The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste

is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept
from each household.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with
the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most
compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Solution Link
The more industrialized a society, the more waste is emitted from each household. This is
partly because industrialization encourage households to consume goods and also due to absence of
proper waste management system. If there exists adequate infrastructure that provides optimal
allocation of household waste quota, the dire outcome such as global warming derived from overflow
of household waste would alleviate. However, imposing strict limits on the acceptable trash from
households is not achievable because of some constraints that policy makers face. Moreover, there is
superior alternative to trash quota which is constructing household trash emission market.
In reality, every household generates different amount of trash depending on household size, income,
and propensity to consumption. Therefore, government should first observe household properties that
decide amount of waste a household make, and then decide the distribution of quota. However, policy
maker cannot properly decide an optimal amount of allowed trash from each household because there
are household properties that are impossible to accurately measure and households always have an
incentive to falsely report their traits. Propensity to consumption, for instance, would be often
overstated by households in order for them to take larger waste quota from government. Therefore, it
is extremely challenging for policy makers to properly set trash emission limit for each household.
Additionally, even if policy maker can figure out the ideal trash quota for each household, strict limit
would not be achieved without cost. For high-income households, they would sway government
officials to have more favourable quota for them taking advantage of their influential position in
society. On the other hand, low-income households that cannot meet the trash limitation would be
willing to take illegal measure to get rid of their trash because they cannot handle the penalty from not
abiding by the quota. Therefore, strict limits may not bring the desired policy result because of its
rigidity.
Alternatively, building a market for household trash emission market would be free from above listed
difficulties because it utilizes market mechanism. Construction of an emission market that allow
households to freely trade garbage emission allowance would result in maximization of consumer
utility and would enable the government to control the total trash generated from households. Adam

Smith claimed a market is ran by "invisible hands" which means no government official is needed
when the market is properly functioning. With its price mechanism, household trash emission market
would maximize social surplus which was impossible with strict quota.
As consumption is a gist of capitalism, household generated trash would constantly increase in
amount without appropriate policy. If the government fail to monitor and control the household trash
amount, various environmental disasters would eventually harm the humanity. However, strict quota
is a policy too difficult to implement and not effective enough to protect our civilization.

Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others
argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable
consensus.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own
position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and
supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Solution Link
The issue of what goals politics should pursue is complex and has many nuances. While each
side has its strengths and weaknesses, I believe that politics should focus on finding common ground
and reaching reasonable consensus. To force politics to reach ideals would be unreasonable and would
result in little forward progress. Political policies and debates must encompass the needs of large
populations who have very different ideals and cannot ignore the needs of populations whose ideals
do not align with the majority. Therefore, politics should focus on appeasing the population as a
whole and reaching common grounds agreeable to every party involved.
Political topics range from those of environmental issues to those of policies regarding everyday life.
To attempt to establish one ideal that addresses the requirements and beliefs of an entire population
would prove to be impossible. Attempting to establish and accomplish an ideal will hinder forward
progress in political matters because finding common ground will be impractical. For example, rural
areas of a nation will have different ideals than the industrial areas of the same nation. Without
allowing compromise, terms will never be met and policies would not be set in place. Additionally,
politics often take a global stage. The pursuit of global politics should be to find common ground
amongst nations that have different religious and cultural ideals. In many cases, if compromise is not
allowed resolution can never be achieved.
Additionally, if all political issues were based around the goal of reaching an ideal, there would be
many issues that were not addressed when implementing a policy causing national unrest with the
political system. The task of reaching an ideal would be so large that policies would not be able to
incorporate the needs of every population, denying some citizens representation in political matters.
Unrest amongst the citizens would fester, casting doubt on the ability of the government. Distaste for
the government would result in doubt in its abilities to reach compromise and appease the nation's
basic needs. A political system that cannot reach compromise will fail.
Conversely, political systems should not discredit the value of ideals. If there is one single ideal that
can appease the nation as a whole then the government should pursue that ideal. There are many
ideals that are shared by populations, such as a basic standard of living and the availability of

education. The pursuit of common ideals can increase the moral of citizens and grant them hope for
better futures. These ideals should not be ignored, however, political policies should not be denied the
ability to reach compromise.
In conclusion, political goals should not rule out the possibility of reaching an ideal if that ideal is
widespread throughout the nation. However, often times this is not the case and the pursuit of finding
a common ideal will only result in the hindrance of progress within the political system. Therefore, I
do not believe that the only goal of a political system should be to reach ideals but also to accept
compromise.

