Date: 5.19.2017 / Article Rating: 5 / Votes: 2256 #Research papers on gmos

Recent Posts

Home >> Uncategorized >> Research papers on gmos

Essay Writer for All Kinds of Papers - research papers on gmos

Nov/Sat/2017 | Uncategorized

Order Essay Online -
Free modified foods Essays and Papers -…

Nov 11, 2017 Research papers on gmos, custom essay order -

Genetically Modified Foods Research Papers -…

board game homework What do you have your students do at each of the stations? What do you have them do in papers the computer lab? What is Image Making Alley? and Picture Writing Path? Thanks! Some of those street names don#39;t have an activity/prize. they are just gameboard spaces. The image making and picturing writing are named after a program we use for Language Arts. The computer lab is product, kind of like the Go to research Jail place in Monopoly.

I just love this idea. I have been trying to get your gameboard and prize cards, but everytime I click on it, nothing comes up. Can you email me these? I would be forever greatful. My email is Essay, Thank you so much. I have been looking for some homeworkopoly boards- LOVE yours! I am looking for research, a version that I can edit (I#39;m doing a hollywood theme this year) and was wondering where you got yours.

What font did you use to create your Homeworkopoly board? I just LOVE it! Hi Liz! Thanks, I made it myself, but there are blank game templates out there you could modify. ooohhhh. yeah! I already have that font. I have never used it! Thanks for the quick reply. I am making my board to match my Hollywood theme this year! I will let you know how it turns out! I can#39;t get my capital letter at Debating the Motivating Essay, the beginning to be bigger, like you did.

Any suggestions? Do you mean on the street names? That#39;s a combination of research two fonts. Zoos Are Cruel! I think Elephants for the capital and smiley monster for the rest of the word. YES! Thanks so much!

I LOVE LOVE LOVE your homework board and research papers, didn#39;t change much (actually, just the product position spaces for the cards they draw!) YOU ROCK! Those are my two new favorite fonts-thanks to research papers on gmos you! I love this idea!! Do you have game pieces with each student#39;s name on them? Or do you just have one that everyone plays? Thanks! I am wondering about the game pieces as well. Do you leave them on the board all week long or how do you do that?

How large is your Homeworkopoly area? Hi!! The pieces are just math chips taped to egg great the board (one for each kid, with their initials in Sharpie). This is great! Thank you for sharing! Is there a way for papers on gmos, me to just adapt your board to fit my classroom needs?

I love your setup compared to Sexuality the one on research papers, plus I do not have the same font. Women's Sexuality! I just wanted to change the writing and drawing aspects of the board. Research On Gmos! Thanks! Sorry Kim, only have the file as a pdf! Kristen, I loved this so much that I#39;m trying it out in my class! We played our first round yesterday for students who completed all of the homework for the week. They were so excited to play and Debating the Motivating Essay, were already talking about playing again next week. For the Math and Spelling questions, I found some great task cards for 5th grade that serve as a review of papers previous content in math and vocabulary review for the spelling.

When answering the question, they still get a prize- a school Cougar Paw (our PBS incentive). For their tokens, I cut out small circles from card stock and product position, used those small school picture stickers we always get. On Gmos! The kiddos were so excited to see their picture as their token! Thanks so much for sharing this idea and zoos are cruel, the board! It#39;s a big hit so far among my students and research, co-workers! :) AH! As a teacher without a classroom, I am REALLY excited to get to use this one day!

Thank you SO much for sharing! Love this idea it is brilliant :D! I am just wondering whether it would be possible to federalist send your PDF document of the board to It would be much appreciated, thanks :) I have been looking for some type of Monopoly Homework board forever. I am so glad that I came across yours. I teach Jr.

High students so I have about research on gmos, 80 a day. I am planning on doing it as a whole class incentive and egg great, they get to move if the whole class gets their homework turned in. Would you be able to email me your board? Thank You! Love the idea! What do the students do when they land on go to the computer room? Is there a prize? And must they roll doubles to research papers on gmos get out transdisciplinary play-based assessment, like in research on gmos monopoly? Also, is there a prize when they pass go? Last question, does ever chance card have a prize, or do some of them say go forward 1 space, etc.

So excited to do this next year! This idea is AMAZING! Thank you so much for sharing. I would be VERY VERY grateful if you could email me the west gatsby links; I can#39;t get them to open. (Board and cards) Thank you thank you thank you for research papers, helping me motivate my kids to federalist papers learn! I made a Smartboard version of this game since the wall version took up too much space. My kids love doing homework so they can play. I have been using it for research on gmos, years. I love your version as well. Thanks for sharing. Kim - 3rd Grade Plato, MO. Thank you so much for sharing.

I will be using this board with my 2nds next year. Gatsby! I will assign each child a number and write that on papers, their chip. Zoos Are Cruel! We have children move in research papers and out the Motivating for Hackers Essay, so often that assigning numbers is papers, easier than trying to erase names on papers, all my classroom management boards. Research On Gmos! I love this! I have used something similar for the last 4 years. I use thumb tacks with their numbers on it As game pieces to go around the papers 78 summary board. I#39;ve included things like lunch with the principal (my principal is cool), all jobs for the day, move desk to chosen location for the day, line leader for the day, etc. It works well. I randomly chose 2 times a week to do it and all their homework has to be done that day. The beautiful things is they never know when ill do it. Research Papers! I LOVE your board!

I am so looking forward to using it in my class next year. Women's Sexuality Essay! Thank you so much for sharing! =) I am doing this in my classroom also. What would you suggest for the student game pieces that they move around the board? I was thinking bobby pins that they could tie their favorite color ribbon. I will have about papers, 29 students in one group. I think that#39;s a great idea! I just taped up bingo chips with their initials on them, but I love your idea :) Paper Clips would probably work too! I would love this for my classroom . The Motivating! What did you use// how did you make this ? I would love a copy of your gameboard also! I think this is papers on gmos, awesome and look foward to placing mine in a classroom when I get one! Please email to:

My parapro created a board for Sexuality Essay, our classroom this past school year and it was such a hit!! They begged to play it every friday (as long as they completed and turned in their homework on time!) She glued the research gameboard to a small, moveable bulletin board and used pushpins with cutout hornets glued to them (our logo) and product statement, wrote their names on papers, each pin. West Gatsby! The kids rolled the die and on gmos, moved their pin the amount. They loved the ability to do it themselves , too. Zoos Are Cruel! We then made a separate pocket chart with their names and put their chance or community cards with their names so we could keep up with the special activity or prize they received. Such an awesome idea! I love this idea. Thanks for sharing.

I have always done a game time but this sounds like more fun! Hi. This is research papers on gmos, so cute! Do the students just get one roll per Friday? If so, what happens when they land on a property where there is no reward? Thanks so much! Hi. This is so cute! Do the statement students just get one roll per Friday? If so, what happens when they land on papers on gmos, a property where there is no reward?

Thanks so much! Yup, just on Fridays (though I don#39;t use this board anymore, it#39;s from a couple of years ago). Transdisciplinary! When they landed on a blank space, it was just a move on the board. :) I#39;m a little confused. . do the children only get #39;prizes#39; if they land on #39;collect a card#39; or the colored spaces as well. Research Papers! I don#39;t use this anymore, it#39;s from a couple of zoos are cruel years back but yes, they did not get a prize for papers, every space, just the ones marked to get a card. Could I please get the smart board version sent to me?? Have a difficult class this year and think they will love this.

Thank you. Women's Sexuality Essay! Research Papers! I don#39;t have a smartboard version, sorry! Could I also get the Debating Factors for Hackers Essay smart board version sent to me? Anticipating homework difficulties for the upcoming school year. Thanks! Thank you so much for this amazing idea. Hello!

One of the comments posted was about on gmos, a smartboard version! I would love that file if possible. My email is federalist papers, if she could send it. Research On Gmos! I think it was Kim from Plato, MO. Sorry I don#39;t have a Smartboard version--just a pdf! :) Hi everyone! The post you are reading above is an older one, from 2010.

The downloads above are still available if you would like to use them, but I#39;ve since adapted my system a bit for the 2012-2013 school year.

Reflection paper on Genetically Modified Organisms…

Research papers on gmos

Write My Research Paper for Me -
Research Paper - GMO Position Paper -…

Nov 11, 2017 Research papers on gmos, write my research paper -

Free modified foods Essays and Papers -…

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Acts of recognition infuse many aspects of our lives such as receiving a round of applause from a rapt audience, being spotted in a crowded street by a long-forgotten friend, having an papers on gmos application for a job rejected because of your criminal record, enjoying some words of praise by egg great, a respected philosophy professor, getting pulled over by the police because you are a black man driving an expensive car, and fighting to have your same-sex marriage officially sanctioned in order to enjoy the same benefits as hetero-sexual marriages. Evidently the various ways we are recognised (and recognise others) play an important role in on gmos shaping our quality of Sexuality, life. Recognition theorists go further than this, arguing that recognition can help form, or even determine, our sense of who we are and research on gmos the value accorded to us as individuals. Political theories of recognition, which attempt to Essay reconfigure the research papers, concept of justice in terms of due or withheld recognition, can be contrasted with (but set alongside) the rise of Debating Factors Essay, multiculturalism, which has produced an array of literature focused on recognising, accommodating and respecting difference. Although these two trajectories overlap, there are important differences between them. Multicultural politics is rooted in papers on gmos the identity politics underlying various social movements that gained prominence during the 1960s, such as the Women's, civil rights movement and radical/cultural feminism. These movements tend to emphasise the distinctness and value of on gmos, their cultural identity and demand group-specific rights to protect this uniqueness. Without depreciating identity politics and multiculturalism, this article is primarily concerned with political theories of recognition, particularly those formulated by Charles Taylor (who is also a prominent figure in Factors for Hackers Essay multicultural politics), Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth.

These focus on the role played by research papers, recognition in individual identity formation and the normative foundation this can provide to theories of justice. Despite its brief history as an explicitly political concept, philosophical interest in the idea of position, recognition can be traced to the work of Hegel, who first coined the papers, phrase ‘struggle for recognition’ ( kampf um anerkennung ). This article begins by clarifying the specific political and philosophical meaning of recognition. It will provides an overview of Hegel’s remarks on recognition before proceeding to identify the contemporary advocates of transdisciplinary, recognition. It presents the main similarities and differences between these authors before examining some important criticisms levelled at papers concept of recognition. The conclusion is a reflection upon the increasing influence of recognition and zoos are cruel how it may develop in the future. The term ‘recognition’ has several distinct meanings: (1) an act of intellectual apprehension, such as when we ‘recognise’ we have made a mistake or we ‘recognise’ the influence of research, religion on American politics; (2) a form of identification, such as when we ‘recognise’ a friend in the street; and (3) the act of acknowledging or respecting another being, such as when we ‘recognise’ someone’s status, achievements or rights (upon the different meanings of recognition, see Inwood, 1992: 245-47; Margalit, 2001: 128-129). Federalist 78 Summary. The philosophical and papers political notion of recognition predominantly refers to (3), and the Motivating Factors Essay is often taken to mean that not only is recognition an important means of valuing or respecting another person, it is also fundamental to understanding ourselves. Various attempts have been made to clarify precisely what is, and is not, to count as an act of recognition (perhaps most comprehensively by Ikaheimo and Laitinen, 2007).

Ikaheimo (2002: 450) defines recognition as ‘always a case of A taking B as C in the dimension of papers on gmos, D, and B taking A as a relevant judge ’. Here A and zoos are cruel B indicate two individual persons, specifically A is the recogniser and B the recognisee. C designates the attribute recognised in A, and D is the dimension of B’s personhood at stake. For example, I may recognise you as a person possessing certain rights and responsibilities in papers on gmos light of Women's Sexuality, your being an autonomous, rational human being (for more on papers on gmos, defining the structure of recognition, see Laitinen, 2002). A key feature of Ikaheimo’s definition is that it requires not only that someone be recognised by another, but that the person being recognised judges that the recogniser is capable of conferring recognition. This means that we must place sufficient value in the recogniser in order for their attitude towards us to count as recognitive.

Brandom (2009) approaches this idea through the idea of authority, arguing that a genuine instance of recognition requires that we authorise someone to west egg great gatsby confer recognition. Similarly, one can gain authority and responsibility by petitioning others for recognition. Consequently, one has authority only insofar as one is recognised as authoritative. We may not consider being valued by a wilful criminal as any sort of recognition in research the sense being defined here. We do not judge them capable of conferring value on us, as we do not accord any value or respect to them. Similarly, someone who is coerced into recognising us may also fail to count as a relevant judge. A king who demands recognition of his superiority from papers 78 summary, all his subjects, simply in virtue of research on gmos, his being king, and threatens to punish them if they disobey, does not receive any meaningful kind of recognition for the subjects do not genuinely choose to confer value on him. Thus, in west recognising another, we must also be recognised as a subject capable of giving recognition.

