might be used in experiments. Maybe there is a new drug that works on rats in a laboratory but no one knows if it works on humans in a hospital bed. The drug might be a cure, if not for that patient then for another patient. The patient would die anyway, so why not try the new drug?
In general, I do not believe scientific discovery is worth a threat to human life. Scientists might be different about this issue, but what I think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life has to do with if a person's life is threatened. If a person is going to die from a terrible disease, then his life is not at risk and an experimental treatment won't hurt him. It might even help him and if it doesn't help him, it might help science.
Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.
Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-3
It is human nature to be curious, and it is the role of scientists in society to pursue the scientific truths lurking in nature. Centuries of scientific inquiry have resulted in the discovery of essential facts about our natural world, a deeper understanding of our place in the universe, and the practical application of scientific knowledge to every day life.
The statement in question raises an important issue in regards to scientific inquiry. How, exactly, does science and, in a larger context, society itself-make the determination as to what is ethical in terms of the pursuit of knowledge? Do the ends justify the means?
All reasonable people agree that the testing the Nazis did on unwilling subjects in concentration camps in World War II was despicable and immoral. Those ghastly experiments, carried out on prisoners who were hostages of Hitler's Fascist regime, are indefensible. No one volunteered to be in a concentration camp, so surely none of the subjects can be said to have participated willingly. Their lives were put at risk-or deliberately destroyed-without their consent. This was not science; this was madness. Some discoveries-one thinks of Thomas Edison in his laboratory, inventing the phonograph and the light bulb-are made without risking human life. But scientific inquiry often involves human beings-as explorers or subjects-whose lives are put in jeopardy to gain knowledge and advance the cause of civilization. Think of Ben Franklin, flying his kite in a thunderstorm. Think of explorers like Christopher Columbus or John Glenn, venturing into the unknown without regard for personal safety. And think of the brave individuals who participate in AIDS research. In order to test vaccines, healthy subjects are required. In order to test drugs to suppress or retard the advance of the disease, subjects who are already ill are needed.
This brings us to the central question implied by the statement: when is it ethical to risk a human life in order to discover scientific truths? The key is informed consent. It is essential that every person put at risk whether a willing explorer like an astronaut, a patient choosing a course of treatment, or a subject in a controlled experiment be fully informed of the known risks he or she faces. Scientists are not God, and human beings are not guinea pigs. Human life must be respected. Human beings are not disposable like paper cups
Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please the voters, not on what is best for the country.
Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-1
In a representative democracy, representatives are selected by the voters to convey their ideas and values in the government. These representatives are voted for by citizens according to their degree to which they will uphold these ides and values. Citizens would obviously not vote someone into office who believes in the opposite of the citizens on several issue. The representatives will be re-elected in the same manner; the degree to which the citizens ideas and values were upheld. It is not surprising that politicians will base their decisions on what will please the voters and not on what is best for the country. The politicians must maintain the popularity of the voters and the best method to achieve that is to please them with the actions made in governmental circles.
The politicians however are not merely carbon copies of the citizen's consensus opinions. The politicians will have opinions of their own and occasionally this may conflict with those of the voters. At this time the politicians may make an unpopular decision for what they feel is for the good of the country. One example is often seen with the petition of Nazi groups to march. While an exceptionally high majority of citizens would never want to see this march occur, many politicians would have no choice but to let the march preceede for the greater good, in this instance it is the right to free speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the constitution. From this ideal, much of this country was founded and it would by hypocritical to deny it to another group regardless of how unpopular this group was to the voters.
While this is an extreme case of politicians displeasing the voters for the good of the country, there exists a great range of "grey" area where politicians and voters do not meet eye to eye. So what should be considered when making a decision to please the voters or serve the nation? Fortunately, for the most part, the voters will also have the best interest of the nation at heart but trouble can still arise. One major problem is the building of new prisons or landfills. For most voters, there is no question that they are needed, but none of the voters wants to see the prison or landfill wind up in their backyards. To deal with such problems and still remain in good standing with the voters, the politicians must learn to make concessions. For instance, the same district where a new prison is built, a new High School and Industrial Park is set up to better education and increase jobs and the local economy. A politicians must weigh the potential degrees of disfavor that they may incur when determining whether to serve the nation at the risk of the voters. Politicians are unable to please all of the voters all of the times, but by ensuring that unfavorable decision are accompanied by many favorable ones, the politicians can balance on the treacherous tightrope between serving their country and serving their voters.
An understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of the present.
Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-1
History is an integral part of the learning process. By studying events of the past, we can analyze the repercussions of certain behavior and action patterns. It is a fundamental way to lay the groundwork and predict the outcomes of future events. History is governed by human behavior. Although times have changed, and technology and knowledge has advanced, people are still driven by the same needs, desires, and insecurities of ages past.
One area in which the study of history is essential is in the conflict between disputing nations. During the Gulf War in 1991, America was at first unsure of its potential role. This country did not want to repeat the tragic losses of the Vietnam War, but at the same time could not let injustices occur before its very eyes. By studying previous military strategy, impetus, and conditions, the United States was able to enter the war without suffering a humiliating defeat. Civil rights issues have also used historical experiences to determine proper conduct. The civil rights movements go back to the 1960's, when black leaders were just beginning to assert and articulate their arguments, as well as achieve their goals. The recent racial riots in Los Angeles, while violent, showed how people can learn from the past. There were definite and inspiring examples of concern crossing racial borders while before, the conflict was African-Americans against whites, we saw examples of multi-racial groups banding together to protect stores, homes, and families. Many of those people did not want to repeat the horrifying events of the past.
