Papon Paul

Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. 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. There are plenty of ways or source for humankind to bring attention and reform and scandals do not fits on it in any way. Scandal itself is a negative word and people often see it negatively. If anything people take it negatively how does it bring benefit to them? Scandal is anything that a person or any organization do which is not good for society. It’s often defamed people. People often look with abhorrence to those people who are in part of any scandal. Sometimes they also harassed by people or by the society which is not desirable. For example, Women who are often victim of sexual scandal most of the time harass by people in the society. There are plenty of alternatives to bring attention to people. Now people have internet, tv, newspaper etc these can be a good option to gather attention. There are plenty of options to bring beneficial and useful to mankind. It should explain to people what is good for them and what is bad. By ruining someone's life to bring attention can't be an option. But sometime scandal can be useful for example, Watergate scandal in the USA caused the resignation of president Richard Nixon. But it also defames the politics of the USA which is not desirable. Scandals aren't good for society. People should beware of it and negative work isn't a good source for any benefit or attention

Thank you for your reply. I will try to improve my grammar.

In last year’s mayoral election in town T, candidate miller led candidate Keating by a substantial margin in the polls leading up to the election. At the last minute, Keating launched a widely viewed series of television that focused on preserving the natural environment of Town T, a topic neglected by miller. Subsequently, Keating won the election by a narrow margin. This year, if candidate Miller hopes to win the upcoming mayoral election, he must increase his coverage of the topic of preserving the natural environment of Town T. Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted. The main point of the argument is that keating won the election by last minute initiative which was preserving the natural environment issue. Now come to that point, preserving natural environment was a previous election issue. We can assume that Keating has done something on that issue during his time. If Miller again brings that topic it will be a copycat and keating can take advantages of it. It won't do any good to miller and even backfire miller's election campaign. Another point is that, Keating initiated that issue at the last point and Miller was almost winning that election. It will be a wise decision for miller is that if Miller prepare himself from the first day of the election and leave no space for Keating for any last-minute campaign issue. That should be the best strategy for Miller. Focusing on another subject will be much more astute decision for Milller. Like during keating period what he was lacking to fulfill. Like unemployment problem or housing problem in town T. If keating is unable to fulfill his commitment to preserve the natural environment then, miller should campaign on that issue. But Miller should focus on what's Keating is lack of fulfilling his promises and prepare himself from the beginning should be the basic strategy for Miller. There is an axiom which is 'Slow and steady wins the race.' By not doing previous mistake and more focus on people's popular demands can win Miller this time.

SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's original headquarters. Moreover, Middlesburg is a predominately urban area and according to an employee survey, SuperCorp has determined that its workers prefer to live in an area that is not urban. Finally, Corporateville has lower taxes than Middlesburg, making it not only a safer place to work but also a cheaper one. Therefore, Supercorp clearly made the best decision. Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. From this argument we acknowledged that a company named supercorp moved its headquarters from middlesburg to corporateville, the Homeowners surge in corporateville and corporateville has lower taxes than middlesburg. From that argument we can assume that because employee of supercorp prefer to live in an urban area, the company moved to corporatville but in another point we notice that homeowners are rushing to corporateville, which is a clear sign that corporateville will not be a rural place in upcoming days. If that happened, the purpose of the company will go to the gutter. At another point we came to know that, the moved into town has lower taxes than moved out town. Town or cities which impose greater taxes also have better facilities. To maintain those facilities, they have to impose taxes, which are quite bigger. This indicates that corporateville has lower facility than middlesburg.So, the facilities like public transport, water supply or sewerage system will not as good as previous town. Which certainly will create problems in employee and also hamper their work productivity. From this discussion, we clearly understand that the main purpose of the move out will fail. Supercorp should take necessary steps to improve corporateville facilities.

