Tuesday, 26 August 2014

GRE writing - issue task: Scandals

Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Scandals occur in many places from schools through companies to governments. The word scandal itself indicates a negative thing and something that should not have happened. In my opinion, by definition, a scandal brings only unnecessary and harmful consequences and it is rather very hard to find any positive or useful aspects of it. This is often the case that we are distracted by scandals and our attention is drawn from vital issues. Thus, in my view scandals are not useful and should be eschewed.

First of all, it is worth considering a few scandals that took place in recent years. The one that stuck to my mind was Bill Clinton's sex scandal (or so called Monica Lewinsky scandal) which ensued many debates in the United States. Indeed, Bill Clinton's private misconduct drew attention of many Americans. Although the nature of this affair was not strictly political, many politicians were engaged in it in lieu of taking care of more important cases that more meaningful influence on the whole nation. As a matter of fact, probably teachers or preachers who harangue about proper behaviour and faithfulness would not have been able to show in a more expressive way what would be consequences of such misconduct. Anyway, this showed to other politicians that they should avoid such issues and conduct their private life prudently. Moreover, citizens no longer want to put their trust in politician who were involved in scandals.

In many scandals, there is shocking information which can arouse our emotions for a short time. Nowadays, even small issues are called scandals by media. We are bombarded with new heinous news and sometimes we come to the level of saturation. Some can say that thanks to these events our lives are more interesting and full of excitement but, to my mind, the proper and effective way of life is a stable development based on moral conduct and righteous deeds.

There were many scandals regarding racism in the United States and many of them ended up with more tensions between people and a lot of regret. On the other hand, most people remember the speech by Martin Luter King: “I have a dream ...”. This was a very powerful and unforgettable message that influenced many human beings and altered the race relations for better.

Conclusively, in my opinions sandals are rather useless and should be prevented. We can introduce new laws and rules which can make sure that nothing improper will be overlooked or evaded. There should be harsh consequences and nobody would be able to eschew them. The main purpose is to achieve transparency. Furthermore, we should listen to our great leaders, speakers and reformers who have crucial messages for us that can boost our lives and make them truly invaluable.

1 comment:

  1. One may argue that scandals are a way media can attract public attention to some important issues. This is because they become well-known, widely-discussed and sometimes increase awarness in particular problematic areas. However, in my opinion scndals are mainly to denigrate particular people and often have more to do with bombaticism than with the real problem illumination.
    First of all, scandals are mostly related to the specific wrongdoing, but do not point out how the problem should be solved in a right way or what is the desired way of doing things. In that way it only learns a lesson what no to do. They focus on negative aspects of society and malfunctioning and sometimes can create an impression that people and "world" in general is bad by nature. In contrast, reformers usually show how to solve problems in a particular, proposed way so they offer a solution and positive contribution. Giving an example of Enron company, it only showed duplicity of its high-claimed goals related to environment protection and the real clandestine malfunctioning which ended up in a big scandal. But in my opinion in did not give an example to follow, just served as an anti-example and increased frustration of not only its workers but also fear of employees all over the world that the same thing might happen to them. The same relates to scandals related to information security – the public finds out about the information leakage, but does it mean that particular preventive measures are taken up? According to psychology, everyone believes the rare, bad thing will not happen to them.
    Secondly, for some people scandals are actually mean to show up and get famous. Without the event they would not have been so widely known and recognized. What is more they do not actually care for the reason they became famous, they are just complacent that they became legend or recognized in any way. People involved in "planned" scandals believe that it is better to make mistakes than just stay boring in the shadows. Following this reasoning, scandals draw attention to people who crave popularity and recognition even if it were for the bad cause. On the other hand, humble and worthy people, such as scientists, for example, rarely draw attention because of scandals, rather they gain fame through their inventions or contributions. Scandals are a mean fro people who want "easy" fame and usually they have nothing much valuable to offer.
    Thirdly, I would argue with the statement that scandals are useful in any way. It comes without doubt that peple should be punished for the wrongdoing – this is the base of the law system the most society live in – but I do not believe it should be made public. Those people involved in scandals will pay their dues by the punishment they receive, but do they need additional ostracism? What purpose does it actually serve? I would postualte scandals are means for media companies to make money on good stories thay would increase the sale of their newspapers or TV programme popularity. So it serves rather the media companies' ineterst than the interest of the public.
    In conclusion, I wish not to argue that sometimes scandals draw attention to important social and public-interest problem, I would just like to point out it is not an effective mean for solving problems, as it most often serves as negative examples and does not show the positive one. I think more attention should be drawn to edifying and contributing reforms, plans, achievements, so that general public have better feeling of environment they live in, are not overburden with the "bad side" of the world and are given an exemplar path to follow.