Voting for Economic Growth

The following appeared as a part of an advertisement for Adams, who is seeking reelection as governor:

"Reelect Adams, and you will be voting for proven leadership in improving the state’s economy. Over the past year alone, 70 percent of the state’s workers have had increases in their wages, 5,000 new jobs have been created, and six corporations have located their headquarters here. Most of the respondents in a recent poll said they believed that the economy is likely to continue to improve if Adams is reelected. Adams’s opponent, Zebulon, would lead our state in the wrong direction, because Zebulon disagrees with many of Adams’s economic policies."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The advertisement tries to convince people to vote for Adam on the basis of his economic achievements. Further, it tries to use this reasoning to convince people that Adam's competitor Zebulon would not be able to sustain the economic growth as he disagrees with Adam's policies. The reasoning is not very convincing due to many reasons.

The reasoning attempts to present economic growth as a simplistic function of worker wages, jobs created and corporations moving to the state. Concrete figures that can be compared with other states may have been more convincing. For example if the argument would have said that the state's gross production and human development index improved at a rate reasonably ahead of other states in the country, it would have sounded more convincing and well-reasoned. Every event needs a reference or a comparison to ascertain its magnitude.

Further, one cannot rely on one of the many polls to forward the reasoning; especially when no reference is given as to who conducted the poll and how. At best this claim may be taken with a pinch of salt. If the advertisement named a polling agency known to be neutral and efficient, it would have helped the reasoning a lot.

Lastly, there may be two different and yet equally good ways to reach the same destination. So a generalistic claim that anything that does not agree with Adam's policies will be detrimental for the economy does not hold any water. If the reasoning would have tried to nail a specific example from Zebulon's economic agenda, it would have been more convincing.

Concluding, the presented reasoning falters on account of being vague and generalistic. Making it a little focused can turn it into a reasonably strong line of argument. However in its current form it is not very good.

Hierarchical or Flat Structures: Which is Better?

"Organizations should be structured in a clear hierarchy in which the people at each level, from top to bottom, are held accountable for completing a particular component of the work. Any other organizational structure goes against human nature and will ultimately prove fruitless."

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

Having a strictly hierarchical structure and having a completely flat structure are two diagonally opposite ways of handling people working for a company. In order to be able to ascertain what is better we need to have a closer look at these two styles.

Truly flat structures sound idealistic on papers and seldom, if ever, work practically. There has to be an element of individuality in order to encourage individual performance. However if all that the company needs is a regimented army of workers that follow instructions precisely with minimum innovation or conflicts, there is nothing better than a flat structure. This can be particularly useful if skilled labour is in abundance and it is difficult for one worker to significantly differentiate his work from others. Even such a mass would ultimately need a leader to direct them and take responsibility. The flattest of structures cannot escape hierarchy if they have to be successful.

Hierarchical structures put responsibility on every point in the chain of command. The clear chain of command does give incentive for individual performance and fixes accountability. However an extremely hierarchical structure can also become bureaucratic with too many leaders and too few workers. Each level of leadership may tend to pass the buck to the lower level, be close-minded to good ideas from juniors and reluctant to resist catastrophic decisions from superiors. 

With these views in mind we can safely say that a hierarchical system has better chances of working when compared to a flat structure as it gives people an incentive to work. Historically systems that advocate abolition of hierarchy like socialism and communism have worked for the detriment of people despite of sounding good on papers. Hierarchical systems have their pitfalls but there is nothing that they cannot overcome. If the chain of command is not stretched unreasonably and leaders keep an open mind, the system will be successful. The basic human nature is individualistic and this system exploits this trait perfectly. Any other system may discourage creativity/hard-work and make any kind of achievement difficult. Hence I completely agree with the point of view presented.

School Dropouts, Results and Computer Instruction

The following appeared as part of a newspaper editorial:

"Two years ago Nova High School began to use interactive computer instruction in three academic subjects. The school dropout rate declined immediately, and last year’s graduates have reported some impressive achievements in college. In future budgets the school board should use a greater portion of the available funds to buy more computers, and all schools in the district should adopt interactive computer instruction throughout the curriculum."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

I do not agree with the above reasoning.

Decline in school dropout rate can be due to a variety of reasons. A particular state saw its dropout percentage going down from 49% to 3% when the state government provided a wide array of scholarships and incentives to study. This included building social awareness on benefits of education. At the end of the day dropouts is more of a social and economic problem. Simply enhancing the instruction medium cannot hope to solve it alone.

Achievements of graduate students can be partly attributed to making the instruction medium more interactive. I agree that such an improvement can help the students to understand and grasp things faster. This can ultimately translate to better results. However at the end of the day the main credit goes to the students who worked hard to achieve the results and the teachers who used the medium effectively. 

I believe that computers are tools. They are only as good as the people who use them. Hence using computers would entail some level of training for the people involved besides buying computers. Not all schools may be in a position to make that kind of investment and may have other priorities. So even though it may be desirable to have more computers for interactive instruction, forcing it down the throat of all district schools may not be a very good idea.

Concluding, interactive computer instructions can make a subject easier to grasp and more interesting. However attributing every positive event to one single change and forcing it on a huge group based on the back of such a weak reasoning can be counter-productive.

Preserving Environment: Who is Responsible?

"Responsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government."

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.