On the other hand, some problems exist today that are totally independent of any historical event. The current issue of AIDS prevention, treatment, and search for its cure has generated a whole new set of rules and etiquette. Our world has never before had to deal with the devastating effects of the AIDS virus, not with the quickly increasing numbers of infected people. Looking at the past could give us no knowledge on the workings of this disease, nor on its cure. It seems to have bypassed every known strategy used before in defeating a virus. In fact, looking to the past could even cause problems. It was the past, and even ongoing, sexual practices that allowed AIDS to spread so quickly. Instead of looking to the past for new information, we must reform our histories to stop this disease.
When, then, is the past crucial to our understanding of current events? It is important only, and especially, when it relates to the present situation. History can lay the groundwork for a course of action. But, of course, this is only true when the courses of action are similar. There must be some common threads tying the past and present together. With racial tension in mind, the commonalities stem from common catalysts for anger and feeling in injustice and equality. Moreover, these events are mediated by human behavior. Also, conflicts between nations arise because people disagree. In fact, people, and the involvement of people, may also be the common thread tying the past and the present together. But, with something like the AIDS virus, this crisis is not governed by any set of rules or behavior. No previously established fundamental law of virus behavior exists to dictate its actions, for it proceeds with a total disregard and lack of emotion. It just keeps changing and slipping through our fingers, with no historical example to give us a guideline as to its future actions. History is crucial to understand. It can provide clues to our future, and help us solve certain problems. But, this can only be true if these problems, or similar ones, existed before and were governed by similar mechanisms.
Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.
Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-1
This statement suggests that a wealthy person has a significant stake in the formulation of laws and policies, and that in order to maximize his or her own benefit from these laws and policies, the politician must sacrifice the needs of other people. Unless all members of the community share equally in the resources and potential profit from these resources, politicians will have the responsibility of determining how resources, taxes, and wealth are distributed. However, this is not to say that a person must choose to maximize his or her benefits when taking part in political decisions. Ultimately, the decision to represent all people fairly rests with the individual politician, each of whom has the potential to be fair or unfair.
Wealth is not the only factor which might lead a politician to give unfair representation. A person's race, sex, geographic allegions, and desire for power might influence a politician at various times in her or his career. Indeed, a person who is significantly less then wealthy might have as much at stake in an income tax law as a person who has money. Whether or not the "poor" politician chooses to make policies with her own future in mind is just as relevant as the same action undertaken by a wealthy person. If the individual politician ignores her own stake in society, she might be acting irrationally.
The quality of "fairness" must be a relative and undefinable concepts in politics, requiring that a politician try to be as fair as possible without hurting herself in the process. The degress of fairness she chooses to exert is a subjective thing, and will probably be disagreed upon by any two people.
Unfortunately, politicians must have a stake in the laws they create and destroy. Unlike judges, who are supposed to look at each situation without a chance for personal loss or gains, politicians can lose or gain substantially depending on how they act. The things they stand to lose or gain include money, status, future power or employment, popularity, and numerous other psychological and material things. Perhaps a measure of a good politician is not how rich or how poor she is, but rather how important all these potential benefits are to her. If she cares more for these things than the average person does, then she might not represent people fairly.
Thus, whether a politician has a lot of wealth or very little, money can be a motivating factor and can determine how she votes. The generalization about wealthy politicians can just as easily be made about any politician who is concerned with money or other benefits. However, it is hoped that once a person has "enough" material wealth his or her political decision making will not be solely the result of trying to maximize future gains.
In a free society, laws must be subject to change.
Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-1
A society establishes laws to address the needs of the present, and these needs often change with time. When needs change, laws must either be flexible enough to address new situations or be subject to change. This is the only way to insure that the needs of contemporary society are being addressed. The given statement uses the qualification of a "free society," implying that the citizens in the society have the freedom to make their needs known and to contribute to the making of laws. For a free society to flourish, the political structure must be able to accommodate a reevaluation and possibly a restructuring of laws.
The laws which constitute the political system, specifically those ensuring citizens their basic human rights should not be subject to change. In the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens fundamental rights, and therefore it should not be subject to change. In a free society which permits its members extensive personal freedom, The Bill of Rights provides for the harmonious coexistence of diverse groups of people. As such a societal mediator, The Bill of Rights encompasses many laws that are the basis behind the notion "free society" and therefore should not be subject to change.
In deciding whether or not a law should be subject to change, the premise on which the law stands must be evaluated. Laws which make up the foundation of a free society must be stable, but can only remain so as long as they address the needs of the society's constituents. Every society contains diverse groups of people and therefore must have laws to encompass a variety of difference needs. To determine the immutability of a law, the laws impact on society must be evaluated, and care must be taken to ensure that changing a law to benefit parts of the community do not do so at the expense of some of the constituents. A law governing basic rights should be stable, while minor laws regulating certain actions do not necessitate such careful consideration. For example, the laws governing abortion involve the fundamental rights of women, and much attention must be spent on the issue to moderate its impact on society. The laws governing issues such as car parking do not involve a major issue, and should easily be subject to change if problems with existing regulations arise.
No comments:
Post a Comment