Your candid feedback is highly appreciated. Thanks in advance for the help.
Prompt: A science laboratory in Britain has states that they have discovered proof of life on a planet similar to Earth that is much farther advanced than we are. The government has a choice of funding further exploration of this planet or finding solutions of the problems of world hunger. You can only fund one project. Which project do you choose and why?
My Response:
The primary responsibility of the government is the welfare of its people, as stated in the United States Constitution. As a result of this responsibility, I would fund the project of finding solution to world hunger. World hunger is a pressing issue that can threaten the stability of mankind. Additionally, there is only one source which discovered proof of life on another planet. If the governed funds the project of finding solutions to world hunger, lives can be saved.
World hunger is a wide-spread problem that threaten the lives of people around the world. As a result of that, not finding solutions to world hunger can lead to disastrous consequences. People who are suffering from poverty, could start a rebellion against middle-class and high-class people, because of their pitiful situation. This could lead to civil wars around the world. If no solutions were found for world hunger, none of this would happen.
The reliability of the proof found by the Australian lab is doubtful because of many reasons. Since the Australian lab is the only lab that has found this proof, there is a very high likely-hood that this information is just a false alarm. There is also a very high likely-hood that funding for further exploration might reveal that it could have just been a fluke. With so many different possibilities for the planet with life, it is not a good idea to fund that project.
In the end, it just comes down to the benefits for both possibilities. Just one solution for world hunger could eradicate the fear of a huge civil war whereas the proof of life has so many different outcomes. This proves that funding for the solution of world hunger could save the world and mankind.
Evaluation Criteria:
- Knowledge and understanding of the topic
- Selection and implementation of problem solving strategies
- arrive at a solution and rationale
- maintain focus on essay topic
- Clear and effective communication
- Organization and development of ideas
Prompt: A science laboratory in Britain has states that they have discovered proof of life on a planet similar to Earth that is much farther advanced than we are. The government has a choice of funding further exploration of this planet or finding solutions of the problems of world hunger. You can only fund one project. Which project do you choose and why?
My Response:
The primary responsibility of the government is the welfare of its people, as stated in the United States Constitution. As a result of this responsibility, I would fund the project of finding solution to world hunger. World hunger is a pressing issue that can threaten the stability of mankind. Additionally, there is only one source which discovered proof of life on another planet. If the governed funds the project of finding solutions to world hunger, lives can be saved.
World hunger is a wide-spread problem that threaten the lives of people around the world. As a result of that, not finding solutions to world hunger can lead to disastrous consequences. People who are suffering from poverty, could start a rebellion against middle-class and high-class people, because of their pitiful situation. This could lead to civil wars around the world. If no solutions were found for world hunger, none of this would happen.
The reliability of the proof found by the Australian lab is doubtful because of many reasons. Since the Australian lab is the only lab that has found this proof, there is a very high likely-hood that this information is just a false alarm. There is also a very high likely-hood that funding for further exploration might reveal that it could have just been a fluke. With so many different possibilities for the planet with life, it is not a good idea to fund that project.
In the end, it just comes down to the benefits for both possibilities. Just one solution for world hunger could eradicate the fear of a huge civil war whereas the proof of life has so many different outcomes. This proves that funding for the solution of world hunger could save the world and mankind.
Evaluation Criteria:
- Knowledge and understanding of the topic
- Selection and implementation of problem solving strategies
- arrive at a solution and rationale
- maintain focus on essay topic
- Clear and effective communication
- Organization and development of ideas