Does a government policy rely only on public support in order to be implemented successfully? To some extent yes. Any unpopular decisions can cost the government power and erode its popular support base. However in order to implement the rule of law and its policies the government cannot rely completely only on the conscience of the masses. It has an elaborate machinery in place to address and enforce them. The fear of law helps the government to collect taxes and maintain law and order. The power that the people place in hands of the government allows it to take pan-national policies that cannot be implemented by ordinary citizens. Ordinary citizens generally lack the expertise, funds and/or authority to enforce a vision that they may agree with. They may support it by adhering to the laws, paying their taxes and voting for the government whose policies they agree with. However to hold only them responsible for implementing it is preposterous. I admit it does sound good and may be in an ideal world citizens would take care of everything that needs to be done. However for what would such a society need a "government" for?

Keeping this reasoning in mind we can safely say that preserving environment should be a concern of every citizen and they should contribute to it. However implementing a nation-wide policy to preserve the environment and making it a part of the law and order mechanism can be done only by the government. Both need to work in tandem in order to raise awareness about environmental issues and enforce such policies on the ground level.  Even if the government does not participate directly, it needs to play a huge role in making the environment conducive for such efforts. For example, an individual cannot challenge an industry destroying the environment without the backing of the government and strong laws punishing people who do not take environment preservation seriously.

Concluding, there is no doubt that an individual does hold some responsibility to preserve the natural environment. However to absolve the government of any responsibility what-so-ever is ridiculous. In fact with the power a government holds on policy making issues, their responsibility is far greater than any individual responsibility.

Advertising With Radio

The following appeared as part of a campaign to sell advertising time on a local radio station to local businesses:

"The Cumquat Café began advertising on our local radio station this year and was delighted to see its business increase by 10 percent over last year’s totals. Their success shows you how you can use radio advertising to make your business more profitable."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

There was a time when radio was written off by many. Emerging technologies like television, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, satellite TV and then digital media made the radio look primitive. Till a certain point in time it seemed just like that. However the entry of private sector entrepreneurs and FM helped to stage an unexpected comeback for radio. This has seen radio getting transformed from a monolithic national entity to small, vibrant regional chunks. This is turn has turned them into potent advertising mediums for local businesses.

Hence I feel that the writer has reasoned diligently and effectively for the most part. He has provided a concrete name, a concrete growth figure and a concrete time period. This makes the message seem sincere. However it may have helped if the reasoning also hinted about the radio's intended audience segment, if any. If the radio has a defined theme (like some music genre, comedy, youth etc.), highlighting the same could also help. Since the invitation to businesses is also generic, it does not hurt the reasoning. However adding them may make the reasoning more targeted, compelling and informative. 

For example if the campaign had clearly identified its target audience, it could have appealed to all Cafe and restaurants or small and medium businesses in this part of the campaign. 

Concluding, I feel that it is well reasoned with concrete data to back it up. However it is a bit generic and does not target any specific business segment. This makes the campaign seem to be following undifferentiated marketing with no clear idea about whom it wants to target. This is fine if the number of segments is really small. However for a large market it needs to be reasonably targeted in order to be effective.

What Ensures Success: Money or Education?

"Education has become the main provider of individual opportunity in our society. Just as property and money once were the keys to success, education has now become the element that most ensures success in life."

In your opinion, how accurate is the view expressed above? Explain, using reasons and examples based on your own experience, observations, or reading.

Money and property cannot guarantee success but they can definitely help one to reach success. They can help in networking and investing in the right opportunity. However, it is not difficult for a fool to loose his material possessions, to let them go as easily as they come and not use them wisely. 

On the other hand, education can ensure success in a more effective way than money or property can ever do. It is so as education brings in knowledge with itself. Money and property can be lost but knowledge stays forever. If anything it just grows and becomes stronger with experience. This makes people with knowledge valuable and helps them to be recognized in the society for their contribution. To add to this we live in an information age and there is a lot of focus on specialists. This demands deep knowledge. Quality education can ensure that the person has that knowledge. This will be more re-assuring to a prospective employer than knowing that the candidate is very rich. 

I may add that spectacular success is often not the result of either money or education but vision. The biggest example is Microsoft that was founded by a college dropout and not by some academician or a billionaire. Richard Branson's Virgin Group is another point in case. Education and money can at best be tools that help the vision but can never be a substitute for it. A determined person can find opportunities with them or without them. 

Concluding, given all things equal I feel there is only one key to success: vision. However even the best of people may need the opportunity to prove themselves. Once having money and property could help people get that chance. In the changing world of today education has indeed come up as an even stronger factor and can be seen as the main provider of individual opportunity.

Hopelessness

Finding a purpose for a meaningless existence is funny. And it is funnier to live with the connections that you make with the world, the way each channel digs into you and saps away your energy. But that is fine. Who are we to decide what is to stay with us and what is to go away. Everything seems to have its time, reason, rhyme, season, pattern..  The mind with its age old experiences and lack of originality lies suspended in an unknown vacuum. Even if you want to write, talk, reason, work; you can't as you cannot feel your very life force that could help you to do it. You are stuck in a time warp with no likes, dislikes, hatred, love, wants or desires. The sands take different shapes. Before you have a chance to make sense out of something you see, it is gone. Leaving you with the sweet-old drowning sensation. The eye-lids become heavy. Your eyes droop but you cannot sleep. The mind works relentlessly doing absolutely nothing. You want to scream, may be you just did. Yet there is nothing to hear in this vacuum you live in. As the quicksand consumes you, ever so slowly but inevitably, you even stop trying...

Progress of Makind: Who did it?