Apart from major subjects, minor courses are also important for proper education. Because it helps students to prepare themselves for future obstacle and leadership. Humanity courses will certainly benefit in the future. In upcoming days when these students are going to enter into their career life, they have to lead a team or a group of people. Without humanity courses they are unable to lead the team or group. Also, they have to work with various kind of people, without the help of humanity courses it is not possible to create a good relationship with them. Understanding the ambience of the work life is a key element for building a career. For example, mark jackerberg was a computer science student and jeff bejos was a business studies student. Now they own a company and work with a lot of people. Without the help of humanity courses, it is not possible to deal with their co-workers. But, as humanity courses is not major courses in science and business studies, Students sometime feel annoying to do this type of courses during their study period which can hamper their education. It's the duty of the teachers to persuade them to the importance of the humanities. There is an axiom that 'knowledge is power' and any knowledge is beneficial in real life in many ways. So, depriving a course is unintelligible.

Recent incursions by deep-sea fishermen into the habitat of the Madagascan shrimp have led to a significant reduction in the species population. With the breeding season fast approaching, the number of shrimps should soon begin to increase. Nonetheless, the population should not return to the levels before the fishing boats arrived. Because this trend is expected to continue over the next several years, the Madagascan shrimp will quickly become an endangered species. Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument. This argument assumes that because of deep sea fishermen the number of Madagascan shrimp led to a significant reduction. The breeding season is fast approaching and number of shrimps will increase, but won't return to the same level before it was. And Madagascar shrimp will be endangered. Firstly, there is not enough argument that deep-sea fishermen are the only reason for shrinking the shrimp population. There may be other elements too. That's assuming is not clear enough. If climate change also a reason for their reduction, then one can't only blame fishermen. Lacking evidence is weakening this point. Another point is that though the breeding season is coming, but it won't return to the level before fishermen are coming. We can't witness any reason or cause why the level won't become the same. Also, what should be the proportion of the shrimp before it was that also not included in the argument. Though it might be true if the incursion by the fishermen continue for several years, Madagascar shrimp maybe become endangered species, but only blaming them for this incident is doubtful. Though deep-sea fishermen are a cause for shrinking Madagascar shrimp, but there is not only enough evidence to blame them.

Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated. 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. People Should use technology on their necessity, not to submerge in it to spoil themselves. Thousands of years ago when human first discovered the use of fire that was the first incident of using technology. That invention made them stronger against wild beast, also human used it for cooking. That was the first evidence of using technology to make life easy, but now Technogym is more complicated and creating convoluted lifestyle. For example, the mobile phone was invented with the purpose to have a conversation even on the go. But now people are not using the phone only for talking, but also for gaming, social media, watching videos etc. which make them addicted to it. That makes life complicated instead of easier. Another thing is that people are becoming lazy because of technology. They are now can order food, shopping or buying something from online which inhibit them to go outside. After the discovery of internet Americans become more obese than before. People are now failing to burn minimum calorie they need to fit themselves. The primary purpose of social media was to make people closer to each other even if they can't meet them in real life. Instead of that, people are becoming more isolated and become depressive. There should be no doubt that technology makes life easier, but people should understand that purpose of that technology and should refrain it, from the abuse of that technology. There was a story that a magician taught his son how to drive a broomstick for cleaning home. His son learned spell command incantation, but didn't know how to stop the broomstick. Technology doing, the same thing to humans. Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated. 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. People Should use technology on their necessity, not to submerge in it to spoil themselves. Thousands of years ago when human first discovered the use of fire that was the first incident of using technology. That invention made them stronger against wild beast, also human used it for cooking. That was the first evidence of using technology to make life easy, but now Technogym is more complicated and creating convoluted lifestyle. For example, the mobile phone was invented with the purpose to have a conversation even on the go. But now people are not using the phone only for talking, but also for gaming, social media, watching videos etc. which make them addicted to it. That makes life complicated instead of easier. Another thing is that people are becoming lazy because of technology. They are now can order food, shopping or buying something from online which inhibit them to go outside. After the discovery of internet Americans become more obese than before. People are now failing to burn minimum calorie they need to fit themselves. The primary purpose of social media was to make people closer to each other even if they can't meet them in real life. Instead of that, people are becoming more isolated and become depressive. There should be no doubt that technology makes life easier, but people should understand that purpose of that technology and should refrain it, from the abuse of that technology. There was a story that a magician taught his son how to drive a broomstick for cleaning home. His son learned spell command incantation, but didn't know how to stop the broomstick. Technology doing, the same thing to humans.