Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Could I get some feedback on this essay please, it is the first one I've practiced.

Statement: We must not say every mistake is a foolish one - Cicero (106BC - 43BC) Question: Explain the reasoning behind the statement. Describe a specific situation in which someone might be educated more by positive experience than by mistakes. Discuss what you think determines whether or not one learns more from mistakes.

My response: The statement by Cicero - "We must not say every mistake is a foolish one" is trying to portray that some mistakes are intelligent despite the fact it may not seem so. One can look at the discovery of penicillin by Alexandar Fleming, if he had not made an error by leaving his petri dish open and letting it get contaminated, it may have never lead to the discovery of antibiotics in the first place. We must not say every mistake is intelligent in the converse to the statement. If a doctor prescribes the wrong medication to a patient which is a negative influence on their health and well being, we cannot say this is not a foolish mistake on the part of the doctor. One can be educated more by positive experiences; if a seriously ill patient is saved through the skill of the surgeon and the teamwork of the nurses - as an onlooker this would give you the confidence and willpower to strive in your studies in order to one day emulate that success - as a direct result of a positive experience, rather than a mistake. At the end of they day, it is up to the individual's mentality if they are to learn from their mistakes. If they constantly repeat mistakes time and again, they can only blame themselves. If they make few mistakes, ensuring that hey are not made again through their own determination, then the mistake that they do make are not foolish in the respect. Our genes evolved for a Stone Age life style. Therefore, we must adopt Stone Age habits if we are to be healthy. Write a unified essay in which you address the following: Explain the logical connexion between the two sentences. What might be the practical implications if we were to agree with the reasoning? Discuss the extent to which the argument is valid.

Through the years, evolution has led to the formation of new, well-adapted species due to natural selection. The evolution of Homo erectus saw the birth of a top predator with a highly developed brain and a body adapted for hunting and survival. Even today, the prominence of the canines and opposable thumbs show that humans were, in fact, genetically better adapted at survival than their predecessors, the apes. The adaptation for the Stone Age, however, does not imply the need for a primitive lifestyle. If humans were to revert back to life in forests, they would have to give up on most of technology and all of the greatest inventions after the stone wheel itself! Most people today are used to a more accessible, 'civilised' way of living. With obesity and chronic diseases on the rise, giving up on the vast amounts of advanced diagnosis and healthcare techniques could, eventually, lead to the extinction of humans as a species.

The validity of the argument an easily be challenged because humans have shown further evolution to suit our present lifestyle. The extra set of teeth we call the "wisdom teeth" can no longer be accommodated in our now smaller jaws, and the appendix- which once aided the digestion of complex proteins obtained from raw meat- has now lost its function. Thus, evolution has not ceased since the Stone Age and reverting to a life-style of the past would only mean taking a step farther away from development.
The female of the species is no longer the weaker sex." What is the author saying in this statement? What are the implications for men and women? Give some examples which support/refute the statement. This statement suggests that nowadays, the female sex is as strong as, if not stronger than the male sex. It is saying that in the present, the widely held view of men being superior to women is stopping and that men and women are more or less on an equal footing. In the last century and before, there used to be definite roles for both men and women. Men were seen as the breadwinners of the family and were relied upon to bring sustenance to their relatives. Women, on the other hand, used to look after the house and children and were expected to provide home comforts such as meals and laundry. However, in the 21st century, these roles have become less rigid. Many women are succeeding in professions previously dominated by men, such the law and medicine. There are some men who have taken up the job of looking after the home whilst the wife earns a living. However, more often, both a husband and a wife work, thus increasing income. In this way it is clear that in a social sense, the female of the species is definitely no longer the weaker sex. However, it can be said that biologically, women are weaker. Due to the lack of testosterone in women, they are unable to undertake more of the strenuous jobs, such as heavy lifting. However, this is a generalisation and there are many cases where the female of the species is able to match their male counterparts in terms of physicality. However, this imbalance of physical attributes is shown when in almost all of the sports worldwide, men and women compete in separate competitions. This is also shown by the discrepancy in records held in sport; for example, the female 100m record is slower than the male one. From this, it can be said that the female sex is still weaker. In conclusion, in social and professional circles, the female of the species is no longer weak but in terms of biology, the female sex can still be considered to be weaker than the males of the species. Doctors should always maintain patient confidentiality and act with probity. Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might probity be important in a good doctor? Under what circumstances might an honest doctor be justified in revealing patient details in the course of their professional practice? The statement in question that doctors should always maintain patient confidentiality and act with probity is representative of a professional duty under the GMC. It means the doctor has no right to disclose their patients personal or medical information to any other party without the patients permission. It also implies the doctor should act with integrity and honesty, avoiding lying to the patient or being dishonest about their condition or any treatment. Probity is a very important quality of any good doctor. Being honest is morally, ethically and professionally right. A dishonest doctor could, for instance, succeed in steering a patient towards a particular treatment simply through his words. This situation goes against patient autonomy a key pillar of ethics. This is not good practice and not the best course of action for the patient.

