“If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable.”

As humans, it is only natural to have dreams or goals. Goals serve as a mental visualization and motivation towards the ends we seek to achieve. As we work towards our goals, we take certain actions and steps to ensure our success in attaining said goals. The topic statement claims that if a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable. However, I disagree with the sentiments raised by the statement as the worthiness of a goals is too subjective and can be twisted to suit the needs of a selfish individual. Also, by taking any means to attain a goal, good and kind virtues can be sacrificed in the process.

In order to better illustrate my views, I shall break the topic statement into separate components for better analysis: the worthiness of the goal and the means taken to attain it.

First, what defines a worthy goal? For different people, it can take on very different meanings. It can be a goal on a personal context; trying to hit that certain weight target, or trying to attain certain level of scores in examinations and so on. Others have goals that covers a wider context; goals striving for social and economic equality in the society, world peace and many more. All the above mentioned goals are reasonable goals and ultimately serve to benefit either the individual or the society, but what about goals that are selfish, evil and ultimately harms other people?

It is undeniable that goals are of a subjective matter. As mentioned, different people have different goals. What one deems as a worthy goal might not hold the same for another. Humans are inherently selfish beings and selfish goals can always be manipulated to justify its worthiness in the eyes of the beholder, even at the expense of others. Adolf Hitler sanctified the mass genocide of millions of Jews in chasing his goals of a pure Aryan society. The horror that occurred shocked the world and remains an indelible black mark in history. Were the goals pursued by Hitler's vision worthy? To him, it was. However, still remaining are the fact that millions of lives were sacrificed to attain this goal. A goal that is considered 'worthy' can always be twisted to suit the selfish context of an individual. It is impossible to value the worthiness of a goal as its definition is subjective and leaves too much space for ambiguity.

Also, in pursuing a worthy goal, one must also take into consideration the steps or actions taken to attain the goal. Among the questions one should ask are: Who does the goals benefit? Who are the person or persons affected in the path of pursuing this goal? How does it affect others? By taking the Machiavellian approach as presented by the topic statement, morality and virtues that are considered essentially good can be potentially compromised by the actions taken to attain the goal. If any means can be used to justify the attainment of a worthy goal, a person can stoop to murder, stealing, and any other sort of evil doings. At what point should a person lose his or her humanity? As rational and logical beings, we have been raised to have good values and have a kind disposition towards others. Should we sacrifice all of that and revert to base creatures in order to attain a goal? At some point, the lines must be drawn.

In sum, it is not incorrect to take any means to attain a goal, even if it is deemed worthy. The universal value of what makes a 'worthy' goal is too subjective to establish, and an evil goal can be twisted to the justify the needs of a selfish individual. Also, one should take into consideration the means taken to attain a goal as it can potentially compromise morals and values that are considered inherently good.

"If a society is to thrive, it must put its own overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens."

To promote a thriving society, is it more important to place a higher value on the success of the society as a whole over the well-being of its constituents? A long contested issue, many have debated over the merits of both the value of the society as whole over the value of individual well-being. The topic statement above claims the former. Though some might view this statement as selfish and unreasonable, I am in agreement with the sentiments of the topic statement. I shall present my arguments as follows.

In order to understand the merits of placing an importance on society's success as a whole, we need to look at the issue from a “top-down” point of view. As with any organizational hierarchy, all the decisions and policy-making needs to come from a higher level of the organization. The decision makers need to take into consideration all the factors that would promote the overall well-being of the organization; the mission statement, the kind of image the organization wants to promote, the work environment and so on. Even though the individual factor is important as well, one must place a higher value on the success of the organization as a whole for the decisions made need to benefit the majority of the constituents, not just a select few individuals. It is same with a society. Policies and decisions that are made with the success of a society as a whole in mind would work better to benefit majority of its citizens, not just a select few.

To promote a thriving society, one must step back and take a look at the bigger picture. In focusing too much on the well-being of individual citizens, one could lose focus on the overall context and overemphasize on unnecessary details. Though some might argue that this is a callous way of approaching the issue, it is too difficult to provide the best for every single citizen. Each individual citizen have different wants and needs, and to accommodate every person's needs in a society that is composed of thousands, millions, or even billions of people is just impossible.