This indicates that reciprocity or mutuality is likely to be a necessary condition of appropriate recognition (for a discussion of this point, see Laden, 2007). A further issue in defining recognition is whether it is generative or responsive (Laitinen, 2002; Markell, 2007). A generation-model of recognition focuses on papers, the ways in which recognition produces or generates reasons for actions or self-understandings. This is to say that someone ought to act in a certain way in virtue of being recognised as, for example, recognising someone as a rational being will generate certain duties and federalist responsibilities for both the person being recognised and those who interact with him. Research On Gmos. A response-model of recognition focuses on the ways in transdisciplinary assessment which recognition acknowledges pre-existing features of a person. Here, to recognise someone is to acknowledge them as they already really are (Appiah, 1994: 149).

This means that there are reasons why one ought to give recognition to research on gmos someone prior to the act of recognition itself. Transdisciplinary Play-based. Thus, for example, we ought to recognise someone’s ability to self-determination because they possess certain features, such as rational autonomy. The demand for recognition in a response-model is produced and justified through pre-existing characteristics of a person, whilst in the generation-model it is the act of recognition itself which confers those characteristics onto a person through their being recognised as such. The former is papers a case of person ‘knowing’, whilst the latter is a case of person ‘making’ (see Markell, 2002). A third issue is whether groups or collectives can count as recognisers and recognisees. For example, when speaking of recognising a particular cultural group, do we mean we recognise that group qua a group, or as a collection of individuals? Similarly, does the granting of certain rights or respect apply to the group itself or the individual members belonging to that group? (For a detailed discussion and defence of group-differentiated minority rights, see Kymlicka, 1995). These questions revolve, at least in part, around the Women's Sexuality Essay, ontological status afforded to groups or collectives. Advocates of a politics of recognition are not always clear regarding whether or not groups can be granted recognition. Debates over the legitimacy or sovereignty of a state may depend upon the extent to which we recognise it as legitimate or sovereign. Important discussions of groups as entities include Tuomela (2007), Jones (2009) and List and Pettit (2011).

However, as yet there has been little analysis of the papers on gmos, connection between recognition and Women's Essay the ontology of groups. On Gmos. Charles Taylor (1994) argues for the importance of collective rights, but gives little consideration to whether collectives are genuine subjects over-and-above the individuals that constitute them. In his more recent work, Axel Honneth (Fraser and Honneth 2003: 159ff.) appears to give consideration to the possibility of groups as the egg great, object of recognition, but his general emphasis is on individual rights and recognition. Common to all social and political notions of recognition is the shift from an atomistic to an intersubjective, dialogical understanding of the individual. Because our identity is shaped precisely through our relations to others, our being recognised by them, feelings of self-worth, self-respect and self-esteem are possible only research on gmos, if we are positively recognised for who we are. To this extent, theories of political recognition, which were first formulated in the 1990s, developed out of political movements centred upon Sexuality such concepts as gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and culture. Recognition, according to Taylor (1994), is an indispensible means of understanding and justifying the demands of these identity movements, which have had a major impact on society, particularly from the research on gmos, 1960s onwards. Consequently, for play-based many political theorists, recognition is an integral component of any satisfactory modern theory of research papers, justice as well as the means by which both historical and contemporary political struggles can be understood and justified.

In order to understand how such theories developed, it is necessary to examine their genesis within Hegel’s philosophy. Descartes’ dualistic philosophy of consciousness created an influential legacy in which the mind was characterised as a private theatre and knowledge of the federalist papers 78 summary, self was achieved through introspection. Research. This atomistic conception of zoos are cruel, self, encapsulated in Descartes’ cogito , filtered into the transcendental idealism of Kant (despite his objections to Descartes’ philosophy) and the transcendental phenomenology of Husserl, as well as being present in the contract theories of Hobbes and Locke. Against this trend there emerged a strongly intersubjective conception of selfhood that found expression through the concept of recognition, the founder of which is research papers typically identified as Hegel. Although Hegel has undoubtedly influenced the federalist, contemporary understanding of recognition more than any other philosopher, Hegel was himself inspired by papers, the work of Johann Fichte (see Williams, 1992).

In his Foundations of the Motivating Essay, Natural Right (1796/7), Fichte argues that the ‘I’ (the ego or pure consciousness) must posit itself as an individual to be able to understand itself as a free self. In order for such self-positing to occur, the individual must recognise itself as ‘summoned’ by another individual. This is to say, the individual must acknowledge the claims of other free individuals in order to understand itself as a being capable of action and possessing freedom. Hence, one’s freedom is both rendered possible and yet limited by research, the demands made on us by zoos are cruel, others. A key feature of research papers on gmos, this idea is that the same applies in reverse – the other can only assessment, comprehend itself as free by on gmos, being recognised as such.

Hence, mutual recognition is necessary for human beings to understand themselves as free individuals (as beings capable of ‘I-hood’). Zoos Are Cruel. Through this analysis, Fichte produced a thoroughly intersubjective ontology of humans and demonstrated that freedom and self-understanding are dependent upon mutual recognition. These ideas were developed in greater detail by Hegel. In his Phenomenology of Spirit Hegel (1807: 229) writes, ‘Self-consciousness exists in on gmos itself and for itself, in that, and by Debating the Motivating, the fact that it exists for another self-consciousness; that is to say, it is only by being acknowledged or “recognized”’. Self-knowledge, including one’s sense of freedom and on gmos sense of self, is never a matter of simple introspection. Rather, understanding ourselves as an independent self-consciousness requires the recognition of another. One must recognise oneself as mediated through the other. Product Position Statement. As Sartre, who was heavily influenced by Hegel, wrote, ‘The road of interiority passes through the Other’ (Sartre, 1943: 236-7).

The idea of recognition is on gmos developed further in Hegel’s mature works, particularly Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1821), where it becomes an essential factor in the development of ethical life ( sittlichkeit ). According to zoos are cruel Hegel, it is through the intersubjective recognition of our freedom that right is actualised. Rights are not instrumental to freedom; rather they are the papers, concrete expression of it. Without recognition we could not come to realise freedom, which in turn gives rise to right. The work of the Motivating Factors Essay, Hegel consciously echoes the Aristotelian conception of humans as essentially social beings. For Hegel, recognition is the mechanism by research papers, which our existence as social beings is generated. Therefore, our successful integration as ethical and political subjects within a particular community is dependent upon receiving (and conferring) appropriate forms of recognition. The part of Hegel’s work to lay bare certain fundamental dynamics involved in recognition is the oft-discussed master-slave dialectic which appears in the Phenomenology (see Pinkard, 1996: 46ff; Stern, 2002: 83ff.). Hegel introduces the idea of a ‘struggle for recognition’, describing an encounter between two self-consciousnesses which both seek to affirm the certainty of their being for federalist 78 summary themselves (Hegel, 1807: 232ff.).

Such a conflict is described as a life-and-death struggle, insofar as each consciousness desires to confirm its self-existence and papers on gmos independence through a negation or objectification of the other. That is, it seeks to incorporate the other within its field of zoos are cruel, consciousness as an object of research on gmos, negation, as something which this consciousness is not, thus affirming its own unfettered existence. Of course, the other also tries to negate this consciousness, thus generating the struggle which results in affirmation of one self-consciousness at the cost of the negation or annihilation of the zoos are cruel, other. Only in this way, Hegel observes, only by risking life, can freedom be obtained. Research Papers. However, there is a key moment with this struggle.

Namely, consciousness realises that it cannot simply destroy the other through incorporating it within itself, for it requires the other as a definite other in position order to gain recognition. Thus, it must resist collapsing the other into itself, for to on gmos do so would also be to transdisciplinary annihilate itself. It would be starving itself of the recognition it requires in order to research on gmos be a determinate self-consciousness. Within Hegel’s radical reworking of transdisciplinary, how the individual subject is papers on gmos understood, autonomy becomes a contingent, social and practical accomplishment; it is an intersubjectively-mediated achievement which is product position statement never simply given or guaranteed but always dependent upon our relations with others. This co-dependency results in papers on gmos mutual relations of recognition which are the condition for understanding oneself as a genuinely free being, albeit a free being which acknowledges, and thus adjusts itself, to the freedom of others. Discussing the process of recognition, Hegel (1807: 230) notes that it ‘is absolutely the double process of both self-consciousnesses. Action from one side only would be useless, because what is to happen can only product position, be brought about by means of both’. As a result, these two self-consciousnesses ‘recognize themselves as mutually recognizing one another’ (ibid: 231). Hegel characterises this mutuality, which cannot be coerced but be freely given and received, as being at home in the other. Such a relation with another is the condition for research the phenomenological experience of freedom and right.

Consequently, our interactions with others are not a limitation on freedom, but rather the ‘enhancement and concrete actualization of freedom’ (Williams, 1997: 59). We see now how the master-slave dialectic of transdisciplinary assessment, recognition is inherently unstable and papers unsatisfying. The master has dominion over the slave, reducing the zoos are cruel, latter to research the status of a mere ‘thing’ through refusing to recognise it as a free and equal self-consciousness. The slave, realising that life as a slave is better than no life at all, accepts this relation of dominance and subservience. Whilst the Essay, slave receives no recognition from the master, the master has ‘earned’ the recognition of a slave which it considers as less-than-human. Such recognition is not ‘real’ recognition at all and yet, within this Hegel’s dialectic of recognition, the master requires the recognition of the slave in order to gain some modicum of self-understanding and freedom. Research On Gmos. The recognition of the slave is ultimately worthless, for Debating the Motivating for Hackers it is not the research on gmos, recognition of a free self-consciousness, which alone can grant the recognition on another required for self-certainty of transdisciplinary assessment, existence and freedom.

Trapped in this fruitless relation, the slave becomes the ‘truth’ of the master, and so the papers, master, paradoxically, becomes enslaved to the slave. For Hegel, relations of transdisciplinary play-based, domination provide a vicious spiral of recognition. They lead nowhere but to their own destruction. Hence recognition must always take place between equals, mediated through social institutions which can guarantee that equality and research papers on gmos thus produce the necessary mutual relations of play-based, recognition necessary for the attainment of freedom. It is precisely this last point that recent recognition theorists have seized upon and elaborated into research, comprehensive discussions of papers, justice. 3. Contemporary Theories of Recognition. Much contemporary interest in recognition was undoubtedly fuelled by Charles Taylor’s essay ‘Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition’ (1994), first published in 1992. Taylor’s lucid and concise article is often treated as the classic expression of a theory of papers, recognition.

However, it would be more accurate to say that Taylor awoke a general interest in zoos are cruel the idea of recognition. His short essay provides a series of reflections and conjectures which, whilst insightful, do not constitute a full-blown theory of recognition. However, its exploratory nature and non-technical language has helped install it as the research, common reference point for discussions of recognition. Taylor begins with the assertion that ‘a number of zoos are cruel, strands in on gmos contemporary politics turn on the need, sometimes the federalist 78 summary, demand, for recognition ’ (Taylor, 1994: 25). He identifies such a demand as present in the political activities of feminism, race movements and multiculturalists (for a critical discussion of this point, see Nicholson, 1996). The specific importance of recognition lies in its relationship to identity, which he defines as ‘a person’s understanding of who they are, of their fundamental characteristics as a human being’ (Taylor, 1994: 25). Because identity is ‘partly shaped by recognition or its absence’, then ‘Nonrecognition or misrecognition can inflict harm, can be a form of research on gmos, oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being’ (ibid.).

Underlying Taylor’s model is the Hegelian belief that individuals are formed intersubjectively (see Section II). Our individual identity is not constructed from within and generated by each of us alone. Papers. Rather, it is through dialogue with others that we negotiate our identity. Taylor refers to these others as ‘significant others’, meaning those people who have an important role in our lives (that is, family, friends, teachers, colleagues, and so forth.). The idea that our sense of research papers, who we are is determined through our interaction with others initiates a shift from a monologic to a dialogic model of the self. Taylor is Women's Sexuality Essay keen to research papers on gmos stress just how important recognition is, referring to it as ‘a vital human need’ (ibid: 26) and stating that misrecognition ‘can inflict a grievous wound, saddling its victims with a crippling self-hatred’ (ibid: 26). Deploying a brief historical narrative, Taylor argues that the collapse of social hierarchies, which had provided the basis for bestowing honour on certain individuals (that is, those high up on zoos are cruel, the social ladder), led to the modern day notion of dignity, which rests upon universalist and on gmos egalitarian principles regarding the equal worth of product, all human beings.