Additional comments:
1. Add examples of policies made by different ministries like Finance, Education, and
Transportation. These ministries need to make policies which serve the population belonging
to different walks of life.

Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being
of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only
responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as
much money as possible.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own
position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and
supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Solution Link
Business and society are not two distinct quantity. They are highly correlated. No business
can survive without the active cooperation of the society. It is true that the cooperation should make
profit but it can be achieved with a responsibility to promote well-being of the societies also. So in my
opinion if any corporation want to give back something to the society it will not decrease their profit
but actually it will ensure the sustainability of the corporation.
Corporate social responsibility comes into picture when corporation actively tries to promote the wellbeing of the society. The concept of social responsibility is relatively new but many giant corporation
followed it. There are two ways of benefit from it. One is that when the corporation agreed to follow
the social responsibility then their tax margin is somewhat lowered. It is because the corporation are
doing the same job as the tax money does. On the other hand their help to society will repay back in
their long term run.
Take some example of corporate social responsibility to understand clearly. Giant shoe making
corporation BATA hired many unskilled labour at their adjoin places of factory. Train and make them
skilled worker. In this way the social and economic condition of the adjoin area of that factory is
changed. The society get benefited as the lifestyle of some underprivileged people is lifted up and the
corporation get profited as they get some cheap skilled worker.
The repay back to the society may effect little region or it may effect a large part of the society. For
example Darjeeling Tea was previously packed in paper container. But it may be packed in jute bag
also. Now the management of that corporation decided that instead of paper they should use jute bag
for packing of Tea. The jute industry before that was seriously endangered. But after that use of jute is
increased. The jute industry which was previously about to close regain its profit again. So in this way
the Tea Corporation commit a social responsibility.
In conclusion society and business all are interconnected. When a society is able to buy then only the
giant corporation able to make profit. So it is the responsibility to the society that they should take
care of the society for their own sake. Profit should be a goal but it can be achieved with social

responsibility also. It has also been seen that when any corporation is commit their social
responsibility they can sustain in long run.

Additional Comments:
1. More examples where corporation playing crucial role in development of the society helped
them raising their status in the society will improve the scores

In any fieldbusiness, politics, education, governmentthose in power should be

required to step down after five years.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your
reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you
should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain
how these consequences shape your position.
Solution Link
Business, politics, education, government play a very vital role in nation's growth and
prosperity. Any step, however big or small, will ultimately affect the overall health of nation and its
citizens. So it is absolutely undebatable that those in power will have huge burden on their shoulders
and are accountable for their actions. So point here is would it really help if people in power step
down every five year? Not necessarily.
Stepping down every five years means that there will be a constant change, and those who are in
power will be more focused on completing the term rather than focusing on a much long term goal for
the nation's growth. Five years are not always enough to bring a radical change in the system and
might shift the focus from nation to person itself. People may be tempted to make personal gain with
whatever time and power they have, after all no matter how well they might have performed, they will
eventually have to step down.
Some may argue, change is good because it brings out new and fresh ideas to the plate. Yes, it does
however not all ideas are good, and to know what good it will bring requires time. Time which has
been pre-defined and may be not sufficient for making judgement. Secondly stepping down is not the
only option to encourage new ideas. One has many options to bring new people to the team, involve
youth and motivate to think out of the box and incorporate those they find promising.
Again with such a policy will deprive the people from their fundamental right that is to choose their
own representative. People have all the right to keep the person who they trust and feel he/she will
ensure their wellbeing.
So, making a policy will not necessarily be the best choice given that not all goals could be achieved
within that frame of time, and before it could there is someone else with a new thought process.
Giving a chance to prove their credibility and the power of people to make their own choice will
ensure a better functioning of the system.

Additional Comments:
1. Add another paragraph focused on examples where leaders took their role for much more than
5 years and performed unconventional feats.

Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural
state.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with
the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most
compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Solution Link
While the natural environments are seriously devastated and more and more narrowed by
human activities, a strong mean is needed to protect ecological diversity. Although several nongovernment organizations and environmentalist takes their actions, it is likely their achievements are
overwhelmed by the speed of environmental destruction. Thus I totally agree with the passing of laws
to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state. This visionary protection not only
helps men correct their mistakes in the past, but also limits our nature-damaging activities at the
present and benefits the future of human kinds.
During the twentieth century, we have witnessed the significant decrease of ecological diversity due
to the human needs of natural resources and expansion. As a result, several species, both animal and
plant, became completely extinct and many others are seriously threatened regardless of the
environment-saving efforts. The effective way to protect the endangered species, therefore, is to keep
the natural environments out of the human presence by forming the preservation of any remaining
wilderness which.
Besides, many business companies running after profits contribute much to the damages to nature.
Although there are interferences by non-profit environmental organizations, these efforts may be
obscured by money and power, typically in developing countries. Thus it is crucial to address the
problem at national level, which put the remaining natural areas under the protection of law.
Finally, this policy will recover the ecological diversity which benefits our future generation. It is no
doubt that we are paying the penalty for the environmental damages by suffering from pollution,
climate changes and other natural disasters. By preserving the remaining natural areas, the ecological
balance will be re-established according to the law of natural development. It is expected that the
global environment will be returned to its integrity and our future will not suffer from the
consequences of our own activities.
In conclusion, it is essential to address the environmental issue by passing the law to protect any
remaining natural areas in our planet. It is not only the way we save the damaged environments but

also the effective mean to limit the harmful human activities and to recover the green planet for our
future.

Additional Comments:
1. Add consequences like Global Warming which is caused by large reduction in number of
tress which can be preserved if such a law exist
2. Add the examples of several animal species which are already extinct thus causing imbalance
in natural evolution due to urbanization of the society which leads to scarcity of natural
habitats

The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being

of that country's citizens.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with
the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and
supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or
might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

The author avers that the litmus test for the measure of effective governance is the combined
welfare of all its denizens and I concur with the author. Traditionally, economic welfare of nations has
been used as the default variable to measure the effectiveness of its leaders. The difficulty of
measuring other aspects such as social and economic equality, physical well-being and security, civil
rights and liberties granted and the extent to which they are being exercised; has led to nations
adopting the most objective criteria for assessment i.e. economic growth.
Economic development has the power to reduce poverty and to solve other social problems faced by
the nation. Many countries that are mired in poverty and hunger are the ones that have amongst the
lowest levels of economic growth. The importance of economic growth showcasing the effectiveness
of political leaders can then not be undermined. However, economic growth alone does not indicate
that the denizens are living in conditions conducive for their growth and happiness. Many developing
nations such as India, have a high level of economic growth but widespread disparities and ills that
plague it. Growth is often achieved at the cost of inequality, unemployment, death of local industries
and plundering of resources. Nations whose leaders have such myopic vision cannot be classified as
effective.
No doctrinaire leader has ever been regarded in the annals of history as an asset to the nation. The
image and perception of the leader are strongly correlated with the changes he or she has effected for
its general populace, for the struggles he or she has pioneered on behalf of the citizens. The examples
of Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela on the one hand and those of Saddam Hussein and
Munnamar Gadaffi on the other are testaments to this. In early 1980s, Libya had a higher per capita
income than even some developed economies and even the highest HDI in Africa as stated by the UN,
however the lack of freedom and stringent surveillance under which the Libyans lived can by no
stretch of the imagination be classified as well-being, nor can Gadaffi be called an effective leader.
For overall well-being of the people, it is imperative that freedom of speech and expression and the
right to equal opportunity and non-discrimination are protected. In the absence of these civil liberties,
thought and ideologies cannot thrive. It is also crucial to note the progress being made by the citizens

in various spheres of life. These provide a good measure of the growth and progress of all. For
instance, artists cannot thrive in a restricted or restrained environment. Freedom of thought and
expression and secular values are necessary for art to flourish. These same conditions are also crucial
for each individual to thrive. The achievements of people in their respective fields then becomes a
yardstick to measure whether the government is tolerant of incipient ideas, and whether means in
terms of financial and infrastructural support are available.
In conclusion, the efficacy of a leader undeniably rests on the well-being of the citizens. This wellbeing is most holistically measured when economic, social and civil aspects are taken into
consideration. Only a leader who succeeds in ensuring all these in balanced quantities to its citizens,
would be regarded as a stellar leader.

