Justification Report Part 1 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Justification Report Part 1 - Essay Example Styrene and Benzene are linked to diseases such as leukemia and Parkinson’s disease. This is because the two elements cause mutations to the peripheral and central nervous systems. Since it can’t be recycled, it is often left to spoil the aesthetic value of the environment. It is non-biodegradable thus has lasting effects on the environment. It has therefore become the major form of litter in my working area. It also impacts negatively on the life of both domestic and wild animals that are found in the area. Styrofoam has been linked with choking and issues of starvation among animals in several studies (GEC Student Union, 2013). The Alternative A will be working with the vendors that use the Styrofoam to ensure that its impacts are reduced. This is through the vendors advocating for the reuse of the Styrofoam containers among the customers. Reuse of the containers will ensue that the Styrofoam disposed on the environment thus reducing its impacts. The vendors can also put in place appropriate waste collection bins for the customers. The use of bins can be segregated in terms of the recyclable and the non- recyclable to ensure ease in waste management. This will make it easy for the relevant authority to identify the Styrofoam products for recycling purposes. The vendors also can be capacity built to ensure that they reduce the use of the Styrofoam products. This will ensure the use of environmental friendly products as Styrofoam products replacement (Gardner and Stern, 2002). The Alternative B will entail the involvement of the municipal government in containing the negative impacts of Styrofoam. The municipal government can develop policies that promote the reduction of use of the Styrofoam products. The policies can also be put into place to ensure that the reuse of the products is promoted. The council government can develop policies that see to it that there are recycling bins. The bins

Figurative Language versus Literal Language Essay - 5

Figurative Language versus Literal Language - Essay Example Idioms are words, phrases, or expressions that are unable to be taken literally, nor should they ever be. â€Å"A slap on the wrist† is an example of an idiom. Literally, this idiom means to slap someone on the wrist. When taken in its figurative context, as it is intended to be, the idiom means that someone has received a mild punishment. â€Å"A slap on the wrist† is an appropriate phrase when describing someone who was caught doing something bad, yet did not face any real consequences for their actions. It can be misunderstood if the individual does not first make it known that someone had been caught engaging in some form of misconduct. An analogy is when two completely unlike things are compared to make a concept more understandable. An analogy aids someone in understanding something new by comparing it to something that they are familiar with. â€Å"I am as graceful as a refrigerator falling down a flight of stairs (Turner, 1998)† is an analogy. This analogy can be used to help someone visualize how ungraceful another person is. A refrigerator would crash down a flight of stairs, so this analogy can describe a significant lack of grace. This analogy can lead to an understanding if it is believed that an individual will literally crash and tumble down a flight of stairs. A metaphor is when two distinctive things that share a similarity are compared. Metaphors help to intensify the meaning of something. â€Å"Time is a thief† is an example of a metaphor. Time does not literally rob, but this metaphor implies that time takes away from people. An appropriate circumstance in which to use this metaphor is in describing a passage of time as a child grows up. Time, as a thief, stole the childhood of that individual as she entered young adulthood. This metaphor can be misleading if it is used out of context and a passage of time is not being considered. A simile consists of the

Comparison and Contrast of Definitions of Rape in Common Law and Research Paper

Comparison and Contrast of Definitions of Rape in Common Law and Modern Law - Research Paper Example Many states have different variations of the definition of rape which fits their Modern Statutory Law. The most general definition of the rape is as follows: any unlawful sexual penetration, which is also called a sexual assault. For instance, in California, rape is defined as â€Å"an act of sexual intercourse ... accomplished against persons will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another† (qt. in Lyon, 2004, p. 277). Introduction of the Model Penal Code in the Modern Law, as the result of general feminist movement in the 1970s, brought some changes to the definition of the rape, hence gave additional grounds for charges against the criminals. The two major reforms were: â€Å"(1) the partial abolition of the marital rape exemption; and (2) the increased emphasis on the nonconsent of the victim, rather than the use of force by the attacker, in defining rape† (Lyon, 2004, p. 278). The reforms brought both positive and negative attitudes of the public. The reform concerning marital rape was criticized for ambiguity and for victimization of men (Kilpatrick, 2000). Each of these reforms was meant to add something new to or change the definition of the rape in order to take into account all the circumstances of this type of criminal actions. However, there always has been some kind of confrontation in the lawmaking system. Only in recent years some amendments, for instance, the inclusion of the marital rape into the general definition of rape, brought improvements to the modern law, which â€Å"explicitly prohibits forced, nonconsensual intercourse at any time during the sexual act, rather than just at penetration† (Lyon 285).  