Another good friend of mine said to me, "We used to live in caves. We are where we are because of religion. If not for religion, we would still be barbarians in a cave." I could not disagree more.

Religion is an important force and has played its part in promoting harmony and stability as I pointed out in my last article. However crediting it with all the progress that human beings have made is preposterous and downright ridiculous. Any form of mass/mob/group is never known to have played a positive role in any kind of tangible progress of humanity. Religion is no exception.

The progress of the humankind has been due to the spirit, defiance, vision and intelligence of a few people in every age. Religion and the society (other word for the mass), if anything, has tried to pull back such people. Especially if their views run contrary to dogma and the so called established rules of the times. Religion's, or any other social structure's, function is to create or impose harmony. Change is not a friend of an imposed harmony and progress is the enemy of state. Besides that, well-informed people with strong reasoning are difficult to mislead, rule or exploit. Mediocrity, on the other hand, burns with jealousy and tries to impose itself on everything it can while trying to destroy anything great. Thank God it doesn't succeed always or we would indeed still be in caves. A support system is for the growing and those not sure of what is to be. People who have really experienced God do not need any religion to go to Him. They are with Him.

The man has come from caves to skyscrapers due to inventors, explorers, entrepreneurs, artists, thinkers and other individuals who dared to see beyond the gibberish of finality. People who had the vision, belief and love for their work and what it could achieve. Their religion was their work, their God only their passion and their creations the manifestations of the divine. Nobody else can be or should be credited with our progress except these heroes of mankind.

Why We Need Religion

One of my good friends asked me if I feel that the world would be a better place without religion. Question particularly pertinent when I say that the religious nuts are most prone to self-righteousness. My answer is a clear,  unequivocal NO. The world will not be a better place without religion, practically speaking.

I may also add that we can talk in the same way about any philosophy that promotes self-righteousness to promote social stability, encourage moralistic behavior as per the circumstances and address the spiritual hunger.

A group of people agreeing to live on common terms defines any social structure. You can put fear of God to implement it and it would become religion, roughly. It is fine as it does promote stability. However when it takes form of prosecution for all those who have a different idea, it becomes a mess. Like the Church killed so many as part of their bloody inquisitions (including Joan de Arc). Religion has its value, I agree and it can be a means to an end of peace. But today we need something more. I don't know what and I am searching.

Spiritual hunger is a prime hunger in almost every human being. We find different paths to satiate it. Any self-righteous system can fill in the spot like a chewing gum that fills the mouth. It may not actually lead to something going in your belly but you will definitely be chewing something sweet and easy. It may be like an appetizer that can awaken your hunger for God. It can be even like a signpost pointing in His direction. Or it may simply be the security of being in a mass, that so many people cannot be wrong. Whatever way you look at it. Religion in particular can be seen as a support structure that people may need till they realize that there is something beyond. Very much the opium of the masses but not that bad. In fact even helpful and beneficial to some extent. 

What makes religion unique is that the fear of God can be a potent deterrent from doing anything "bad". The masses may not fear the Government but they will fear God. Charity, meditation, good deeds etc. get a major boost due to religion. Besides a significant part of the world population is religious. At the end of the day God is beyond religion. He is bigger than any religion. But the absence of religion can create a serious spiritual and moral vacuum for a lot of people.

Religion is something like democracy. It may look like the worst form of Government to some but all others have already been tried. We need something better but for now we have to manage with the best we have.

Advertising for Grocery

The following appeared as part of a promotional campaign to sell advertising space in the Daily Gazette to grocery stores in the Marston area:

"Advertising the reduced price of selected grocery items in the Daily Gazette will help you increase your sales. Consider the results of a study conducted last month. Thirty sale items from a store in downtown Marston were advertised in The Gazette for four days. Each time one or more of the 30 items was purchased, clerks asked whether the shopper had read the ad. Two-thirds of the 200 shoppers asked answered in the affirmative. Furthermore, more than half the customers who answered in the affirmative spent over $100 at the store."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The data presented firmly establishes that advertising with the Daily Gazette really helped some downtown stores. However it is not clear what kind of periodical Daily Gazette is - in the sense what is its focus subject. Is it a tabloid publication that just focuses on life of film-stars and scandals? Is it a financial daily covering essential financial changes? Is is just a generic daily with no particular focus on any area? If it is, say, a high-priced tabloid or a financial publication, it will make little sense for grocery stores to advertise with it. On the other hand if Daily Gazette is a cheap, generic publication; the reasoning above would appear very strong.

Further it is not clear if the goods sold by the benefited stores were of similar nature. If mentioned it would have given more confidence to the user that indeed the audience of the gazette would have interest in groceries as well.

Concluding, advertising cannot be random if it has to be successful. It should be carefully built around the targeted segment of customers so as it sends across a coherent, well-thought message. On top of that it should be disseminated using the right medium, at the right place and at the right time. The reasoning above keeps some of this in mind and presents an argument that is fairly strong but not beyond doubt. Some detail about the stores and the gazette content can make it pretty strong or make it completely irrelevant.

What is Important: Achievements or Personal Faults?

"When someone achieves greatness in any field-such as the arts, science, politics, or business-that person’s achievements are more important than any of his or her personal faults."

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.

It is said that to err is human. Under normal circumstances total perfection does not exist. We all have our flaws. It can be summed with the classic story of asking the first stone be cast by the one who has not sinned. In the end we are all human. Hence pinning attention on somebody's personal faults and conveniently glossing over the person's achievements is not fair to the person. It does not help the society either.

