Argument – National Park

The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of environmental damage. This strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from those people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.

Before charges people more money, the evidence given in the argument should consider all other factors that may affected on the result,  Illium government is assumed that by increasing the usage fees of parks and wilderness areas for activities, they will help preserve those lands from damages as per happened in Myria.

First, I would like to comment on what happened in Myria, it is not clear and vague,  many questions need to be clarified to be able to encompasses all sides of the given issue, such as what is the society culture and people behavior in Myria?, what is the type of environmental damages happened?, is laying waste or destruction / if it is individuals actions or episode accident  or its people trends, it’s may be the education level and attitude of people in Myria is differ than the people in Illium. In addition to the questions above, how much of charges fees applied for using parks in Myria?, is it lower or equal or greater than the originally applied in Illium, and if it is the same, what is the advantages of increasing the using fees, if the damage will happened, may be Illium Government intends to use these fees for maintenance and preservation, and if so how much it will cost?

Another point to consider, the argument not given any alternatives or study the possibility of using it, such as, prepare an enlightenment campaigns to people in Illium, introducing the importance of  such parks and wilderness area and how we preserve it. Also they can issue a stringent policy or law prohibited the damage or waste laying to any of public parks, provided close monitoring from the government to the public parks to avoid any reckless or irresponsible behavior.

In conclusion, I don’t know if the above decision will really protect the parks or not, because the lack of information given, also the alternative does not discussed, but what I know is the parks and wilderness areas is the last thing we would like to touch it with any type of damages, our life which is surrounded by artificial materials and polluted air need something pure and virgin to remember us with the original nature of our planet.


About eslamelsherif

I'm 34 years and I worked as a Project Manager for Oil & Gas Downstream projects since 2002, I'm looking for the absolute knowledge; I'm interesting in Project Management, Philosophy, Theology, Roots of monotheism.On the other hand i like Traveling, adventures, Photographing.

One response to “Argument – National Park”

  1. eslamelsherif says :

    Reblogged this on eslamelsherif and commented:

    Practical Intelligence Lends a Hand
    By Professor Robert Sternberg

    This year, record numbers of high school students obtained top grades in their final exams, yet employers complain that young people still lack the basic skills to succeed at work. the only explanation offered is that exams must be getting easier. But the real answer could lie in a study just published by Professor Robert Sternberg, an eminent psychologist at Yale University in the USA and the world’s leading expert in intelligence. His research reveals the existence of a totally new variety: practical intelligence.
    Professor Sternberg’s astonishing findings is that practical intelligence, which predict success in real life, has an inverse relationship with academic intelligence. In other words, the more practically intelligent you are, the less likely you are to succeed at school or university. Similarity, the more paper qualifications you hold and the higher your grades, the less able you are to cope with problems of everyday life and the lower your score in practical intelligence.
    Many people who are clearly successful in their place of work do badly in standard IQ (academic intelligence) tests. Entrepreneurs and those who have built large business from those who have built large business from scratch are frequently discovered to be high school or college drop-outs. IQ as a concept is more than 100 years old. It was supposed to explain why some people excelled at a wide variety of intellectual tasks. But IQ ran into trouble when it became apparent that some high scores failed to achieve in real life what was predicted by their tests.
    Emotional intelligence (EQ), which emerged a decade ago, was supposed to explain this deficit. It suggested that to succeed in real life, people needed both emotional as well as intellectual skills. EQ includes the abilities to motivate yourself and persist in the face of frustrations to control impulses and delay gratification; to regulate moods and keep distress from swamping the ability to think; and to understand and emphasize with others. While social or emotional intelligence was a useful concept in explaining many of the real world deficiencies of super intelligent people, it did not to go any further than the IQ test in measuring success in real life. Again, some of the most successful people in the business world were obviously lacking in social charm.
    Not all the real-life difficulties we face are solvable with just good social skills – and good social acumen in one situation may not translate to another. The crucial problem with academic and emotional intelligence scores is that they are both poor predictors of success in real life. For example, research has shown that IQ tests predict only between 4% and 25% of success in life, such as job performance.
    Professor Sternberg’s group at Yale began from a very different position to traditional researchers into intelligence. Instead of asking what intelligence was and investigating whether it predicted success in life, Professor Sternberg asked what distinguished people who ere thriving from those that were not. Instead of measuring this from of intelligence is scored by answers to real-life dilemmas such as: “If you were travelling by car and got stranded on a motorway during a blizzard, what would you do?” An important contrast between these questions is that in academic tests there is usually only one answer, whereas in practical intelligence tests – as in real life – there are several different solutions to the problem.
    The Yale group found that most of the really useful knowledge which successfully people have acquired is gained during everyday activities – but typically without conscious awareness. Although successful people’s behavior reflects the fact that they have this knowledge, high achievers are often unable to articulate or define what they know. This partly explains why practical intelligence has been so difficult to identify.
    Professor Sternberg found that the best way to reach practical intelligence is to ask successful people to relate examples of crucial incidents at work where they solved problems demonstrating skills they had learn while doing their jobs. It would appear the one of the best way of improving your practical intelligence is to observe master practitioners at work and, in particular, to focus on the sills they have acquired while doing the job. Oddly enough, this the basis of traditional apprentice training. Historically, the junior doctor learnt by observing the consultant surgeon at work and the junior lawyer by assisting the senior barrister.
    Another area where practical intelligence appears to resolve a previously unexplained paradox is that performance in academic tests usually declines after formal education ends. Yet most older adults contend that their ability to solve practical problems increases over the years. The key implications for organizations and companies is that practical intelligence may not be detectable by conventional auditing and performance measuring procedures. Training new or less capable employees to become more practically intelligent will involve learning from the genuinely practically intelligent rather than from training manuals or courses.
    Perhaps the biggest challenge is in recruitment, as these new studies strongly suggest that paper qualifications are unlikely to be helpful in predicting who will be best at solving your company’s problems. Professor Sternberg’s research suggests that we should start looking at companies in a completely different way – and see them as places where a huge number of problems are being solved all the time but where it may take new eyes to see the practical intelligence in action.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: