Statement
The food service workers in our fast food restaurants supervise the ordering, preparation and serving of breakfast, lunch and dinner to people of all ages. The federal government should implement a program of continuing education for these people. If food service workers were required to attend a three-day workshop each year, covering topics such as recent developments in nutritional theory and new methods of food preservation, as a condition of employment, the quality of the food eaten by the general public would be greatly improved.
How persuasive do you find this argument? Explain your point of view by analyzing the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. Discuss also, what, if anything would make the argument more persuasive or would help you better to evaluate its conclusion.
My Argument :
I fully agree with the proposal of periodic training for the food service workers (from now will be called FSW).
With growing commercialization people have more money to spend a lot on recreation activities, out of which eating outside along with children has became very popular. So it becomes mandatory that the quality of food be really good, safe, uncompromising and eco-friendly. Keeping these things in mind, we need professional FSW to regularly oversee the quality of food. This will offer FSW more exposure and they can make better judgments in future. The 3 day training should be mandatory as mentioned, because this will give a chance to various FSWs to share their work experiences along with the other benefits they gain. The training should be more interactive in nature. Another suggestion would be to rotate the FSWs among the restaurants in certain intervals. Like in any profession, a person working for a long time tend to forget a lot of theoretical aspects, so a 3 day training program like this will act as a refresher course and it would yield better result.
Last but not the least, not only the above suggested practice will implicitly strengthen the safety aspect of the general public but it will also give a boost to FSW’s career to remain updated.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Advancing technology : good or bad ???
Statement:
Many electronics manufacturers intentionally create computers that will become obsolete within a few years. Consumer groups complain that this practice results in a waste of resources. Computer-makers claim that by shortening the product life cycle, they can quickly improve their products, incorporate rapidly-advancing technologies and ultimately lower the cost to the consumer.
Which position do you find more compelling? Explain your position using reasons and/or examples drawn from your personal experience, observations or readings.
My Argument :
I found the position of the electronics manufacturer more compelling. There is no denying of the fact that there will always be an incessant growth in any field you name whether it is electronics, aviation, motor-vehicles, communications, cell phones and what not. Even though, consumers are the one who have to bear the cost involved in the growth of the technology but it is them who are benefited largely at the same time.
For example, I bought a PC which costs me 1000$ in the year 1999 when I joined my Masters degree in computer application. It has 5 GB of hard disk space and only 433 MB memory. This system was pricey but served my purpose to learn programs like C, COBOL and PASCAL during my college days. Things changed very fast when I started looking for job. Microsoft has already introduced DOTNET and after few months of struggle I secured a job in DOTNET. In 2006 I planned to buy another system which can run DOTNET because it requires a lot more things which my older system could ever have. Eventually I bought a laptop for 1000$ which has 120 GB of hard disk space and 2GB memory which is enormous upgrade from my previous PC for the same price. This new system can run any memory-hungry programs along with DOTNET. The point is technology will keep upgrading but consumers have to be smart enough to know their needs and not their wants.
Moving o to the serious issue about the waste of the resources, I did a simple thing by selling my old PC for around 100$; which implies that there are people who can still use the older one or can get some valuable parts out of it. Additionally, most of the computer parts are inexpensive and recyclable too. Definitely it pinches when you found that the HDTV you bought 2 months ago is now 200$ cheaper but that is the cost you need to pay if you want to walk along with technology and get the maximum fun out of it. Sometimes technology is fancy but sometimes it’s really urgent. So I should conclude by saying that follow the technology when you feel that you cannot do away without it.
Many electronics manufacturers intentionally create computers that will become obsolete within a few years. Consumer groups complain that this practice results in a waste of resources. Computer-makers claim that by shortening the product life cycle, they can quickly improve their products, incorporate rapidly-advancing technologies and ultimately lower the cost to the consumer.
Which position do you find more compelling? Explain your position using reasons and/or examples drawn from your personal experience, observations or readings.
My Argument :
I found the position of the electronics manufacturer more compelling. There is no denying of the fact that there will always be an incessant growth in any field you name whether it is electronics, aviation, motor-vehicles, communications, cell phones and what not. Even though, consumers are the one who have to bear the cost involved in the growth of the technology but it is them who are benefited largely at the same time.
For example, I bought a PC which costs me 1000$ in the year 1999 when I joined my Masters degree in computer application. It has 5 GB of hard disk space and only 433 MB memory. This system was pricey but served my purpose to learn programs like C, COBOL and PASCAL during my college days. Things changed very fast when I started looking for job. Microsoft has already introduced DOTNET and after few months of struggle I secured a job in DOTNET. In 2006 I planned to buy another system which can run DOTNET because it requires a lot more things which my older system could ever have. Eventually I bought a laptop for 1000$ which has 120 GB of hard disk space and 2GB memory which is enormous upgrade from my previous PC for the same price. This new system can run any memory-hungry programs along with DOTNET. The point is technology will keep upgrading but consumers have to be smart enough to know their needs and not their wants.
Moving o to the serious issue about the waste of the resources, I did a simple thing by selling my old PC for around 100$; which implies that there are people who can still use the older one or can get some valuable parts out of it. Additionally, most of the computer parts are inexpensive and recyclable too. Definitely it pinches when you found that the HDTV you bought 2 months ago is now 200$ cheaper but that is the cost you need to pay if you want to walk along with technology and get the maximum fun out of it. Sometimes technology is fancy but sometimes it’s really urgent. So I should conclude by saying that follow the technology when you feel that you cannot do away without it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)