Figurative Language versus Literal Language Essay - 5

Figurative Language versus Literal Language - Essay Example Idioms are words, phrases, or expressions that are unable to be taken literally, nor should they ever be. â€Å"A slap on the wrist† is an example of an idiom. Literally, this idiom means to slap someone on the wrist. When taken in its figurative context, as it is intended to be, the idiom means that someone has received a mild punishment. â€Å"A slap on the wrist† is an appropriate phrase when describing someone who was caught doing something bad, yet did not face any real consequences for their actions. It can be misunderstood if the individual does not first make it known that someone had been caught engaging in some form of misconduct. An analogy is when two completely unlike things are compared to make a concept more understandable. An analogy aids someone in understanding something new by comparing it to something that they are familiar with. â€Å"I am as graceful as a refrigerator falling down a flight of stairs (Turner, 1998)† is an analogy. This analogy can be used to help someone visualize how ungraceful another person is. A refrigerator would crash down a flight of stairs, so this analogy can describe a significant lack of grace. This analogy can lead to an understanding if it is believed that an individual will literally crash and tumble down a flight of stairs. A metaphor is when two distinctive things that share a similarity are compared. Metaphors help to intensify the meaning of something. â€Å"Time is a thief† is an example of a metaphor. Time does not literally rob, but this metaphor implies that time takes away from people. An appropriate circumstance in which to use this metaphor is in describing a passage of time as a child grows up. Time, as a thief, stole the childhood of that individual as she entered young adulthood. This metaphor can be misleading if it is used out of context and a passage of time is not being considered. A simile consists of the

Question 2. Standardized Testing of Students Essay

Question 2. Standardized Testing of Students - Essay Example Without a doubt, this uniform and consistent system of assessment has now become an indispensable and requisite part of most of the schools, colleges and universities all over the globe. These educational institutions therefore, spend millions of dollars every twelve months on this system wide testing of their students to judge them in all possible aspects and assist them in overcoming their faults and flaws (Sacks, 12). Initially there were only a few educational institutions that were adopting the special standardized system of assessments (Heller, 152). However with the rapid pace of time and the excessive competitiveness in the world a number of agencies have been developed that are conducting these tests. Some of the most prominent evaluation agencies of the world are named as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Educational Testing Service (ETC), National Council on Educational Standards and Testing (NCEST) and many more widespread all over the world. These a gencies have great expertise in their tasks and are highly professional in conducting the testing methods and practices. This standardized system of evaluating the students was basically introduced for the purpose of shaping the learners so that they get pretty much suitable for the remediation. In addition, this system has therefore gained so much in popularity that renowned educational institutions have started adopting this system. The reason behind this excessive adaptation is the fact that people have widely developed so much trust factor on these testing service agencies. The trust factor is developed because these agencies are well reputed, rated and most importantly known for their unbiased attitude. They treat all students with complete justice and make sure that no unbiased practice exists within their system. Thus all this results in a positive outcome that all the students are objectively judged and evaluated that ultimately lend them a hand to improve on their mistakes. No matter these testing systems are really authentic and bonafide but the question arises that, why do the school, colleges and universities pay so much to get these external services rather than conducting the tests within their management. The reason behind this statement is that these agencies not simply conduct the evaluative assessments but also provide countless benefits to the institutes that hire these agencies. Some major pros of these standardized tests can be highlighted as they are greatly efficient and effective to provide two most important sources of information. These information sources that include the standardized system can bring into play as to weigh up the student’s potential, capability, competence and aptitude towards his or her studies. In turn all these evaluations will lend a hand to the student and institute in order to endow with enhanced or improved teaching, responsibility, and the control (Hamilton et al, 3). Moreover, it also encompasses the piece of evidence that this information can even be used in order to make a number of important and imperative decisions. In addition, the overall focus of these harmonized and uniform tests revolve around her universal and collective nature. It is devised or proposed to the students in a common mode for the reason that the management and admin do not become erratic or capricious in reflecting the complete performance of the students. Thus, all these controlled and calculative variables escort to an