Furthermore, a lock of probity could result in a treatment the patient does not want or that isnt most effective. A good doctor would always be honest as being dishonest in this way has legal implications, and if the patient is unwillingly treated, then the doctor is liable to face charges of battery. Thirdly, acting honestly at all times improves the doctors relationship with his patient. In this way a good, honest doctor could improve treatment, as the patient would be more willing to disclose personal information that could be key for treatment. For example, a nervous teenager might be unwilling to reveal a drug or alcohol history to a doctor who appears untrustworthy. Not having such information would no doubt vastly alter the doctors diagnosis in this instance. In addition, a lack of honesty and mistrust may well lead patients to look elsewhere for treatment or, indeed, abandon their treatment altogether. This situation would greatly disadvantage the patient, who would continue to live without treatment and potentially face complications as a result. A good, honest doctor should breach patient confidentiality in some situations. Primarily this is because the doctor believes the lives of others are in danger. If the patient leads the doctor to believe the patient is a member of a terrorist cell, then disclosing this to the police would be generally acceptable. In addition, if the doctor suspects the lives of the patients family or friends are in threat of harm, then altering the police would also be allowable. A third example, similar the previous two, is if the patient is diagnosed with a contagious and dangerous disease that could easily have affected those around the patient before hospital admission. In this case, the relevant authorities would have to be told so they can inform potential infectees and further action can be taken to both treat them and prevent pathogen spread. Admittedly, there are only a few, rare situations when an honest doctor should breach patient confidentiality, but it is necessary sometimes. Here's my second attempt at an essay. Would like to know to if I've improved Statement: If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. (Albert Einstein) Question: Explain what you believe the author means by the above statement. How would you refute this statement? Do you believe that theories drive facts or that facts drive theories in contemporary scientific process? My answer: The statement means that if factual information does not correlate with a specific theory, it is better to change the facts rather than change the theory. This argument could be refuted because a theory is generally based upon a hypothesis, which is determined to be correct or incorrect through factual data collected. For example, in biological experiments, a null hypothesis is made and a statistical test is carried out to find whether a null hypothesis is either accepted or rejected at a certain level of probability. It would be wrong to accept a null hypothesis if tests proved results to the contrary. In this case the theory would need to be altered rather than distorting the facts to fit the theory. I firmly believe that theories are driven by facts. In modern science, if a disease is shown to correlate with an intake of substance A rather than substance B; it cannot be validly concluded that this disease is caused by substance B when the facts suggest otherwise. In most scientific processes, a theory must be peer reviewed by many scientists before it is accepted as a whole - to prevent the spread of incorrect information. However, I can understand the necessity to change the facts to fit theories as it may be more convenient to do so; if light is travelling at 2.99 x10^8 metres per second it would be easier to calculate it at 3.0x10^8 metres per second, which would involve changing the facts in this case.

Theories should be changed to fit facts so a reliable theory that correlates to the functionality of the real world is used. However, for the sake of convenience if that fact is negligible to the overall outcome, than it would be permissible to change the fact rather than the theory.

(This ones 300 words, which I think is standard for an essay on Section 3 :] )