Whether the people whose children go to non-public schools should fund the public schools or not through taxes, depends on many factors. I believe that everyone should fund the public schools irrespective of the fact that their children go into public or private schools.

The primary reason for my stand is that education is the most important factor for the growth of any nation. If public schools are not funded properly, then many families that are unable to send their children to costly private schools would not be able to educate their children. These children would remain illiterate and the society will not benefit in long run. An educated society will be more economically strong and this will in-turn help everyone including those who studied in private schools.

The second reason is that having no education will cause more unemployment which ultimately leads to frustration and hence to criminal behaviour. A good education significantly reduces the chance of a person to choose an illegal path. This will benefit the society and everyone living in the society. The country will become a better place to live.

Thirdly, every citizen of a country has a social responsibility for the upliftment of the poor and needy. Considering that  a person gains so much from society during his lifetime, funding public schools through taxes can be considered as a small repaying back to the society. This way people can get a mental satisfaction of doing something good for their own country.

Although many people would consider it as a waste of their money, but rather than focussing only on immediate gain, they should regard it as a long term benefit. It would be considered logical that if our children do not go to public schools then we should not fund the schools, but it would be a narrow approach to look at the situation. A broder look would be to consider the benefit of an educated society and the ultimate benefit to their next generation. It is similar to planting trees which will not benefit us immediately but only to our later generations.

In conclusion, I would strongly support that everyone should fund the public schools through taxes for the mutual long term benefit to the society.

The author puts the argument that any vacation resort can ill afford not to publicize its offerrings on Trevelshack.com. The argument is based upon the case of Snowbert Ski Lodge, which is now booked to capacity following its advertising on Travelshack.com website. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons.

Firstly, Travelshack.com fails to provide any data regarding the difference in Snowbert Ski Lodge's booking prior to advertising on its website and after the advertising. A thorough analysis and sufficient data about the website's advertising influence on the Snowbert Ski Lodge's booking and profit is necessary.

Secondly, it fails to indicate that Snowbert Ski Lodge has used no other advertising mechanism than on the webstie which leads to its high booking capaccity and the increase in its profit. It might be possible that Snowbert Ski Lodge used some other advertising mechanism and a combined advertising efforts would have resulted in such high level of booking and profits.

Thirdly, it does not provide sufficient information regarding the Snowbert Ski Lodge capacity. It might be possible that Snowbert Ski Lodge is a small Lodge and that might be the reason for its full capacity with so little advertisement. It also fails to mention whether there has been any sudden spurts in visitors due to some annual festival last year or some big sporting event, which might lead to high traffic irrespective of advertising.

In conclusion, to convince me that any vacation resort can ill afford not to publicize its offerrings on Trevelshack.com, the website has to supply more data regarding the influence of adversting on its website on any specific Lodge. It also has to mention that the last year is a typical year and the number of visitors have not changed significantly. Unless this information is provided, I am not fully convinced with the author's arguments.

“It is unrealistic to expect individual nations to make, independently, the sacrifices  necessary to conserve energy. International leadership and worldwide cooperation are essential if we expect to protect the world’s energy resources for future generations.”

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support  your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

I wrote the analysis, but lost it due to error in saving it. :-(

The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company.

“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.”
                 Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

The author concludes that the Apoogee Company would imporve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees because of centralised operations. The author's line of reasoning is that when the company was located in a single location, it was more profitable than it was today. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons.

Firstly, centralisation would improve profitability is based on the questionable assumption that centralisation would imply cutting costs and better employee supervision. However, it might be possible that with so many employees at a single location would inturn detoriate the employee supervision, due to more employees per supervisior. Also, a single location may not be able to attract a high level of quality employees thus reducing the productivity.

Secondly, the author assumes that the Apoogee Company was profitable in the past solely due to having a single location. However, it seems equally resonable to assume that during that period the operations of the company may be small enough to keep it profitable in a single location. Also, the nature of the operations of the company would have allowed the company to stay profitable in a single location.

Finally, the author fails to indicate the nature of the company. For example, a media company, which requires to keep information about various geographic regions, may not be profitable in a single location, while a Information Technology company, may remain profitable working from a single location.

In conclusion, to convince me that the Apoogee Company would become profitable from a centralised location, the author would have to provide evidence that it is indeed able to cut-off costs and improve employee supervision, operating from a single location. Without this additional evidence, I am not convinced that it would be profitable for Apoogee Company to close down its various locations and maintain a single location.

“Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A ‘flat’ organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees.”

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.