Most of the time it is mediocrity trying to pull back greatness in guise of personal attacks. People who can do things do them. The rest talk, criticize, plan or judge.Despite of all such attacks greatness is capable of leaving its unique stamp on the face of the earth. Still such attacks can hamper the speed of such people. Hence an attitude of not attacking personal faults can help the advancement of various fields.

The best example I can think of is Mozart. As a person many of his contemporaries described him as a shallow, skirt-chasing individual. That cannot take away the fact that he is one of the greatest composers of our time. Most people do not remember who he was, what he did and what were his intentions. Yet his work lives to date inspiring people with its sheer genius. If people had been more considerate at his time, may be he would have lived longer and contributed to the field of music.

Concluding, I strongly agree that personal faults can never be as important as greatness. We all have our faults and it is unfair to single out an achiever for having one. 

Voting For Mayor

The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

"In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and re-elected Varro."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

Shrinking businesses imply deteriorating business conditions and herald an increase in unemployment. Unemployment leads to migration and the consequent population decrease. It is pretty much a downward spiral from there. With no opportunities at hand the city may as well become a ghost town. 

It seems that Mr. Montoya's policies (or lack of it) made San Perdito unattractive as a business destination over his 4 year tenure. It may be high taxes, change in the local laws, too powerful trade unions, a deteriorating infrastructure or emergence of another nearby city which offers better opportunities. Any way it shows lack of vision and foresight from the mayor. 

On the other hand Mr. Varro delivered a fall in unemployment and rise in population. That is an encouraging sign and definitely indicates the Varro may be a better choice to halt the city's downward slide.

The reasoning can be made stronger if it is mentioned explicitly that the business too grew under Varro. Decrease in employment and increase in population may as well come from a short-time grand project. Such a project would not only employ people but will also attract people from nearby city and towns. It does not represent any permanent gains as such project may not happen very often.

The reasoning can be weakened if the whole country is in recession right now.

Concluding, I find the section pretty well reasoned. Voting for a mayor based on his performance sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Process or Product?

"In any enterprise, the process of making or doing something is ultimately more important than the final product."

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

In a fiercely result-oriented world of today it is hard to take this opinion on its face value. 

In theory it sounds very poetic, even a bit romantic, to say that the process is more important than the final product. Even practically it makes some sense to some extent. If the process is good then it is highly probable that it will take care of the end product. After all, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If each step is done with due care and diligence, it can ensure that the final product will be good too. However the real focus for a practical person would still be the final product. 

Moreover this statement seems to imply that there are always some ways of doing things that are better than the others. Even when the quality of the end product is same. This may be true but I am not convinced if it is always the case.  If all the processes produce the same quality of product, then saying that one is better than the other can be practical opinion, personal opinion or both! If it is a personal opinion, I do not agree with the same as it may be a simple prejudice. However I may agree with it if it has some strategic, practical or ethical value. In a relative world it is very easy to assume a self-righteous, idealistic position and never realize that you are wrong. I would rather keep an open mind than assume a process to be superior.

Concluding, I do not agree with the idealistic premises of the stated opinion. In the end people judge a process by the quality of the product produced. Moreover assuming that there exists one process which is always better than others goes against tenets of lateral thinking and keeping an open mind.

Cancelling College Grants

The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:

“This past winter, 200 students from Waymarsh State College traveled to the state capitol building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various state college programs. The other 12,000 Waymarsh students evidently weren’t so concerned about their education: they either stayed on campus or left for winter break. Since the group who did not protest is far more numerous, it is more representative of the state’s college students than are the protesters. Therefore the state legislature need not heed the appeals of the protesting students.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

If one considers only short-time practical implications from the lens of short-term profit-loss for colleges, one can agree with this reasoning. However if considered from a humane perspective and taking into account the possible long-term effects, the reasoning is not very good.

The writer correctly points out that only 200 out of 12000 bothered to protest. Effectively this implies that even if the authorities do not act on the grievances of the current group, it would not cause any serious damage to the institutions as they are a minority. As reasonable this may sound, it conveniently ignores that 200 students may have the moral support of a bigger number. When the session begins after the winter break, authorities may find themselves looking at a 2000 students group with more vociferous demands just because they bungled up to sort the issue when it was small. Ignoring a problem, an enemy or a disease; however small; is not a wise thing to do.

Another aspect that is conveniently ignored is the fact that the funding may have been for economically disadvantaged pupils. It is possible that very few may have made it to the college due to their difficult circumstances. If funding is cut further, it would only hurt them. Such a move goes against the basic tenets of humanity and social justice for poor. Many brilliant but poor students would be condemned to no college education due to this elitist, high-handed approach. At most the move may save some money for colleges but in long term it may cost a lot to the nation. I would see it as being penny wise and pound foolish. 

Concluding, the reasoning tends to underestimate the problem at hand and fails to see its long term consequences. Hence I see the reasoning as logical but flawed.

Private Lives and Professional Lives

“Employees should keep their private lives and personal activities as separate as possible from the workplace.”

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. 

There are two basic components that the opinion focuses on to separate from workplace: private lives and personal activities.  

I support separating private life from workplace in the sense that one should not allow personal prejudices or interests to affect productivity or take decisions against the interests of the company. However when it comes to sharing personal information with your colleagues, I am not against it as long as it is done in good taste and takes into account the other person's cultural background and preferences. In fact I feel such sharing can encourage camaraderie and may be good for team bonding at the end of the day.