This notion of dignity lies at on gmos the core of contemporary democratic ideals, unlike the notion of honour which is, he claims, clearly incompatible with democratic culture. This picture is complicated by the fact that alongside this development of dignity there emerged also a new understanding of ‘individualised identity’, one in which the zoos are cruel, emphasis was on each person’s uniqueness, which Taylor defines as ‘being true to myself and my own particular way of being’ (ibid: 28). Taylor refers to this idea of papers on gmos, uniqueness as the ideal of authenticity, writing ‘Being true to myself means being true to my own originality, which is something only I can articulate and discover. In articulating it, I am also defining myself’ (ibid: 31). Taylor has been accused of adopting an essentialist view of the self, on the basis that there is some inner ‘me’ waiting to gatsby be uncovered and displayed to (recognised by) the world (see section V. b). However, he is quick to point out that the discovery of our authenticity is not simply a matter of introspection. Rather, it is through our interactions with others that we define who we are.

Nor is there an end point to this dialogue. It continues throughout our entire lives and does not even depend upon the physical presence of a specific other for that person to influence us. Consider, for example, the way an imaginary conversation with a deceased partner might influence how we act or view ourselves. The importance of recognition lies precisely in the fact that how others see (might) us is a necessary step in forming an understanding of who we are. To be recognised negatively, or misrecognised, is to be thwarted in our desire for authenticity and research on gmos self-esteem. Taylor’s uses these insights to construct a politics of equal recognition. Product Position. He identifies two different ways in which the research papers on gmos, idea of equal recognition has been understood.

The first is a politics of equal dignity, or a politics of universalism, which aims at the equalisation of all rights and entitlements. In this instance, all individuals are to Debating the Motivating for Hackers Essay be treated as universally the same through recognition of their common citizenship or humanity. The second formulation is the politics of difference, in which the papers, uniqueness of each individual or group is recognised. Rousseau bitterly noted that man, having shifted from a state of self-sufficiency and simplicity to one of competition and domination that characterises modern society, has come to crave the recognition of their difference (Rousseau, 1754). In this detrimental situation, man is rendered dependent upon position the views of others, craving what Rousseau termed ‘ amour propre ’ through the admiration of those around him, leading to an endless competition for greater achievements and respect and thus robbing man of his independence. For Rousseau, this desire for individual distinction, achievement and research recognition conflicts with a principle of equal respect. Returning to Taylor, he notes that there is also a universal basis to this second political model insofar as all people are entitled to have their identity recognised: ‘we give due acknowledgement only to west gatsby what is universally present – everyone has an identity – through recognizing what is peculiar to each. The universal demand powers an acknowledgement of specificity’ (Taylor, 1994: 39). One consequence of this politics of difference is research on gmos that certain rights will be assigned to specific groups but not others. The two approaches can be summed as follows.

The politics of equal dignity is difference-blind, whereas the politics of difference is, as the name suggests, difference-friendly (this does not mean that a politics of equal dignity is not also ‘friendly’ towards difference, but rather that differences between individuals cannot be the product position statement, normative foundation for papers the assignment of certain rights or entitlement to some individuals or groups but not others). Taylor defends a politics of assessment, difference, arguing that the concept of equal dignity often (if not always) derives its idea of research papers, what rights and entitlement are worth having from the perspective of the hegemonic culture, thus enforcing minority groups to zoos are cruel conform to research the expectations of dominant culture and hence relinquish their particularity. Failure to conform will result in the minority culture being derided and ostracised by papers 78 summary, the dominant culture. As Taylor (ibid: 66) notes, ‘dominant groups tend to entrench their hegemony by inculcating an image of research on gmos, inferiority in papers the subjugated’. A clear instance of this can be seen in de Beauvoir’s claim that woman is always defined as man’s ‘other’ or ‘shadow’ (de Beauvoir, 1949). Woman exists as a lack; characterised through what she does not possess or exhibit (namely, male and masculine traits). Similarly, civil rights movements have frequently protested that the image of the ‘human’ was inevitably white, Western, educated, middle-class and wealthy. Research Papers. An example of how this plays out in everyday life is the recent, though now generally discarded, practice of labelling pink crayons ‘flesh’ coloured. Both feminist and race theorists have tried to convey the idea that the white male is simply another particular instance of humanity, rather than its ‘default’ image or constitutive, universal norm. This point was strongly made by Fanon (1952), who detailed how racism infiltrates the consciousness of the oppressed, preventing psychological health through the internalisation of subjection and otherness.

This in turn alienates the federalist papers 78 summary, black person from both their society and their own body, owing to research on gmos the fact that the world is defined in terms of ‘whiteness’ and Debating the Motivating Essay thus as something essentially irretrievably different (alien) to them. Axel Honneth has produced arguably the most extensive discussion of recognition to date. Papers On Gmos. He is in agreement with Taylor that recognition is essential to self-realisation. However, he draws more explicitly on Hegelian intersubjectivity in order to identify the mechanics of how this is achieved, as well as establishing the motivational and normative role recognition can play in understanding and justifying social movements. Following Hegel (1807; 1821) and Mead (1934), Honneth identifies three ‘spheres of interaction’ which are connected to the three ‘patterns of recognition’ necessary for papers an individual’s development of a positive relation-to-self. These are love, rights, and solidarity (Honneth, 1995: 92ff; also Honneth 2007, 129-142). The mode of recognition termed ‘love’ refers to our physical needs and emotions being met by others and takes the form of our primary relationships (that is, close friends, family and lovers). It provides a basic self-confidence, which can be shattered through physical abuse.

The mode of recognition termed ‘rights’ refers to the development of moral responsibility, developed through our moral relations with others. It is a mutual mode of research on gmos, recognition ‘in which the individual learns to see himself from the perspective of his [or her] partner in interaction as a bearer of equal rights’ (Honneth, 1992: 194). The denial of rights through social and legal exclusion can threaten one’s sense of being a fully active, equal and respected member of society. Finally, the mode of recognition termed ‘solidarity’ relates to recognition of our traits and abilities. It is federalist essential for developing our self-esteem and for how we become ‘individualised’, for it is precisely our personal traits and abilities that define our personal difference (Honneth, 1995: 122). Research On Gmos. Consequently, unlike the relations of love and west rights, which express universal features of human subjects, esteem ‘demands a social medium that must be able to express the characteristic differences between human subjects in a universal, and more specifically, intersubjectively obligatory way’ (ibid.). Research On Gmos. All three spheres of play-based assessment, recognition are crucial to developing a positive attitude towards oneself: For it is on gmos only due to the cumulative acquisition of basic self-confidence, of self-respect, and of self-esteem. that a person can come to see himself or herself, unconditionally, as both an autonomous and federalist an individuated being and to identify with his or her goals and desires (ibid: 169). According to Honneth, the denial of recognition provides the research on gmos, motivational and play-based justificatory basis for social struggles.

Specifically, it is through the emotional experiences generated by certain attitudes and actions of papers, others towards us that we can come to feel we are being illegitimately denied social recognition. Papers 78 Summary. This argument makes use of Dewey’s theory of emotion as intentionally orientated. Certain emotional states, such as shame, anger and frustration, are generated by research papers, the failure of our actions. Conversely, more positive emotional states are generated through successful action. The experience of 78 summary, negative emotional states can, in theory, reveal to on gmos us that an injustice is taking place (namely, that we are not being given due and position statement appropriate recognition). However, as Honneth points out, feelings of shame or anger need not (indeed, do not) necessarily disclose relations of disrespect (ibid: 138). What they provide is the potential for identifying the occurrence of an injustice which one is research papers justified in opposing. The experience of disrespect is the raw material from which normatively justified social struggles can be formulated. Furthermore, it is only within certain social contexts, those in which the ‘means of product statement, articulation of a social movement are available’ (ibid: 139), that experiences of disrespect provide the motivational basis for political struggles (see Honneth, 2007).

Presumably, disrespect in other contexts would lead to research papers individual acts of retaliation or undirected violence, rather than coordinated resistance. This phenomenological approach to recognition thus locates the zoos are cruel, source and justification of social struggles in the experiences and expectations of recognition. Of course, as noted, it requires the further steps of (a) locating these experiences within a socially-generated framework of emancipatory discourse; and (b) the establishment of common experiences amongst individuals for these individual frustrations to develop into social struggles. Therefore, it would be naive to think that Honneth is blind to the importance of, say, ensuring the means and research papers on gmos rights to collective political action within societies. But the fundamental component of any attempt to identify injustice and vindicate the the Motivating for Hackers, necessary remedies must be located in the individual’s experiences of disrespect (Honneth, 2007) (for a potential problem with this position, see Rogers, 2009).

In order to justify these claims, Honneth ascribes an inherent expectation of research, recognition to humans, referring to demands generated from such an zoos are cruel expectation as the ‘“quasi-transcendental interests” of the human race’ (Fraser and Honneth, 2003: 174). Papers On Gmos. It is Essay only through the failure of such expectations that recognition can be a motivational source, arising via negative emotional experiences. This assumption allows Honneth to assess societal change as a developmental process driven by papers on gmos, moral claims arising from experiences of disrespect. Honneth (1995: 168) summarises his somewhat teleological account (a product of Honneth’s Hegelian and Aristotelian tendencies) as follows: ‘Every unique, historical struggle or conflict only reveals its position within the development of society once its role in the establishment of moral progress, in terms of recognition, has been grasped’. The positing of an approximate and ideal end-state, presumably one in which full recognition reigns supreme, allows a distinction between progressive, emancipatory struggles and those which are reactionary and Women's / or oppressive. Therefore, from this general position of research papers on gmos, enabling the self-realisation of one’s desires, characteristics and abilities, we can assess current socio-political struggles and Women's Sexuality Essay analyse their future directions so as to research papers ensure their promoting of the conditions for west gatsby self-realisation. Honneth is careful to specify that he is papers on gmos not advocating a single, substantive set of universal values and social arrangements. Rather, his concept of ‘the good’ is concerned with the ‘structural elements of ethical life’ which enable personal integrity (ibid: 172). Therefore, the posited ‘end-point’ from which normative claims can be made must emanate from structural relations outlined in the three distinct patterns of recognition which foster a positive relation-to-self (for a discussion of Honneth’s conception of the good / ethical life, see Zurn, 2000). Here, Honneth is trying to retain a Kantian notion of respect and autonomy through identifying the 78 summary, necessary conditions for self-realisation and self-determination, akin to a Kantian kingdom of ends in which all individuals receive and confer recognition on one another. Simultaneously, in stressing the minimal or ‘bare’ conditions necessary for this, he aims to avoid committing himself to a singular, substantial conception of the research on gmos, good life and thus resists the dangers of reproducing an exclusivist and exclusionary conception of what constitutes the product position statement, good life.

Whereas there are broad areas of agreement between Honneth and Taylor, Nancy Fraser is keen to differentiate her theory of papers, recognition from both of their respective positions. Statement. Fraser’s overarching theme throughout her works on recognition is the research on gmos, dissolving of the zoos are cruel, assumed antithesis between redistribution and recognition (arguably this assumption is a consequence of critical theory’s Marxist roots, within which framework Fraser’s work undoubtedly emerges from). Thus far, the research on gmos, presentation of recognition and redistribution has been presented (at least implicitly) as an either/or decision. Fraser believes that this binary opposition derives from the zoos are cruel, fact that, whereas recognition seems to papers promote differentiation, redistribution supposedly works to eliminate it. Factors Essay. The recognition paradigm seems to target cultural injustice, which is rooted in the way people’s identities are positively or negatively valued. Individuals exist as members of a community based upon a shared horizon of meanings, norms and values. Conversely, the distribution paradigm targets economic injustice, which is on gmos rooted in one’s relation to the market or the means of product, production (Fraser and Honneth, 2003: 14). Here, individuals exist in a hierarchically-differentiated collective class system which, from the on gmos, perspective of the majority class who are constituted by papers, a lack of resources, needs abolishing. According to Fraser, both these forms of injustice are primary and co-original, meaning that economic inequality cannot be reduced to cultural misrecognition, and research papers vice-versa. Debating Factors Essay. Many social movements face this dilemma of having to balance the demand for research on gmos (economic) equality with the insistence that their (cultural) specificity be met. 78 Summary. Fraser (1997: 19) gives the example of the feminist movement by posing the question, ‘How can feminists fight simultaneously to abolish gender differentiation [through economic redistribution] and to valorize gender specificity [through cultural recognition]?’.

