Jaman Mahamud

Table of Contents

Summer Assignment

Jaman Mahamud August 1st, 2021

8th Grade English CALEB HARAGUCHI COMBS

Prompt: Adversity Argumentative Essay

The Leverage of Adversity

Penned by Jeannette Walls, The Glass Castle portrays numerous aspects of adversity: hardship and struggle, alongside emotional, social, mental, and physical inflictions. For many, the adversity may seem distressing; however, it is of the essence to prosperity and the establishment of strength. Adversity’s succor can counter the perception that adversity has no profound influence over an individual; in fact, adverse circumstances stimulate versatility, perseverance, optimism, courageousness, rationality, and amiability. Therefore, affliction can be the catalyst for strength in a plethora of distinctive ways.

Adversity creates courageousness, rationality, and optimism by enabling an individual to gain insight and hope from past distress and difficulties. According to the Glass Castle, after Jeannette went through an ordeal with fire, she “started stealing matches from Dad...light them...then wave it out triumphantly” (Walls 16). This denotes a persona of strength and courageousness because she pluckily started utilizing fire after realizing that she had nothing to be vexed about; the adversity of being burned allowed her to not be deterred by intimidation or fear. Furthermore, Jeannette’s dad can not bestow a gift upon Jeannette because of their financial status, but Jeannette’s dad gave her “venus… years from now when all the junk they got is broken and long forgotten, you'll still have your stars" (Walls 43). This denotes that the adversity of not being able to acquire material possessions led Jeanette to become optimistic about life and compassionate of what life bestowed upon her, which enabled her to be appreciative of her circumstances in life. Moreover, a squad of girls inflicted and jumped Jeannette; however, on the next page, Jeannette anticipated that the girls would be waiting for her again, so she “grabbed the biggest rock I could find and hit one of the girls on the head with it,” and her brother “did fairly well fending them” (Walls 47). This denotes the rationality that came with the affliction with the squad of girls, and how Jeannette and her brother were able to devise a plan that ascertained their welfare in the future. Therefore, adversity establishes strength by empowering one to beneficially react to circumstances.

Further, adversity enables an individual to possess versatility, perseverance, and amiability by establishing a scenario in which the individual has to defy his or her apprehensions. For instance, Jeannette had to tolerate “Maureen let loose with aloud, high-pitched wail...it got cold and uncomfortable in the back of the dark U-Haul...we'd all go tumbling whenever we hit a bump...we were going to get sucked out, and we all shrank back against the Prospector...the door was going to drag Brian out...I wedged myself into a corner,” which were all events that Jeannette was unaccustomed to (Walls 50-51). However, she persevered through this ordeal and made sure that she and her siblings were safe. This signifies that the adversity that Jeanette faced allowed her to be versatile because she adapted to go through a stressful, peculiar environment by facing her fears. Likewise, Jeannette had to go through a similar ordeal when she went to the Hot Pot, in which “There was nothing to cling to,” and although she was scared of “Large bodies of water,” her father was “putting an arm around me (Jeannette), and we started across the water...dragging me...prying my fingers from around his neck and pushing me away...rescuing me only to throw me back into the water” (Walls 66-67). This emphasizes that the adversity of swimming enabled Jeannette to learn how to swim because she persisted throughout her fear and didn’t let it hinder her, which establishes a persona of persistence, versatility, and amiability given the situation. Thus, adversity stimulates strength by enabling an individual to overcome his or her fears.

Nevertheless, those who oppose the leverage of adversity perceive that adversity is solely negative and that it does not establish strength; however, I perceive the opposers’ beliefs as false, misunderstood, biased, lopsided, and irrational. Rather, I notion that adversity has a tremendous effect, positively, on an individual. For case, after Jeannette had been emotionally and physically tormented by Ernie and his friends, she and her brother devised a plan: “Brian explained how we could make a catapult...piling rocks on the mattress and rigging it... a minor avalanche of rocks...enough to kill Ernie Goad and his gang, which was what we fully intended to do...warning to others” (Walls 169). This portrays that the infliction that Ernie and his friends had put Jeannette through compelled her to defend herself by utilizing her rationality and courageousness that she implemented to devise a plan; consequently, it could be observed that the notions of the opposers, mentioned previously, are irrational, false, and biased because adversity allows an individual to persevere, with strength, through hindrances. Additionally, Jeannette’s dad gave her “six stinging blows on the backs of my thighs, each accompanied by a whistle of air,” which made her want to “like Lori, I was going to get out of Welch. The sooner, the better...do it on my own. It would take saving and planning” (Walls 225). This demonstrates that the adversity of being abused by her dad enabled her to start taking the initiative of creating a contemporary, enhanced life for herself; again, the yearning to reach one’s potential is what unveils the strength in oneself. Hence, the notion that adversity can be an incentive for strength is authentic, while the distinct perception that adversity can have a feeble and dissenting impact on one is inaccurate.

Given these pieces of evidence and notions, adversity allows an individual to face his or her fears, make rational decisions, remain persistent, and look forward to maximizing his or her potential. Although some people may argue that adversity is not beneficial, it has an evident impact on individuals, such as Jeannette in The Glass Castle. Therefore, adversity has an immensely beneficial impact on an individual since it stimulates strength and advantageous character traits.

Regents Writing Baseline

Essay

The internet boasts an immense amount of insight, but its efficacy is debated by many individuals. Furthermore, as humans evolve to rely on the internet, their brains will eventually alter. Moreover, technology has advanced to such an extent that it practically possesses most material available. Nevertheless, adversaries perceive that because technology disperses innumerable information, it is rational, effective, and entirely comprehensive to our thinking capability. Nonetheless, the most rational preposition would be the converse of the adversaries’ notions. The most reasonable perception about technology is that it negatively affects our ability to conceptualize and contemplate because it is an incentive for distraction and loss of attention span, may cause cognitive overwhelm, and alters our brain negatively.

Technology has a negative impact on our ability to think and rationalize because it is a motivation for distraction and the reduction of our attention span. For instance, line 37 in text 1 states, “the problem for younger people is the overuse of technology that leads to distraction.” This establishes a chain reaction because line 30-31 in text 1 says, “ They just had a really hard time comprehending if they went on a website with a lot of information.” The aforementioned quotes emphasize that because technology leads to distraction, students and other individuals can have an intricate time comprehending the information, which is one of the most integral components of analyzing. Alongside this, line 13 in text 2 states, “short-term storage is fragile.” This is deteriorated when, as stated in line 22 in text 2, “we face many information faucets.” The two prior pieces of evidence denote that when we face the many information dispersions that are on the internet, our attention becomes more fragile as there is an immense amount of material. Therefore, technology has a negative impact on our ability to conceptualize because it can establish motivation and a loss of attention span. Alongside these detrimental effects, there are also numerous more.

For example, technology may deter our ability to comprehend material because of the overwhelming quantities of information. According to lines 26-29 in Text 2, “When the load exceeds our mind’s ability to process and store it, we’re unable to retain the information… our understanding remains weak.” This proclaims that when we are faced with numerous pieces of information, our understanding deteriorates. This is especially evident when using the internet because there is a plethora of information. Furthermore, according to line 57-60 in text 2, when exposed to numerous faucets of information, “skimming becomes our dominant mode of thought… we are blind to the damage we may be doing to our intellectual lives….” This portrays that when there is a miniscule amount of time, humans decide to skim, which decreases the comprehension of materials. Therefore, technology can detriment our ability to think and comprehend because we could be exposed to overwhelming sources of information.

Alongside the aforementioned malicious effects, technology also negatively changes the way we think because it literally alters our brains. For case, in line 54-57 of text 3, it states, “ a parade of tweets and hyperlinks is training our brain to expect constant stimulation and thus rendering us incapable of reading a book.” This proves that because we have been accustomed to receive constant response to something, we are unable to comprehend material to our utmost extent. In addition, lines 24-30 in text 3, it supposes, “ the brain to encompass aspects of the outside environment… then that part of the world is part of the cognitive process.” This emphasizes that our brain takes into consideration what we are accustomed to, and if we are accustomed to relying on technology for solutions, we will not be able to think and find answers to them ourselves. Therefore, there are many malicious effects technology has on the ability to think.

Nevertheless, adversaries of the fact that technology poses a negative impact on our brains believe that just because it has a plethora of information, it always allows us to comprehend the material in depth, it ameliorates our ability to conceptualize, and that it positively affects our brain. There are many flaws in the adversaries’ perceptions because technology in fact leads to less comprehension in depth, limits our ability to think, and negatively affects our brain. As stated in the aforementioned claims, humans can become entirely dependent on technology for solutions, meaning that it limits their ability to think. Alongside this, when given the plethora of information that technology bears, we can be overwhelmed with; therefore, we do not comprehend the material in depth because of skimming. Moreover, technology does not positively affect our brain because the reliability of it limits our brain’s ability to evolve in a self-sufficient manner. Therefore, it can be perceived that the adversaries’ perceptions are inaccurate, while the latter perception is reasonable.

As can be anticipated from the aforementioned evidence, technology has a negative impact on our ability to think. Furthermore, the adversaries’ perceptions are entirely inaccurate. Therefore, technology poses a detrimental effect on our thinking process.

Text analysis

There are many pivotal perceptions and interpretations in the article “Objects of Affection,” but the most integral and the central idea of the passage is that material possessions are to be appreciated, but not to be obsessed over the acquisition of more. This is evidently proved in the passage because the narrator practices “self-limitation” but “but wanted to hang on to them (possessions) and replenish my stock.” A writing strategy that the author utilizes are anecdotes.

The central idea of the passage is as aforementioned because of a variety of reasons and components. According to 45-46 in the passage, the narrator has a “disproportionate attachment to things that were caused by scarcity.” This denotes that the author believes that you should possess what are necessary possessions. Furthermore, in lines 56-57, the author had to “sift through what was available in the hopes of finding something among a slew of worthless objects.” This portrays that the author found value and essence in possessions that would be regarded as “worthless.” However, just because the author believes in possessions when at scarcity, it doesn’t mean that he believes that possessions are always of essence and vitality. For instance, lines 49-50 state, “When you're faced with overabundance.... It’s often difficult to say what you like or want.” This denotes that the author believes in possessions that are of necessity, not those that are redundant and have a distressing impact.

The author portrays these perceptions through the use of anecdotes. For instance, in line 54, it states, “ I did care about possessions, no question about that.” This emphasizes that the author is utilizing his own personal experiences and narrative to portray his perspective on something. Furthermore, line 44 indicates, “my brand of materialism didn’t belong to the consumer society.” This also proves that the author is utilizing his own experiences to voice his stance. Therefore, the author utilizes anecdotes to express his perceptions.

Writing in Steps

Annually, a detrimental, immense health conflict kills over 450,000 people. Essentially, the health conflict is water contamination, a series of events that lead to polluting water. Furthermore, water contamination impacts 2 billion people (World Health Organization). To make matters more unfavorable, this contamination affects predominantly poverty-stricken people, who are extremely vulnerable and live in dense, substandard vicinities (World Health Organization). As a result, numerous water-borne diseases are exponentially increasing in such areas (World Health Organization). Moreover, numerous scientists are experimenting with solutions to this menacing conflict. Recently, scientists have contemplated plastic waste depletion as a solution. Nevertheless, pro-plastic and adversaries of plastic waste reduction perceive that it is irrational due to plastics’ essences, ineffective towards alleviating water contamination, and cost-ineffective towards implementing the reduction. However, the most rational proposition is that the plastic waste depletion method is effective at reducing water contamination because it can be implemented in a variety of feasible ways, it can deter plastic from dispersing malicious chemicals in water, and it can cost-effectively hinder plastic from getting into the water. 4/4

Plastic waste reduction can be implemented in a variety of feasible ways by chemical recycling, taking individual measures to reduce plastic, and implementing waste management education. According to the U.S Government Accountability Office, “Chemical recycling could reduce the amount of plastic that ends up in landfills, thereby potentially reducing the release of harmful chemicals into the environment. Chemical recycling can also produce high-quality raw materials, thereby decreasing demand for fossil fuels and other natural resources'' (U.S Government Accountability Office). Therefore, chemical recycling can be a feasible and effective solution to reducing plastic waste because it decreases the plastic accumulation in landfills and the ocean, but still establishes plastic. In addition, NBC news states: “When ordering from restaurants and cafes, forgo straws and plastic coffee cup lids if possible....always carry your reusable water bottle…. bring your plastic-free containers'' (NBC NEWS and Compton). The prior NBC quote denotes that you should utilize other alternatives to plastic to limit your plastic pollution because they don’t utilize plastic or heavily contaminate water. Furthermore, when one educates another about the detrimental consequences that plastic poses on water, the latter will comprehend the necessity for change and will be accustomed to recycling and reusing habits (Environmental Journal). Consequently, education will enable others to comprehend the conflict that is occurring and take action towards it. Therefore, there are a variety of ways that you can implement plastic waste reduction: educating, recycling, and taking action. 4/4

Alongside the various executions of plastic waste reduction, plastic waste reduction can impede detrimental chemicals from spreading by stopping the chemically contaminated plastic from entering the ocean and by stopping plastic manufacturing factories or plants from emitting contaminated chemicals. Initially, plastic spreads its chemicals by “spreading throughout the ocean... acting like sponges, they soak up other toxins from outside sources before entering the ocean...coming from lead, cadmium, and mercury” (Andrews). However, these toxins can be alleviated by stopping plastic pollution (NBC NEWS and Compton). Therefore, plastic can spread its chemicals, but they can be diminished by stopping plastic from entering the ocean because that is the most prevalent way in which plastic can contaminate water. Additionally, because “Industrial centers can contaminate water through factory and production waste. Lead, nitrates, asbestos, sulfur, arsenic, and other harmful chemicals, minerals, and compounds can enter water supplies through industrial runoff or direct dumping,” industrial centers can disperse detrimental chemicals (Multipure). Also, because plastics are mass-produced in such industrial factories or centers, reducing the amount of plastic demand will reduce the amount of production at factories and consequently, the number of chemicals in the ocean (Kilchermann). Consequently, this evidence emphasizes the fact that if the plastic waste reduction is implemented, factories won’t emit as many detrimental chemicals. Hence, plastic waste reduction can stop water contamination by decreasing the malicious chemical spread, but can also be cost-effective.

4/4

Moreover, if humans take individual initiatives and if the government implements cost-effective recycling, then they can cost-efficaciously apply plastic waste reduction. As per the Guardian, governments worldwide spend an immense amount of money to diminish water contamination(The Guardian). However, humans can save this immense amount of money by taking initiatives: reusing and refilling (BBC). Consequently, the aforementioned pieces of evidence prove that taking initiative is cost-effective because it doesn’t cost a hefty amount, but rather helps decontaminate the water. In addition, the Plastics Industry Association states, “We can reduce energy usage by 66%. Plus, for every one ton of plastic we recycle, we save the equivalent of 1,000–2,000 gallons of gasoline....More often, they’re used to make car parts, clothing, shoes, pens and more” (“The Potential of Recycled Plastics”). As a result, by recycling plastic, the government can preserve an immense amount of energy and create pristine material. Thus, plastic waste reduction is cost-effective because plastic can be recycled and taken into the human initiative for numerous financial benefits.

Nonetheless, pro-plastics and adversaries of the numerous benefits of plastic waste reduction believe that plastics should remain as is because they are valuable and that plastic waste reduction is not cost-effective. For instance, CEI states, “Plastic is more sanitary and safer to use than other alternatives. Plastic items are more sanitary than other alternatives” (CEI Staff). In addition, Insider also states: “All used plastic can be turned into new things, but picking it up, sorting it out, and melting it down is expensive. Plastic also degrades each time it is reused, meaning it can't be reused more than once or twice.” Hence, this proves that the adversaries perceive that plastic reduction isn’t cost-effective and plastic is beneficial. However, plastic recycling can save more money because the amount of money put into de-contaminating water is far heftier than the recycling costs, as proven by the 3rd paragraph. In addition, plastic isn’t solely beneficial because it disperses chemicals. Therefore, because plastic spreads malicious chemicals into the ocean and because it takes less to recycle than to partake in other activities, the adversaries’ perception is inaccurate. Thus, plastic waste reduction is effective, while the adversaries’ perceptions are inaccurate. 4/4

All information, statistics, arguments, and perceptions considered, plastic waste reduction can efficiently decrease water contamination because it can be easily applied, can exponentially decrease chemicals in the ocean, and is cost-effective. Furthermore, this perception counters the adversaries’ perceptions with rationality. Essentially, if my argument is authentic, adversaries and others may come to a consensus. Consequently, when people agree on a solution to water contamination, they can easily implement plastic waste reduction. Thus, plastic waste reduction can decrease the amount of plastic and is a feasible solution to water contamination. 100%

Works Cited

Andrews, Gianna. “Plastics in the Ocean Affecting Human Health.” serc.carleton.edu, SERC Carleton, 27 January 2021, https://serc.carleton.edu/68799. Accessed 5 October 2021.

BBC. “What's the real price of getting rid of plastic packaging?” bbc.com, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180705-whats-the-real-price-of-getting-rid-of-plastic-packaging. Accessed 7 October 2021.