What are the signs of a successful, thriving society? Among them are a solid infrastructure, a booming economy, a skilled and educated workforce and so on. If a society is successful in the above mentioned factors, the benefits that are reaped by the society as a whole would eventually trickle down to its citizens. A simple illustration: a solid infrastructure provides efficient transportation systems and highways, which in turn makes trade and businesses run easier. With a trade-conducive environment, foreign investors are more inclined to invest in the country which in turn creates more jobs opportunities for its citizens. With the rise in job demand, a country would gear towards creating a better education system and policies to build an educated and skilled workforce to serve that demand.

By focusing too much on the individual level, the benefits created would only promote the interest of a select group and potentially create inequality on a societal context. For example, Malaysia is a country of mixed races and origins. The country is composed of many races including Malays who are considered the original natives of the country as well as a conglomeration of other immigrant races that have settled in the country over the years. The government of Malaysia, in trying to protect the interest of the native Malays, have implemented many policies that only benefit the Malays including a racial quota system for university entrance requirements, lower interest rates for house loans among others.

In conclusion, there is a need to place an importance of the overall success of a society over the well-being of its individual citizens. By looking at the larger picture, better decisions and policies are created and the benefits created by those policies will benefit the citizens on an individual level. Also, by focusing on the overall success of a society prevents the myopic view of just concentrating on the problems of a select individuals which in turn could create inequality on a larger context.

"Society's external rewards are no measure of true success. True success can be measured only in relation to the goals one sets for oneself."

“What does success mean to you?” This is a question that might seem very familiar to many interviewees. At a cursory glance, the definition of success seems like such a simple thing. The definition of success is subjective; each person might have a different definition of what success means to them. In view of all possible meanings of success, how is success measured? Are the measures of success defined by society's external rewards? Or is is something that is defined by individual goals that one sets for oneself? The topic issue claims the latter. I believe that the measurement of success in relation to both society's external rewards and one's own personal goal are both equally relevant. However, I also take the stand that society's external rewards is only secondary and incidental to the measurement of success in relation to one's personal goals.

In order to analyze the topic statement above, first let us look at the definition of society's external rewards. How is individual success rewarded by society? The most obvious answer to this question is public recognition and approval or fame. Humans are social creatures, and there is a need for them to seek approval and recognition from their peers. It is not necessarily negative thing as it can create healthy competition and drive. For example, an individual can aspire to be a world-class champion swimmer. A gold medal in the Olympics game can be a good validation of his or her ambitions. Even though societal rewards can serve as a good motivation, is it the ultimate measure of success? To say that society's external rewards is a true measure of success is to imply a person only does something with the end goal of public recognition. In the same vein as the example given above, what sparked the motivation for a person to start swimming competitively? It most likely started out as personal interest which grew into full blown competitive activity.

Personal goals and satisfaction are important factors in the measure of success. To measure success just by society's external rewards is erroneous for it entirely disregards the importance of intrinsically good qualities like diligence, hard work and fair play. If reaping societal rewards are the only motivation towards success, everyone would be too consumed with materialistic and superficial gains without considering the importance of personal satisfaction or nobler goals. Many noted figures in history did not pursue their success for glory and fame. For example, Nobel Peace Prize winner and prisoner of conscience Aung San Suu Kyi did not pursue her path of choice because she wanted fame and glory. She did it for personal reasons for she believed in liberating her people from the harsh military regime of Myanmar.

In sum, both societal rewards and personal goals are a good way to measure success. However, measurement of success in terms of societal rewards are only secondary to measurement based on one's personal goals. After all, a person is first and foremost influenced by their own personal reasons for wanting to pursue success in the first place. Secondly, if success is only measured by society's external rewards, noble values such as hard work, diligence and others would be ignored.

"The past is no predictor of the future."

“The past is no predictor of the future.” It is an age-old philosophical statement that has sparked debates on both sides of the fence. Some take the existentialist approach with the proposal that the future only exist from the exact moment it was created; the past is irrelevant to its creation. The opposing team of this view suggest that the past can be used as an accurate prognostic tool to make an educated guess on the outcome of the future. However, I take a more moderate stance between the two. While there are many aspects of the past that can be used to make an educated guess about the future, one should not discredit unknown future events that could throw off the predicted outcome.

