SAMPLE PAPERS- WITH COMMENTS
CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND DRAFTS OF THIS PAPER? THE FINAL DRAFT ISN'T PERFECT, BUT IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. (THE FINAL DRAFT COULD BETTER DEVELOP THE ARGUMENT AGAINST DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SOMEONE BECAUSE OF A CHARACTERISTIC HE (OR SHE) HAS THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL AND WHICH DOES NOT RESULT IN HARM TO OTHERS.)
Gays and the Boy Scouts
"It is the nature of a man as he grows older"to protest against change, particularly change for the better." From it's beginning in 1910, The Boy Scouts of America, BSA, have been teaching young men the value of "honesty, friendliness, kindness, and fair play." But have they lived up to this credo? The recent lawsuits by gay BSA members have shown that they do not.
Mr. Kontorovich, a strong supporter of the BSA's decision to exclude gays, protested in a 1998 issue of National Review against this "bombardment" of lawsuits. "If the courts find in favor of the plaintiffs in the undecided cases, the meaning of the Boy Scouts will be greatly eroded."
I believe we should protest against this organization's "old-fashioned" ideas. It's own bylaws even state, "we have made a commitment that our membership shall be representative of all the population in every community, district, and council." Of course one's sexual orientation and gender identity are the exception to the rule. The negative stereotypes and attitudes practiced by the Boy Scouts of America are detrimental to all youth, and by excluding certain individuals from the BSA it is only "erodes" their self-esteem. Everyone has the right to join any group or organization they wish, and it is these organizations that will benefit because of it.
Allowing "non-traditional" member into the scouts will only help the BSA. By allowing more members into the BSA, new ideas can develop; ideas that will improve the program and serve a more diverse community. The BSA wants to shape America's young men. What better way to do this than by having an organization that embraces the people of the era?
Gays and the Boy Scouts
From its beginning in 1910, The Boy Scouts of America, or BSA, has been teaching young men the value of "honesty, friendliness, kindness, and fair play." But have they lived up to this credo? The recent actions by the BSA against gay Americans have shown that they do not.
A Mr. Kontorovich, a strong supporter of the BSA's decision to exclude gays, protested in a 1998 issue of National Review against the "bombardment" of lawsuits. According to him, "If the courts find in favor of the plaintiffs in the gay scout cases, the meaning of the Boy Scouts will be greatly eroded." Is this because the BSA will no longer get to teach youth some of its outdated values like homosexuality isn't "morally straight"?
I believe we should protest against this organization's "old-fashioned" ideas. Its own bylaws even state, "We have made a commitment that our membership shall be representative of all the population in every community, district, and council." Today when many scientists believe that homosexuality is genetically determined, the BSA still believes a boy's sexual orientation is the exception to its bylaws. If genes do play a major role in sexuality, than homosexuality is not an immoral decision but more a matter of one's makeup, of one's individual "wiring." And there is no good reason to consider gays to be "immoral" just because of their sexual orientation. The Catholic Church, for example, does not consider homosexuality itself to be immoral.
A person's genetic makeup should not give others an excuse to inflict harm on them. If a gay boy shows potential to make a positive difference in his community, than why can't he join the BSA? As long as he does not hurt anyone physically or psychologically, why shouldn't he be allowed to join any male group or organization? These organizations will also benefit because they will include more of the male population.
By allowing a greater variety of people into the BSA, better promote its ideals. If the BSA wants to shape and educate America's young men and encourage them to be tolerant of differences in others, the best way to accomplish this is through accepting mankind's natural diversity by including gays in the organization.
controversy over the "morning after" birth control pill
In the article,
"FDA approves marketing of 'morning-after' pills," Cheryl Weltzstein
gives a brief description of the new "birth control" pill, "PREVEN," that
has recently been approved by the FDA. According to the article, the pill
has to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse and it is used as emergency
contraception; it won't work if a woman already is pregnant. The author
argues that this pill doesn't cause an abortion, but just prevents the
implantation of the fertilized egg or embryo. To strengthen her argument,
the author says that PREVEN is not like the French abortion pill (RU-486),
which is used to end a pregnancy several weeks after it has begun.
with her argument, because since PREVEN prevents the implantation of a
fertilized egg or embryo, it's in a way an abortion. The baby might have
not grown yet, because it hasn't been given the chance to grow, but it
is still a human life at the very beginning stage. It's as if you are
in your boat in the middle of the ocean and you see a man drowning a few
meters away from your boat, but you don't help him. Will you later on
say: "Well, I didn't kill the man! I just didn't let him on my boat..."?
If the author
agrees that the French pill is an abortion pill, then the next-day pill
is also an abortion pill, because according to the article, the first
one blocks the effects of a hormone necessary to maintain pregnancy and
similarly the latter hardens the lining of the womb so that the fertilized
egg or embryo cannot implant. In the first case it's as if you cause suffocation
to your baby and in the second case it's as if you put nails in your baby's
bed; the result is still the same.
that PREVEN is a better solution than the traditional abortion, where
the embryo might feel pain and fear, but I still believe that this is
another type of abortion. In my opinion, killing a baby on the first day
or at the fourth month of the pregnancy, you still take away a human life!
THE "MAN DROWNING" EXAMPLE PROBABLY WORKS BETTER THAN THE "BABY" EXAMPLES.-BUT, IN GENERAL, GOOD USE OF EXAMPLES.
This is potentially an "A" paper.
author and professor emeritus at Loyola University, wrote an article for
the National Catholic Reporter in which he tries to explain that the death
penalty is moral if only for the reason that it restores peace of mind
to the families of the murderer's victim. First Kennedy writes about the
hypocrisy of the Catholic Church. He critiques how the church publicly
proclaims an anti-death penalty stance, yet is willing to send innocent
men to die by the thousands for what it sees as "just wars" such as fighting
the spread of evil Nazism. The majority of the article focuses on the
victim's families. Kennedy writes that when a member of a family is murdered,
the other members have a piece of themselves ripped away and an empty
hole remains. Time can not [CANNOT] heal the wounds, but Kennedy seems
to feel that [watching the death--A BIT AWKWARD?] of the man that caused
the pain will.
As it stands, this is an "F" paper. It is both poorly written and it does not present a clear summary of at least a part of the article OR a coherent argument.
ARE YOU SUMMARIZING. (YOU NEED TO START WITH A CLEAR SUMMARY....)
YOU DEFINITELY NEED TO WORK ON YOUR WRITING! YOU NEED TO PRESENT A SINGLE, CLEAR ARGUMENT TO THE READER. (YOU CAN IMPROVE--TRY READING ALOUD. ALSO, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU GO TO THE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR LEARNING ASSISTANCE. THEY CAN HELP YOU!