CEI Staff. “Five Reasons Banning Plastics May Harm the Environment and Consumers.” cei.org, CEI, 13 7 2018, https://cei.org/blog/five-reasons-banning-plastics-may-harm-the-environment-and-consumers/. Accessed 8 October 2021.

Environmental Journal. “Education is essential to tackle plastic pollution.” environmentjournal.online, Public Sector News, 14 June 2020, https://environmentjournal.online/articles/education-is-essential-to-tackle-plastic-pollution/. Accessed 5 October 2021.

The Guardian. “Marine plastic pollution costs the world up to $2.5tn a year, researchers find.” theguardian.com, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/04/marine-plastic-pollution-costs-the-world-up-to-25bn-a-year-researchers-find. Accessed 7 October 2021.

Kilchermann, Lori. “What Happens in a Plastic Factory?” wise-geek.com, wisegeek, https://www.wise-geek.com/what-happens-in-a-plastic-factory.htm#:~:text=A%20%EE%80%80plastic%EE%80%81%20%EE%80%80factory%EE%80%81%20is%20a%20place%20where%20%EE%80%80plastic%EE%80%81,a%20main%20ingredient%20in%20most%20types%20of%20. Accessed 7 October 2021.

Multipure. “How contaminants get in your drinking water.” multipure.com, multipure, March 2 2021, https://www.multipure.com/purely-social/science/how-contaminants-get-in-your-drinking-water/. Accessed 4 October 2021.

NBC NEWS, and Julie Compton. “8 simple ways to reduce your plastic use.” nbcnews.com, NBC NEWS, 18 March 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/8-simple-ways-reduce-your-plastic-use-ncna984396. Accessed 5 October 2021.

“The Potential of Recycled Plastics.” Plastics Industry Association, https://thisisplastics.com/environment/the-potential-of-recycled-plastics/. Accessed 7 October 2021.

U.S Government Accountability Office. “Can Chemical Recycling Reduce Plastic Pollution?” gao.gov, GAO, 5 October 2021, https://www.gao.gov/blog/can-chemical-recycling-reduce-plastic-pollution. Accessed 5 October 2021.

World Health Organization. “Water Contamination.” who.org, WHO, 14 June 2019, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-water. Accessed 5 October 2021.

Writing about Lying

Humans have evolved to intently lie in order to be liberated from numerous scenarios. Additionally, humans lie preponderantly to alleviate punishment, or to deter the consequences of their actions. Nevertheless, adversaries perceive that lying is always irrational, immoral, and negatively consequential. I, nonetheless, perceive that the adversaries’ notions are not entirely authentic. Rather, I perceive that it is sometimes acceptable to lie depending on the scenario and one’s intent.

For instance, sometimes it is rational to tell a lie, but sometimes telling the truth is most reasonable. For example, in the book “Number the Stars” by Lois Lowry, Annemarie and her family had to lie to the Nazi soldiers in order to save Ellen, a Jew, from the wrath of the Nazis. This portrays that sometimes, lying can liberate others or oneself from jeopardous scenarios. Furthermore, I was struggling with math because I didn’t comprehend the material and its intent. However, when I decided to tell the truth of not excelling in math to my dad, he explained the subject and some of its aspects. Ever since then, math has always been my most adept subject. This denotes that sometimes telling the truth, instead of lying, is the most rational. Therefore, these experiences emphasize that lying is acceptable in certain scenarios, but not in others.

Moreover, you should only lie when compulsory and never with malicious intent. For case, when the Bangladesh Liberation war had started, Bangladesh had sent spies over the West Bengal vicinity (current Pakistan), but a specific spy did not solely go to assuage his country. Instead, this spy went to sabotage and torment innocent Pakistani people. This made some soldiers dubious of his actions, but he denied his actions. Nonetheless, when he was caught, he was suspended and was criticized for his actions. This proclaims that you should not lie with negative and redundant intent because it may backfire towards you. Additionally, one of my friends attempted to deceive my former teachers by attempting to cheat on a test. Then, another pupil told on him for his treacherous actions. Again, the teacher inquired about his immoral actions, but he denied them. Subsequently, he received a zero on his assignment not because he cheated, but because he denied his evident actions and lied to his own teacher. This proves that you should not lie with negative intent as it may inflict others, but mostly yourself. Thus, you should only lie when necessitated, and not in the means of causing substandard, redundant, and immoral actions.

Yet, the adversaries of the notion that lying is sometimes acceptable believe that lying is never acceptable and is always immoral, unreasonable, and catastrophic. These notions, however, are not entirely authentic. As proved by prior life experiences, this is due to the fact that lying is acceptable when mandated, but not when used unnecessarily. Furthermore, lying can deprive innocent people from negative consequences. Another example to prove this is when Abolitionists had to lie about the whereabouts of Freedmen in order to liberate them from the inequality stimulated by slavery. Therefore, I believe that the adversaries’ notions are inaccurate because lying is not “always” negative.

As can be determined from the aforementioned anecdotes, experiences, real world events, and reasoning, it is just to lie sometimes - depending on the scenario. Although the adversaries’ claims have some authenticity, they are not entirely accurate because lying can have positively drastic impacts. Therefore, in times of peril, lying is sometimes acceptable.

Unit 1 Final Essay

Jaman Mahamud

Mr. Caleb Haraguchi-Combs

English Regents 809

24 November 2021

The Incentives for the Adverse Actions and Things Humans Do

In the past, as humans, we partook in tremendously adverse actions such as bombing innocent people through the utilization of atomic and nuclear weapons, discriminating against certain groups of people, firebombing adversaries, and illegally expropriating the land of others (M.). However, although these actions seem similarly adverse at their superficials, the motivations behind these actions are incredibly dichotomous. For instance, some of the decision-makers were in moral dilemmas but prioritized the bad actions over the good actions because of pressures from other individuals, while others utilized solely their self-interest to decide upon engaging in bad things (M.). Hence, even though the decision-makers did bad things, their morality, the differentiation between bad and good behavior, differed between their intentions, whether it be for their vindictiveness, self-interest, greed, or prioritization of the bad thing over the good thing. Nevertheless, because adversaries believe that people make bad decisions predominantly based on time pressures, the Pygmalion effect, and the Galatea Effect, they do not mention or believe that people do not make bad decisions mostly because of the aforementioned intentions. Nonetheless, people are motivated to do substandard, adverse, or bad things because of avarice and self-interest, vindictiveness, and the avoidance of detrimental consequences.

For example, innumerable people partake in doing substandard and adverse acts because they are motivated by their self-interest and avarice, which both tremendously rely on the desire for material possessions and the belief that personal benefits instantly outweigh other factors that may have detrimental impacts on others. In fact, “Button, Button” by Richard Matheson portrays a scenario in which Norma must decide whether she pushes the button for a plethora of money and simultaneously kills a person, or not. Subsequently, in the 106th and 110th paragraphs in “Button, Button” by Richard Matheson, Norma proclaims, “The point is, if it’s someone you’ve never seen in your life and never will see, someone whose death you don’t even have to know about, you still wouldn’t push the button?” and “Fifty thousand dollars, Arthur, and a chance to take that trip to Europe we’ve always talked about,” respectively. Hence, because Norma desires to push the button to fulfill her desire of the material possession, which is money, that will enable her to cherish and enjoy unnecessary desires, even if it means killing someone, and because she rationalizes that her bad and unnecessary desire of money and vacations bellies the detrimental and grave impacts that her desire could have on others, she is heavily a heavily avaricious individual. Correspondingly, in “How Do We Tell Right from Wrong” by Anne-Marrie Reidy, the research of Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg is integrated to show how people morally rationalize their actions. Consequently, in the ninth paragraph of “How Do We Tell Right from Wrong” by Anne-Marrie Reidy and in reaction to “seeing Kim take a candy bar and slip it into her bag,” Joe “knows that Kim will share the candy bar with him, so, if he is a Stage 2 thinker, he might decide that he will benefit himself by not telling the store owner about the theft.” Therefore, because Joe knows that he will be benefited if he lets Kim not be apprehended by the store owner because of the latter’s bad criminal actions, Joe decides not to report the latter to the store owner and utilizes his post-conventional rationalizations; ergo, because some people may consider their self-interest or the belief that personal benefits belittle other factors such as detrimental impacts on society before they act, they may do bad things. Thus, people do substandard actions because of self-interest and avarice, but those aren’t the only reasons why people do those actions.