The best test of an argument is the argument's ability to convince someone with an
opposing viewpoint.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with
the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and
supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or
might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

The tested and proven method to gain someone's side is to provide a convincing
argumentation. Undoubtedly, if an argument is able to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint,
it can be considered as powerful. Providing that the thinking of the person with different opinion is
following the logic. Oftentimes, people's opinions are so ossified, that it is impossible, even for the
soundest argument, to change people's mind.
Firstly, different religious views are mostly inculcated to people's minds form their very early
childhood. It must be very challenging to convert a person from one denunciation to another.
Moreover, religion is mostly based on beliefs and feeling rather than facts. Here, the most reasonable
arguments on one side can be completely unsound on another side.
Secondly, turning to political views, it is very hard to gain a disciple from another political option. In
many countries political opposition finds the ideas of a leading party incongruous, just because (by
definition) they should be in opposition to them. In such situations, reaching consensus in any field, is
available only when the process of exchanging argumentation is on very high cultural level. Often,
everything ends with quarrels that leads to lack of agreement. Here, not only argumentation, but also
clever representation of argumentation will have decisive role.
At least, there are numerous techniques that advertising companies use to gain potential customers
and win their approval. It is psychology of an argument that has important role in the dispute. Leaving
the best argument for last in order for the opponent to remember it, is one of psychological
approaches. Additionally, conceding the argument of opposition also influence the opposition's
inclination to our own views. In the end who does not like to be praised?
To summarize, failure in convincing someone with an opposing viewpoint does not necessarily mean
that the argument was weak and poorly reasoned. Some areas are unarguable. It is the way we serve
the argument that matters the most to gain someone's side.

The general welfare of a nation's people is a better indication of that nation's greatness
than are the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with
the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most
compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

What makes a nation great? I personally disagree with the statement that the general welfare
of its people is a better indicator than the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. The general
welfare can be a fundamental standard but it is not a sufficient factor of the judgment.
Some consider the general welfare as a better indication since it is the primary responsibility of the
government. Without people's general welfare, a nation could hardly be great. No one treat North
Korea as great because millions of its people are still living under starvation while the nation put most
of its finance on its military defence and its so-called research of nuclear weapons. It is their people
that make the country but the leaders never take care of them. Consequently, the general welfare is
usually our first concern when discuss this issue.
However, if the general welfare of a nation's people is a better indicator, we can still find that there are
some countries whose people actually live under wealthy welfare while can hardly be considered as a
great nation. For example, Saudi Arabia actually makes large fortunes from its natural petrol
resources and serves its people well. But hardly do we consider it great because it depends on its
natural resources rather than its human progression. We deny Saudi Arabia as great for its lack of
contribution to the human society--none of scientific breakthroughs and artistic works.
Politicians, scientists and artists, though conceptually only consist such a little part of a nation,
actually make most considerable contribution to the greatness of a nation. It is these social elites who
set up the constitutional fundamental for United States that guaranteed the political institution of the
great country. We respect the scientific development of America because its amazing scientific
creations significantly promote and speed up the procession of social development. Most of us are
now enjoying the convenience of life brought by American Internet genius in silicon-valley.
In brief, the general welfare of a nation's people is a basic factor of the judgment of a great nation, but
it is not sufficient and cannot be claimed to be a better indicator than the achievements of its social
elites. Greatness can be more than the general condition of people.

Additional Comments
1. An example can be added where other nations emulate the great nations and thus when
standards for great nations are marked/identified, we should be careful that we try our best to
include all possible notions which play a significant role in human development be it
scientific, cultural, historical or social.

True success can be measured primarily in terms of the goals one sets for oneself.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with
the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and
supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or
might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Success in any endeavour is not only determined by the final result, but the path through
which on arrives the result. Goal planning is an important part of any work. A 'goal' is defined as the
deadline that one must achieve in due course of his work, towards satisfying his ultimate desire. Also,
the final goal is achieved, primarily be setting up short term goals and striving hard to achieve them.
The worth of a success can be measured only, in terms of the goals that one sets for oneself and not
the acclaim that success brings to a person.
First of all, goals can be divided into two major categories - short term goals and long term goals.
People, often must strive hard, to meet the short term goals. By splitting up the work, into subtasks,
we can easily complete the final work. Consequently, short term goals, often have deadlines that have
to be met in few days. Thus, the concept of short term goals motivates the person, and keeps him in
track. Because, goals are set, it is highly unlikely that the person will fall out of track. Thus, this
systematic process, obviously results in success. For instance, fresher who opt for employment, are
often questioned about their short term and long term goals. By having an idea of what would a
person like to be, five years from that point of time, we can have an idea of the goals of that person.
Additionally, success can be measured, only by the type of goals one sets for himself. There are many
ways, to attain the same goal. For instance, if a person wants to become a billionaire, he can do so in
multiple ways: he can loot a bank and become rich in a day; he can toil for days together and become
rich gradually. Hence, the path which a person takes, in due course of achieving his goal, plays an
important role in measuring its effectiveness. Though, both kinds of people - the one who toils
arduously in a moral way and the one who tries to reach his goal illegally - achieve success, at the
end, it is the nature of goal that differentiates one person from the other. "True" success is said to be
achieved, only when it is obtained through rightful means.
Moreover, success obtained through illegal means, do not stay with a person for ever. The person's
image slowly tends to get tarnished, as and when his misdeeds are brought into picture. For instance,
if a politician indulges in corruption and comes to power. Later, if his acts of corruption, is brought
into picture, it will cause serious consequences for the politician and it will even mar his possibilities