There are many areas and disciplines in our lives that have a recurrent trend or pattern that can be used to make a fairly accurate depiction of the future. In fact, the use of historical information or data for future predictions is a method that is used very commonly in many areas. For example, the data of a population census can be used to project the future number of a country's population. If there was a increasing trend in the numbers over the past few years, one can safely assume that the numbers would continue to follow an upward trend over the next year or so. Likewise, in the business field, historical trends and data are used to project the outcome of demand and supply of a company's product. Though there is a possibility that the actual outcome might not reflect the predicted forecast exactly, to a certain extent it is safe to say that the past can be used as an predictor of the future.

Like math, there are many variables in the equation in life that can throw all certainties off-kilter. Even if we are armed with the ability to establish a formulaic approach that provides the best predictions, one should always consider the unknown factors or events that can change the outcome. Nothing is set in stone. An outstanding student with an excellent track record could be expected to pass the next exam with flying colors. However, there is also the possibility of the student failing the exam due to unforeseen circumstances like a severe injury, or distraction from his or her studies from an unexpected romance. Also, pulling from the first example of the previous paragraph, a nation's anticipated population growth could take a downturn due to war, or an epidemic disease and so on.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my views on the topic issue. While I agree with the topic statement, I do not believe in the absolute view that it has presented. To a certain extent, the past can be used as an predictor of the future for there are recurrent historical trends and patterns that can be used to make an educated guess of the future. However, I also believe that one must also take into consideration the possibility of unknown factors and events that can affect the predicted outcome.

"The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."

The course of human history have seen the rise and fall of many nations and civilizations. Historians have long pored over the annals of history, analyzing the factors that had contributed to the achievements of societies. The indicators of what makes a great nation, whether one that has existed in the past or in the present is a conglomeration of many ideas. The topic statement above proposes that the surest indicator of a great nation is not in the achievements of its rulers, artists of scientists, but instead the general welfare of all its people. I am in concordance with the author's statement above. However I believe that the achievements of a nation's rulers, artists and scientists are synonymous to the general welfare of the people, instead of being separate as implied above.

When one thinks of the general welfare of a society, among the buzzwords that come to mind are political freedom, personal safety, education systems, public health care, high standards of living and so on. The people is what makes a nation. A successful nation strives to provide its people with all of those amenities. A nation where its people are happy and are well-provided for is generally peaceful and is a conducive place for social, technological, political and economic growth. On the other hand, a nation where its people are unhappy and not well-provided for is a place for potential social unrest.

As an illustration, let us look at two very different countries: Switzerland and Myanmar. Switzerland has been ranked among one of the countries that provide the highest standards of living in the world, which is inclusive of an efficient health care system and free education for all their citizens. Their success is reflected in their social, political and economic stability. On the other hand, Myanmar is a complete opposite representation of Switzerland. A country that has been backed by a harsh autocratic military regime for years, the citizens of Myanmar have long been oppressed and denied of many basic human rights. Even though the country is rich with natural resources, the people do not enjoy any of the wealth that comes with it. Instead they live in poor and squalid conditions. These conditions, on top of their lack of political freedom has led to many social uprising, which has most recently culminated into the public demonstrations by the monks in Yangon. By using the illustration of these two countries, it is fair to say that the general welfare of a nation's people is the surest indicator of a great/successful nation.

The topic statement above implies that the general welfare is a separate realm from the achievements of its rulers, artists and scientists. However, both are interdependent. A society that has the welfare of its people on its mind would aim to provide essential amenities like a good education system as well as an efficient social and health care system. A nation can only be successful with all these provisions. A nation is dependent on the talent and labor skills that the people can offer to the society;a good education system exist as the machine that generates the intellectuals, the artists and the politicians of the society. Good health care and social services are also very important to a society for without them, a society would be rife with both physical and social ills which would impede the progress of a society. As one can clearly see, there is a correlation between the general welfare of the people and the defining achievements of a nation as generated by its rulers,artists and scientists.

As a conclusion, I would like to reiterate my agreement with the statement as presented by the topic issue. A nation that provides well for its people has the potential for a nation to grow into greatness; it promotes a conducive ground for political, economic and social growth. The achievements of a nation's rulers, artists and scientists are important indicators of a great nation as well but their achievements are tied to the general welfare of the society.

The arts (music, dance, visual arts, etc.) are vitally important to students' education and should therefore receive as much emphasis as mathematics,

The arts (music, dance, visual arts, etc.) are vitally important to students' education and should therefore receive as much emphasis as mathematics, science, reading and other mainstream subjects."