For instance, vindictiveness may be a pivotal reason why people partake in doing bad things because they may decide to take justice into their own hands to implement a series of vengeful actions and stop undesired outcomes. To exemplify, “Ruthless” by William DeMille portrays Judson, who is the violent businessman whose liquor was stolen, contemplating and deciding on what he should do to prevent another burglary from happening while he would be gone. Moreover, in the 11th paragraph of “Ruthless” by William DeMille, Judson proclaims, “Whoever broke into my closet last Winter and stole my liquor will probably try it again once we are out of here,” and “only this time he’ll wish he hadn’t.” Therefore, even though Judson is a civilian, he is willing to do the bad action of poisoning the potential thief and taking justice into his own hands because he wanted to alleviate the possibility of having a robbery but predominantly because he was vengeful of the prior actions of the thief. In resemblance, “Lamb to the Slaughter” by Roald Dahl portrays a scenario in which Mary, the wife of Patrick Maloney, was traumatized by her husband’s words and, subsequently, partook in malicious actions. For example, in paragraph 34 of “Lamb to the Slaughter” by Roald Dahl, the author states, “And he told her. It didn’t take long, four or five minutes at most, and she sat very still through it all, watching him with a kind of dazed horror as he went further and further away from her with each word.” Consequently, in paragraph 42 and vengeance, Mary “swung the big frozen leg of lamb high in the air and brought it down as hard as she could on the back of his head.” Therefore, Mary desired to get revenge and didn’t want to witness her husband leaving her, so she decided to vindictively kill her husband, even though she completely understood that what she was doing was negative and she would have never killed her husband if he had not shattered her emotions. Hence, people do substandard, bad actions because of their vindictiveness towards the person, place, or thing they are going to be inflicting upon.

Alongside the plethora of inflictions that self-interest, avarice, and vindictiveness have on the reasoning of people that do bad things, people do those adverse actions to evade the grave and detrimental repercussions of not doing those actions because they want to make sure that they are abiding by higher authorities, fulfilling their responsibilities and duties, prioritizing one action over another, and the partaking in the greater good. For instance, the “Milgram Experiment” video, which was posted on “YouTube” by Brian Burak on May 29, 2013, and was experimented by psychologist Stanley Milgram, portrays an experiment in which an instructor instructs the teacher, who believes that the purpose of the experiment is to find out whether people do things correctly after they get punished for their mistakes and who must shock his learner if he makes any mistakes. For instance, starting at the fifth minute and 42nd second of the video, a man in a white obeys his instructor, who continuously says “It's absolutely essential that you continue the experiment,” and persists in shocking the learner when he gets things wrong. In the ninth minute and succeeding remainder of the video, although the man in the white shirt states, “I don’t mean to be rude, but I think you should look in on him” and “I didn’t like that (giving shocks) one bit,” he continued giving shocks because “he kept insisting”. Therefore, if instructed and instigated by a higher authority, which was the instructor, in this case, people can do distressing things such as harming and shocking others because of trust they have in the higher authority as those who will assume all responsibilities and repercussions of the bad thing. Similarly, in “The Stanford Prison Experiment” video, which was posted on “YouTube” by “Weird History” on July 10, 2020, and experimented by professor Philip Zimbardo, the narrator denotes it as “One of the Most Disturbing Studies Ever” because some of its subjects were motivated to physically detriment other subjects. For example, in the fourth minute, the narrator states that during the experiment, “Professor Zimbardo and David Jaffe… were responsible for instructing the guards (subjects) and laying down their duties… the guards were told to maintain order… they (guards) were allowed to use any means necessary short of physical violence, including deprivation of privileges, withholdment of food, and harassment at the guards’ discretion”. Consequently, in the sixth minute and 13th second of the video, the guards became sadistic towards the prisoners because they wanted to fulfill their responsibilities and duties of being guards. Hence, in the Stanford Prison Experiment, people did bad things, such as torturing vulnerable and innocent people, because they needed to complete their duties and responsibilities, even if it meant becoming sadistic, which is a mental ideology that revolves around seeking pleasure from the pain of others. Moreover, in the second scenario of the video in the fourth episode of “The Brain with David Eagleman,” which was posted by the Public Broadcasting System, the decider is given the option of physically and directly sacrificing one human life to save the lives of four. However, in the 2nd minute of the video, the decider contemplates that directly killing, which is a bad action, the man to save four workers would be the greater good because saving four lives and killing one life is better than allowing one life to live and four to die. Therefore, some people tend to do bad things because of the greater good, which is the conception that the actions of one must benefit as many people in the society as possible because the decider in the fourth episode contemplates whether or not he/she should do the detrimental action of killing. Furthermore, “Lather and Nothing Else” by Hernando Téllez portrays a scenario in which a barber, who is a revolutionary, is given the opportunity of killing Captain Torres, who is an adversary who kills people of the barber’s political stratum or affiliation. In fact, in paragraph 32, the barber was tempted by the fact that he could be known as “The man who avenged our people. A name to remember (fill in my name). He was the town barber. No one knew that he supported our cause…” (Téllez) if he killed captain Torres. However, in paragraph 29, the barber contemplates that “Needless to say, it was going to be very difficult to explain how I had had him at my mercy and then let him go, alive and shaved” (Téllez). Hence, because people prioritize, which could consist of integrating their beliefs with something adverse, bad things over good things, and because the bad things could offer better consequences for themselves, they may be motivated to do tremendously bad things such as killing others. Therefore, people do bad things because they want to avoid the consequences of not fulfilling their duties and responsibilities, not abiding by the higher authorities, not prioritizing the “bad” thing over the “good” thing, and not participating in the greater good.

Nonetheless, adversaries of the fact that people do bad things predominantly because they are motivated by vindictiveness, self-interest, avarice, and the desire to avoid the repercussions of not doing those bad things believe that people do bad things predominantly because of environmental inflictions such as the Galatea Effect, time pressures, and the Pygmalion effect. Accordingly, the reasoning for why people commit “major crimes that usually escalate from smaller offenses or lapses in judgment are rationalized by a slew of psychological reasons” (Martin). For example, adversaries believe that “Self-image determines behavior. People who have a strong sense of themselves as individuals are less likely to do unethical things” (Martin). Therefore, adversaries believe that the trust, or the Galatea effect in this case, in their abilities and potential will lead to success, so if people do bad things, they will most likely succeed for their benefit and the uprising of their social image. Moreover, adversaries argue that when people have adequate time, “almost all helped” the injured man (Martin), but if they were pressured with the essence of time and need for rapid movement, “90% ignored the man” (Martin). Therefore, adversaries believe that if people are pressured with time, they will do bad things, such as letting someone go through agony. Likewise, adversaries believe that because “The way that people are seen and treated influences the way they act,” (Martin) “when employees are viewed suspiciously and constantly treated like potential thieves, they are more likely to be thieves” (Martin). Thus, people are likely to do bad things, such as stealing or participating in thievery, because of the way, which is typically centered on doing unto others as others do unto you or the Pygmalion effect, in this case, they are perceived and inflicted upon. However, although sometimes correct, the first evidence about the Galatea effect doesn’t always impact people to do bad things because some people do bad things since people are almost coerced and entirely instigated to do bad things due to the motivations of higher authorities and the detrimental consequences of not abiding by them, as portrayed in the Milgram Experiment. Moreover, the second evidence regarding the immense influence time pressure has on people is also partially incorrect because some people with an immense amount of time to decide upon what they do decide to do bad things due to their self-interest, as shown in “How Do We Tell Right from Wrong” by Anne-Marrie Reidy. Correspondingly, the third evidence regarding the tremendous effect of the Pygmalion effect is incorrect since some people do not care about the way they are perceived but instead utilize avarice to exploit or do bad things to some of the latter, as denoted in “Button, Button” by Richard Matheson. Furthermore, throughout history notable figures such as Harry S. Truman, Che Guevara, Arthur Harris, Teddy Roosevelt, Nelson Mandela, and Abraham Lincon have done immensely bad things, which consist of dropping two atomic bombs, executing thousands of people, firebombing others, annexing other countries, forming terrorist groups, performing experiments, and obstructing democracies, respectively, because they wanted to partake in the greater good and avoid the consequences of further death and potential harm (M.). Moreover, the predominance of these people has partaken in the greater good because they wanted to reduce potential deaths, eradicate menacing infections such as Smallpox, and even diminish apartheid (M.). Correspondingly, throughout history, many civilians have decided to sacrifice their own lives for the greater good, their self-interest, and even vindictiveness for those who have suffered (Hewitt). Although it is factual that people have done bad things because of the adversaries’ propositions, they have been proved to be less prevalent in history than the greater good, self-interest, avarice, etc. Ergo, the proposition that people do bad things because of vindictiveness, self-interest, avarice, and avoidance of detrimental consequences is predominant, while that of the adversaries is less prevalent.