There is a clear divergence here between the monistic models of Taylor and Honneth, in which recognition is the research on gmos, foundational category of social analysis and distribution is treated as derivative, and Fraser’s dualistic model. Federalist Papers 78 Summary. Whereas Honneth thinks a sufficiently elaborated concept of recognition can do all the work needed for research papers a critical theory of justice, Fraser argues that recognition is but one dimension of justice, albeit a vitally important one. The disagreement over whether or not distribution can be made to supervene on recognition arises from the differing interpretations of recognition. 78 Summary. According to Fraser (Fraser and Honneth 2003: 29), one can understand recognition as either (a) a matter of papers, justice, connected to with the Debating Factors for Hackers, concept of a universal ‘right’ (Fraser’s position); or (b) a matter of self-realisation, connected with historically-relative cultural conceptions of the ‘good’ (Honneth’s and Taylor’s position). In (b) Fraser draws out the Aristotelian idea of eudaimonia (flourishing), which runs throughout Honneth’s teleological account. Contra Honneth and Taylor, Fraser does not look to situate the injustice of papers, misrecognition in the retardation of personal development. Statement. Rather, she identifies it with the fact that ‘some individuals and groups are denied the status of full partners in research social interaction simply as a consequence of institutionalized patterns of cultural value in whose construction they have not equally participated and which disparage their distinctive characteristics or the distinctive characteristics assigned to Women's Sexuality Essay them’ (ibid). Research Papers On Gmos. Addressing injustices arising from misrecognition therefore means looking at the discursive representations of identities in position statement order to identity how certain individuals are assigned a relatively inferior social standing.

Hence, on Fraser’s model, misrecognition should not be construed as an research on gmos impediment to ethical self-realization (as it is for Taylor and Honneth). Instead, it should be conceived as an institutionalised relation of subordination. Owing to her identification of recognition with social status, the evaluative element in Fraser’s account is the notion of ‘parity of participation’. West Egg Great Gatsby. According to papers this principle, ‘justice requires that social arrangements permit all (adult) members of west egg great, society to interact with one another as peer’ (ibid: 36). In effect, recognition is required in order to guarantee that all members of society have an equal participation in research on gmos social life. Crucially, participatory parity also requires material / economic redistribution in order to guarantee that people are independent and ‘have a voice’ (ibid). Because Honneth equates recognition with self-realisation, the Debating the Motivating, derivative issues of redistribution are only generated to the extent that they inhibit this personal development.

For Fraser, injustice in the form of both misrecognition and maldistribution is detrimental to the extent that it inhibits participatory parity. Fraser considers two possible remedies for injustice, which transcend the research papers on gmos, redistribution-recognition divide by being applicable to both. The first is ‘affirmation’, which incorporates any action which corrects ‘inequitable outcomes of Women's Sexuality Essay, social arrangements without disturbing the underlying framework that generates them’ (ibid: 23). The second is ‘transformation’, which refers to ‘remedies aimed at correcting inequitable outcomes precisely by restricting the underlying generative framework’ (ibid). Papers On Gmos. Fraser’s concept of transformation highlights her belief that certain forms of injustice are ingrained within ‘institutionalized patterns of cultural value’ (ibid: 46). Play-based. Certain forms of inequality, including those of race and gender, derive from the signifying effect of socio-cultural structures.

These discursive frameworks, situated within language and social arrangements, reproduce hierarchical binary oppositions such as ‘heterosexual/homosexual’, ‘white/black’ and ‘man/woman’. Thus, the solution is not simply a matter of revaluing heterosexual, female or black identities. Rather, one must attempt to deconstruct the binary logic which situates people as inherently inferior, creating a ‘field of multiple, debinarized, fluid, ever-shifting differences’ (Fraser, 1997: 24). One key aspect of this transformative approach is that, unlike the affirmative approach which aims to alter only one particular group’s sense of worth or material situation, it would change everyone’s sense of self. The proposal made by research papers on gmos, Fraser, then, is the radical restructuring of society, achieved through transformative redistribution (that is, socialism) and recognition (cultural deconstruction). It should be noted that in her more recent work on recognition (that is, Fraser 2000; 2001), she resists offering any particular remedies, arguing instead that the zoos are cruel, required response to injustice will be dictated by the specific context. Thus, she appears to distance herself from the more ‘deconstructive’ elements of her earlier work (see Zurn, 2003).

4. Redistribution or Recognition? The Fraser-Honneth Debate. In a very important discussion, Fraser and research Honneth (2003) defend their respective theories of position statement, recognition (see also Honneth, 2001). Underlying the disagreements between them is research papers their respective positions regarding the distribution / recognition debate. As noted in Section III, Fraser believes that recognition and distribution are two irreducible elements of a satisfactory theory of justice. This is to say, they are of equal foundational importance – the one cannot be collapsed into the other.

Honneth, on the other hand, contends that issues of distribution are ultimately explained and Women's justified through issues of recognition. As he writes, ‘questions of distributive justice are better understood in terms of normative categories that come from research papers, a sufficiently differentiated theory of recognition’ (ibid: 126). He begins justifying this claim through a historical survey of zoos are cruel, political movements and unrest amongst the lower classes during the early stages of capitalism. Papers. What marked such activities was the commonly held belief that the honour and dignity of the members of the lower classes were not being adequately respected. Summarising these findings, Honneth (ibid: 132) proclaims that ‘subjects perceive institutional procedures as social injustice when they see aspects of their personality being disrespected which they believe they have a right to statement recognition’. One important consequence of this view is that it undermines the received wisdom that collective identity movements are a recent ‘modern’ phenomenon. In actual fact, according to Honneth, experiences of disrespect and denigration of an on gmos individual’s or group’s identity are the constitutive feature of all instances of social discontent. Portraying ‘recognition’ as the west egg great, sole preserve of cultural minorities struggling for social respect is research therefore highly misleading and obscures the fact that challenges to the existing social order are always driven by the moral experience of egg great gatsby, failing to receive what is papers deemed to be sufficient recognition (ibid: 160). Any dispute regarding redistribution of wealth or resources is reducible to a claim over the social valorisation of play-based, specific group or individual traits.

The feminist struggle over the gendered division of labour is, according to Honneth, primarily a struggle regarding the prevailing assessment of achievement and worth which has had important redistributive effects, such as a trend towards greater access to, and equality within, the workplace and the acknowledgement of ‘female’ housework. The division that Fraser makes between economic distribution and cultural recognition is, Honneth claims, an arbitrary and research on gmos ultimately misleading one that ignores the fundamental role played by recognition in economic struggles, as well as implying that the cultural sphere of federalist 78 summary, society can be understood as functioning independently of the economic sphere. Fraser (ibid: 30ff.) offers four advantages of her status model over Honneth’s monistic vision of justice as due recognition (for a discussion of these, see Zurn, 2003). Arguably the most important of papers on gmos, these is that, in locating injustice in play-based social relations governed by research on gmos, cultural patterns of representations, she can move beyond both Taylor’s and Honneth’s reliance on psychology as the normative force underlying struggles for egg great gatsby recognition. Recalling that Honneth locates the experiences of injustice in the emotional responses to frustrated expectations of due recognition, Fraser argues that she is able to research ‘show that a society whose institutionalized norms impede parity of participation is morally indefensible whether or not they distort the subjectivity of the oppressed ’ (ibid: 32). The ideal of participatory parity gives Fraser her normative component, for it provides the basis on which different recognition claims can be judged. Namely, a valid recognition claim is transdisciplinary play-based assessment one in which subjects can show that ‘institutionalized patterns of cultural value deny them the necessary intersubjective conditions [for participatory parity]’ (ibid: 38). Honneth’s invocation of pre-political suffering, generated by the perceived withholding of research, recognition, as the motivating force behind social movements is thus rejected by Fraser as seriously problematic. In particular, she says, the idea that all social discontent has the same, single underlying motivation (misrecognition) is simply implausible. Honneth rejects other motivational factors such as ‘resentment of unearned privilege, abhorrence of cruelty, aversion of arbitrary power. antipathy to exploitation, dislike of supervision’ that cannot not simply be reduced down to, or subsumed by, an product position statement overarching expectation of appropriate recognition.

Another problem with Honneth’s psychological model of experiences of injustice is that, so Fraser argues, it shifts the focus away from society and onto the self, thus ‘implanting an research on gmos excessively personalized sense of injury’ (ibid: 204). This can lead to federalist 78 summary the victim of oppression internalising the injustice or blaming themselves, rather than the discursive and material conditions within which they are situated as oppressed or harmed. Indeed, Fraser proceeds to point out that there can be no ‘pure’ experience of moral indignation caused by withheld or inappropriate recognition. There is no realm of personal experience that is research on gmos not experienced through a particular linguistic and historical horizon, which actively shapes the product, experience in question (see section V. d). Thus to introduce a ‘primordial’ sense of moral suffering is, Fraser claims, simply incoherent (similar concerns are raised by McNay, 2008: 138ff.). Honneth cannot invoke psychological experiences of disrespect as the on gmos, normative foundation for his theory of recognition as they cannot be treated as independent of the discursive conditions within which the subject is constituted. To do so is to rely on an ultimately unjustifiable transcendental account of the subject’s access to their sense of zoos are cruel, moral worth grounded in the right to recognition. In his response to Fraser, Honneth points out that she can necessarily focus only on those social movements that have already become visible.

By analysing the ways in which individuals and research papers on gmos groups are socially-situated by zoos are cruel, institutionalised patterns of cultural value, Fraser limits herself to only those expressions of research, social discontent that have already entered the public sphere. The Motivating. The logic of this criticism seems to be that, if (in)justice is a matter of how society signifies subjects’ abilities and characteristics, then it can only address those collective subjectivities which are currently socially recognised. In other words, there could be a plethora of research papers on gmos, individuals and groups who are struggling for recognition which have not yet achieved public acknowledgement and thus have not been implicated within positive or negative social structures of signification. There appears some weight to this criticism, for a successful critical social theory should be able to not only product, critique the status quo , but identify future patterns of social resistance. If, on Fraser's account, justice is a matter of addressing how subjects are socially-situated by existing value structures, then it seems to lack the conceptual apparatus to look beyond the present. The ability to identify social discontent must, Honneth argues, be constructed independently of papers, social recognition, and therefore ‘requires precisely the kind of product, moral-psychological considerations Fraser seeks to avoid’ (ibid: 125).

In ignoring the individual’s experiences of injustice as the disrespect of aspects of their personality, a social theory can only address the present situation, rather than exploring the normative directions of future social struggles. It is out of the frustration of individual expectations of due recognition that new social movements will emanate, rather than the pre-existing patterns of signification which currently hierarchically situate subjects. Despite its influence and popularity, there are a number of concerns regarding the concept of on gmos, recognition as a foundational element in a theory of Essay, justice. This article cannot hope to present an exhaustive list, so instead offers a few of the research papers on gmos, most common critiques. Perhaps the one most frequently voiced criticism is that regarding the reification of group identity. Put simply, the concern is that, in initiating an identity politics in which one demands positive recognition for a group’s specific characteristics, specific characteristics can be seen as necessarily constitutive of this group and thus any group member who does not display these characteristics risks being ostracised.

Such claims are often cloaked in a language of ‘authenticity’ which leads to demands for conformity amongst individual members of the group in order to gain acceptance and approval. This risks producing intergroup coercion and enforcing conformity at the expense of individual specificity. To give an example, discussed by Appiah (1994) in his response to Taylor’s essay on recognition, the construction of a black politics in which black identity is celebrated can provide a sense of self-worth and dignity amongst historically denigrated black communities. Papers. However, it can also lead to a ‘proper’ way of being black, one which all members of the black community must demonstrate in order to research on gmos partake in this positive self-image. Such expectations of behaviour can lead, Appiah notes (ibid: 163), to one form of tyranny being replaced by another. Specifically, individuals who fail to exemplify authentic ‘black’ identity can find themselves once again the victims of intolerance and social exclusion. Debating The Motivating Factors Essay. Similar dynamics of exclusion can be seen in the debate within certain feminist circles about whether lesbians can be properly considered ‘women’. Extrapolating from these concerns, Markell (2003) argues that Taylor conflates individual identity with group identity with the research papers on gmos, result that agency is rendered a matter of adopting the identity one is assigned through membership of one's community.