Criticism Philosophy Essay Example for Free

Criticism Philosophy Essay Not too many people can listen none defensively, or none antagonistically, to criticism. And very few of those who listen admit it when they see that they are wrong. The thing is, we think that admission of guilt, or of being wrong, or that we have made a mistake, is a sign of weakness. Yet true failure is repeatedly refusing to see your faults. Learning to listen to criticism is a life skill that wed all do well to master. It is about keeping our hearts open (deferring judgment), and ensuring that we are not emotionally aroused (intimidated, irritated, etc.) by our critic (this is deferring reaction). Learning to listen to criticism is about carefully absorbing what is being said, and then honestly evaluating if it is fair, true, constructive or destructive. Only after weve carefully listened to and evaluated the criticism can we respond to it. SECTION B: HOW TO TAKE CRITICISM 1). See criticism as an opportunity to work together with the critic to solve the problem; not as an adversarial situation. Even if you cant solve the problem together with the critic, consider the moment they criticize you as an opportunity for all of you to grow from whatever the problem is. See it as an opportunity for straightening things out; as an opportunity to hear them out, question them where you need clarity; and as an opportunity for you to clarify what needs to be clarified. This calls for changing your mindset; for changing your attitude (from an adversarial one to a positive one) towards criticism. 2). View criticism as valuable information about how to do better, not as a personal attack. Criticism, regardless of whether it is used as a constructive or a destructive tool, can provide us with valuable feedback on our performance. It provides us with feedback on where weve fallen short, and that (i.e., knowing what we need to improve on) is important for our learning and growth. So even when your critic uses criticism as a destructive tool (e.g., as a personal attack, or as a way to put you down, or as a way to manipulate you, or as a way to maintain a psychological advantage), identify his intention but decide to pay particular attention to the criticism itself. Evaluate the criticism itself, and identify what feedback you may get from it. To be able to evaluate the criticism, you must 3). Listen carefully to what is being said. This is taking up all the data, and evaluating it to see if it has any validity. 4). Watch the impulse to defend (See Defense Mechanisms): Just listen and evaluate. Know the difference between emotional thinking and rational thinking; use your head, not your heart. Dont give in to your emotions (be it laughter, anger, fear, or whatever): simply listen! 5). And if the criticism is too upsetting, ask to resume the meeting later; after a period to absorb the difficult message, and cool down a bit. SECTION C: HOW TO GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM 1). BE POLITE AND SENSITIVE. This is a call for empathy; for being attuned to the impact of what you say, and how you say it to the person on the receiving end. The person (on the receiving end) is most likely to be defensive. S/he may resort to loud and angry words, or may even cry. Be ready for whatever reaction (including rebuffs, or attacks to hurt you back; breaking down into tears; begging you for forgiveness and sympathy; and so on. There is a whole catalog of reactions to criticism: be ready for any of them, and maintain your calm). 2). BE SPECIFIC. Dont criticize the whole person (by using global labels or sweeping generalizations). It is demoralizing for people to know that there is something wrong without knowing what the specifics are, so that they can change. Focus on the specifics; saying what the person did well, what was done poorly, and how the situation could be changed. The following approach is very effective (I call it the VWXYZ-approach): V Tell the person what they did well (You did this and that very well.); W Tell the person how happy you are, and/or how beneficial to you (or to the organization) this positive input was; X Tell the person what was poorly done; Y Tell the person what the damage means to you (or to the organization); Z Give the person suggestions, if you have any, as to how the situation can be changed or rescued. Tell them how they would be expected to handle a similar problem in future. 3). OFFER A SOLUTION (See Z above). The critique, like any useful feedback, should point to a way to fix the problem. Show the person other possibilities and alternatives. 