All arguments, data, and information from the short stories, videos, and articles considered, it is rational that vindictiveness, avarice and self-interest, and the detrimental consequences of not prioritizing those bad things stimulate people to do negative things. Moreover, if the proposition that people do bad things because of the three aforementioned reasons were to be correct, a predominance of people may collectively accumulate to hinder the motivations for those who do bad things. For example, schools may implement lessons to explain why greed and avarice are morally inaccurate when they can impair or hurt others. Furthermore, schools may attempt to show how one can become a moral individual. Additionally, society can try to ease conditions and implement counseling between people to reduce feelings of revenge. In addition, society may try to reform societal dilemmas and assert that no one has to suffer from the actions of a few people’s preferences. Hence, the bad things that we do come from tremendously dichotomous aspects of our moral mindsets, which could consist of feelings of revenge, self-interest, greed, or feelings of avoiding detrimental punishments.

Works Cited

M., Morris. “10 People Who Did Terrible Things for Good Reasons.” Toptenz.net, Toptenz, 9 March 2016, https://www.toptenz.net/10-people-who-did-terrible-things-for-good-reasons.php. Accessed 27 November 2021.

Martin, Emmie. “27 Psychological Reasons Why Good People Do Bad Things.” BusinessInsider.com, Insider, 3 September 2014, https://www.businessinsider.com/psychological-reasons-people-do-bad-things-2014-8. Accessed 28 November 2021.

Tellez, Hernando. “Lather and Nothing Else.” CommonLit, CommonLit, 2007, https://www.commonlit.org/en/students/student_lessons/9847730. Accessed 28 November 2021.

Hewitt, D.G. “10 of the Most Heroic Acts of Self Sacrifice in History.” historycollection.com, History Collection, 9 June 2018, https://historycollection.com/10-of-the-most-heroic-acts-of-self-sacrifice-in-history/. Web. Accessed 30 November 2021.

Word Generation 3.05

Succeeding the September 11th attacks, security concerns gave rise to a contemporary form of gathering information: secret wiretapping. Furthermore, as per 2020 U.S. statistics, there was such an immense number of wiretaps that they amounted to 2,337 (United States Courts). Moreover, in a minuscule amount of days, numerous of these wiretaps can intercept information in quantities amounting in the thousands, such as the narcotics investigation in New York that wiretapped over 400,000 messages and calls (United States Courts). Although the NSA has heavily implemented wiretapping for investigation of foreign security threats and questionable behavior within the United States, many of the wiretapped individuals believe that their privacy has been invaded by wiretapping (Word Generation). Nevertheless, adversaries perceive that secret wiretapping should be legal because they think it will protect the United States’s security, monitor suspicious individuals, and gather information about crimes. However, the most rational proposition would be that secret wiretapping shouldn’t be legal because it infringes the First Amendment and Right to Speech, violates the Fourth Amendment and privacy, and cost-inefficiently gathers information.

For instance, the process of secret wiretapping violates the First Amendment and Right to Speech by diminishing civil liberties and establishing uneasiness about portraying information because of surveillance. According to the Harvard Law Review, “Concerning civil liberties, consider surveillance of people when they are thinking, reading, and communicating with others to make up their minds about political and social issues. Such intellectual surveillance is especially dangerous because it can cause people not to experiment with new, controversial, or deviant ideas. To protect our intellectual freedom to think without state oversight or interference, we need what I have elsewhere called ‘intellectual privacy ' ” (Richards). Hence, because surveillances, such as wiretapping, can hinder and intimidate U.S. inhabitants into potentially not receiving their freedom of speech and civil liberties, wiretapping violates the First Amendment and the Right to Speech, which are designed to protect U.S. inhabitants’ speech and expression. Moreover, Middle Tennessee State University states, “First Amendment concerns emerge when the NSA eavesdropping program utilizes data-mining operations in the organization’s search for terrorists. The random collection of information from land-line calls, cell phones, and e-mail creates uneasiness about the limits of government surveillance of citizens” (Pope). Therefore, the spontaneous approach in which wiretapping occurs limits U.S. citizens’ or inhabitants’ ability to speak because they are apprehensive of the consequences of expressing their, comparatively and typically, neutral and not detrimental thoughts and actions. Thus, secret wiretapping violates the Right to Speech and First Amendment, but it is not limited to that violation.

For example, secret wiretapping additionally violates the Fourth Amendment and privacy by allowing the unwarranted U.S. government or president to scrutinize and invade the privacy of its citizens and inhabitants. As per Trudie Longren, J.D., LL.M., “The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the individual's right to privacy. Wiretaps violate privacy when they are too broad or when they are done without a warrant issued by a judge” (Longren). Consequently, when secret wiretapping is implemented, there will ultimately be the obstruction of privacy and the Fourth Amendment because the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to gain private information, while wiretaps don’t typically require warrants. Furthermore, the Advancing Academic Language for All states, when wiretapping, “we move away from our constitutional rights when we allow the President to make decisions without consulting—or discussing these decisions—with other branches of the government” (Advancing Academic Language for All). Ergo, the president can control and have predominant control over the United States’ citizens' or inhabitants’ information and data. Therefore, because without a warrant but with secret wiretapping, the president or government can control the information, the Fourth Amendment and privacy is violated.

Furthermore, secret wiretapping shouldn’t be legal and is extremely cost-inefficient because of the poor quality of the accumulated information and the high expense associated with wiretapping. For example, Emily Jacobs sources that “The FBI is spending 500 million per year on keeping wiretaps live, but 40% of the switches are not currently up-to-date. We are wasting 200 million dollars per year on switches that are not actively recording.” Therefore, secret wiretapping takes an immense amount of money, and usually, has a relatively low amount of profit. Consequently, the tax-payer has to pay more for the plethora of inactive wiretappers. To make matters worse, Trudie Longren, J.D., LL.M. states, “When police conduct wiretaps, they often tap into conversations that have nothing to do with the illegal activity under investigation. The broad scope of a wiretap operation can result in false leads, unrelated information, and evidence that is not useful for the investigation.” Hence, the misinformation, inefficiency in evidence, and irrelevancy that is associated with secret wiretapping are high, but U.S. inhabitants do not deserve to be misrepresented in court with wiretappers as evidence because they are highly ineffective. Therefore, secret wiretapping shouldn’t be legal because it places U.S. inhabitants at risk of being lawfully misrepresented and because it is cost-inefficient.

Nonetheless, adversaries still perceive that secret wiretapping should be legal because they believe it will scrutinize suspicious individuals, safeguard the nation’s security, and accumulate information about crimes. For instance, the first evidence in the Word Generation article states, “National Security Agency (NSA) to tap phone calls, email accounts, and text messages of suspicious individuals under certain conditions.” Therefore, secret wiretapping may allow the United States to track suspicious people to assess their actions. Moreover, the second substantiation in the Word Generation article proclaims that “After the September 11th attacks, the government passed the USA Patriot Act, which… required the NSA to ask judges for permission to access communications between people in the U.S.” Thus, because the September 11th attacks were national security threats and to attempt to eliminate national threats, wiretapping was implemented via the USA Patriot Act. Furthermore, Trudie Longren, J.D., LL.M. emphasizes that “Many crimes are committed solely through telephone contact. The only way to implicate you, the person who solicits, is through wiretapping. As a result, wiretapping is crucial in providing evidence for certain categories of crimes” (Longren). Hence, the adversary perceives that wiretapping allows data to efficiently accumulate. However, although the first evidence is partially correct, wiretapping sometimes misinforms and misinterprets the situation, as per the fourth paragraph. Moreover, the second piece of evidence is partially accurate, but the plethora of evidence and information could be leaked by spies and hackers (Meisel). Additionally, the last evidence is extremely inaccurate because the information isn’t efficiently accumulated and may come with false information, as proven in the fourth paragraph. Hence, it is rational that wiretapping is legal, while the adversaries’ perspectives are irrational.

All data, arguments, reasonings, contemplations, and sources considered, secret wiretapping should not be legal because it contravenes privacy and the Fourth Amendment, doesn’t cost-efficiently collect information and disobeys the Right to Speech and the First Amendment. Furthermore, if the proposition that secret wiretapping shouldn’t be legal were to be accurate, the implications would consist of persevering to find contemporary alternatives to wiretapping, less money wasted, potentially more reliable information, and allowing U.S. inhabitants to exercise their amendment and individual rights. Moreover, the amount of money spent on wiretapping could be instead utilized for preventative measures, such as more direct security checks that wouldn’t hinder civilian life. In addition, even though the adversaries’ perspectives had some truth, they weren’t as rational as the proposition that secret wiretapping should be illegal. Thus, secret wiretapping shouldn’t be legal.