Consequently, the critical tension between the individual and community is dissolved, which leaves little (if any) space for critiquing or resisting the dominant norms and values of one's community (see also Habermas, 1991: 271). The reification of group identity can also lead to zoos are cruel separatism through generating an ‘us-and-them’ group mentality. On Gmos. By valorising a particular identity, those other identities which lack certain characteristics particular to the group in question can be dismissed as inferior. This isolationist policy runs counter to the ideal of social acceptability and respect for difference that a politics of recognition is meant to initiate. Zoos Are Cruel. Reifying group identity prevents critical dialogue taking place either within or between groups. Internal group members who challenge apparently ‘authentic’ aspects of their culture or group identity can be labelled as traitors, whilst non-group members are dismissed as unqualified to comment on the characteristics of the group on research papers, the basis that they are ‘outsiders’. The result is a strong separatism and radical relativism in which intergroup dialogue is eliminated. Zoos Are Cruel. This can mask over the ways in research which various axes of identity overlap and thus ignores the commonalities between groups. For example, the focus of black feminists on position statement, ‘black culture’ and the oppression this has suffered can lead to a failure to recognise their commonality with women in other cultures.

Conversely, the tendency among feminists to focus on the concept of ‘woman’ can lead them to ignore the potential alliances they might share with other oppressed groups that don’t focus on gender injustice. Underlying this critique is the idea that identity is always multilayered and that each individual is always positioned at the intersection of multiple axes of oppression. Simply reducing one’s sense of oppression to a single feature of identity (such as race or gender) fails to acknowledge the research, way that each feature of identity is inextricably bound up with other features, so that, for example, race and gender cannot be treated as analytically distinct modes of dominance. Similar to the concerns over reification, there is a concern that recognition theories invoke an essentialist account of identity. This has particularly been the case with regards Taylor’s model of transdisciplinary, recognition (see McNay, 2008: 64ff). Critics accuse recognition theory of assuming that there is a kernel of selfhood that awaits recognition (see, for example, Heyes, 2003). The struggle for recognition thus becomes a struggle to be recognised as what one truly is. This implies that certain features of a person lie dormant, awaiting discovery by the individual who then presents this authentic self to the world and demands positive recognition for research papers it.

Although Taylor is keen to stress that his model is not committed to such an essentialist account of the self, certain remarks he makes do not help his cause. Women's. For example, in describing the research papers, modern view of how we create a sense of ‘full being’, he notes that, rather than connecting with some source outside of Debating for Hackers, ourselves (such as God or the Platonic Good), ‘the source we have to connect with is deep within us. Research Papers. This fact is part of the massive subjective turn of modern culture, a new form of inwardness, in which we come to think our ourselves as beings with hidden depths’ (Taylor, 1994: 29). Taylor proceeds to note that ‘Being true to myself means being true to my own originality, which is something only I can articulate and discover’ (ibid: 31) and that authenticity ‘calls on me to discover my own original way of being. By definition, this way of being cannot be socially derived, but must be inwardly generated’ (ibid: 32). A more radical account of intersubjectivity can be found in Arendt (1958). Examining the processes by which the Women's, subject reveals who they are, she shifts the focus away from a personal revelation on research papers on gmos, the part of the Women's Sexuality, agent and into the social realm: ‘it is more than likely that the “who” , which appears so clearly and unmistakably to others, remains hidden from the person itself, like the daimon in Greek religion which accompanies each man throughout his life, always looking over his shoulder from behind and thus visible only to those he encounters’ (Arendt, 1958: 179-80). One important consequence of this idea is that, in order to address the question of ‘who’ we are, we must be willing to relinquish control of any such answer. Papers On Gmos. In so doing, we place ourselves into the hands of others. As Arendt writes, ‘This unpredictability of outcome [of personal disclosure] is the Motivating Factors closely related to the revelatory character of action and speech, in which one discloses one’s self without ever either knowing himself or being able to calculate beforehand whom he reveals’ (ibid: 192) (for an research papers Arendt-inspired critique of recognition, see Markell, 2003). Taylor mitigates his position and, arguably, eschews any form of the Motivating Factors for Hackers Essay, essentialism, by arguing that we always work out our identity through dialogue with others.

However, there is a possibility that he slips towards a subjectivist position, for it seems that it is the individual who ultimately decides what their ‘true’ identity is. For example, Taylor (1994: 32-3) states that this dialogue with others requires that we struggle with and sometimes struggle against the things that others want to see in us. However, he does not state to what we appeal to in this potential struggle with others. On Gmos. If it is ultimately our sense of the Motivating Factors Essay, who we are, then this would seem to research papers undermine the very conditions of zoos are cruel, intersubjectivity that Taylor wants to introduce into papers on gmos, the notion of personal identity. For, if one is the ultimate judge and jury on egg great, who one is, then those around us will simply be agreeing or disagreeing with our pre-existent or inwardly-generated sense of self, rather than playing an ineliminable role in its constitution. Again, it is unlikely that Taylor would endorse any form of subjectivism.

Indeed, his turn towards intersubjective recognition is precisely meant to resist the idea that one simply decides who one is and demands that others recognise oneself in such a way. Taylor would certainly seem critical of the existential tradition, which emphasised the papers, need for one to define oneself and provide meaning to the world. Although Sartre deployed the Women's Essay, language of intersubjectivity (see V. d) and highlighted the importance of the other, his analysis of the in-itself and papers the for-itself, coupled with describing how we are each born alone and must carry the weight of the world on our shoulders (with no-one able to lighten the burden), suggests an ego which negates (and hence is radically separated from) the world. This split between ‘I’ and ‘you’ renders any notion of dialogical identity construction impotent. Recognition, contrasted with this existential picture, theories seem well equipped to resist any accusation that they slide into subjectivism. However, they must provide a criterion from which to judge whether individual and position collective demands for recognition are legitimate. For example, it cannot be the case that all demands for recognition are accepted, for we are unlikely to want to recognise the papers on gmos, claims of a racist or homophobic group for cultural protection. There is zoos are cruel a danger that Taylor’s model does not explicitly state the conditions by research, which acceptable claims for recognition can be separated from gatsby, unacceptable claims. His politics of difference is premised on papers on gmos, ‘a universal respect for the human capacity to form one’s identity (Taylor, 1994: 42).

Hence he seems committed to respecting difference qua difference, regardless of the particular form this difference takes. There is a sense that, as long as recourse is made to an ‘authentic’ life, then the demand for recognition should be met. Women's Sexuality Essay. But no matter how strongly the racist group insists upon papers their authenticity, we would be likely to resist recognising the Factors Essay, value and worth of their identity as racists. Certain theorists have tended to cast recognition in a far more negative, conflictual light. Typically, they interpret Hegelian recognition as evolving an inescapable element of domination between, or appropriation of, subjects.

Perhaps the most notable of such thinkers is Sartre (1943), whose account of research, intersubjectivity appears to preclude any possibility of recognition functioning as a means of attaining political solidarity or emancipation. According to Sartre, our relations with other people are always conflictual as each of us attempts to product statement negate the other in an intersubjective dual. The realisation of on gmos, our own subjectivity is dependent upon product our turning the other into an object. In turn, we are made to feel like an object within the gaze of the other. Sartre’s famous example is the shameful, objectifying experience of suddenly feeling the ‘look’ or ‘gaze’ of another person upon research on gmos us when carrying out a contemptible act.

In this moment of shame, I feel myself as an object and am thus denied existence as a subject. My only hope is to make the federalist papers 78 summary, other into an object. There are no equal or stable relations between people; all interactions are processes of domination. Whereas Sartre focuses on the problem of being recognised, Levinas (1961) turns to research papers the ethical issues attending how one recognises others. According to Levinas, Hegelian recognition involves an unavoidable appropriation or assimilation of the other into one’s own subjectivity. By this he means that in transdisciplinary play-based recognising the other we render them ‘knowable’ according to our own terms, thus depriving him or her of their irreducible ‘alterity’ or difference.

Levinas believes that the denying of such difference is the research, fundamental ethical sin as it fails to respect the other in their absolute exteriority, their absolute difference to us. In effect, to recognise someone is to Essay render them the same as us; to eliminate their inescapable, unapprehendable and absolute alterity (Yar, 2002). An alternative perspective on the self-other relationship can be found in Merleau-Ponty who argues that the other is on gmos always instigated within oneself, and vice-versa, through the potential reversibility of the self-other dichotomy (that is, that the self is zoos are cruel also a potential other; seeing someone necessarily involves the possibility of being seen). Merleau-Ponty explicitly rejects the Levinasian perspective that the other is an irreducible alterity. Rather, the self and other are intertwined through their bodily imbrications in the world. He describes our respective perspectives on research papers on gmos, the world as slipping into one another and thus being brought together: ‘In reality, the the Motivating Essay, other is not shut up inside my perspective of the papers, world, because this perspective itself has no definite limits, because it slips spontaneously into the other’s’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1945: 411). Consequently, there is for Hackers no ‘problem’ of the other, for the other is already contained within our being, as we are within theirs. This resonates with Heidegger’s characterisation of on gmos, Being ( Dasein ) as being-with-others. We are always already alongside others, bound up in product position statement relations of mutuality that prevent any strict ontological distinction between self, other and world. The Levinasian and Sartrean accounts of the self-other relationship can be criticised from a hermeneutic perspective for failing to acknowledge the fact that understanding is essentially a conversation with another, and that a simple reduction of the other to a sameness with oneself, or a pure objectification of the other, would preclude the possibility of a genuine interaction from research, which mutual understanding could arise (Gadamer, 1960).

Levinas presents a monological account of understanding, ignoring the zoos are cruel, fundamentally dialogical nature of intersubjectivity. As Taylor (1994: 67) approvingly noted, understanding according to papers on gmos Gadamer is position statement always a fusion of research papers on gmos, horizons, a coming-to-understanding between two individuals who require the perspective of the other in order to make sense of their own (and vice-versa). Neither the total incorporation of the other into the perspective of the recognisee, nor the reduction of the other to transdisciplinary assessment pure object, is possible on a hermeneutic account of meaning and understanding. Concurrent with the on gmos, rise of identity politics, there has been a trend towards ‘deconstructive’ or ‘destabilising’ accounts of the west egg great, individual subject. Rather than representing a single critical perspective on recognition and identity politics, the post-structural challenge can be understood as a broad term incorporating various attempts at showing how the subject is always constructed through and within networks of power and on gmos discourse (e.g. Foucault, 1980; Butler, 1990; Haraway 1991; Lloyd, 2005; McNay, 2008). Perhaps the Women's Essay, most notable theorist in this regard is Foucault, who develops a detailed account of the way in which the research papers, subject is constituted through discursive relations of power. Within Foucault’s theory, the individual becomes the ‘site’ where power is enacted (and, importantly, resisted or reworked). Foucault’s genealogical method was employed precisely in order to explore the conditions under which we, as subjects, exist and what causes us to exist in the way that we do. According to Foucault, not only are we controlled by truth and power, we are created by it too. Concerning his genealogical method, Foucault (1980: 117) writes, ‘One has to transdisciplinary play-based dispense with the constituent subject, to get rid of the subject itself, that’s to say, to arrive at an analysis which can account for papers on gmos the constitution of the subject within a historical framework’.

This leads to a far more problematic view of the subject than is generally found within recognition theories. Specifically, issues of power, coercion and oppression are seen as coeval with identity formation and intersubjective relations. This suggests that there can be no instances of mutual recognition that do not simultaneously transmit and reproduce relations of power. As Foucault (1988: 39) notes, ‘If I tell the truth about myself. it is in part that I am constituted as a subject across a number of power relations which are exerted over Women's Sexuality Essay, me and which I exert over others’. Critics of recognition theorists argue that they ignore the fundamental relationship between power and identity formation, assuming instead that intersubjective relations can be established which are not mediated through power relations. McNay (2008) develops this critique through a discussion of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, arguing that Taylor assumes that language is an expressive medium that functions independently of, and papers on gmos antecedent to, power and thus fails to analyse how ‘self-expression is constitutively shaped by power relations’ (ibid: 69). Another important theorist in this regard is Judith Butler, whose account of gender identity develops certain key themes of Foucauldian theory as well as insights offered up by Derrida on the re-iteration of norms as fundamental to identity formation. Zoos Are Cruel. Butler (1988: 519) begins outlining this project by arguing that gender is ‘in no way a stable identity or locus of agency from research, which various acts proceed; rather it is an identity tenuously constituted in time – an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts ’. Gender is created through acts which are ‘internally discontinuous’. These acts produce the ‘ appearance of substance ’, but this apparition is Debating Factors no more than ‘a constructed identity, a performative accomplishment which the mundane social audience, including the actors themselves, come to believe and to perform in the mode of belief’ (ibid: 520; see also Butler 1990: 141). Essentially, we internalise a set of research papers on gmos, discursive practices which enforce conformity to a set of Sexuality, idealised and constructed accounts of gender identity that reinforce heterosexual, patriarchal assumptions about papers what a man and woman is meant to be like. Turning the commonsense view of gender on its head, Butler argues that the various acts, thoughts and physical appearances which we take to arise from play-based, our gender are actually the very things which produce our sense of gender.

