free_LUNCH

A recent nationwide study of high schools reveals that the percentage of students who graduate on time is higher for private schools than for public schools. For this reason, Bedford Falls parents who want their children to graduate from high school in time should send their children to private schools.

The argument that Bedford Falls parents should send their children to private schools so that they can graduate in time based on a statistical fact is not entirely convincing. Though the statistical data may be correct, it may not necessarily true for schools in Bedford Falls. Thus there are many more answers that need to be provided to plug the holes in this argument.

Firstly, the statistical data presented, is based on a nationwide survey. It may be true that of all students graduating in the country, those that pass out in time are from private schools. But this may not necessarily be true of Bedford Falls. It is highly possible that students of public schools in Bedford Falls, graduate in time and have a better track record than those students who belong to the private schools. Sufficient data about schools located in the Bedford Falls should be provided before a convincing conclusion can be made of the argument presented. 

Secondly, there has been no analysis presented regarding the reasons behind students not graduating in time from public schools. It could be possible that the public schools which are the cause of the result of the survey attract students from families who cannot afford private schools. The students who come to these schools may have to work after school to support their families and hence are unable to graduate in time. This may not be a problem in Bedford Falls where the median income of families is sufficiently high and the children can focus completely on their studies to graduate in time. Hence, there is no comparison data present in the argument between similarities and /or dissimilarities between families in Bedford schools and those nationwide. 

Lastly, there is no direct comparison between the public schools and private schools in Bedford Falls. This is a very important and critical piece of information that is missing from this argument. It is highly possible that both types of schools here have the same curriculum and have teachers who are equally capable. If such is the scenario than it does not matter where the parents send their children to study because their graduating in time will then solely be based on their involvement and commitment.

Thus, the argument is not fully convincing in the manner present. The comparison should be between the schools in Bedford Falls and the conclusion should not entirely be based on a nationwide survey. The nationwide survey can be a result of more generic demographic information that may not pertain to Bedford Falls.

Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flights.

The argument that only unmanned probes and satellites should be sent to space to gather data on the grounds of reducing cost and risk to human life is a flawed one. There are many holes in the current argument that needs to be filled up.

Firstly, the argument does not state the reasons why humans were sent to space in the first place if everything that needs to be done can be performed by the probes and satellites. Humans, possibly, are sent to space to serve a different purpose like for finding out how the human body reacts to the conditions of outer space. A clear distinction needs to be made between the activities performed by satellites and humans and evidence needs to be provided that the probes can actually perform the tasks of humans.

Secondly, the argument does not mention whether the risks that humans posed in the early years of space exploration have been mitigated by technological advances or not. It seems like the argument assumes that the risk involved cannot be countered and hence only probes should be sent for gathering data from space. There may have been learning from earlier disasters and our scientists may have tackled all that they have faced until now. If this were true, the conclusion of the author will stand weak. Hence the author needs to provide concrete information on this front to justify his conclusion.

Lastly, the argument does not compare the cost of sending a human to space versus the cost involved in making the probe and then sending it to space. It is highly possible that the cost of research and manufacturing a probe with capabilities similar to a human being is very high and hence humans offer a better and more reliable alternative. The exact cost comparison needs to be provided in order to draw out a conclusion from this argument.

Thus, the argument, as stated, is not entirely convincing. In order to justify the conclusion, the author needs to provide a cost comparison, along with the activities and capabilities that probes and humans bring to the table. Also, the author should reason that the risks have not declined and it is still very dangerous to send a human to space. Only then, will the argument will be able to convey its message convincingly.

No employee of any business, public or private, should have complete autonomy; even employees at the highest level of management require some supervision.

The issue whether employees of an institution be given complete autonomy or not is a debatable one. On one hand, some say that they should be given complete autonomy so as not to hinder creativity by means of red tape bureaucracy but on the other hand, some argue that the employees require supervision to control any wrongdoings as well as to monitor and gauge their progress. I believe that some supervision is required for employees of both public and private businesses for many reasons.

Firstly, in the past years we have seen top executives of many public companies like Enron and WorldCom caught doing illegal activities for the sole motive of making money. They have been known to fudge company results to increase their share prices and make profits by selling them. All these can be stopped if their activities are closely monitored by higher bodies like IRA, FAA and etc.

Secondly, if the employees are not monitored there will be no gauge of their performance and whether they are executing their tasks as necessary. The employees, of all ranks, can start taking their task very casually thereby neglecting the goals of the company because there is no one to monitor them. Agreed that we need to give vent to their creativity but at the same time we need to check the resources and finances of the company providing support to these employees. Classic example of this scenario is Google where employees are given a free reign to give life to their ideas, but at the same time there is someone who monitors all their creative outcomes from a close perspective.

