Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'laws'.
Found 3 results
Practice Essay Prompts and Copyright LawsHello, everyone—I have a question I want to ask. Would it be a violation of copyright laws if I posted the prompt for a practice essay (not one from the actual test) that I once used? I am looking to get feedback on a couple of practice essays, which is, of course, easier when people know what the prompt for the essay was, but I want to make sure I am not breaking any copyright laws first. Thank you all so much!
Please kindly evaluate my essayNations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain. 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. We’ve have only one earth to live in. If the current pace of deforestation continues, soon enough we’ll lose all the wilderness across the globe. This will lead to a complete imbalance in the ecosystem which might lead to total destruction of human civilization. So, in order to mitigate this danger of doomsday, nations should implement laws to protect the existing wilderness. The economy around the world has grown because of the exploitation of the natural resources. To meet the demand of food for the growing population, more forest is cleared each year. In order to supply daily supplies like toilet papers and towels, printing paper and newspapers a vast swath of forest is cleared. Some of these actions are irreversible. Those cut trees cannot be easily be replaced. A lot of wild animals gets killed during the deforestation. Soil erosion can occur in these barren land and become infertile. The end result of the destruction of wilderness due to human activities will be life threatening for all the flora and fauna living in this earth. The imbalance in ecosystem will lead in extinction of a lot of animals and plants. Therefore, it is imperative that nations make laws to protect whatever wilderness is remaining. To have laws to protect the wilderness is easier said than done. It will be a challenge to meet the demand of food and other consumables for growing population without the expense of the wilderness. Therefore, in parallel to the legislation to protect the wilderness nations must also invest in science and technology to increase production so that the available space and resources is utilized to meet the demands of its subjects. Nations should also invest in educating its citizens to minimize waste and be environmentally conscious.
Here is the Issue Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places. 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 ANSWER Human beings are created with a tendency to break the law and drift from every normal life styles, a major well known example of that is Adam and apple, when God prohibited him from eating that certain apple, and then his temptation of breaking the rules drove him to eat that apple resulted in getting him and his wife from Heaven and be down on earth. Laws have to be a firm as concrete with no allowance for falling into mistakes that might lead to any disasters and life losses, and to eliminate every criminal tendency flawlessly. I'm don't see the mentioned above statement "Laws should be flexible enough for various circumstances, time and places" as an accepted statement, However laws has to be as stated before tough and firm that can face any deviation from the normal lifestyle that assure safety to all the citizens and resident with a certain place. Introducing an example that proves well why rules should be tough without any flexibilities, is driving in opposite direction whenever the associated correct direction is jammed or blocked or having any of it's lanes under maintaince, this might lead to catastrophes and major accidents with severe injuires causing life, car and assets losses. If laws concerning opposite-direction driving were to be flexible under circumstances, you would have seen many problems arising in streets, from blockage of other directon, consuming time and sometimes accidents. from this point of view, the circumstances point of view, Government then will not be able to take any legal action towards the law breaker. Addressing another example, in some of the developing countries, the percent of youth not finding an opportunity for work is very high compared to these having a job. As a result of this some of these youth and people not finding work might practice some illegal activities from robbery, drug dealing, stealing, rapping, and many other criminal activities. If laws were flexible enough and clement towards circumstances, many of them will have an argument that they are doing that for the sake of earning a living. also addressing any legal action for breaking the regulations and policies won't be feasible as you have to care for the circumstances and that would question the government state with such questions: "why didn't you provide work opportunities for us !?" An example that I already happened in Egypt, at the time of the Revolution of January 25, at these days where the revolution was at its peak, there were no policemen and only the armed forces were around the streets, they didn't know who to treat with criminals, robberies and guys breaking the laws as they are not intended to deal with internal country issues, why telling this ? because after some time when the revolution's fire was light and the security state and policemen were back to their positions, when they were asked to catch those who broke into the shops and stole stuff, they simly said "it was at the revolution time, we can't apply laws and we can't even take any legal actions towards them.". That's an example of making laws flexible because of the timing which was the revolution time, resulting in making those criminals and robbers set free in streets and enjoying what they had stolen. Consequently, It's so far obvious that such mentioned above issue of having a law flexible with circumstances, time and place is a listless concept which doesn't make any sense. laws should be tough, firm regardless of the situations.