As far as personal activities are concerned, I feel that the only concern of the company should be the output of the employee and that he is not having any negative impact on the company culture. A company must understand that an employee spends one third of his life in the office and it is impossible for him to not do any personal activity in workplace. Giving employees flexibility keeps them happy and makes them productive. It also fosters loyalty.  As long as the employees meets their targets and are present in the core meetings, I have absolutely no problem with personal activities.

Concluding, I partially disagree with the stated opinion. To some degree it is desirable to separate private lives and personal activities from workplace. However cutting them off completely without taking into account employee's performance and his needs can have a negative impact on the workplace, employee morale and team spirit.

Eyes of the Orion

How does a realized person see the world, I wonder. 

For him there is nothing like a nation. No piece of land stands up and shouts "I am UK/India/China/US". To the wise nations are nothing but political entities. Lines drawn by men on earth to monopolize resources, impose order and live in a particular way. 

For him there is no religion. He sees spirituality and goodness as guiding lights. To him the quest for God is entirely personal. Dogmatic, rigid, ritualized, bigotted, fanatic, violent search for God is not his way. His religion is of humanity alone and his search for God is tolerant, rational, peaceful and flexible.

For him there is no society. His travels and experience have shown him that what is a taboo in one society is normal in other. There is a thin line between righteousness and prejudice, virtue and bigotry. People wishing to control other people are alien to him as he believes in responsible freedom. He respects the rules of the society in which he lives as he sees their value in keeping some kind of order. However he does not let it shackle his mind in form of taboos and rigidity.

He is humble and does not believe he knows everything. This humility helps him to progress and learn with each passing day. He lives his life with honour and is not bound by anything except the right action in the present moment.

He does not use arrogance, bigotry, dogma, religion, nationalism or fanaticism to guide him or people around him. He has no reason to fight as he has found peace in his heart but knows how to defend himself. He wishes to bring this peace to the people who want it and knows that everybody takes their time.

He know his kind is very less on this planet and it seems that the numbers are dwindling fast. Yet he beleives that God has a plan for everybody and there is no reson to despair. So he moves happily through the world with a song on his lips and a prayer in his heart for he sees the world the way he sees it. 

He has the eyes of the Orion.

The Evils of Righteousness

I feel that righteousness is the root of all fanaticism. Unflinching, self-sure, in your face cockiness proclaiming unabashedly: "I know!". Any doubt or question is met with derision, hostility, threats, violence, anger, hysteria and a host of other things except reason. Any attempt to talk reason is taken as an insult, heresy, conspiracy or foolishness. People who think that they have all the answers are the most stupid and dangerous ones. Unfortunately they are a plenty of them in today's world.

The chief and obvious candidates for the self-righteous are of course all the religious nuts. But it is not their sole-property. Anybody who thinks he knows all can qualify. It can be a communist, a Marxist, a leftist, a socialist, a Leninist, a fascist, a Nazi, a neo-Nazi, a rightist or a centrist too. Not just the established extreme thinkers. They can also be your free-thinkers, capitalists, atheists, human right groups et all. Without going too far from home, it can even be your parents, wife, husband, sibling, colleague, neighbor, boss or the society you live in too. Anybody who does not believe in "live and let live" and tries to impose his thinking on others is a good candidate. You can call this belief as my personal pillar of righteousness. And hell, I know! :D

Narrow and fixed sets of thinking cause conflict. Tolerance levels are falling, falling and falling all the time. What the heck,I think it is time I too develop my set of immutable set of beliefs. Who knows it may start a new religion :p. On the other hand, thank you very much. The people of the world (and I) already have enough problems to handle!

Where are we heading to, I wonder sometimes...

The Masterplan

There was a time that I used to believe. However as life went by I just found myself looking. Looking for answers. But what were the questions? Umm... A bit philosophical but important to me.. How does this world work? What is my purpose in this world? Why is this world in existence and where are we going? 

The more I have moved through this world, the more I have started seeing and believing in the dichotomous nature of the world. Relativity blurs the lines between good-bad, right-wrong, desirable-undesirable etc. In the end I don't find any ideological reason to do anything or believe anything. I just see a flux, an unpredictable flow determined by a few simple rules of thumb. I don't know if I should call them rules of power or rules of existence and I don't know how far I will be able to define them if I try to. To say, to write : to be interpreted into half truths that may come back to haunt me. I don't know. Nobody really does, I feel. Just moving along.

I have reconciled that everybody's lifestyle and belief system, including mine, are one of convenience. We act as per our nature, as per the basic grain of our personality. It may take advanced combinatorial mathematics and hardcore psychology but it is possible to predict how people can affect each other and their environment in term of possibilities. The system may look pretty anarchic to start with as a complicated criss-cross of events. What makes these systems even more complex is the fact that whenever an event occurs it invariably has the potential of triggering other events and can drastically change probability distribution of the entire system. People do try to predict events by building a probability matrix around a reported event. However the very probability of any future event is not a simple function of one event though it is possible for a lot of events to point in one direction.

The world of probability is a world of possibility. According to this theory prophets are simply people smart and common-sensical enough to see the world matrix distribution and connect dots well. Experts are people who can do it for a particular field. Consultants and entrepreneurs are people who can apply it to daily life. At the end of day this ability can play a significant role in the rise of the person as a formidable power. Will it? Nobody knows. This is the beauty (or tragedy if you like) of complex probabilistic systems: nothing is impossible, conditions applied. 