Works Cited

Advancing Academic Language for All. “Should secret wiretapping be legal?” lincolnteachernetwork.weebly.com, Advancing Academic Language for All, http://lincolnteachernetwork.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/2/9/5129910/3.05_aala.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2021.

Jacobs, Emily. “Wiretapping: why it should be illegal.” prezi.com, Prezi, 27 November 2012, https://prezi.com/qo1gevps77of/wiretapping-why-it-should-be-illegal/. Accessed 13 November 2021.

Longren, Trudie. “What Are the Advantages & Disadvantages of Wiretapping?” https://legalbeagle.com/13364785-the-importance-of-hair-evidence-in-forensics.html, Legal Beagle, https://legalbeagle.com/13364785-the-importance-of-hair-evidence-in-forensics.html. Accessed 12 November 2021.

Meisel, Duncan. “Top 10 Reasons Why NSA Wiretapping is Bad For America.” www.villagevoice.com, The Villager Voice, 7 April 2008, https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/04/07/top-10-reasons-why-nsa-wiretapping-is-bad-for-america/. Accessed 13 November 2021.

Pope, Paul. “Surveillance and Wiretapping.” mtsu.edu, JOHN SEIGENTHALER CHAIR OF EXCELLENCE IN FIRST AMENDMENT STUDIES, December 2017, https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1153/surveillance-and-wiretapping. Accessed 12 November 2021.

Richards, Neil M. “The Dangers of Surveillance.” harvardlawreview.org/, Harvard Law Review, 20 May 2013, https://harvardlawreview.org/2013/05/the-dangers-of-surveillance/. Accessed 12 November 2021.

United States Courts. “Wiretap Report 2020.” www.uscourts.gov, United States Courts, 31 Month 2020, https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2020. Accessed 12 October 2021.

Word Generation. “Should Wiretapping Be Legal?” irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com, Word Generation Weekly, https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/d4114312/files/uploaded/WordGenWeekly_3.05.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2021.

Word Generation 3.06 Essay

Over the past two decades, the United States of America has deployed over 750,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan to hinder potential and actual terrorists from executing other menacing attacks on the United States of America and its citizens (Lamothe), Furthermore, deploying troops at Afghanistan cost over one trillion dollars (Word Generation). However, since there hasn’t been any predominant foreign attack ever since, sending troops to other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, enabled the United States to minimize the potential of upcoming attacks towards its citizens. Moreover, America can protect its citizens and other countries’ citizens from mass destruction and an oppressive regime by deploying troops to other countries. Nevertheless, adversaries of the proposition that America should engage in military action when the safety of both people in other countries and people in America perceive that engaging in military action unless it is solely for the safety of Americans or only for the safety of those jeopardized by their government in other countries, is irrational and inefficient because they believe it has hefty costs and catastrophic impacts on human health. Nonetheless, it is rational that the U.S. should engage in military activities with or to other countries when both the safety of people in other countries and the safety of American people are threatened because doing so will hinder the potential of mass destruction or large-scale attacks, stop oppressive regimes and the latter’s ability to take away the rights of people in their country or America, and enable technological and health-related advances.

For instance, if America sends troops to other countries, the potential for mass destruction and potential large-scale attacks would diminish because sending troops could make opposing countries stable and could diminish weapons of mass destruction and catalysts for terrorism. For example, after, “U.S…. (made) Afghanistan a stable country where terrorists can never plan another attack on the U.S,” there have been no large-scale attacks in America from Afghanistan’s terrorists (Word Generation) (PBS NewsHour). Hence, because the United States deployed troops to other countries like Afghanistan to make them stable, it was able to prevent devastating attacks. Moreover, if the U.S. sent troops to other authoritative countries, they could stop others from “Supporting the Dictators Who Fund Terrorists...Arming Terrorists...Torturing (others)” (Hitholtz). Consequently, because there would be an immense decrease in support for terrorism and because civilians would be less prone to become terrorists if the U.S. sent troops abroad, there would be fewer mass-destruction weapons because terrorism is a catalyst for establishing and utilizing those weapons for a menacing cause. Therefore, if the U.S. deploys troops to other countries, it can alleviate or diminish the potential for the mass destruction of both Americans and people in other countries and large-scale attacks for America.

Furthermore, if America sends troops to other countries, it will be able to stop oppressive regimes from taking away the fundamental rights and harming their citizens because its involvement can stop genocides and allow rights such as the freedom of speech to be implemented. According to The Clever, if it weren’t for the United States’ involvement in World War II, Hitler and his oppressive Nazi regime would have been able to prevail, implement the “master race,” partake in genocide against Jews, enslave numerous people, and deprive people of their human rights because the Nazi regime would have been able to “preach that fair-haired, blue-eyed humans from northern European origins were highest in the racial hierarchy, and the Jewish people and Slavs that also inhabited central and eastern Europe were inferior...start their genocide of all Jews… (guarantee that) Hitler’s Germany wouldn’t be allowed to think for themselves. Any dissent would not be tolerated...remove everyone from Europe that didn’t meet his definition of the Master Race” (Zuppke). Therefore, because the United States was able to hinder immense and oppressive regimes such as the Nazi regime, it would most likely be able to stop current oppressive regimes because sending troops to the countries with those regimes would enable the troops to dissuade genocides and the deprivation of rights. Moreover, because “Approximately 2.7 million people were displaced by these actions, resulting in nearly 300,000 deaths from disease and starvation. Many Americans thought that U.S. military action in Sudan could have diminished the suffering of the Sudanese people,” the U.S. could send troops to go to the suffering countries, aid those within it, and stop oppressive regimes from harming them further (Word Generation). Hence, the United States could send troops to protect people within other countries by helping them and hindering oppressive regimes. Thus, if the United States government sends troops to other countries, it should be when the safety of people in other countries and America is in jeopardy because doing so could stop oppressive regimes from taking away the rights of its citizens and American citizens and participating in genocide or harm against them.

Moreover, if the U.S. sends troops to other countries when the safety of both its civilians and other countries’ civilians are threatened, the safety of the latter two increases because of the technological and health advances that consist of surgical and aviation technology and the efficient oxygen and blood therapy. For example, because of World War II and the United States’ contributions to it, “Competition and conflict tend to lead to nations trying to develop better technology than their opponents. Think of the accelerated progress in aviation technology. By the year 1900, we barely had any. By the time World War II had ended, we had fully functional fighter planes. Also, the technology that is created can still be useful after the conflict is over” (Grasso). Therefore, if the U.S. was able to send troops to other countries and establish technology simultaneously in the past, it would now surely be able to innovate more technologies, such as defensive mechanisms, that would safeguard and allow more potential for Americans and civilians from other countries. Furthermore, to denote that the deployment of troops and military engagement may lead to beneficial and contemporary innovations, BBC Future states, “'When you think about rushing people somewhere to get them very expert care, that didn’t exist before 1914...This is the foundation of modern military medicine in this country, and it’s why we’re so good at it. And we’re good at it.'... Used in conjunction with X-ray imaging, the device (Hirtz's compass) above allowed medics to locate projectiles within a millimeter or two...No instruments gave as much help as did this by their precision and accuracy. That (Electromagnet) made any projectiles easier for a surgeon’s finger, or a probe, to feel...But it was another Robertson, British-born American Oswald Hope Robertson, who pioneered the system pictured, which allowed not only for indirect transfusion but for blood to be stored safely (on ice) for up to 26 days. The Royal Army Medical Corps later called the development of safe blood transfusion techniques 'the most important medical advance of the war'” (Ruggeri). Hence, during World War I, U.S. innovators were able to establish health-related technology for the potential victims of war and especially the deployed soldiers. Ultimately, if the safety of the potential victims, or those who are Americans or other civilians, were to be in question or jeopardy, military engagement may innovate technologies for the potential victims so that the innovations can increase the victims’ safety. Thus, the U.S. should send troops to other countries when the safety of its citizens and other countries’ citizens is in peril to give them the plethora of health and technological benefits.

