1. Summary
Article: Deaf to the World
A research has been carried out to test whether youngsters absorbed in cellphones or music players face greater risk of accidents on the road. The results showed that this is true.
First of all, cellphones and music players distract road users’ attention. Studies showed that sending messages while driving reduced reaction time by 35 percent. This amount of time could easily determine whether an accident would occur.
Secondly, such devices can render a pedestrian or a driver oblivious to his or her surroundings. These devices silence almost 100 percent of ambient noises, leading to the possibility of accidents.
97 Words
2. Commentary
Title: Devices of Mass Distraction
Have you ever had the experience of listening to your MP3 player while walking on a pavement, only to turn around and be shocked to notice that a bicycle was coming in your direction? Or have you ever crossed the road while typing an SMS, only to be jolted back to your sense when an angry car horn was sounded at you by a car which had narrowly avoided hitting you?
Well, I have had such unpleasant experiences before. Back then, I used to dismiss myself as being simply ‘ignorant’. But a few days ago, a frightening realization hit me: I might have gone through a lot worse if I were not so lucky.
The word ‘unlucky’ here of course would refer to the many road accidents that happen frequently in Singapore, many of which had cost lives. However, the issue on whether road users should be banned from using handphones or music players would be a more complex issue than being plainly lucky or unlucky.
Personally, with reference to my experiences, I agree that road users should be barred from using handphones and music players on the road. Despite the fact that such precautions could cause much inconvenience to many road-users, the fact that such distractions can cost lives comes as a stern reminder that we perhaps should reconsider using these devices while travelling on the road.
There are many reasons why handphones and music players should be banned from the road. First of all, devices such as handphones and music players distract the road users’ attention from the road. The RAC Foundation, a British non-profit organization, found that sending messages and driving simultaneously reduced reaction time by 35 percent. This 35 percent could mean the difference between life and death in the event of an accident.
As such, let us think for a moment: If such distractions were eliminated, how many accidents would have been avoided? How many lives would have been spared from these accidents?
Secondly, devices such as noise-cancelling earphones can silence up to 100 percent of ambient noises. This would mean that people wearing such earphones would be oblivious to their surroundings in their sense of hearing, probably leading to them either being unable to react in time to an oncoming threat such as a speeding vehicle, or rendering them unaware of their situation at all. In the event that the driver is unable to steer the vehicle away from the pedestrian in time, an accident would almost certainly occur.
However, many commuters have argued that if they were barred from using these devices on the road, they would be unable to receive updates and reply to them, especially if these updates are emergencies. For example, if they do not answer their company’s boss’ call, they might make their bosses angry, and in face of the recent economic regression, it might give a reason for a boss to sack a worker.
Others also argue that there would be much inconvenience for them. For example, if a spouse has asked a commuter out for dinner, a difference of a few minutes in answering them could mean the difference between a secured relationship and drifting away. This might be something that such commuters regret doing.
However, how would these commuters answer given the stone-cold truth that they run an increased chance of endangering not only their own lives but also of other commuters? Have these selfish people not realized that such accidents have not only caused the involved parties great pain, but their family members have also suffered along with them? As such, such small inconveniences would not be comparable to that of lives being lost.
In conclusion, although barring these devices can cause much inconvenience for commuters, the fact that many accidents would be reduced, thus leading to many lives being saved is not an undeniable fact.
After all, if you did manage to avoid an accident in time, wouldn’t you be grateful?
657 Words
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Goodness of Goodness
Qn: Drawing from this article and your personal experience, say why you believe human beings are willing to do good to others.
I think, ultimately, many human beings are social animals and found it beneficial to do good. Talking from an evolutionist point of view, doing good to others can help humans to form a network, which, in many cases can help with their own survival. Early men found having a social network useful in hunting for food and for protecting oneself from external threats.
From a more personal point of view, I think that humans enjoy doing good. Many humans derive joy from helping others. When one helps another, the receiving end feels good for accomplishing a task, while the giving end feels good for helping a person in need. Happiness has been associated with many health benefits, and perhaps this is why many people want to make each other happy.