In today’s modern society, most educational institutions strive to provide a curriculum that balances between the arts and hard sciences. However, there is an ongoing debate between the value of the arts as compared to hard sciences in education. Some argue that hard sciences or other mainstream subjects should be given more priority as it provides more of a practical value in the real world. On the other hand, proponents of the arts in education suggest that the arts hone the creativity and hidden impulses of a student. In my opinion, I believe that it is important to strike a balanced medium between the two. To place an exaggerated emphasis on the value of either one is unfair for both the arts and other mainstream subjects hone the students’ minds in different ways.

The purpose of education is to equip students with knowledge and skills that can be used throughout the life of a student. True, subjects such as mathematics and science have a more quantifiable value for they are basic skills that can used in many disciplines. For example, mathematics is a skill that can be used either in the business arena, to calculate personal finances or to be used in the scientific sphere to calculate formulas. However, one should also consider the values that arts can contribute to the daily life of a person. Consider the value of the arts. The arts are able to hone other aspects of thought that mainstream subjects are unable to hone—creativity, appreciation of beauty, individualism and so on.

Though new discoveries are constantly made in the disciplines that require knowledge of hard sciences, the truth is this: Disciplines that are firmly ingrained in hard sciences are limited fields. Hard sciences are formulaic and work from a limited framework of understanding. We are bound by formulas, physical constraints, and previously established theories. Though it trains a person to think analytically, it could potentially lead a person to just think in terms of constraints and limitations and therefore lead to a stagnation of creativity. Creativity is an essential component in any discipline for it enables us to view things from different perspectives. A person limited by established ideas and training would be unable to generate new product ideas for the consumer market, or invent new technologies that have never come across the human mind before.

The education of arts is subjective for the expression of art comes from within the artist himself. Each person is different, and an expression in the arts might reveal facets of the human mind that has never occurred to another person before. Each expression of the arts-- whether it is expressed in a painting, a play or a sonnet—reflects the experience of the artist of the time. As an example, a student exposed to works of the Surrealist era would be exposed to a time where people are rebelling towards a mostly conservative society. The arts is a form of culture containment and with the implementation of education of the arts, students are exposed to culture and views of people of the past.

It is undeniable that mainstream subjects such as mathematics, science and reading is an important part of a student’s educational process. However, if we only take this narrow scope into consideration, one could easily overlook the values that the arts can provide a person.

"The study of an academic discipline alters the way we perceive the world. After studying the discipline, we see the same world as before, but with di

"The study of an academic discipline alters the way we perceive the world. After studying the discipline, we see the same world as before, but with different eyes."

Education is an important component of a person’s life. In the course of our educational progress, we move from more simplistic forms of education to more complex ones. The study of a specific academic discipline further deepens our comprehension in a specialized field. The study of an academic discipline does not necessarily alter how we perceive the world per se, but it provides a deeper and more mature understanding of the way things work around us.

When we pursue a specific academic discipline, we are provided a specialized education to understand the theories and mechanics of the discipline. A person pursuing medical study learns about the parts of the human body and its corresponding functions, a criminologist are trained to detect patterns that point towards criminal behavior and so on. The specialized education provides a detailed insights and knowledge that an untrained person would not have access to. Therefore, it is not to say that the study of an academic discipline changes the way we see the world. We simply gain an awareness of the details of the discipline in the real world that we would not have seen before otherwise.

As a child in school, we are taught the basic knowledge of language, mathematics and other disciplines. As we move to higher tiers of education, we are gradually eased from rudimentary educational content to progressively complex ones. The knowledge the child gains from the lower tiers of education serves as a foundation for more complex knowledge. The knowledge gained does not drastically change the child’s perception of the world around him or her; the knowledge gained is simply used as stepping stones for subsequent educational training. It is the same for a person trained in an academic discipline. When we are trained in a specific discipline, we gain an understanding of the details that we would not have understood previously. As an example, if we are not well versed in the study of astronomy, we merely perceive stars as twinkling lights in the sky. Our judgment is based on superficial knowledge and observations. A seasoned astronomer however would be able discern the difference between a planet and a star and provide names for the constellation formations and so on.

In sum, the study of an academic discipline does not necessarily alter our perception of the way we perceive the world. It merely provides us an awareness of the applications and patterns of the academic discipline in the real world that we would not have noticed before the formal training.