Nonetheless, adversaries still believe that the U.S. shouldn’t send troops to other countries unless it is solely for the safety of Americans or solely for the safety of vulnerable people in other countries because of its immense cost and potentially detrimental impact on humans. For instance, the first evidence in the Word Generation article states, “They think that Americans should only be asked to sacrifice their lives if there is a known threat, as was the case in Afghanistan after 9/11. They think that wars that are not protecting the safety of the American people are also too costly. They point to the expense of the Iraq War. According to some estimates, the cost of this war to the U.S. government was $1 trillion.” Therefore, the adversary believes that the cost for military protection and engagement is so much that it is highly irrational to implement unless it is solely for the benefit of U.S. citizens’ safety. Moreover, the second evidence in the Word Generation article proclaims, “Approximately 2.7 million people were displaced by these actions, resulting in nearly 300,000 deaths from disease and starvation. Many Americans thought that U.S. military action in Sudan could have diminished the suffering of the Sudanese people.” Hence, the opponent firmly believes that the U.S. should send troops to other countries for the safety of people in countries with violent and oppressive governments because they are being displaced and heavily harmed. Although the first evidence is partially accurate, the U.S. should send troops only when there is a national threat but also when there is a universal threat or a series of specific threats for vulnerable people in other countries because those that are in other countries are prone to death and the deprivation of their rights (as portrayed in the third paragraph). Similarly, the second evidence is partially irrational because it is not only the vulnerable population that should be aided and given additional safety but also the Americans who have been prone to foreign attacks. Thus, when there is a safety threat to either Americans or people in other countries, the most rational proposition for the U.S. would be to send troops to other countries, while the irrational proposition would be to send troops solely for one of the options at all times.

Hence, the U.S. should send troops to other countries when the safety of people in other countries or Americans is threatened because the deployment of troops would allow the U.S. to lower the probability or potential of large-scale attacks or mass destruction, allow technological and health-related advances to accumulate, and stop oppressive regimes and their ability to deprive the rights and safety of people in their country or America. Furthermore, the implications and consequences of this proposition being accurate and being enforced by the U.S. government would be that fewer innocent people would die, be deprived of their rights, and have their safety taken away from them. Moreover, the consequences would include more people cherishing the potentials of health and technological innovations. Therefore, the U.S. should send troops to other countries when there is a safety threat to either people in other countries or Americans.

Works Cited

Grasso, Steffan. “Pros and Cons of War.” alvordschools.org, alvordschools, 29 July 2013, https://www.alvordschools.org/cms/lib/CA01900929/Centricity/Domain/876/Cornell%20Notes%20Pros%20and%20Cons%20of%20War.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2021.

Hitholtz, Barry. “How to Stop Terrorism: 7 Ways to Drain the Swamp.” ritholtz.com, ritholtz, 16 January 2015, https://ritholtz.com/2015/01/7-ways-to-stop-terrorism/. Accessed 20 November 2021.

Lamothe, Dan. “How 775,000 U.S. troops fought in one war: Afghanistan military deployments by the numbers.” washingtonpost.com, The Washington Post, 11 September 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/09/11/how-us-troops-fought-one-war-afghanistan-military-deployments-by-numbers/. Accessed 20 November 2021.

PBS News Hour. “A Historical Timeline of Afghanistan.” pbs.org, PBS, 30 August 2021, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/asia-jan-june11-timeline-afghanistan. Accessed 20 November 2021.

Ruggeri, Amanda. “How one of history’s bloodiest wars eventually saved lives.” www.bbc.com, BBC, 30 June 2016, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160630-how-one-of-historys-bloodiest-wars-eventually-saved-lives. Accessed 20 November 2021.

Word Generation. “When should the U.S. send troops to other countries?” sites.google.com/serpinstitute.org, Serpin Institute, https://sites.google.com/serpinstitute.org/wordgen-weekly-3-06/weekly-passage?authuser=0. Accessed 20th November 2021.

Zuppke, Katie. “15 Catastrophic Things That Would Have Happened If Hitler Had Won.” theclever.com, The Clever, 31 August 2017, https://www.theclever.com/15-catastrophic-things-that-would-have-happened-if-hitler-had-won/. Accessed 20 November 2021.

Unit 1 Narrative

As Mary began giggling, she felt an ominous and menacing burden within herself. She started whispering to herself, “Why? Why? Why? Why…? Why does this have to happen to me?” Mary’s tears started rolling down like a cascade of water. However, she didn’t feel this grief because of her husband’s murder, which she had predominant control over. Rather, she felt grief over her child’s future, her futility, and how her actions could come back to pounce on her.

The world seemed to be gloomy and dark to her, even though the sun was gleaming. First, she felt denial over the fact that her child could live in resemblance to an orphan if she were to be sent to jail. Subsequently, she vented her anger by hitting the wall, which didn’t fear to retaliate by still evidently standing in place although it was dented.

However, she soon realized that instead of expressing her anger, she should try to shield her child and ascertain her future. Hence, in hope of getting a welcoming job, she went to Sergeant Jack Noonan’s home.

When Mary went out to go to his home, she saw and heard ominous figures. Around her, they were flying. They were screeching as if they were banshees. Mary rapidly placed her hands around her ears and started screaming. A figure that resembled her husband enveloped and pursued her. She instantly fainted.

Three months later, she was in the ICU.

“Try opening your eyes. Stay calm. Breathe,” the Intensive Care Specialist whispered.

Mary implored, “Where am I? Who are you? Is my baby alright?”

“I am afraid to tell you that as a result of your fainting, you are in the Intensive Care Unit. I am Clara Browns, an Intensive Care Specialist, who has been treating your illnesses,” said the Intensive Care Specialist hesitantly.

“And my baby? Is she alright,” said Mary.

“Surprisingly, you’re still pregnant. Although you can barely tell, your child is still in your stomach. She is highly underdeveloped, but she has also been given treatment. Because most pregnant women who were in a coma with Schizophreniform disorder often lose their children, you are extremely lucky,”

Mary proclaimed, “YES! YES, SHE! YES, SHE IS ALIVE! Wait, will my disorder affect her in the future?”

“Although we have been giving both of you guys treatment, we are far from determining whether your delivery will be successful. We can only hope that you and your baby are safe,” the Specialist stated in a stern voice.

In an optimistic voice, Mary stated, “What will I do now?”

“If nothing goes wrong, we don't need to send you to a mental asylum. However, if your symptoms are again apparent, I’m sorry to say, you will have to be sent to an asylum and separated from your baby.”

When Mary heard the potential of her being separated from her, she felt the same emotional burden and felt her heart fettered. After her husband’s death, she has been extremely pessimistic, although she occasionally tries to be optimistic. Soon, she saw her husband again. She ran to the Specialist and yelled, “HELP ME, CLARA. HE’S AFTER ME!”

“There is no one after you. I believe you are hallucinating. You could potentially die from panic attacks if you continue to have such hallucinations. To confirm, I must conduct a medical examination on you,” said the Specialist.

“Please, do not separate me from my baby,” begged Clara.

“Please, just lay down on the Hospital Cot,” said the nurse.

They put her to sleep by injecting anesthesia. While they were examining her, they had found a neurological hindrance in her brain. They called Jaman Mahangeran, a neurosurgeon, for assistance. However, he said that his equipment is too primitive for Mary’s case. He stated, “The only cure to her situation could be less grief.”

One month later, the doctors believed it would be irrational to send Mary’s baby into the mental asylum, so they decided to conduct a cesarean delivery on her.

Mary desperately asked, “What are you guys doing to me?”

“We are conducting a delivery for you so that your baby will be safe here.”

Mary yelled “WHAT? YOU'RE SEPARATING ME FROM MY BABY?”.

“You have no choice,” said Clara.

The obstetrician quickly completed the surgery. The nurses were standing beside the baby. The baby was named Mary Jane but was adoringly called Jane. The nurses sent her to an adoptive family.

Mary was sent to a mental asylum. She tried bargaining her way out so that she could stay with her child.

When she was in the asylum, she felt incredibly depressed and found life to be futile. All of her days consisted of constant reminders of her child, intimidations by her husband’s hallucinated figure, and a plethora of futile medications.

Three decades later, the sky was a dreary black, and so was her heart. She had just accepted her fate.

However, when she had learned that her daughter became a therapist, she felt intense bliss.

Soon, her daughter came to visit her at the asylum.

Jane looked exactly like her mother did in her younger years. Furthermore, her joviality resembled her mother’s when the latter was in her younger years.

“Mom, I have never seen you, but I just want to tell you that I love you, no matter what,” Jane said.

“You’re the only one I have loved in the past three decades. However, I don’t feel worthy of your love. I am a murderer. I am the reason you were an adopted child. I am at fault for everything,” said Mary.

“The past is the past. We have all made many mistakes. We need to learn to embrace the future, and you need to learn to embrace me. Come on, hug me,” said Jane.

“You are so mature. I love you with all my heart,” said Mary.

After consistent checkups from Jane, Mary’s grief had declined. Additionally, her symptoms disappeared.

Mary had reflected on the past and believed what she had done was extremely harsh. She thought that she shouldn’t have done the murder. However, she learned that the past was the past and that she had to learn to accept the present.

For the first time in years, she was able to stand in solidarity with her daughter and enjoy the blazing sunlight. After she moved in with her daughter, she no longer felt darkness and solely felt love.