At the corporate level this is used to some extent in form of adaptive planning. In technology Spring seems to come from a similar mind set. Wherever I see beauty, progress, power, apparent control; I can relate it with this theory which reasonably explains the working of the world to me and answers how. My purpose is constant all-round improvement, having fun, living life as I please, taking care of my family and if I have resources help fellow human beings. My inspiration is H.H. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. My source of energy is meditation, eccentricity, love and praying. Why and where are something that I hope to find out as I master the How and What. Clear cut plan for me so far. Lets see where it leads to!

Should Retail Target Middle Class?

The following appeared in the opinion column of a financial magazine:

“On average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. Since the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically within the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly during that period. Furthermore, to take advantage of the trend, these stores should begin to replace some of those products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The whole approach is reasonable on the whole. The writer puts forward some statistics to argue that over the next few years the company should target a specific segment of the market, namely the middle-aged people. This makes sense as a focused approach would benefit the whole company and it will be able to take advantage of an emerging trend. It is reasonable to assume that as people age they tend to start a family which entails a higher retail spending. If they constitute a major part of the population, it is reasonable to focus on them in order to take advantage of the situation.

However there are some key aspects that can undermine this reasoning. The first aspect would be the amount spent by each age group. 25% of a bigger number can be greater than 39% of a smaller one. So even if the younger people spend 25% but have more disposable income, they can be a better segment to target. Another aspect is the number of children in the population. The statistics suggest that the number of young people in the current scenario is much higher than the middle aged people but it should also be much higher than the number of children. Only then in the next decade middle aged group can be the most significant and influential group. 

Finally I do not agree completely with the last part of the reasoning. I agree that the company should start developing products for the middle class and introduce them slowly. This will help in building a brand image as a company with best products for middle aged people. Within a decade it is possible for the company to be well entrenched as the market leader. This will help it achieve the intended goals. However I do not agree that this should be done by immediately replacing the products targeting younger people. One should not forget that the middle-aged people of tomorrow are still young today. The best time to build their brand loyalty would be today and not tomorrow. If the company remembers this and keeps at least some well thought products for youngsters, it may help its cause in the long run. 

Primary Citizen Responsibility

The primary responsibility of citizens is to obey their nation’s civil and criminal laws.

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 basically agree with the stated opinion. If a country has to remain stable and progressive, having law abiding citizens is a critical success factor. If people adhere to civil and criminal laws it can help in building a utopian society. 

When citizens obey civil laws, they ensure that they at least respect other people's property, private space and modesty. They also make sure that they are considerate of other people, recycle things and keep their neighbourhood clean. By obeying criminal laws people make sure that their neighbourhood is a safe place to stay. When added incrementally over the whole nation this translates into a country with very well mannered citizens, extremely low crime rate, cleanliness and a not-so-burdened judiciary or police force. This in turn can encourage development of the country in form of foreign investment, strong domestic industry and tourism.

I am aware of the fact that it is not the only responsibility of citizens. At the end of the day the sky is the limit. However this summarizes the bare minimum a government expects from its citizens. If this is delivered then the government would find it easier to implement its own responsibilities in a better way. So even though it is not the only one, it definitely qualifies to be the primary one.

Even on a practical basis when ideas are very hard to implement or monitor, I see this as a primary responsibility. It can be argued that citizen responsibilities need to be carefully juxtaposed along-side government responsibilities and cannot be a one-way street. That a lot depends on the human development index of a country and its political scenario. I agree that in general a brutal dictatorship with extremely low human development index and suspended civil liberties has no right to expect anything from its citizens. However even if such a country at the bottom of the ladder has to make any progress, it may at least need its citizens to obey the nation's civil and criminal laws.

Worker Interest in Management Issues

The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter:

“The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The writer reasons that since a majority of workers showed interests in certain management issues, it can be deduced that they are not apathetic about them. On the surface the reasoning looks just fine but there are certain flaws if one looks closely.

The key thing is that it seems that the workers are only interested in issues that concern them in particular like benefits programs and corporate restructuring. This cannot be seen as an evidence of their interest in management issues. At best it can be seen as an interest in their own welfare and concern about their own future. It has nothing to do with management issues. If a survey shows that the majority of workers show a healthy interest in knowing what decisions the management is taking in order to achieve the company's vision, its long term strategies and how it is being implemented; I can buy the argument that they are indeed taking interest in management issues. The issues mentioned by writer are the ones that can affect the life of the workers. True they are management issues too but the interest of workers does not come out from an interest in management. They just wish to understand the core things that affect them. At best it can be said that the workers are more aware and well-informed about management issues that concern them than they were before. 

This can be explained with a simple example. A lot of people in any country are generally interested in politics and follow it keenly. A lot of them may understand it, follow it and even study it. However that does not mean that they have any serious interest in running the country or statecraft. The intention can be simply knowing if they are being taken care of or not by the state. It may even be an intention to stay aware so as to insulate themselves from any possible bad event or take advantage of any good event. However it cannot be equated with the desire to rule the country or understand the nuances of statecraft. Similarly the interest of workers in management issues that affect them in particular cannot be equated with an interest in management issues in general. The reasoning is deceptively reassuring but is not totally right.

Making Monetary System Electronic

“For hundreds of years, the monetary system of most countries has been based on the exchange of metal coins and printed pieces of paper. However, because of recent developments in technology, the international community should consider replacing the entire system of coins and paper with a system of electronic accounts of credits and debits.”

