Essay 3: Issue topic

"Governments are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to the protection of national security"

Can we really justify a government in circumventing civil laws when it is vital to the protection of national security? While some people argue that there are extremely important situations such as the protection of national affairs, where the governments are justified in bypassing civil laws, others would state that there are not exceptions no matter how vital the situation is. It is clear that there are occasions where governments should be able to circumvent civil laws in order to protect the nation.

Those that would argue that governments should not be allowed to circumvent civil laws might think that these exceptions may make certain people are above the law and this consequently would lead to corruption. terrorism as an extreme situation where the government

Essay 2: Argument

The market for the luxury-goods industry is on the decline. Recent reports show that higher unemployment rate, coupled with consumer fears, has decreased the amount of money the average household spends on both essential and nonessential items, but especially on nonessential items. Since luxury-goods are, by nature, nonessential, this market will be the first to decrease in the present economic climate, and luxury retailers should refocus their attention to lower-priced markets.

The argument that the luxury-goods markets will be the first to decline and their retailers should refocus their attention to lower-priced markets is not entirely logically convincing, since it ignores certain crucial assumptions.

First, the argument assumes that this market will be the first to decrease in the present economic climate, yet it does nothing to explain why it would be the first among other markets.

Second, the argument never addresses the point why luxury retailers should refocus in lower-priced markets, even if might be an outcome it lacks to explain why the refocus has to be in the opposite market and not in the one they already have experience with or may re-adapt.

Finally,

Thus, the argument is not completely sound. The evidence in support of the conclusion that luxury retailers should refocus their attention to lower-priced markets does little to prove that conclusion, since it does not address the assumptions already raised. Ultimately, the argument might have been strengthened if the author could have shown that the market will be the first to decrease and they will be affected in such a way there will no way back in a considerable amount of time.

Essay 1- issue

As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Can humans lose the ability to think by themselves through technology? Some would argue that relying on technology would lead us to not have that ability anymore while others would support that that inner ability from humans will only change. It is clear that technology has changed the way we used to think