of winning in the forthcoming elections. Only true success, though obtained through arduous goals,
spanning over years of time will remain with the person forever and speak of his glory.
Setting goals saves time and avoids any kind of deviation that people can encounter. Because goals
are there to be fulfilled at each stage, people will hardly be distracted and this focus will contribute a
lot towards their success. For instance, if a child aspires to become a Computer Scientist - he must
first complete his schooling with high scores; then, he ought to do his undergraduate degree in a
reputed institute; after which, he must enrol in one of the top graduate schools, pursue his research
and subsequently fulfil his dreams. At each stage, he must remain motivated and the final goal must
never be forgotten. Because the path taken is more important to achieve success, setting up goals,
makes us understand the important of hard work towards success.
Some may argue, that setting up goals, limits our creativity and makes us live in a mechanized world.
But, if no goals are set, people will not have any idea of what to do; they will just go doing things in a
haphazard manner and end up in nothing. Hence, to streamline our actions, goals are necessary. If
goals are set properly, we can even try to excel in our desired field with extraordinary skills; if there is
time left for leisure, they can be used constructively in carrying out tasks that contribute to achieving
our ultimate goal.
Therefore, setting up goals makes us take the right path; saves time; avoids any kind of distraction and
ensures focus; creates more room for improvement. Goals are those which define our life. Without
planning out goals, nothing can be achieved. "Plan out your work and work out your plan" goes a
saying. If a work is well begun, it is almost half done. Hence, before plunging into any task, setting up
goals, guarantees success, provided we chart out a plan listing the goals to be achieved at each point
of time.

No field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and

experience from outside that field.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with
the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and
supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or
might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position

The speaker claims that the significant advances in knowledge require expertise from various
fields. Maybe the limited knowledge in each field is the one of reasons supporting for this assertion.
In my point of view, however, it is too hastily and extremely to include that no field of study could be
developed by itself. The primary fact that founders in each subject through history did not need or
have any condition to contact with knowledge in other fields.
Admittedly, the understanding of outsiders in various disciplines is very helpful in research. During
the study, there are some crises or problems we cannot solve with the circumscribed cognition and
one solution to this quandary is more necessary knowledge from outside of our field. For supporting
example, the atomic physics needs the combination of knowledge in both mathematics and chemistry.
That whether or not nucleic reaction happens depends on the elements in chemical periodic table. In
addition, in order to calculate the energy of this reaction needs the help from mathematician.
However, the speaker overlooks that some subjects hardly advance by the information of other field.
A manifest example is mathematics. The results in math are used to explain the phenomenon in other
disciplines. Nonetheless, no evidences or reports provided show that the mathematicians use
knowledge of other studies such as chemistry and biology in order to develop mathematics.
Furthermore, the speaker ignores the acumen and savvy of scientists discovered hypotheses and
theories without cognition in other disciplines. Through history, pioneers in each field never expect
support and corroboration from outsiders. The Newton, an obvious instance, developed mathematics
by calculus without understanding in other field of study. In physics field, Albert Einstein, the father
of relativity theory, is not caused by the aid of other fields but his deep observation about time and
space. Through imaginary experiment, he set up a system and verified his idea. And he became one of
the great scientists over the world.
To sum up, each subject has limit in its knowledge. Most scientific studies have an intimate
relationship together. But it does not mean that advance in each field must necessitate the
understanding of other fields. It depends on many factors such as environment, time, and cognition.

Additional Comments:
1. Try to find examples outside science-examples. Philosophy, history etc. can be examples
where many advancements were performed without any information outside the field