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.

Theoretically, electronic accounts sounds like a reasonably good idea to me. Till the time electronic money is backed by Gold reserves and foreign exchange reserves, its credibility is no less than paper and metal based currency system. Such a step would be environment friendly as it would save enormous amount of paper and metal. With money safely encrypted in hard drives and not safes, it would also discourage criminals from committing petty thefts, robberies and pick-pocketing. It would also make transactions quicker, faster, safer, accurate and more reliable. Currency trading would also benefit from such a transition. Making stocks, bonds and other money-market instruments electronic has strengthened money markets the world over.  Hence it is not far-fetched or unreasonable to assume that actual money may take the same path. In fact credit cards and debit cards seem like miniature flag bearers of an era when money would become totally electronic. 

However the practical implementation of the same is still a distant reality. It is not that we simply need to raise the standards of e-security to neutralize threats from hackers in form of electronic thefts and data misuse. The basic problem is lack of development and technology in a big part of the world. The first world countries cannot exist in isolation and need to reach out to other developing countries too. In the end a system can be only as strong as its weakest link. With that perspective it can be really dangerous to suddenly turn the currency system electronic. Over time it is inevitable but is difficult to implement all over the world right now.

The last question is the amount of information that such a system can place in anybody's hand is very dangerous. The possibility of somebody being able to watch every financial transaction done anywhere on the planet is, somehow, not very comforting. Hence this system has to be backed by strong privacy laws to prevent Governments and corporations from covertly spying on people or each other. 

Concluding, I agree with the basic vision presented as it will work for the benefit of a large number of people. Similar revolution in money markets support the idea. However to implement it on the world level is difficult due to prevalent disparity in development. Such a system also needs to be put in check with strong laws to prevent blatant misuse.

Giving Advice

“The best way to give advice to other people is to find out what they want and then advise them how to attain it.”

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

It is said in many different ways across various cultures that people who give unsolicited advice often get into trouble. Salt and advice should not be passed until asked for. There are a score of folk-lores and parables built around it in Zen literature and Hindu scriptures too. So, for starters, I do not believe in giving unsolicited advice and hence do not agree with the basic assumption of the statement that one wants to readily give advice.

Provided we are in a situation that we have decided to give advice, I agree that at least we need to find out what other person wants before advising him. The problem is how do you know what the other person wants? With no God given gifts of omniscience and no worldly qualification in psychology a lot of people can find this exercise, lets say, a bit difficult. Provided that they can do it or the other party clearly states it, possibly good advice can be given. Seriously. However a good advice cannot be function of knowing only what the other person wants.

The basic problem is that no two people have the same experience. So while giving advice one has to keep in mind that despite his best intentions the person in question may not be able to implement the advice in its spirit. This is precisely what makes the whole advice giving business so hazardous when one considers only the stated need of the other party. One also needs to remember that generally changes do not come overnight. So even if you know what the other person wants, any short term advice will seldom if ever work. Advice, if asked for, needs to take into account not only what the other person wants but also what he needs, the unpredictable human nature, long term nature of change and the responsibility giving advice brings. One has to also keep in mind the other person's sincerity and intention. If the person is not sincere or plans to use the advice to harm somebody then it may be better to not give it. If all these factors are not kept in mind, giving advice will not work for the benefit of the concerned person.

Artificial Sweeteners or Sugar?

The following appeared in the health section of a magazine on trends and lifestyles:

“People who use the artificial sweetener aspartame are better off consuming sugar, since aspartame can actually contribute to weight gain rather than weight loss. For example, high levels of aspartame have been shown to trigger a craving for food by depleting the brain of a chemical that registers satiety, or the sense of being full. Furthermore, studies suggest that sugars, if consumed after at least 45 minutes of continuous exercise, actually enhance the body’s ability to burn fat. Consequently, those who drink aspartame-sweetened juices after exercise will also lose this

calorie-burning benefit. Thus it appears that people consuming aspartame rather than sugar are unlikely to achieve their dietary goals.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The argument is reasonably well thought. The writer points to the fact that higher level of aspartame can trigger craving for food. This fact definitely makes aspartame less attractive for people who control their diets in order to control weight. The writer further supports his argument by pointing to the fact that sugar and not aspartame can increase the body's fat burning abilities if consumed after 45 minutes of continuous exercise. Again for people exercising to burn fats and stay trim this is another strong reason to take sugar. If the ultimate aim is to loose weight, then this argument undoubtedly presents good reasons to consume sugar instead of aspartame.

However, this reasoning will fall flat on its face if the dietary aims are not weight reduction. For example this reasoning cannot apply to people  following an alternative diet because they are suffering from diabetes or they are very thin people who wish to gain weight. The argument also safely ignores the possibility of the presence of other artificial sweeteners that may not have the same side-effects as aspartame. One may also counter-argue that the increase in appetite may not be such a bad thing if the person in question eats more fruits and salad. In effect it may actually be a good thing for somebody suffering from lack of appetite. The writer's argument is also silent about the real benefits one may get from the calorie burning effects of sugar given the fact that the sugar will also bring in more calories. If the extra calories that sugar bring are all that one burns due to increase in fat burning rate, the option to switch to sugar would no longer remain as attractive. 

Concluding, the argument seems to focus on people who wish to reduce their weight but generalizes the reasoning for everybody. Even for its key audience some key questions still remain unanswered. This affects the strength of reasoning. 