Lastly, to make an employee accountable he or she needs to report to a person or a group of people so that his performance and productivity can be measured and improved if necessary. Presence of a board of governor is a necessity to achieve this goal for employees who rank very high in a company. We have seen examples in companies like GE where each person is accountable in terms of his targets that he sets out in the beginning of the year. Because of this accountability, GE ranks among the top 10 companies worldwide.

Thus, even though we need to provide some autonomy to the employees to make sure they do not feel ‘looked-upon-their-shoulders’ but at the same time there are long term benefits for both the company and the employee when their is some supervision and accountability involved.

Primary and secondary education should focus on training students for the highly specialized jobs of the future, rather than on providing them with a broad range of non-specific skills and information.

The issue whether primary and secondary education should focus on specialized jobs or broad range of non-specific skills is a debatable one. On one hand some say that it should train youngsters for highly specialized jobs so that it is easy for them to gain employment and perform well in their jobs. On the other hand, some say that it is important for everyone to learn and understand other subjects as well. In my opinion, for the complete development of one’s personality he should be exposed to more broad range of subjects apart from his specialty. 

Firstly, focused training is good but not enough. To conduct his day to day life, one has to be knowledgeable in other skills as well. A good businessman has to have analytical skills, social skills as well as complete understanding of his business. If he is a manufacturer then it is important to know the science behind what he is manufacturing. If the youngsters are just taught what they have to practice in their later years they will be left devoid of such skills which could ultimately hamper their career and progress in life. 

Secondly, a broad range of knowledge makes a man smart, outward and more sociable. A man with limited knowledge is not able to interact much outside his community; even there his discussions revolve around the same topics. He is not able to appreciate the beauty of other things. For e.g. if we would not have taught science, we would not have been able to appreciate new technologies or even understand basic phenomenon occurring around us. If we would not have been taught history, we would not have been able to appreciate the value of freedom. 

Lastly, how can a person know what he wants to do or practice in later part of his life? He has to be given a chance to choose among various subjects the vocation that he wants to follow in life. Suppose Mozart was taught mathematics from his early age, he would have never grown up to be a musician. Suppose Steve Jobs was only taught art in his early years he would not have become the co-owner of Apple. Hence, during the developmental years of one’s life, he should be exposed to various fields of knowledge from where he can make a conscious and intelligent decision about what he wants his profession to be. 

Even though I agree that some skills for the specialized job has to be given, but that can be provided after a persons secondary education is complete. By this time he can understand various subjects, has competed against like students and has made a decision about his or her future. After he has made that decision, he can immerse himself in the training for the highly specialized job.

Any political organization than advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohiitied for operating within our nation.Such groups are detrimental to the society since violent, short-term solutions can only lead to more serious long-term problems.

The argument that any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be completely prohibited from operating within the nation just because they are detrimental to the society is a flawed one. There are many holes in the argument that needs to be filled.

Firstly, nothing has been mentioned in the argument about what are the agenda and the policies of the political organization. They may have some very strong, powerful and most importantly, apt policies that they want implemented. But there are opponents who would not allow such policies to be enforced and are crushing any attempts by this political party. The use of violence, in that case, becomes a necessity to come into power and do well for the country. Many countries have known to achieve freedom by a military uprising and/or violent attacks on the oppressors. If they would not have done so, they would be still serving as serfs to their evil masters.

Secondly, it is baseless to say that short-term violent solution can lead to long-term serious problems. Instead, a short-term violent approach can be a faster and quicker method to achieve a solution than a longer approach of unending diplomatic talks and negotiations. In the latter, it is always seen that poor citizens bear the brunt of time and exploitive diplomats. Kashmir has been a center of debate among Pakistan and India. Talks have been going on for such a long time that ultimately now the situation has completely gone out of hand. When the issue had initially erupted a military solution to this problem would have once and for all taken care of the issue.

Lastly, we all know that there are political parties, who in spite of not using violence, are detrimental to the society by virtue of their being sly crooks who work for their own benefits and not the country. They take bribes, support nepotism, and exploit the citizens because of their power and positions. They can be much more problematic than those parties denounced in the argument. Shouldn’t such parties that play dirty politics be prohibited from operating within the nation? By the same argument that they can be detrimental in the long run for the country, they should surely be banned.

Thus, the argument is not entirely convincing. The author should justify that the motive behind the political party to use violence is equally bad as violence itself. He should give examples of how such political parties have created serious long-term problems and why providing a peaceful solution is the best way to solve any problem. Only then the argument will be able to convey its message convincingly.

Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company.

The issue whether the salaries of corporate executives be made a fixed multiple of the the lowest paid employee is a debatable one. On one hand, some argue that this will enable to improve relationship between the top and lower tier thereby increasing faith. On the other hand, some argue that this will make it difficult for a corporate to attract the best talents in the industry only because salaries become virtually non-negotiable. In my opinion, the salaries of the top executive should be linked to the lowest paid employees for various reasons.