4). BE PRESENT. Critiques, like praise, are most effective when given face to face, and in private. Writing a memo, letter, or email robs the person receiving the criticism of an opportunity for response or clarification. In conclusion, you have to differentiate between criticizing someone and fighting them because of your own secret agenda. When you criticize, you want the person to improve, so that s/he can be better, or so that you can live in harmony together. But when you fight someone, you criticize out of hate or resentment: your agenda is to hurt, not to help. SECTION D: THE MYTH OF REALITY We all see reality through different colored glasses. Our feelings, inborn abilities, psychological make-ups, personalities, egos, characteristics, physical or emotional well-being, fears, desires, needs, wants, beliefs, and so forth, all play a role in our perception of reality. The assertion, THERE ARE NONE SO SURE ABOUT (THEIR PERCEPTION OF) REALITY AS THOSE WHO ARE TOTALLY DELUSIONAL, has a grain of truth in it; at least when it comes to things that can be disputed. Since our perceptions of reality differ, those who criticize us do so based on the perceptions (of reality) that they have in their minds. Our critics perception of the reality of what they are criticizing us of usually differs from ours. If one perception can be demonstrated to be 100% correct, then those on the wrong side of perception should admit that they are wrong, without any fear of being conceived as weak! The real truth is that admitting that you are wrong (when you realize that you are) is a sign of being strong minded. If, as in many cases, none of the various perceptions of the conflict-causing situation can be demonstrated to be 100% correct, then we should acknowledge that our perceptions are different, and simply agree to disagree. Before you criticize someone, be sure that your own perception of reality is 100% correct. If you are not so sure, be sure to point out from the onset that you (and the one you are criticizing) have different perceptions of reality, but you are not sure whose perception is correct. You may then criticize the other persons perception, and then defend your own. SECTION E: TYPES OF CRITICISM Behind each criticism, there is an INTENTION to either put down the one being criticized or to help them (i.e., to build them up). Whether one intends to build up or to destroy, they will use STATEMENTS which are either FACTUAL, or FALSE, or (as is usually the case) a MIXTURE of TRUTHS and LIES. To analyze and evaluate someones criticism, we have to LISTEN very carefully to what they say. If we are not sure that we have heard them correctly, we have to SEEK CLARIFICATION. We have to: I). IDENTIFY THEIR INTENTIONS (to help or to put down); II). DETERMINE THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY CRITICIZE US (are they patronizing/condescending/adversarial or tactful/sympathetic/building up?); III). DETERMINE WHETHER THEIR INFORMATION IS ACCURATE OR WRONG. We must SEPARATE FACT FROM FICTION. We now look at the different types of criticism. 1. CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM This occurs when your critic is motivated by the desire to help you; that is, when the person who criticizes you means well. Their manner of presenting the criticism may be good or bad, and they may possess facts, or a mixture of facts and fiction, or only inaccurate information. But the important thing is what drives the critic is the desire to help you. 2. DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM In this kind of criticism, your critics intention may be one or more of the following: 2.1). PUTTING YOU DOWN. This may be in the form of a pointless nagging, or habitual recitation of your failures, or calling you names when they criticize you, or making sweeping generalizations; 2.2). ONE-UPMANSHIP. This occurs when one tries to maintain a psychological advantage over you, or to prove that they are better than you; 2.3). MANIPULATION. The critic may criticize what you are doing in an attempt to get you to do something else. This is often called CHILD PSYCHOLOGY. o SECTION F: RESPONDING TO CRITICISM There are two ways of responding to criticism; one is Ineffective Response, and the other is Effective Response. 1. INEFFECTIVE RESPONSE STYLES These are: 1.1). AGGRESSIVE STYLE. The techniques used include: Counter Attacks; Insulting or name-calling; Loud Denials; Mocking (Cynicism); and Sulking in anger. This style of responding to criticism is adversarial, and often leads to fights and/or resentment. 1.2). PASSIVE STYLE. In this style of response to criticism, you agree, apologize, or surrender at the first sign of (a usually destructive) criticism. You may panic and tremble physically. Or you may remain silent in a coward manner (which is different from sulking angrily). In this response style, you give your critic too much power, while sending your own self-esteem crashing rock-bottom. You do not seek clarity, and you do not even try to defend yourself. You do not try to give clarity, even where you feel you have been misunderstood, or wrongly accused. You may even take responsibility/blame for things that you have not done or said. Your fear overpowers you, and you just wish to be left in peace! 