Seeking Business Opportunities

The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life:

“Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

I generally agree with the reasoning presented. The writer wishes to keep the city as a preferred choice for corporations seeking new business opportunities. It shows a forward thinking and a leadership aspiring for better opportunities for its people. New business not only bring in job opportunities, they also add to administration's coffers in form of direct and indirect taxes with both the company and the people contributing. With increased prosperity and more funds at its disposal the administration can work on improving the life of its citizens. However it is assumed that the concerned area has excellent environmental laws and meticulously planned industrial allocation. Without that the same industries may lead to problems and degradation of the area.

The writer points at unemployment rate to support his line of thinking. I agree with it as mushrooming new business keep unemployment in check. This is supported by the fact that the area has been an industrial centre historically and harbours a lot of manufacturing. Manufacturing is generally labour intensive. Even automated plants need skilled on-floor technicians, engineers, inventory managers etc. Hence it is logical to assume and reason that the area has lesser unemployment due to its industrial leadership.

The attempt to diversify the region's industry portfolio is a smart move and I agree that it can make the region more attractive. The fact that this diversification is into research and development makes the decision smarter. The research may be into subjects concerning current industries or something different. This has the potential of making the region attractive to not only the current industries but will also attract newer industries. All in all this can cement the region's position as the leading industrial centre. With these decisions in place, corporations will definitely look to the city when seeking new business opportunities.

Success

“There is only one definition of success—to be able to spend your life in your own way.”

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this definition of success? Support your position by using reasons and examples from your reading, your own experience, or your observation of others.

I strongly disagree with this statement. First of all it is a relative world. People see things in different ways and hence one mold cannot fit all. To claim anything to the only way reeks of a nauseating arrogance, fanaticism and self-righteousness. To any such idea I can just say one thing: thanks but no thanks.

The writer reckons that success is being able to spend your life in your way. The ability to spend life in one's own way has economic, political and cultural consequences.

On the economic front a person may want to be able to afford all possible luxuries. Associating success with monetary gains promotes greed and de-humanization of poor. It promotes an egoistic "dog-eat-dog" world concept and wasteful consumerism. It condemns the people with this belief into a perpetual race of material acquisitions with a constant restless feeling of ambition and getting more. Please understand that I am not advocating a socialist setup which is the same thing turned upside down. I am all in for a better life minus the greed. I also believe that a person cannot judge his success on basis of money only.

Politically and culturally this definition of success may translate into forcing the person's point of view on a large majority many of whom may not agree with it. To drive home the point: if Hitler would have been able to spend his life his way, one can just imagine how the world would have looked like. People often have conflicting views and that is why there is a Government that may enforce a particular political system. Without that there would be anarchy with a lot of groups trying to be "successful" in imposing there will. After all success is the ability to spend your life in your own way. Or is it?

Definition of success varies from people to people. It is not always a selfish "me-first" definition that insists on doing everything it's way. Success, at the end of the day, is a meaning that people try to impart to their existence. For some it is family, for some welfare of society and for some even staying alive! When asked what is success, Buddha said that success is a smile that nobody can take from you. With that I leave you to wonder what success really is for you.

How Much Team Work is Good?

“All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties. Giving one person central authority and responsibility for a project or task is not an effective way to get work done.”

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Support your views with reasons and/or specific examples drawn from your own work or school experiences, your observations, or your reading.

I agree that it is ideal and good to have a team in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties. The idea appeals to the basic human , democratic and egalitarian sense. It echoes the view that everybody is equal and hence needs to play an equal role. However I am not so sure about the practical feasibility of this idea.

Before I am accused of being a totalitarian, I can assert in no uncertain terms that I absolutely support the central tenets of democracy and equality. However I am also a firm believer in meritocracy. Socialistic and communistic attitudes scare me as history shows a score of countries and institutions more often going down the path of self-destruction and mediocrity due to taking the so-called egalitarian inclusive route. Let's face it: we would like everybody to be equal but people are simply not equal. Every human being is unique in terms of thinking, personality, attitude, intentions and goals. One cast cannot fit all. It is ridiculous to expect everybody to display good leadership skills and display the willingness to take responsibility. Forcing it down somebody's throat or giving decision making power to somebody who simply does not care can be catastrophic. It may be useful to do so as a part of some social experiment is some college and then may be use the findings in the corporate culture. Replacing the current system of chain of command with an unproven system is not a risk I would be willing to take with my company.

The companies generally work on the principle of sharing responsibility. Good managers know how to delegate and not micro-manage. However key decisions are always best left to an expert or a panel of experts. A central authority can monitor the progress and keep things in check. This cuts down red-tapism and speeds up decisions. This, of course, brings in the age old cliche of "who shall guard the guards?". This can be achieved by a 360 degree feedback in which people are allowed to give feedback on the central authority and vice-versa. Periodical reviews and strong adherence to processes can cut down misuse of power and force people to be on their toes. It is not wise to replace a central authority with a group of people without taking into account their suitability for the job and the red- tapism it can bring in.

Concluding, an organization essentially works on the idea of sharing responsibilities and duties at a macro level. At a micro level, however, these need to be precise in order to avoid confusion. Every man's servant is often no man's servant. Responsibilities, duties and decision making powers need to be a function of personal drive, ability, track record, suitability and experience. Any other way would not be beneficial for the institution . Having a central authority responsible is not a bad idea if it can be backed by regular reviews, 360 feedback policies and strong processes.