Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sample-1
Sample-2
Sample-3
2.
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.
Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statements means. Describe a
specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think
determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life.
Sample-1
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.
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.
Sample-2
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.
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.
Sample-3
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.
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.
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 a politician might make an unpopular decision for the good of the country. Discuss the principles
you think should determine whether political decisions should be made to please the voters or to serve the nation
Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please the voters, not on what is best for the country.
Sample-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 reelected 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.
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 solving a current problem might not require an understanding of the past. Discuss what you
think determines whether or not the past should be considered in solving the problems of the present.
An understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of the present.
Sample-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.
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.