Firstly, it has lately been seen that the top executives switch jobs very quickly. Whenever someone agrees to pay them more, they are quick to change ships. When this happens not only the corporate suffers but the executive fails to provide any service or value add to the company. This is all because of the salaries being negotiable and flexible. If the salaries are made fixed relative to the lowest paid employees, executives will join a company fully aware of what to expect and will dedicate his whole tenure working for the well being of the company. For e.g. we know of many executives like Steve Jobs and the Founders of Google who hardly take any take home salary but are working hard to keep their companies at the top.

Secondly, linking the salaries help in increasing the faith and respect of the lower tier for their top management. Not only the lower tier will be content, the shareholders of the company will feel safe knowing the fact that the money earned by the company is being used for its own constructive use and not for filling the coffers of its executives. This will lead to a healthy atmosphere throughout the organization and the employees will be able to provide better productivity.

Lastly, as far as attracting the talent is concerned, there are other ways in which this can be achieved. For e.g. bonuses can be linked to performance, in terms of profits, which can motivate top talents to give their best to the job. They can be bought on board with a bonus component attached which, once they show their talents and make profits for the company, is disbursed to them. Bonuses can be in form of cash or stock options. For e.g. top talents who join a startup do not have enormous salaries, but work really hard. Stock options help pay off their hard work once the fruits of their hard work bloom.

My strong belief is that the salaries cannot be made so flexible and stretchable that executives exploit it and make good money for themselves in short time. This will neither help the company nor the economy in general. Once way to make it slightly fixed is by linking it to the lowest paid employee’s salary and that is what I am strongly in favor of.

Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated.

The argument that eliminating all limits on freedom of expression will lead to new ideas being borne leading to a thriving society is not entirely based on logical facts. There are many holes in this argument that needs patching up before it can be truly substantiated.

Firstly, providing complete freedom can have a reverse effect on the development of the society. It is wrong to assume that all ideas are good ideas. There are many ideas which are not good and they are based on very narrow views and ideologies. Radical and extreme groups will go to all extents to propagate these ideas. For e.g. we see such ideas being propagated by the Islamic fundamentalists in countries like Iran and Iraq. These ideas of freedom has not only led to 1000s of innocent people being killed but has also reduced their once beautiful country to rubbles.

Secondly, complete freedom is too extreme a theory to be put into practice. There has to be a governing body to decide on what is right and what is wrong. Not only that, there has to be certain checks and balances in place to ensure that wrong messages do not fall into the hands of immature people. Such people can be easily misled and can cause a lot of anxiety for their family members and community around them. Certain popular artists while expressing their thoughts, exercising their freedom of expression, have managed to influence teens to such an extent that they have turned murderers before they could turn 20.

Lastly, we all know that for a society to thrive, it is important to have cooperation among the elements that make the society. There has to be a feeling of brotherhood and each individual member has to contribute towards the growth and well-being of the society. The argument mentioned above fails to answer how eliminating limits on freedom of expression lead to such a productive environment. If an environment of sharing and caring is not created, then the argument does not hold true at all.

Thus, the argument is not entirely convincing. To strengthen in further, the argument should talk about what kind of ideas will enable the society to thrive, how can we distinguish and filter bad ideas from good and how can we take care of radical elements who may take unnecessary advantage of this freedom thus causing a reverse effect on the growth of the society. Unless these questions are answered, the argument in its present form fails to convey the message convincingly.

On average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. Since the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically within the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly during that period. Furthermore, to take advantage of the trend, these stores should begin to replace some of those products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer.

The argument that replacing the inventory catering the young consumers with that catering to middle aged consumers just because the latter’s percentage spending is more is not entirely based on logical facts. There are many holes in the arguments that need filling to support this conclusion.

Firstly, nothing is mentioned about the absolute number of young people with respect to middle-aged and how will that change in the next decade. Currently, it is possible that the total number of younger consumers far outnumber the middle-aged consumers. The percentage figure may not give the right picture. If such is the case, then it is wrong on the part of department stores to think that most of their products and service are bought and utilized by the middle-aged group. Also, no mention is mentioned about what would be the relative growth of these groups. If the younger age group is going to increase faster, say because of baby boom, then the forecasts made by the department stores would need correction.

Secondly, the fact that trends in shopping change with time as well as innovation in products has not been taken into consideration. What is true today may not be so tomorrow. Moreover, like the department stores, other stores may at be focusing their energy as well to attract more middle-aged customers. If this effort is successful, then the department stores could see a decline in the middle-aged expenditure levels at their stores. We know, for instance, that in today’s world, people are more attracted to specialized stores for their purchases than towards a have-all department store. They expect to get better range of products as well as expect better service and assistance. For eg, Wal-Mart sales have fallen within the last quarter because people are moving on to more focused stores like Best Buy etc. for their purchases.