1.3). PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE STYLE. This may involve being silent, but not fully cooperative. Or you may respond passively by apologizing and agreeing to change, only to get even with your critic later; by not being fully committed to whatever you promised; or by botching it up; etc. 2. EFFECTIVE RESPONSE I). TRY TO DETERMINE YOUR CRITICS PERCEPTION OF REALITY. When someone criticizes you, ask yourself what may be their perception of reality; ask yourself what may be driving him/her to criticize you. Remember that we all see reality through different colored glasses. Resist all urges to respond (aggressively or passively, through panicking or being submissive) before evaluating the criticism. If you are not sure what your critics perception of reality is, and if you are allowed to, ask them (See III below). If you are not in a position to ask them directly, evaluate their criticism; for you may get, from the criticism itself, an idea of what your critics perception of reality is. In any case, it is important to be sure of what your critics perception of reality is. II). EVALUATE THE CRITICISM. It may be possible to tell from your critics tone of voice, from their facial expression, or from their posture, what their intentions of criticizing you are. It may be possible to tell this from context (this applies especially when you get a written critique). It is important to IDENTIFY what your critics INTENTIONS are. Whilst evaluating your critics criticism, do not jump into conclusions, and do not rush to responding. Forget your self-esteem, and concentrate exclusively on the criticism. As already mentioned, you first have to identify your critics perception of whatever they are criticizing you of. Next, identify the critics intention: Do they wish to build up or to destroy/hurt? Is their criticism constructive or destructive? Next, determine the manner in which the critic gives the criticism: is it good or bad? Are they patronizing/condescending, or are they considerate of your own feelings? Hear their tone. Do they want to help or hassle? You may also take into consideration your relationship with the critic. Is it a loved one? Is it your boss or superior? Is it a friend? Or is it someone who doesnt even know you that much? Whatever the case, you want to live in harmony with the critic; but you also want to correct misconceptions. You want to clear the air, and clarify what needs to be clarified. Check whether the criticism is accurate. Is the critic using facts, a mixture of truths and lies, or only lies? III). PROBE. As already pointed out in I), when someone criticizes you, they have a certain perception of what they are criticizing you of, and it is your right to be sure that you correctly understand what they say. Ask your critic to be specific; not to make sweeping generalizations. Ask him to support his claims. Ask him whether he is sure of what he is saying. Ask him what his perception of the situation is, and whether he is sure that his perception is correct. Ask him to give examples of where you went wrong, and to tell you how you should have performed in those instances. Ask your critic to tell you exactly What you must do. Having probed the critic, and having evaluated his criticism, decide whether his criticism is constructive or destructive; decide whether his manner of presenting the criticism is good (considerate) or bad (patronizing/condescending); and whether the information he uses is accurate, inaccurate, or a mixture of truths and lies. We now give guidelines on how to respond to (constructive and destructive) criticism. 2.1 HOW TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. Depending on your critics nature, he may couch his constructive criticism in terms of good suggestions for change, or he may patronize you. However well-meaning someone may be, patronizing and/or condescending (which occurs when someone tries to appear better) is bad, and is likely to provoke an adversarial reaction. This is because when someone is patronizing us, we are bound to feel uncomfortable, and we may give in to impulsive negative reactions. So even when your critic has good intentions, the MANNER of GIVING the CRITICISM may spoil it all (See HOW TO GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM in CRITICISM PHILOSOPHY I). In criticizing you, your critic will use some statements which are true or false, and/or some statements whose truth values may be unknown. He may have accurate or wrong information. If, in criticizing you constructively, your critic uses accurate information, or facts, to patronize you, or uses facts in a condescending manner, you may acknowledge the truth or validity of his point(s), but point out that his patronizing (or attempts at appearing better) is spoiling or defeating his good purpose (i.e., to help). If your critic puts his (accurate) information in a good manner, acknowledge the facts and thank him for pointing them out. Tell him that you are going to consider his points. If your critics information is inaccurate, you may correct him. Thank him for trying to help if his manner is good; but if, in addition to using wrong information, your critics manners suck, tell him that not only is his information inaccurate but his patronizing or condescending is really uncalled for. If your critic uses a mixture of facts and lies, acknowledge the facts (and give thanks for them), and correct misconceptions. 2.2 HOW TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM Lets now suppose that you have determined, to your satisfaction, that your critics intention is not to help you, but: to put you down; or to maintain a psychological advantage over you; or to manipulate you. As in the constructive case, your critic will use some statements; some of which may be true, whilst others may be false. In handling such a critic, simply acknowledge what is true and refute what is a lie. Disprove what needs to be disproved, and state your opinion on what is neither here nor there. It is important not to pick a fight, but to concentrate on the criticism.