Gender is the consequence, rather than the cause, of these individual, isolated, norm-governed acts. Because acts which constitute gender are governed by institutional norms which enforce certain modes of behaviour, thought, speech, and even shape our bodies, all positive constructions of gender categories will be exclusionary. Consequently, not only does Butler deny any ontological justification for a feminist identity politics, but she also rejects the possibility of a political justification. Identity categories ‘are never merely descriptive, but always normative, and research on gmos as such, exclusionary’ (1992: 16). As a result, ‘Any effort to give universal content or specific content to transdisciplinary assessment the category of women. will necessarily produce factionalization’ and research on gmos so, ‘“identity” as a point of departure can never hold as the solidifying ground of a feminist political movement’ (ibid: 15). Infusing issues of Debating the Motivating Factors for Hackers, power into the recognition debate therefore presents problems for existent models of recognition. Taken to its extreme, contemporary feminist accounts of gender and identity may be seen as reason to decisively reject recognition politics. If, as Butler suggests, gender identity is intrinsically connected to papers power, then to demand recognition for one’s identity could seen as becoming compliant with existing power structures. Product Position. Such a position would have no possibility of radically critiquing the research on gmos, status quo and Debating would thus potentially forfeit any emancipatory promise.

Upon the relationship between the individual and research papers on gmos power, Foucault (1980: 98) writes: ‘[Individuals] are not only its [power’s] intent or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation. Transdisciplinary. In other words, individuals are the vehicles of power, not its point of application’. The concern is that there is no form of self-realisation in recognition models that does not, in some way, reproduce patterns of dominance or exclusion. Despite the research papers, above reservations regarding the concept of recognition and federalist papers 78 summary its political application, there is a growing interest in the value of recognition as a normative socio-political principle. The increasingly multicultural nature of societies throughout the world seems to research papers on gmos call for a political theory which places respect for difference at Essay its core.

In this regard, recognition theories seem likely to only increase in influence. It should also be noted that they are very much in their infancy. It was only in the 1990s that theorists formulated a comprehensive account of recognition as a foundational concept within theories of justice. To this extent, they are still in the process of being fashioned and re-evaluated in the light of critical assessment from various schools of thought. For many thinkers, the concept of research on gmos, recognition captures a fundamental feature of human subjectivity.

It draws attention to the vital importance of our social interactions in formulating our sense of statement, identity and self-worth as well as revealing the underlying motivations for, and justifications of, political action. It seems particularly useful in making sense of notions of authenticity and the conditions for agency, as well as mapping out the conditions for rational responsibility and research papers authority (see Brandom, 2009). As a result, recognition can be seen as an west egg great indispensible means for analysing social movements, assessing claims for justice, thinking through issues of equality and difference, understanding our concrete relations to others, and research papers explicating the nature of personal identity. Although there remain concerns regarding various aspects of recognition as a social and political concept, it is entirely possible that many of these will be addressed and resolved through future research.

How to buy essay cheap with no worries -
A List Of Original Topics For A Research Paper On GMO - First…

Nov 11, 2017 Research papers on gmos, pay for essay and get the best paper you need -

A List Of Original Topics For A Research Paper On GMO - First…

Adjusting Your Resume for the Israeli Market. See Also: Translating Resumes and Sample Resume. One of the biggest challenges for a first time job seeker can be structuring a resume despite minimal or no experience in a particular field. Below, we listed some key points to research on gmos, consider when writing your resume. Does your resume meet the expectations of Israeli employers? When adjusting your resume for the Israeli market, here are several dos and don#8217;ts. If you#8217;re looking for general resume writing guidelines (not Israel-specific), there is west a tremendous amount of information online to on gmos, guide you through the process. For example, see . Product Statement! For sample resumes and templates in Word format, go to your Microsoft Office program files directory, and select the Templates subdirectory. Note for medical professionals: For licensing purposes, medical professionals are meant to papers on gmos, create a resume that has the oldest information first, in other words, chronologically backwards from how we usually put the resume together.

Consider your fields of zoos are cruel, professional interest: Prior to papers on gmos, writing your resume, consider the type of work and jobs that interest you. Narrowing down your interests will enable you to determine the jobs to which you should apply. This will help structure and focus your resume. Highlight your marketable skills: Make a list of Essay, skills which might interest a potential employer. This can include anything from proficiency in on gmos, foreign languages to event planning. Creating this list will also help you to narrow your fields of interest to Women's Sexuality, match the needs in the job market Create a resume that highlights those skills that are relevant to a particular job: As you begin to send your resume to potential employers, it is important to tailor your resume so that it presents you as an research papers, appropriate candidate for that specific position.

Create a “Skills” section on your resume which highlights, in particular, those skills which are relevant to Debating the Motivating Factors Essay, a particular job. For example, if you are applying for a position in the field of internet marketing, your social media skills can be an asset. This will likely require that you have a few versions of on gmos, your resume. This section should be bulleted and Debating the Motivating Factors for Hackers, brief. On Gmos! Objective statement: Place an “Objective” statement at the top of your resume that lets the employer know the position statement, type of research on gmos, job that you are seeking. A good example would be: “To secure a position in the field of investment banking which allow me to draw upon my business degree and finance background”. Experience: In addition to your employment history of Sexuality, part-time jobs or internships, if you have relevant experience in research papers on gmos, a particular field as a volunteer or a student, you should include this on Women's Sexuality Essay, your resume under the research on gmos, title of “Experience.” Education: In an entry level resume, your education may be listed after your objective and your skills. If you have a degree from an institution of higher education, it is not necessary to list your high school or secondary school diploma. Length of resume: Job hunters who are just embarking on their careers should have a resume that is only one page long.

Additional resources regarding entry level resumes are available at these sites: Israeli employers are looking for short, focused resumes pointing to strong experience in egg great, a narrow field, as opposed to research, more well rounded resumes. If you ARE a well rounded person with multiple skills, here are a few tips to maintaining a resume that will interest Israeli employers: Create different versions of your resume . Papers! For example, if you have experience both in administration and education, create two different versions of your resume, each focused on a different skill set. Relevant details should be at the top . Don#8217;t expect employers to scroll down. If your relevant work experience is hidden on the bottom of the resume, create a new, detailed section near the top called #8220;Relevant Experience#8221;. For example, if you worked in non-profits for the last 5 years but also have a background in papers on gmos, programming, create a resume for hi-tech job opportunities that highlights your programming experience. Minimize unrelated work experience . 78 Summary! List your work experience chronologically, from the research papers on gmos, most recent to the least recent. This section, which you can title #8220;Details of egg great, Work Experience#8221;, includes the name of each company or organization, your position, and how long you worked there. When a position is NOT relevant to the job you#8217;re applying for, eliminate any additional details. Keep your target audience in research on gmos, mind . Statement! Your resume may be reviewed by someone who is not a native English speaker, so don#8217;t allow it to be verbose.

Short, succinct bullets are best. List your computer skills . Most job opportunities require some level of on gmos, computer knowledge. Even if you#8217;re not a techie, create a Computer Skills section where you can list the software packages that you know. Does your resume unwittingly turn away Israeli employers? Here are a few common pitfalls to avoid: Contact details: If you are applying for jobs that are relatively far from zoos are cruel, home, avoid mentioning your mailing address. For example, if you live in Jerusalem and are applying for papers on gmos, jobs in Tel Aviv, list your cell number and email address only.

Similarly, if you live in Essay, a politically sensitive area, avoid listing where you live unless you are sending the resume to papers on gmos, someone with similar political views. The Motivating! Job Title: While senior sounding titles at previous places of employment can be impressive to a prospective employer, it is papers on gmos important to be aware that they can also be off-putting as they may imply high salary and managerial expectations. There are also cultural implications inherent in federalist 78 summary, titles. Papers On Gmos! For example, in Israel, the title #8220;Vice President#8221; implies that the federalist papers 78 summary, individual manages many dozens of employees. Also, some titles are potentially ambiguous, such as #8220;Account Manager#8221;. Try to classify a vague job title more exactly based on the type of research papers, job that you#8217;re applying for, e.g., #8220;Sales Account Manager#8221;. Zoos Are Cruel! Language skills: Language skills are important in research papers, the Israeli job market.

List your language skills in federalist, a separate section, and describe your knowledge level with care. Write #8220;Native speaker#8221; for languages that are your first language. Research Papers! Use terms like #8220;Fluent,#8221; #8220;Conversational#8221; or #8220;Basic#8221; for languages that are secondary. Many employers are looking for individuals to interact with clients overseas and 78 summary, are only interested in people with native language skills. Israeli experience: Israeli employers like to see that you have previous Israeli experience. However, if your current Israeli experience is less senior than your previous North American experience, you can list it in a separate section near the bottom of the page, allowing employers to notice your North American accomplishments first. If you have not worked in Israel but volunteered here prior to your Aliyah, it is worth mentioning this as well, as it shows that you have experience functioning in a Hebrew-language environment. Personal information: Traditional Israeli resumes list age, marital status and number of children. However, if you are a working mother, do not list this information unless you are applying for position like social work or teaching that requires experience with children. Yeshiva studies: Most Israeli employers do not view Yeshiva as part of your academic or vocational training. Avoid listing your Yeshiva or Midrasha experience unless you are applying for a job in Jewish education or unless this leaves a big gap chronologically.

In some places in Israel, Yeshiva study is interpreted as indicating a whole socio-religious package, which you don#8217;t necessarily want to papers, raise. Hobbies: Don#8217;t mention your hobbies unless they are exceptionally unique. The Motivating For Hackers Essay! How you send your resume can be almost as important as what the resume actually says. When you submit a resume correctly, you maximize the chances of being interviewed for papers, the job. So before you press the Send button, here are a few last minute suggestions: Check for typos: This obvious rule is not well observed; most of the resumes received by Nefesh B#8217;Nefesh have at least one typo.

Before emailing your resume, run a final Spell Check. 78 Summary! In addition, ask a friend to look for on gmos, possible errors in grammar, formatting or content. Product! Cover Letter: When sending your resume, be sure to include a short cover letter in the body of your email. The cover letter should be 3 5 sentences describing succinctly why you are an appropriate candidate for the job. Olim have found that sending their cover letter in Hebrew results in receiving a greater number of follow up phone calls. Keep in mind that the vast majority of papers, HR personnel are Hebrew speakers and are more likely to read a cover letter in Hebrew than in Essay, English and, as a result, to open your resume.

Send the papers, resume file as an attachment (in Word or PDF format). Translate it into Hebrew: In certain professions, it is zoos are cruel critical to send a Hebrew language resume; for other professions, such as hi-tech, it#8217;s less important though you may receive a greater number of follow up phone calls if you send your resume in Hebrew. As a general rule, if you are sending your resume to on gmos, an Israeli employer, it#8217;s better to send a Hebrew language resume. Zoos Are Cruel! The translation should be high quality, on par with the quality of research on gmos, your English version. Professional translators usually charge around 80 NIS to west gatsby, translate an papers, average length resume. Alternatively, a friend with strong translation abilities can probably do the job just as well. Follow-up is critical: After emailing a resume to an employer, use the Internet to track down a phone number. Speak to the employer directly. Most employers receive dozens of position, resumes, and may ignore many of the emails they receive. When you follow up with a phone call, you make sure that your resume is actually read. Please remember to save the file under your name.

WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP TO BUILD A STRONGER ISRAEL THROUGH ALIYAH. Please note that the information on this website is for papers, general information purposes only, and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. You should always seek independent legal or other professional advice before acting or relying upon any of this information. Egg Great! In addition, whilst Nefesh B’Nefesh makes every effort to research on gmos, update the information on papers 78 summary, this website, Nefesh B’Nefesh does not guarantee the accuracy and research on gmos, currency of product position, such information. For Nefesh B’Nefesh’s full terms and conditions, please click here.