Hence, Mary had gone through agony because of her prior actions. Additionally, her actions did come back to haunt her by giving rise to her mental disorders and grief. However, with social and emotional aid from her daughter, she was able to rejoice in life. Furthermore, Mary’s grief alleviated when she learned to face the fact. Furthermore, what she does after the officers leave her home is to try to get a job, end up in a hospital, stay stuck in a mental asylum, and stay with her daughter in peace. Thus, Mary learned that she should worry about the present, instead of the past; that she should think before she does something drastic because it may impact the rest of her life; love is essential.

Jaman Mahamud

Mr. Haraguchi-Combs

English Regents 809

6 November 2021

The Realization and Interpretation of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

By the first week in which it was published worldwide, approximately three million people purchased Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Scholastic Media Room). Furthermore, the immensely renowned plot, which consisted of Harry Potter, the protagonist, alongside his friends, Ron and Hermoine, and Lord Voldemort, the antagonist, intrigued the plethora of viewers. When the plot had begun, Harry Potter witnessed Lord Voldemort’s mark, which led him to be more cautious of his surroundings. Moreover, Harry Potter was “spontaneously’ chosen to compete for the Triwizard competition, although he never signed up for entrance and was underaged. Ultimately, in chapters 21-31, the book would reach its climax: Harry Potter would have to go through a plethora of ordeals to win and help others during the Triwizard Competition by utilizing his characteristics. Therefore, various interpretations of the book consist of the fact that being valiant can lead to both prosperity and failure, trust takes an immense amount of time to establish but a relatively minuscule amount of time to demolish, and the dementors represent sorrow and depression. Although these interpretations are expressed through pivotal aspects of the book, the most rational interpretations are that Harry Potter represents the persevering and valiant lion and manipulating magic for immorality can negatively impact others, because all protagonists, integral characters, and antagonists’ personas are established through characterization.

For instance, during the Climax of the book, Harry Potter shows his pluckiness and determination during the Triwizard Competition. For instance, many centuries ago, the Triwizard Competition was designed to incentivize competition between students aged over 17 in different magical institutes, such as Beauxbatons Academy of Magic, Durmstrang Insitute, and Hogwarts (Harry Potter Lexicon). However, when “Dumbledore cleared his throat and read out - ‘Harry Potter,’” Harry was not of sufficient age and didn’t put his name in the Goblet of Fire (Rowling 177). Nevertheless, Harry took initiative and prepared for the initial task by “thinking about the merpeople's song again” (Rowling 303). Hence, as Harry persists in his objective to prepare for the first task, the author can lay the groundwork for Harry’s personality: initiative and foresight. Furthermore, the groundwork allowed Harry to prosper because it led to him to have “mastered the Impediment Curse, a spell to slow down and obstruct attackers; the Reductor Curse, which would enable him to blast solid objects out of his way; and the Four-Point Spell, therefore enabling him to check whether he was going in the right direction within the maze. He was still having trouble with the Shield Charm” (Rowling 395). Hence, Harry Potter was able to ascend the potential of winning the Triwizard Cup because he utilized his determination to prepare. Moreover, he utilized his preparation and determination during the Triwizard Competition when he, “could hear its (dementor’s) rattling breath; he felt clammy coldness stealing over him,’ but knew what he had to do'” (Rowling 402). Thus, Harry Potter was able to simultaneously and valiantly overcome his tremendous fear of dementors while searching for the Triwizard Cup. Similarly, Harry’s quench for winning and succeeding was “now burning stronger than ever, but he could hardly believe what he'd just seen Krum do” (Rowling 407). Hence, Harry’s determination and bravery resulted in his desire for success and his potential characterization because presumably, he is going to almost certainly be the Triwizard Champion. Thus, because Harry Potter pursues his goal of becoming the Triwizard Champion, he can easily resemble the determined lion, who rapidly pursues its prey. In addition, Harry Potter’s goals are so rewarding that it serves a similar function to the hungry but determined lion’s prey. Therefore, an intriguing interpretation of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is that Harry represents the willful and determined lion because the book develops Harry’s character through a series of toil and preparedness for the future.

In resemblance, an interpretation of Harry Potter and the Goblet of fire would be that immortality ultimately leads to destruction and havoc. For example, before touching the Triwizard Cup, “Harry felt a jerk somewhere behind his navel. His feet had left the ground. He could not unclench the hand holding the Triwizard Cup; it was pulling him onward in a howl of wind and swirling color” (Rowling 411). To make matters worse, “Harry's scar exploded with pain. It was agony such as 412 he had never felt in all his life; his wand slipped from his fingers as he put his hands over his face; his knees buckled; he was on the ground and he could see nothing at all” because of a menacing return (Rowling 412). Wormtail allowed this menacing return to occur by manipulating Harry when he stated, “Flesh - of the servant - w-willingly given - you will - revive - your master” (Rowling 415). Consequently, the reason for the toil and anxiety of many wizards is established when, “The thin man stepped out of the cauldron, staring at Harry...and Harry stared back into the face that had haunted his nightmares for three years. Lord Voldemort had risen again” (Rowling 416) Hence, Lord Voldemort’s desire for immortality led to Harry not being able to sustain his beloved Triwizard Cup and suffering physical and emotional harm. Furthermore, Lord Voldemort stated, “And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death? They, who had seen proof of the immensity of my power in the times when I was mightier than any wizard living?” (Rowling 419). Therefore, through characterization, Lord Voldemort was portrayed as a menacing wizard who wanted to seek immortality to conquer the wizarding world. Moreover, on pages 424 and 425 in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Lord Voldemort’s quench for conquest and authority resulted in him stating, “I could not possess her. I disposed of her” and “Voldemort moved slowly forward and turned to face Harry. He raised his wand. "Crucio!" It was pain beyond anything Harry had ever experienced; his very bones were on fire; his head was surely splitting along his scar; his eyes were rolling madly in his head; he wanted it to end ... to black out... to die…”. Hence, through interpretation, it can be inferred that immortality leads people to disregard the pricelessness of human life because they wouldn’t feel the consequences of their actions but would feel the power to do anything and manipulate others.

Nevertheless, adversaries of this interpretation believe that immortality can allow people to cherish the world more and establish drastic change. However, from my lens and perspective, the adversaries’ perceptions are mostly wrong. For instance, as per magic, in immortality, you will never die, no matter the implications. Additionally, the number of people that will try to exploit the immortality system would be high, crime would accelerate, and life would be futile. Immortality led to catastrophe and emotional pain when Harry often got sympathy from strangers for being an orphan, but as he listened to Neville's snores, he thought that Neville deserved it more than he did. Lying in the darkness, Harry felt a rush of anger and hate toward the people who had tortured Mr. and Mrs. Longbottom” (Rowling 393). Hence, when immortal, Lord Voldemort had harmed Neville’s parents to such an extent that they weren’t able to recognize their child. Therefore, many people may choose to partake in more bad than good. Therefore, it is rational and safe to perceive that immortality, in the magical scope, can be detrimental to human life.

All facts, arguments, quotes, interpretations, and sentiments considered, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire portrays Harry as a determined and plucky lion and immortality as detrimental. Furthermore, intriguing revelations of the book consist of Harry Potter utilizing his character traits to his advantage. Moreover, these revelations and interpretations are established through character development and characterization. Consequently, the implications of immortality being universally perceived as negative could have a positive effect on all humans and restrict the potential of havoc similar to the one Lord Voldemort created. Therefore, the book Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire utilizes characterization to emphasize Harry Potter’s bravery and immortality’s drawbacks.

Works Cited

Harry Potter Lexicon. “Triwizard Tournament.” hp-lexicon.com, The Harry Potter Lexicon, https://www.hp-lexicon.org/thing/triwizard-tournament/. Accessed 11 Niovember 2021.

Rowling, Joanne. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Bloomsbury, 2000. footnote.weebly.com, http://footnote.weebly.com/uploads/6/8/5/3/6853221/harry_potter_and_the_goblet_of_fire.pdf. Accessed 11 November 2021.

Scholastic Media Room. “2000-2009 – THE DECADE OF HARRY POTTER GIVES KIDS AND ADULTS A REASON TO LOVE READING.” mediaroom.scholastic.com, Scholastic, 15 December 2009, http://mediaroom.scholastic.com/node/277. Accessed 6 October 2021.

Accessed 6 October 2021.

Reddy, Simon. “Plastic Pollution Affects Sea Life Throughout the Ocean.” pewtrusts.org, PEW,

24 September 2018,

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/09/24/plastic-pollution-

affects-sea-life-throughout-the-ocean. Accessed 5 October 2021.

WQA. Common Waterborne Contaminants. WQA,

https://www.wqa.org/Learn-About-Water/Common-Contaminants. Accessed 2 10 2021.

Thou shall be thanked for viewing my works.