I think, ultimately, many human beings are social animals and found it beneficial to do good. Talking from an evolutionist point of view, doing good to others can help humans to form a network, which, in many cases can help with their own survival. Early men found having a social network useful in hunting for food and for protecting oneself from external threats.
From a more personal point of view, I think that humans enjoy doing good. Many humans derive joy from helping others. When one helps another, the receiving end feels good for accomplishing a task, while the giving end feels good for helping a person in need. Happiness has been associated with many health benefits, and perhaps this is why many people want to make each other happy.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Hope this will not receive sabotage... YES NO Sabotage occured!
Some improvements based on Bryan's comments:
I still remembered the time I was in primary school. My science teacher was asking the class what a 'stem cell' is. Without hesitation, I answered, "It is a cell from the stem of a plant!" Of course, this incited laughter from the rest of the class.
Of course, right now, 'stem cells' should be part of any science student's vocabulary. It would refer to cells in human body which can adapt their structure to give rise to any mature cell structures.
But that would not be the $64 question. Instead, many still question whether stem cell research should be proceeded with. It certainly was not a question as clear cut as 'What is a stem cell?'.
Personally, I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
I still remembered the time I was in primary school. My science teacher was asking the class what a 'stem cell' is. Without hesitation, I answered, "It is a cell from the stem of a plant!" Of course, this incited laughter from the rest of the class.
Of course, right now, 'stem cells' should be part of any science student's vocabulary. It would refer to cells in human body which can adapt their structure to give rise to any mature cell structures.
But that would not be the $64 question. Instead, many still question whether stem cell research should be proceeded with. It certainly was not a question as clear cut as 'What is a stem cell?'.
Personally, I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
McCommentary Introduction Level 2
Harhar. Lets try writing a short story....
I still remembered the time I was in primary school. My science teacher was asking the class what a 'stem cell' is. Without hesitation, I answered, "It is a cell from the stem of a plant!" Of course, this incited laughter from the rest of the class.
Of course, right now, 'stem cells' should be part of any science student's vocabulary. However, many still question whether stem cell research should be proceeded with. It certainly was not a question as clear cut as 'What is a stem cell?'.
I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
I still remembered the time I was in primary school. My science teacher was asking the class what a 'stem cell' is. Without hesitation, I answered, "It is a cell from the stem of a plant!" Of course, this incited laughter from the rest of the class.
Of course, right now, 'stem cells' should be part of any science student's vocabulary. However, many still question whether stem cell research should be proceeded with. It certainly was not a question as clear cut as 'What is a stem cell?'.
I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
McEssay Formula-1
Ok. Here is an attempt at a commentary (I failed my lit essay though for last year...):
I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
First of all, stem cell research can be the key in discovering the treatment for many diseases and the method of prevention for rejection of organs during transplants. For example, scientists have found that, by injecting two drugs, Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor and Mozobil, they can force a Lymphoma patient's bone marrow to produce more blood-making stem cells, thus effectively curing them. This simple and effective treatment reduces the rate of failure tremendously and does not put the patient in risk of complications, which is frequent for other types of temporary treatment. As such, engaging in stem cell research will allow for more lives to be saved, thus justifying that its benefits are more than what has been sacrificed.
However, many have argued that the manipulation of stem cells have been deemed unethical. They think that researchers, faced with the fact that stem cells can modify their structures to that of other cells in the human body, will attempt to play god by controlling the stem cells to their own will. For example, scientists might make use of stem cells to strengthen an athlete's muscles, thus giving them an unfair advantage. As such, they think that, since control of stem cells can give some humans more advantage over other humans, it would be deemed as playing god, and as such, make stem cell research unethical.
Although this argument cannot be entirely denied, however, I would like to point out that the benefits of stem cell research are altogether much greater than the possible cons. Furthermore, if measures are made to prevent researchers from manipulating stem cells to their own will, I am certain that unethical effects of stem cell research will be kept at a minimum. For example, if regular inspections are made at the researchers' laboratory, it can expose any illegal experiments. I, personally, feel that the human race should not stop at achieving a greater cause even if we risk something during the process.