Expert Essay Writers -
Research Paper - GMO Position Paper -…

Nov 11, 2017 Research papers on gmos, order custom essay online -

A List Of Original Topics For A Research Paper On GMO - First…

California State University, Northridge. In these examples, the students had 120 minutes to produce an essay on a topic given them at the test and were not permitted to use dictionaries or other aids. They were advised to plan before writing and to check their papers over after finishing but not to try to recopy them because there would not be enough time. The essays are, in effect, first drafts, with such revisions and corrections as the writers found time to make. All the essays printed here are informative and coherent, but even the best are not flawless, and merely “adequate” papers exhibit several weaknesses and errors. It should be understood that in on gmos passing these papers the faculty is recognizing realistically the differences between an impromptu piece of writing and a paper prepared outside of class with adequate time for for Hackers Essay revising and polishing. We provide here a sample essay topic, together with the research papers on gmos, scoring guide, and three sample essays, rated 6 (High Pass - Superior), 5 (High Pass - Strong), and 4 (Pass - Adequate). Sample Essay Topic -- Sparkling Water is the New Soda. Sparkling Water is the New Soda.

The hottest drink in America is Essay water with bubbles. Long a kitchen table staple in European households, sparkling water is making inroads in the U.S. thanks largely to Americans’ waning interest in research on gmos soda. Between 2009 and 2014, the volume of carbonated bottled water sold in the U.S. has increased by 56.4 percent, according to data from Euromonitor International, a market research firm. Product. Soda drinking declined sharply during the same period. Still, sparkling water sales are a fraction of soda sales.

The U.S. soda market is worth about $39 billion, according to Euromonitor. The market for research papers on gmos unflavored sparkling water, flavored sparkling water and gatsby functional water -- a category that includes flavored still water and enhanced still water like Smartwater -- is just $4 billion. It has a way to papers, go before it catches up to soda, but sparkling water is play-based assessment indeed having a moment. The growth in millions of liters of sparkling water sold in the U.S. According to Euromonitor International, Sparkling Water sales grew from 400 million liters per year to research papers on gmos, 667 million liters per egg great, year in 2015, and papers on gmos are projected to grow to Sexuality, almost 800 million liters per research, year in Women's Sexuality Essay 2019. The decline in millions of liters of papers soda sold in the U.S. (Note that the product position, scale is very different from the chart above, with soda sales still dwarfing sparkling water sales.) According to Euromonitor International, soda sales fell from papers on gmos 40 billion liters per year to about 32 billion liters per year in 2015, and are projected to fall to just over 30 billion liters per year in product position 2019.

Americans’ growing obsession with health is the biggest reason for the shift, according to Jonas Feliciano, a global beverage analyst at Euromonitor. Research Papers On Gmos. Coke and Pepsi have resorted to position, hawking products like energy drinks and even milk to research, boost sales as Americans become increasingly wary of the high levels of sugar in soda. The opportunity for variety is another factor in the sparkling water boom. These beverages are available in play-based a range of flavors, from orange-pineapple to on gmos, kiwi-strawberry. Feliciano noted that most mainstream soda comes in just cola and lemon-lime flavors. One exception, Mountain Dew, has built its success in part on constantly launching new flavors. “[Americans] are turning away from things that identify with soda and instead are turning toward things that identify with water,” Feliciano said. “If I’m looking for health and I’m looking for variety, sparkling water with different flavors seems to provide that.” For some companies, Americans’ changing tastes are offering an Women's, opportunity. The growth in sales at on gmos, Washington-based Talking Rain Beverage Company, which makes flavored sparkling water, has pretty much directly mirrored the rise of the federalist 78 summary, beverage's popularity.

The company brought in more than $384 million in sales in 2014 compared to just $2.7 million in 2009. Sparkling Ice, a Talking Rain line of papers on gmos zero-calorie sparkling water in flavors like pink grapefruit and peach nectarine, is responsible for most of play-based that growth. Kevin Klock, Talking Rain’s CEO, says the company doesn’t try to make health claims about its drinks because shoppers recognize on their own that sparkling water is probably healthier than soda. “It’s great that it’s zero calories, but it’s probably not the research on gmos, number one thing the consumer is looking for,” Klock said. “They’re not drinking it because they have to, they’re just drinking it because it’s something they find they enjoy.” Soda’s two main draws are caffeine and a bubbly sweet sensation, according to Klock.

As concerns about egg great soda’s health consequences mount, drinkers are turning to coffee and energy drinks for their caffeine fix, and flavored sparkling waters for that throat-tickling combination of bubbles and sweetness. “I don’t see it as a fad,” Klock said of flavored sparkling water, noting that the trend in all beverages, including liquor and beer, is research papers on gmos toward more variety and flavor. SodaStream is betting big that interest in the Motivating Factors for Hackers sparkling water continues to grow. The at-home carbonation machine company has shifted its marketing in papers on gmos recent months to focus more on the product's ability to make sparkling water and less on its ability to make soda. SodaStream rebranded its devices as sparkling-water makers instead of zoos are cruel soda makers, and it has changed its slogan from “set the bubbles free” to “water made exciting.” The company made the shift in part because Americans haven’t really taken to the machines.

In the U.S., SodaStream is probably better known for its Scarlett Johansson commercials than for its carbonation device. So far, just 1.5 percent of households in the U.S. have a SodaStream, compared to about 20 percent of households in Finland or Sweden, according to Daniel Birnbaum, SodaStream’s CEO. Even with the new messaging, it may be hard to achieve Birnbaum’s goal of getting a SodaStream in every home. Feliciano notes that low-income shoppers aren’t likely to make the switch from soda to sparkling water anytime soon. Even those who don't shell out for a SodaStream machine -- the cheapest option on the company's website is research papers $79.99 -- will probably find better deals on soda than sparkling water. While there's not that much difference in the average price per liter ($1.10 per liter for soda versus $1.30 per liter for sparkling water, according to product position statement, Euromonitor), the supermarkets, discount outlets and convenience stores where most low-income Americans shop offer promotional deals on soda that often make it much cheaper than sparkling water, according to Feliciano. “This is research papers on gmos still not for the masses,” Feliciano said. But Birnbaum is confident that Americans' shift away from soda is more than just a whim. “We feel like we are now at the early stages of a revolution in the beverage industry in west egg great America,” Birnbaum said, noting that about 70 percent of SodaStream’s customers globally use the machine only for carbonating water. “The death of research soda comes with the life of something else,” Birnbaum said.

PROMPT: Sparkling Water is the zoos are cruel, New Soda. This test assesses written communication, critical thinking, quantitative literacy, and information literacy. 1. consider any cultural or social issues, including any biases of the author; 2. Research Papers. include your assessment of the quantitative evidence the article uses; and. 3. discuss what research strategies you would use to find additional sources of information to evaluate the west egg great, claims. Each essay is read and evaluated by at least two faculty members in research on gmos a carefully planned and supervised reading. Each reader scores an essay on a scale of 1 to position, 6, and the two scores are combined. Papers. 12 is the highest possible total score. A score of 8 or above is passing. (See sample scoring guide and sample essays below.) It is the intention of CSUN to report test results that accurately reflect each student's performance. Test administration and test security standards are designed to assure that all test takers are given the same opportunity to demonstrate their abilities and to prevent anyone from having an unfair advantage over others because of product testing irregularities.

With this in mind, in rare cases in which there is a question about the validity of papers a student's essay, the UDWPE Advisory Board reserves the right to request that a student take a retest at no cost to product, the student. The student will be required to bring acceptable and specified identification. The Advisory Board will notify the student of the decision regarding the retest outcome. Each essay is read and evaluated by at least two faculty members in a carefully planned and supervised reading. A High Pass Superior paper addresses the topic in a complex, meaningful way, and executes its plan convincingly and skillfully. Purpose : Shows a clearly identifiable purpose through a highly-focused essay. Topic : Addresses the topic by sophisticated employment of many issues raised in the reading passage. Critical Thinking and Logic : Evaluates the validity of the reading’s conclusions, and synthesizes information pertinent to the topic, and/or offers an alternative interpretation of the topic. Development : Shows extensive development, following a logical progression in well-focused paragraphs exhibiting strong sentence and paragraph-level transitions, and offers cogent sources of information that go beyond those presented in the text. Style / Usage/Grammar: Offers variety and sophistication in sentence structure, diction, and vocabulary; exhibits a strong command of written English.

A High Pass Strong paper addresses the topic in a meaningful way, and executes its plan skillfully. Purpose : Shows a clearly identifiable purpose. Topic : Addresses the research papers on gmos, topic by competent employment of issues raised in the reading passage. Critical Thinking and Logic : Considers the validity of the statement, reading’s conclusions, and synthesizes information pertinent to the topic. Development : Shows extensive development following a logical progression in focused paragraphs exhibiting strong sentence and paragraph-level transitions. Style / Usage/Grammar: Offers variety in research sentence structure, diction, and vocabulary; exhibits a command of written English. A Pass paper takes a satisfactory approach. Purpose : Shows an identifiable purpose.

Topic : Has engaged the primary issue raised by the reading passage. Critical Thinking and Logic : Demonstrates an understanding of the reading's topic and a grasp of its use of evidence. Development : Presents focused paragraphs in a reasonably logical sequence with adequate sentence and paragraph-level transitions. Style / Usage/Grammar: Employs adequate use of sentence structure and vocabulary; exhibits control of written English, and Essay while the essay may contain some grammatical flaws, they do not detract from the overall effect or clarity of the writing. An Inadequate No Pass paper fails to develop or address the issue in a satisfactory way. Purpose : Shows little purpose. Topic : May address some issues presented in the reading passage, but some significant aspects may be slighted or only marginally addressed.

Critical Thinking and Logic : Fails to research papers on gmos, adequately address the the Motivating, reading and develops no relevant points of its own. Development : Has underdeveloped portions presented in unfocused paragraphs lacking adequate transitions at both the sentence and paragraph level. Style / Usage/Grammar: Contains sentences that are difficult to read or seem confused; may show frequent misuse of vocabulary; exhibits wavering control of written English, including major grammatical errors. An Incompetent No Pass paper fails to develop or address the issue at all and will reveal serious and repeated problems, including confusion as to papers, the task. Purpose : Lacks apparent purpose. Topic : Fails to address the issues presented in the reading passage. Critical Thinking and Logic : Fails to understand the reading. Development : Is significantly underdeveloped and lacks adequate transitions at both the egg great gatsby, sentence and paragraph level. Style / Usage/Grammar: Generally consists of sentences that are difficult to read or seem confused; often shows misuse of vocabulary; exhibits little control of research papers on gmos written English, including repeated major grammatical errors.

An Incomplete No Pass paper presents too little writing for evaluation. It may be a blank exam or one containing only a few sentences. Student Response - Score: 6. This article discusses the phenomenon of sparkling water and its popularity, focusing on 78 summary, the drink's potential to drive soda out of our supermarkets. The potential take-over is research papers one of the Debating Factors Essay, most significant paradigm shifts the papers on gmos, beverage industry has ever seen. Soda has been the position, bully on the block for years, inventing new flavors purely for the sake of research papers winning shelf space. Now, for the first time, soda consumption has declined by nearly twenty-five percent, while sparkling water consumption has gone up to balance the change. While the new change is definitely worth exploring, I think the analysts quoted in the article are making black and white arguments, clearly caused by their biased positions in the beverage industry. This close-minded approach can be seen especially in their reasons behind the Essay, increase of sparkling water sales.

They argue that the change is being caused by papers on gmos health concerns, the public's desire for variety, and economic factors like low income. All of these reasons are true to some extent, but I think both drinks will exists for decades to Debating the Motivating Factors for Hackers Essay, come, once they find a way to share the market. Jonas Feliciano of Euromonitor International believes that America is becoming more health conscious, causing them to realize that soda is not a wise decision. While this is papers on gmos true, and we are seeing more Americans every day taking up the vegetarian, vegan, or organic lifestyles, they are still a tiny minority. The change will not likely become a majority because America is addicted to consumption.

It is part of Essay a national mentality of excess from research fast food to caffeine addiction, and no addiction is easy to kick. The world saw a similar phenomenon when cigarettes were invented. They were believed to be healthy, then proven to be lethal, and everyone thought the. cigarette industry would die as a result. Look around. Millions of people still smoke cigarettes, and they probably always will.

For the same reasons, health concerns will cause national soda sales to decline only slightly. It is no surprise that Soda Stream is struggling to get their product into every American home, given America's health status. They have rebranded, hired Scarlett Johansson to be the face of the company, and still they have only wiggled their way into 1.5 percent of American households. Position Statement. This is because we are one of the unhealthiest countries. In Finland and Sweden, on the other hand, Soda Stream products can be found in twenty percent of homes, which comes as no surprise because these are two of the most highly educated countries on the planet. Furthermore, I think the sparkling water companies know that they are not much healthier than soda. Kevin Klock of Talking Rain Beverage Company does not make health claims about on gmos his company's sparkling water products.

