-
ananda271181
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:46 pm
Hi,
Can i request u all to take some and rate my essays below. I'm 2 weeks away from the exam and it will be fo great help if you can give some feedback on my essays below....
View on an issue
"In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In
other countries, there is little or no censorship."
The topic of censorship is a debated topic. The proponents of censorship maintain that non censored programs may affect the culture and affect the society in an adverse way. However, my personal take on the matter is that there should be no bar for free art, and in this essay I will try and support my case for the same.
On one hand it is true that not only the language, but the violance and may other factors may some adverse effect on the society. The adverse effect could be on two counts mainly. The first effect is on the culture, the programs may not adhere to the country's culturtal norms. For example, polygamy is not permitted in many countirs and hence showing a program related to polygamy may enrage some sections of the society. The second effect is on the juvenile minds. The children or adolescents may be adversly affected by offensive language, or violent scenes. On these grounds, sensorship may appear just.
However, censorship by its very nature, is a bar in the way of free art. The expression of art should be free, and there should be no bar in the expression of an artist. A Radio and television program, like any other art from, takes its inspiration from the society, and hence it adapts according to the ongoings of the society. So if one cannot sensor the free society, why censor only the radio and television programs? One may safely assume that there is no program aimed at only showing the bad things of society, for that would be automatically rejected by the audience. The program must have some other central theme to convey, and the language, or any other offensive content, is only a tool to reach that goal. Regarding the question of culture, it can be safely said that there is hardly any place where the news about the outside world, and customs and traditions are not known. In today's globalized world, the news of almost all countries reach all other countries by many mediums. So the censorship of radio and television program is neither effective and not required. On the contrary, it is a great benift in present times for one to be conversant about cultures other that one's own.
However, the question of adverse affect, especially on the juveniles, still remains. For that, if the censor board mandates that a disclaimer about offensive language, violent scenes etc. be added to the programs that has any such content would suffice teh purpose. The parents can choose what program they want their children to see, or the minors themselves will know which program is not suitable for them. On the internet, there are numerous sites with such disclaimers which keeps away the children, and there is no reason to belive that it will not do the same for television or radio programs. So I belive that there is no role for censorship, and this is onl;y an unnecessary bar in the way of free art.
Analysis of Argument:
"Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become
more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day
service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And
since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to
minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
The conclusion drawn by the author is very simple, and the author has ignored a lot of factors while drawing the conlusion. The author has showed an example in an industry, and made a faulty assumption that things will be the same for another industry. While doing so, the auhor has overlooked a few factors and taken some questionalbe assummptions.
The first conlusion that the author has made is that theh cost in color film processing industry has gone down only because of experience. However, there can be a lot of reasons that may have contributed in reduction in the costs. It might be the case that the cost of raw materials that are required for color film processing has gone down. In that case, the experience of the company has a questionable role. It also might be the case that the method used for processing has changed over the last 14 years, which again will put the assertion that experience brings the cost down in question. No such evidence is provided to refute such a possibility.
The second flaw in the reasoning is the assumption that the costs in color film processing and food processing industry act in same way. Even if we assume that the cost reduction in color film processing was solely due to experience, that is not enough to conclude that the costs in food processing industry will be the same. It might be the case that processing of color films was an inefficient process, that became efficient with time. While the processing of food could be an efficient process to start with, and hence there might be little scope for cost reduction by improving efficiency.
The second problem with this assumption is that the two industries mentioned above may be subjected to different business environments. While there could have been a reduction in standards in color film processing in order to make it cheap, there can be regulations or other requirements that make quality standards more stringent in the food processing industry, and thus increase the cost.
In view of the above reasons, it is difficult to belive that just because of the experience they have, Olympic foods will be able to reduce costs. In order to prove such a point, the author should have given more evidence within the industry, or preferably the measures taken by the company itself to reduce costs.
Thanks.....
Can i request u all to take some and rate my essays below. I'm 2 weeks away from the exam and it will be fo great help if you can give some feedback on my essays below....
View on an issue
"In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In
other countries, there is little or no censorship."
The topic of censorship is a debated topic. The proponents of censorship maintain that non censored programs may affect the culture and affect the society in an adverse way. However, my personal take on the matter is that there should be no bar for free art, and in this essay I will try and support my case for the same.
On one hand it is true that not only the language, but the violance and may other factors may some adverse effect on the society. The adverse effect could be on two counts mainly. The first effect is on the culture, the programs may not adhere to the country's culturtal norms. For example, polygamy is not permitted in many countirs and hence showing a program related to polygamy may enrage some sections of the society. The second effect is on the juvenile minds. The children or adolescents may be adversly affected by offensive language, or violent scenes. On these grounds, sensorship may appear just.
However, censorship by its very nature, is a bar in the way of free art. The expression of art should be free, and there should be no bar in the expression of an artist. A Radio and television program, like any other art from, takes its inspiration from the society, and hence it adapts according to the ongoings of the society. So if one cannot sensor the free society, why censor only the radio and television programs? One may safely assume that there is no program aimed at only showing the bad things of society, for that would be automatically rejected by the audience. The program must have some other central theme to convey, and the language, or any other offensive content, is only a tool to reach that goal. Regarding the question of culture, it can be safely said that there is hardly any place where the news about the outside world, and customs and traditions are not known. In today's globalized world, the news of almost all countries reach all other countries by many mediums. So the censorship of radio and television program is neither effective and not required. On the contrary, it is a great benift in present times for one to be conversant about cultures other that one's own.
However, the question of adverse affect, especially on the juveniles, still remains. For that, if the censor board mandates that a disclaimer about offensive language, violent scenes etc. be added to the programs that has any such content would suffice teh purpose. The parents can choose what program they want their children to see, or the minors themselves will know which program is not suitable for them. On the internet, there are numerous sites with such disclaimers which keeps away the children, and there is no reason to belive that it will not do the same for television or radio programs. So I belive that there is no role for censorship, and this is onl;y an unnecessary bar in the way of free art.
Analysis of Argument:
"Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become
more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day
service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And
since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to
minimize costs and thus maximize profits."
The conclusion drawn by the author is very simple, and the author has ignored a lot of factors while drawing the conlusion. The author has showed an example in an industry, and made a faulty assumption that things will be the same for another industry. While doing so, the auhor has overlooked a few factors and taken some questionalbe assummptions.
The first conlusion that the author has made is that theh cost in color film processing industry has gone down only because of experience. However, there can be a lot of reasons that may have contributed in reduction in the costs. It might be the case that the cost of raw materials that are required for color film processing has gone down. In that case, the experience of the company has a questionable role. It also might be the case that the method used for processing has changed over the last 14 years, which again will put the assertion that experience brings the cost down in question. No such evidence is provided to refute such a possibility.
The second flaw in the reasoning is the assumption that the costs in color film processing and food processing industry act in same way. Even if we assume that the cost reduction in color film processing was solely due to experience, that is not enough to conclude that the costs in food processing industry will be the same. It might be the case that processing of color films was an inefficient process, that became efficient with time. While the processing of food could be an efficient process to start with, and hence there might be little scope for cost reduction by improving efficiency.
The second problem with this assumption is that the two industries mentioned above may be subjected to different business environments. While there could have been a reduction in standards in color film processing in order to make it cheap, there can be regulations or other requirements that make quality standards more stringent in the food processing industry, and thus increase the cost.
In view of the above reasons, it is difficult to belive that just because of the experience they have, Olympic foods will be able to reduce costs. In order to prove such a point, the author should have given more evidence within the industry, or preferably the measures taken by the company itself to reduce costs.
Thanks.....
Ananda Chakraborty
