able→ capable, in a position
all the time→ continually, continuously, constantly, perpetually
a lot→ noticeably, considerably, a great deal, substantially
a lot of→ many, numerous, a wide variety of , a whole range of, a wide spectrum of ,an abundance of
as a result→ consequently
basically→ essentially, in essence, substantially
be, amount to→ constitute
thing→ element, aspect, object, factor, consideration
too→ excessively, inordinately, unduly
too many→ an excessive number of, a disproportionate number of
too much→ excessive
try→ endeavor, strive
ups and downs→ vicissitudes
very→ extremely, in the extreme, immensely, intensely
Competition is ultimately more beneficial than detrimental to society.
Darwin suggested that the process of evolution is one based on competition. This deadly competition weeds out the weak and only the fittest of the species survives. Humans, being the product of millions of years of evolution, are by nature, competitive beings. Yet, humans are also social beings. Like the bees in the hive, we are not very successful living completely on our own. We need to cooperate with other inpiduals for our survival. Thus, a conflict ensues, between our innate competitiveness, and our need to cooperate. There are pros and cons associated with both. However, it is my belief that overall, competition, is more detrimental than beneficial to human society.
First, let us try to identify why there is competition in the first place. In an environment abundant with resources, where supply outstrips demand, there is very little need for the inhabitants to fight with each other over them. This is not the case on planet earth. Resources are limited, and there is constant jostling to get to the front of the queue to get acquire them. For example, thousands of prospective students apply to gain entrance to top universities around the world, but there are only a handful of places in those universities. Thus, there is competition to get into to these hallowed institutions of higher learning.From a utilitarian perspective, competition is a good thing. In evolution it is responsible for the elimination of weak genes. In the business environment, it gets rid of the weaker players. In politics, it weeds out unpopular candidates. In academia, it gets rid of weak students.
Furthermore, competition leads to self improvement. Businesses will strive to offer better products and services at lesser prices. The consumer reaps rich rewards from this competitive spirit. Politicians strive to do the utmost for the people, so they would get reelected. Students excel in there studies, trying to outdo each other.
Thus, ostensibly, competition is responsible for the betterment of the society as a whole. However, this is just the superficial view. Underneath the surface, competition, in every aspect, is slowly eating away at the very fabric of the society.
While it is true to say that competition in corporate world has brought great benefits to the consumer, the society as Missed A herewhole is playing a great price for it. Most businesses are exploiting cheap labour in the third world to maximise their profits. There are thousands of sweatshops run by well known western corporations in countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh and China. People are forced to work in squalid conditions, often 16 hours a day. They are lucky to receive a dollar a day for there labours. The moment a government in any of these countries try to improve the working conditions of the employees, these multinational giants flee the country, often leaving whole communities facing financial ruin. The corporations are aware that there are plenty of other labour markets that could be exploited with gay abandon.
That is just the human cost. What about the environmental costs? Competition has forced many corporations to stream line their operations. Environmental standards are normally the first victims of this stream line process. A significant amount of environmental pollution and land degradation has been blamed on industry, yet the factories keep producing more and more. Thousands of items go unsold each year due to competition. only a fraction of this merchandise is recycled. The rest goes to the already overflowing landfills.
In politics, the detrimental effects of competition are blatant. Politicians often resort to popular yet socially damaging policies to gain votes. These measures include imprudent spending to rabble rousing. The current volatility in Israel and Palestine, the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, and the famine in Zimbabwe are all, at least partially, problems created by politicians to get elected.
It has been said that education is one sphere where competition has always had a beneficial influence. Even this claim is dubious. Due to competition students are less likely to exchange ideas with one another, thus enriching the student population as whole. Furthermore, competition drives students to study well to pass exams, but not to gain wisdom. Students spend many hours preparing for standardised tests; tests which many believe are inherently flawed. Thus, it is often not the most intellectual student who succeeds, but the most competitive.
Competition is an inborn human trait. It has some positive qualities, but overall, it does far more harm than help to the society. As intelligent beings, humans can transcend their evolutionary weaknesses. Thus, humans should rely less competition and more cooperation for the sake of the society.
The following appeared in a health magazine.
The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles. Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago. Furthermore, there has been a fourfold increase in sales of food products containing kiran, a substance that a scientific study has shown reduces cholesterol. This trend is also evident in reduced sales of sulia, a food that few of the most healthy citizens regularly eat.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants.
Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers cannot distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term butter to refer to either butter or margarine. Thus, to avoid the expense of purchasing butter and to increase profitability, the Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.