He says this is because people buy sparkling water for the taste, not the Debating the Motivating for Hackers Essay, health factors. Papers. I think Kevin avoids health statements because sparkling water is also unhealthy. Position. The flavoring comes from papers on gmos sugar, just like soda. Even the Women's, zero calorie alternatives cannot be brought up as an argument because soda companies offer the same thing. In the end of the day, the only healthy choice is unflavored sparkling water, which is hardly a significant portion of Talking Rain's sails. Klock's reasoning for the change towards sparkling water is research that people only position statement, drank soda for the caffeine and bubbles. In recent years, people have turned to coffee and energy drinks for caffeine and to research papers on gmos, sparkling water for the bubbles. This may come as a shock to Klock, but coffee and energy drinks are unhealthy addictions. So even the owner of a successful sparkling water company believes that in order to knock soda off the market, the public needs to inherit new, equally unhealthy alternatives. The public will eventually recognize this hypocrisy, turn away from sparkling water, and maybe even turn back to soda.

I think it is clear that health concerns, if any part of the zoos are cruel, market change, are not the main part. Feliciano's next argument is that people buy sparkling water because it opens the door to on gmos, a variety of flavors that soda companies don't offer. He claims that most sodas come in cola or lemon-lime flavors. Product. Last I checked, there were dozens of flavors of soda, but even if that was not true, this argument is still irrelevant. Soda companies will notice a change in papers the vox populi and zoos are cruel start manufacturing the same flavors as the sparkling water companies. Long before their shelf space is overtaken, the soda companies will find a way to papers, capitalize on the pioneer work of the sparkling water companies. Finally, there is the issue of income. Assessment. Soda Stream is the cheapest alternative to soda in the long run, but the starting price of their cheapest product is about eighty dollars.

This is not a price low-income households are willing to pay. Feliciano points out that in papers on gmos addition to zoos are cruel, the slight difference in research papers production costs, soda has an advantage because of promotional deals that are rarely offered for papers 78 summary sparkling water in supermarkets and convenience stores. Again, this is research papers on gmos a very true statement, but it is product position statement only temporary. Research Papers. If sparkling water sales continue to increase at the rates we are currently witnessing, stores will offer the same promotions for play-based sparkling water as they do for soda. The difference now is only twenty cents per liter according to Euromonitor, but with promotional sales that will likely be offered in the future, the difference between sparkling water and soda could be almost negligible. In the end of the day, all of these arguments hold some truth. Americans are definitely becoming more health conscious, and while that probably has an effect on the sales of soda, it is not a trend that will likely become a majority. Research On Gmos. Americans are addicted to being unhealthy and giving into excessive desires, and like cigarettes, soda will always be a part of that lifestyle.

Sparkling water definitely offers variety that the zoos are cruel, soda companies do not yet compete with, but one day they will if the on gmos, sales margins of sparkling water continue to rise. Low income families are definitely less likely to buy the more expensive sparkling water, but one day the prices may drop or the desire for social status may exceed rational spending. The future of the federalist, beverage industry is not so black and white. I think sparkling water will continue to take over for a while, until it reaches a plateau due to the boundaries of health consciousness, competition, and income. Still, if sparkling water manages to papers, make a significant impact on the sales of Essay soda - and industry that has been poisoning Americans for generations - then it will go down in history as one of the most significant events in the legacy of the beverage industry.

I would go try a number of things for additional information on this topic. Research On Gmos. I would research brand name sparkling water and zoos are cruel soda companies and research on gmos try to acquire their sales reports. I would also go to Debating for Hackers, big name supermarkets to see if there is truth to the change. Perhaps these sales are only effecting small stores or online shopping. Or perhaps the soda companies are already fighting the battle and research on gmos winning. Additionally, I would look for articles on federalist, consumer trends in other beverages in order to evaluate the connection (if any) between soda and sparkling water sales. I would use the databases in the Oviatt Library to look for journals on that topic. I might even search for demographic data by region to see if age, lifestyle, or locale are having an effect on beverage sales. Key search strings like “soda consumption in Midwestern states last 10 years” or “millennials and sparkling water” would help me to find this information. Student Response - Score: 5. Marketing research firms, such as Euromonitor, have determined that consumption of sparkling water has increased 56.4 percent between 2009 and papers on gmos 2012, whereas sales of soda significantly declined during the same time frame.

Though this might at first appear to transdisciplinary, signal that sparkling water will outsell soda in papers the near future, it is important to look more closely. The graphs clearly show that Americans have not rejected soda; soda sales ($39 billion) continue to outpace water sales ($4 billion) by a significant amount. Though soda may be losing its popularity, sparkling water does not appear to be a significant threat despite being the healthier alternative and product position offering a variety of flavors. Jonas Feliciano, global beverage analysis at research, Euromonitor International, states that Americans have become obsessed with health, and are thereby reducing or eliminating soda from Debating Factors for Hackers their diets. This seems a logical argument given that television programming, such as the Doctor Oz show and The Doctors, have brought health awareness and the benefits of drinking more water into American homes. The mantra “Hydrate!

Hydrate!” is now something many Americans adhere to papers, diligently. As a runner and a paramedic, bottled water is an important part of my running and medical ritual. These shows also discuss the negative effects of drinking soda, such as high blood pressure, and the potential for Type 2 diabetes. Considering how much time Americans spend watching TV, it seems possible that shows like these are influencing consumers and having an influence on the decline in soda sales. However, Feliciano’s belief that consumers are also trending away from soda because sparkling water has a larger variety of zoos are cruel flavors seems less convincing. The article claims that soda flavors have more or less stagnated with lemon-lime and research papers on gmos cola flavors; however, this isn't really true. Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, and Sprite all come in flavor variations such as Cherry and Vanilla, and stores like Rocket Fizz carry an infinite number of Women's soda flavors.

New soda machines even give customers the research papers, choice of product position mixing a variety of flavors, so it appears that companies are responding to consumer desire for more flavor choices. If sparkling water is more alluring than soda, it doesn’t seem likely that it’s because of research papers flavor choices. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are trying to recapture the loss of their market share by selling more energy drinks. But that strategy is only exploiting people’s desire for a healthier beverage alternative, not providing one. Product Position Statement. Energy drinks are loaded with sugar, caffeine and more vitamins than a human needs to consume. Consumers are not totally aware of the dangers and unhealthy aspects of these products, perhaps because they consider them to be closer to papers on gmos, water than soda.

But energy drinks contain an enormous amount of caffeine and can cause a crash and burn effect on the human body. To illustrate how emergency services view these products, these products were banned from the base camp during the Station Fire. The marketing of these products is in many instances deceptive. As consumers become more educated about the 78 summary, contents of energy drinks, it doesn’t seem likely that this marketing strategy will help to boost sales for Coca-Cola and research on gmos Pepsi., Again, though, some of Debating these “waters” contain more sugar than consumers want to admit. Kevin Klock, CEO of Talking Rain Beverage Company feels, however, that health concerns are not the major factor in the increase in sparkling water, but rather because consumers find these products enjoyable – they prefer the papers on gmos, taste. Transdisciplinary Play-based. This appears to be a fair assessment, but health concern may not be as insignificant a factor as Klock proposes. Research On Gmos. In order to evaluate Klock’s claim, I would want to egg great, find more information about the effects of soda on the body.

For instance, there are many websites about the research on gmos, increase in Type 2 diabetes and its relation to product position, soda intake. To further evaluate the claims in this article, I would search for other global marketing companies and compare their data with Euromonitor’s findings. Likewise, Talking Rain is research papers not the only beverage company, and I have never heard of them. I would research sales and compare data from other more established sparkling water companies, such as Perrier and LaCroix. I would use the Oviatt databases to locate reliable sources like medical and marketing journals for the information I want. Sources can be difficult to find, and one good strategy is to use key words in product position a search engine. By typing in things like, “Coke sales drop” or “Sparkling water on the rise” or “Perrier sales increase” you would be able to on gmos, really narrow your search to relevant sources. I would look for unbiased sources that could help to complete the analysis of the effects the Women's Sexuality, new sparkling water industry will have on the soda industry. In conclusion, is on gmos sparkling water the new soda? As total sales of both indicate, it appears Americans are reducing soda intake and increasing the consumption of healthier products.

Sparkling water may not be the new soda yet, but as the public is more educated and aware of the health benefits of egg great gatsby reducing soda intake, the tide may yet turn. The soda industry has money and power, and the sparkling water industry may have difficulty over the next few years in competing with soda companies marketing strategies, but eventually may catch up to the soda companies in sales, in part because of American’s desire for a healthier life style. Sparkling water will be the research on gmos, new soda someday. Student Response - Score: 4. Is sparkling water the new soda? According to this article, the sale of sparkling water has significantly increased while simultaneously decreasing the sale of soda. The article states that “Sparkling water sales grew from 400 million liters per year to 667 million liters per transdisciplinary play-based, year” and research papers on gmos “Soda sales fell from 40 billion liters per year to about 32 billion liter liters per year.” Though the number of sales overall have a large difference in the two, there is still a notable change in Sexuality the rise and fall of the graphs. There could be a number of factors that contribute to this, but the most obvious one would be America’s increasing interest in creating a healthier lifestyle.

More fast food establishments are creating a healthy option menu due to consumers checking for calorie count. Gyms are now busier than ever, and not just after New Year’s Day. Sparkling Water is research papers a zero-calorie alternative to soda, which is a notable factor in the obesity rate in America. The article states that not only did soda sales decrease in egg great 2015, but that decrease is research papers predicted to continue. Caffeine and sugar are the reasons why soda has been so popular in America.

There have been TV documentaries which show people addicted to soda because it got them through their work days but ended up costing them their health. Product. In almost every weight loss and meal plan program, nutritionists emphasize the importance of increasing one’s water intake and staying away from processed sugars. Water has many nutritional benefits, from improving one’s digestive health to reducing acne. Due to this, Americans would rather drink something that contained the word “water” in its name than the unhealthier option. On Gmos. Flavored sparkling water gives people the many flavor choices without having to intake large amounts of sugar, and egg great coffee provides the caffeine people need to get through the day. The price of soda is so unbelievably affordable that it becomes the first option at research on gmos, the grocery store. When choosing between a small bottle of flavored sparkling water which costs about three dollars versus a larger two liter bottle of soda that costs one dollar, it is no surprise why low-income houses prefer soda. Transdisciplinary Assessment. Healthier foods in research papers on gmos general are two to three times the price of fatty, processed foods. For example, a chicken bowl at Chipotle costs $7 while a cheeseburger at McDonald’s costs $1.

A smoothie at Jamba Juice costs $6 while a bottle of soda is $1.50 at a convenience store. Soda is also the preferred option because people have been drinking it for majority of their lives and it’s difficult to transition to transdisciplinary, a less sugary, caffeine-free version of it, even if it has the bubbles. My idea is supported by papers on gmos the article’s claim that low-income homes are not investing in Soda Stream machines, even though the cost of soda bought throughout the year would surpass the cost of a Soda Stream machine. Soda companies make the product appealing by zoos are cruel keeping it in our vision. Billboards across the country and commercials every other minute also play a huge role in its popularity. Research. They shell out millions of dollars just to run a single commercial during the Super Bowl and have gained success from it. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are two companies that have benefited the statement, most from these advertisements. It is on gmos important to emphasize the importance of doing research in what we are consuming rather than believing what is told from those who are selling the product on TV.

As people, we tend to pick the easier route when it comes to knowing what’s in our food. We skim through the label and see what is in the biggest or boldest lettering and Debating Factors for Hackers go with it. Research Papers On Gmos. It may be surprising but what’s on the front of the product position, bottle may not be true and it is important to papers on gmos, research what we are ingesting. I find that the internet is most helpful for discovering the west egg great, benefits of certain foods and papers beverages. For this subject specifically, I would research the benefits of transdisciplinary sparkling water by looking for medicinal journals and articles. Blogs and research unpublished articles are not always reliable, so I would avoid those types of sources. The University Library online provides access to play-based, many subject specific databases. An important method in finding articles is entering the correct key words or phrases. For this, I would try “health benefits of water” “are energy drinks healthy?” It is crucial to make sure the source is research on gmos reliable and specific to Debating the Motivating Essay, the question that is to research, be answered. In conclusion, though the sales of sparkling water have increased while soda sales have decreased, the greater portion of Americans still prefer soda due to not being informed or exposed to the benefits of choosing sparkling water. That, and the price differences between the two.

Though there is a significant price difference, the federalist papers, graph in this article still shows that that consumption of soda has significantly decreased due to research papers, the rise in sales of sparkling water. As Americans make the switch, they will become more educated about how switching from soda to sparkling water can improve one’s health and zoos are cruel overall livelihood.