The most important fact that is neglected in this argument is that replacing products may result in department stores losing the younger consumers all together and if the trends with the middle-aged group changes then the stores will be left with inventory that they may have to liquidate or sell at very low price to make place for new inventory. It can be too risky for the department stores to specifically cater to one portion of the demography and neglect the other half completely. Essentially, they would be placing all their eggs into one basket which is not a clever strategy. The argument should provide evidence through statistics/surveys to enforce the fact the middle-aged consumers will continue to shop at the department stores and that their percentage is liable to increase.

This, the argument is not entirely convincing. To strengthen it further, the argument should all talk about the net quantity involved and should not just talk in percentages. Also, the argument should present analysis of the trends in marketing to make a calculated discussion. They should talk about their competitor’s strategy to fine tune their own decision.

The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods.
“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its twenty-fifth birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

The argument that only long experience can lead to an organization to increase its profits and maximize costs is not entirely based on logical facts. There are many gaps in the argument which needs to be filled up to support the conclusion.

First, the argument fails to mention whether there were any improvements in technology which could have enabled an organization to reduce its operational cost. For eg. modernization and automation could have led color film processing industry to have reduced the man hours hence reducing the capital expenditure. This in turn could have resulted in quicker delivery time and hence increased profits. It is incorrect to assume that food industry is also undergoing the same change.

Secondly, the reduction in cost and maximization of profit could have been a direct outcome of improved people skills and effective training supported by a better work flow management. With time the color film industry might have seen the same workers doing the same work over and over again thereby being able to do the work faster. They may have been skillful enough to devise new ways of achieving the target which could have resulted in reduced processing time. Same cannot be said about Olympic foods or the food industry in general. No new process improvements may have taken place and it is highly possible that the experienced work force have all quit the organization.

Finally, it is possible that the huge rise in use of cameras have resulted in the increase of sales in the film processing industry. People from various age group, of various demography have been able to afford cameras and are hence going for color film development. This may have led to increased profits and reduced cost to the industry in face of the huge demand. Nothing of such has been mentioned about the food industry. Nothing has been mentioned about the volume of sales of Olympic foods increasing in time so as to provide larger profits.

Thus, the argument is not entirely convincing. The evidence presented to support the conclusion does little to prove that time and time alone is the key to maximize profits and minimize costs. Ultimately, the evidence could have been strengthened by making it evident that the food industry has undergone significant modernization, that Olympic food has a wider consumer base and that processes have been improved to maximize productivity as well as profits.

In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship.
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.

The issue regarding the extent to which television and radio programs are censored is a debatable one. On the one hand, there are countries/groups that completely censor any kind of offensive language and behavior or even more. On the other hand some countries have permitted the use of freedom of speech to such an extent that there is little or no censorship. In my belief, there has to be calculated amount of censorship which does not breach the freedom of speech nor allow negative elements to portray their views in an ugly and vulgar fashion.

Primary reason for my belief is that media plays a very important medium for spreading knowledge, information and facts. There are many people who watch or hear these shows and are radically influenced by these thoughts. Talking ill of any religion, taking undemocartic stance in politics and staging mockery of world leaders have been known to create unrest among people and societies. If such messages continue to be shown verbatim, soon the world could be on the verge of a war. At the same time, inportant facts have to be shown to the public so as to enable them to have logical viewpoints about their own world.

Secondly, these mediums are becoming more and more accessible to children. TV and radio are the most important form of entertainment today. If there is too much violence shown in television, it can influence the soft malleable minds of children very easily. For eg. it has become very common to hear about children carrying guns to school nowadays. In fact, in some instances they have used the firearm to fatally injure fellow students and teachers. Where is it all stemming from? I believe that it is the result of all the violent movies that are telecast on TVs. Similarly, more and more adolescents are becoming pregnant before marriage and are falling under the influence of drugs. Aren’t the dirty and vulgar soap operas, movies the cause of all this? Yes, they are.

Lastly, I feel that such mediums are right now in the hands of such people who will show and telecast anything to make as much money they want. These people play on the sensitive side of the human mind by showing them programs that influence the common mass in a very negative manner. The reality shows, for eg., that show all kinds of inexplicable things, that make immense use of offensive language have started to make people think and act differently. People everywhere have changed their vocabulary to match the dirty language spoken on these shows. This gives them a feeling of being ‘cool’.

My strong belief is that even though these programs cannot be eliminated completely, there should be some mechanism to restrict their access. Either it should be made costly to procure such materials or there should be a way to control their viewership. Various rating systems have to be developed and enforced strictly to ensure such materials do not fall into the hands of children. Parents also, along with the censorship authorities, have to take strict action to prevent their children from getting exposed to such offensive material. Hence, on the basis of these explanations, I strongly believe that a middle path should be taken in this argument and there should be some form of calculated censorship.