The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and the History of Its Development :: Evolution Science Biology Research Papers

The Modern evolutionary synthesis is combination of Darwinian evolutionary theory and Mendelian genetics. It is impossible to understand the theory and it's importance to the scientific community unless one understands the history behind the theory. From 1902 to 1953 major publications in the areas of systematics, developmental biology, botany, population genetics, and paleontology sucessfully integrated Darwin's four postulates and Mendelian genetics into a reformation of evolutionary theory. The new theory is referred to as the Modern Synthesis, Evolutionary Synthesis, or the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. These terms can be used inter-changeably. Before one can understand the Modern Synthesis and this analysis there a few defintions that must be explained in order to grasp the concept, espically if a person is not familiar with biological terminology. This list of definitions does not have to be read fully but is provided to refer to when a biological term is not understood... of course maybe not every term that isn't understood, but the majority. -Allele-one of a pair, or series, of alternative forms of a gene that occur at a given locus (location) in a chromosome. -Fitness-the number of offspring left by an individual, often compared with the average of the population or with some other standard, such as the number left by a particular genotype. -Gene-a hereditary determinant of a specific biological function; a unit of inheritance (DNA) located in a fixed position on a chromosome. -Genotype-the genetic constitution (gene makeup) of a an organism. -Phenotype-The observable characteristics of an organism. -Chromosomes-darkly staining nucleotide bodies that are observed in cells during division. Each chromosome carries a linear array of genes. -Mutation-a change in DNA at a particular locations in an organism. The term is used loosely to include point mutations involving a single gene change as well as a chromosomal changes. -Variation-in biology, the occurrence of differences among individuals. -Taxon (plural: Taxa)-any named group of organisms. -Macroevolution-large evolutionary change ,usually in morphology; typically refers to the evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their placement in different genera or higher-level taxa. -Microevolution-changes in a gene frequencies and trait distributions that occur within populations and species. -Inheritance-the hypothesis that phenotypic changes in the parental generations can be passed on intact, to the next generation. -Population-for sexual species, a group of interbreeding individuals and their offspring; for asexual species, a group of individuals living in the same area. -Natural Selection-a difference, on average, between the survival or fecundity of