To conclude, stem cell research should continue as the fruition of its results can potentially save many lives. Although many people argue that stem cell research is unethical due to the fact that scientists are literally playing god, and that such an argument cannot be entirely denied; however, suitable control will bring the cons of unethical stem cell research to a minimal, and instead brings more attention to the benefits of stem cell research.
----
To conclude this drony blog post, never burn midnight oil *yawn*. Ok I was referring to RE.
I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
First of all, stem cell research can be the key in discovering the treatment for many diseases and the method of prevention for rejection of organs during transplants. For example, scientists have found that, by injecting two drugs, Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor and Mozobil, they can force a Lymphoma patient's bone marrow to produce more blood-making stem cells, thus effectively curing them. This simple and effective treatment reduces the rate of failure tremendously and does not put the patient in risk of complications, which is frequent for other types of temporary treatment. As such, engaging in stem cell research will allow for more lives to be saved, thus justifying that its benefits are more than what has been sacrificed.
However, many have argued that the manipulation of stem cells have been deemed unethical. They think that researchers, faced with the fact that stem cells can modify their structures to that of other cells in the human body, will attempt to play god by controlling the stem cells to their own will. For example, scientists might make use of stem cells to strengthen an athlete's muscles, thus giving them an unfair advantage. As such, they think that, since control of stem cells can give some humans more advantage over other humans, it would be deemed as playing god, and as such, make stem cell research unethical.
Although this argument cannot be entirely denied, however, I would like to point out that the benefits of stem cell research are altogether much greater than the possible cons. Furthermore, if measures are made to prevent researchers from manipulating stem cells to their own will, I am certain that unethical effects of stem cell research will be kept at a minimum. For example, if regular inspections are made at the researchers' laboratory, it can expose any illegal experiments. I, personally, feel that the human race should not stop at achieving a greater cause even if we risk something during the process.
To conclude, stem cell research should continue as the fruition of its results can potentially save many lives. Although many people argue that stem cell research is unethical due to the fact that scientists are literally playing god, and that such an argument cannot be entirely denied; however, suitable control will bring the cons of unethical stem cell research to a minimal, and instead brings more attention to the benefits of stem cell research.
----
To conclude this drony blog post, never burn midnight oil *yawn*. Ok I was referring to RE.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
First Shot: A Commentary Discussing the Scraping of CCTs
I agree that CCTs should be scraped.
First of all, students are stressed by every CCT that they have to take. My personal experience (as a Sec 3 student, no less) says that I get tensed up due to nervousness before every test. This nervousness would usually make us perform worse than expected, and there would be pressure from parents to do better next time. Secondly, CCTs often contain erroneous questions. This would cause students to waste time finding answers which never existed. I still remember a certain Chinese CCT for which I spent 10 minutes trying to find the answer to a 2 mark question. However, in the end, it was 'an erroneous question' and I had lacked the time to properly answer the rest of the paper. This shows that erroneous questions would make a test an unfair platform to gage the students' standards, and given the frequency of it occuring in a CCT in comparison to a normal Class Test, this further shows that CCTs have a need to be scraped.
First of all, students are stressed by every CCT that they have to take. My personal experience (as a Sec 3 student, no less) says that I get tensed up due to nervousness before every test. This nervousness would usually make us perform worse than expected, and there would be pressure from parents to do better next time. Secondly, CCTs often contain erroneous questions. This would cause students to waste time finding answers which never existed. I still remember a certain Chinese CCT for which I spent 10 minutes trying to find the answer to a 2 mark question. However, in the end, it was 'an erroneous question' and I had lacked the time to properly answer the rest of the paper. This shows that erroneous questions would make a test an unfair platform to gage the students' standards, and given the frequency of it occuring in a CCT in comparison to a normal Class Test, this further shows that CCTs have a need to be scraped.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)