|
You have 45 minutes to write on the following topic.
Please read and think about the following two quotations:
A. "Organized charity is doing good for good-for-nothing people."
B. "Charity is a helping hand stretched out to save some from
the inferno of their present
life."
Write an essay on the above two statements in three parts as follows:
1. Compare the statements. Explain what the two statements have
in common and how they overlap.
2. Contrast the statements. Explain how the two statements differ.
3. Take a position with regard to the two statements by choosing
one or mediating between them, and support your view with an example
from your own observation or experience.
 SCORE OF SIX
The two statements address an identical topic. That is, they
address charity, which might be defined as - the act of giving something
of value, without the expectation of something in return. Further,
the two statements address the receiver, the person or persons to
whom the charity is directed.
That the two statements both give equal weight to the meaning of
charity is evidenced by the descriptions "doing good,"
and "hand stretched out to save." These descriptions both
illustrate the benificence of the act of charity, that it is in
one act, both a recognition of need, and an attempt to fulfill that
need. They both paint a picture of goodness, honor and sharing on
the part of the charity giver.
Contrary to these similarities, the two statements are in stark
opposition to the beneficiary's status in society. The first, calling
the receivers "good for nothing people," depicts vagrants,
bums, and worthless flies, fouling the smooth-flowing surface of
society. The second, seeing the receivers as involved in an "inferno,"
brings to mind visions of lost souls, wandering homeless and possesionless
in the Dante-esque hell of a society which measures a person's worth
by his wealth.
Another contrast between the two statements, more subtle yet intuitively
strong, is that the benefactor, the charity-giver, attains an even
higher degree of honor when he gives to one in true need, than when
his sharing is enforced, by taxes, social pressure or inherited
response. The first statement speaks to the latter of these, the
second to the former. Thus, the second statement not only attributes
a higher character to the beneficiary, but also to the benefactor
whose actions are performed from the heart.
Although the truth, as always, lies in the middle ground, between
these two extremes, I am more inclined to the second statement.
I have felt some degree of sympathy to almost every destitute, penniless
or homeless person that I have met. Hobos, bums on trains and the
road, are there usually as a result of a fallen thread in the Fates'
tapestry or a falling out with society. Some would not accept a
handout if offered, demanding to perform work in exchange, while
others are every way deserving of a handout, refusing formal governmental
welfare.
The poor of the urban slums are, the vast majority of the time,
victims of a society which has entrenched them in a lifestyle from
which it is virtually to lift themselves out. These are the ones
which are most aptly described as falling to an "inferno"
in their present life. That society is obligated to providing charity
to these victims of its own hand is just.
I have observed examples or persons receiving charity who simply
in the act of accepting it, belie a certain "good-for- nothingness."
These are usually persons who would be affluent other than for a
desire to catch a free ride on societies' back. A part-time employed
student, relaxing for the summer at the taxpayers' expense is one
example which stands out in my personal experience.
Still those in the category of good for nothing are a minute proportion
of those receiving charity. With an optomistic view of the situation
of mankind, one cannot deny the value of charity not only to those
receiving it, but to the world in general.
COMMENT: Keeping in mind that this essay was written in 45
minutes, this is a superior response. Although it has some flaws,
it is well developed and organized. There are indications ("the
Dante-esqe hell of society") of considerable sophistication
in language and sentence structure.
SCORE OF FIVE
Charity has been practiced for thousands of years by human beings.
The story of the good Samaritan, found in the bible, is an ancient
example of charity that is familiar to many people. The following
two quotes are both written about charity: "Organized charity
is doing good for good-for- nothing people," and, "Charity
is a helping hand stretching out to save some from the inferno of
their present life." Both of these two quotes imply that charity
involves helping, with acts of kindness, people who are in need or
people who are destitute.
However, the two quotes express widely divergent views on the value
of employing charity to help destitute people. The first quote suggests
that charity is useless. It implies that the people that charity is
directed toward are not worthy of such help and that charity does
not help them improve their lives. In contrast, the second quote suggests
that the recipients of charity are worthy of the assistance afforded.
It implies that the lives of the people recieving the charity will
be better because of it.
I agree with the latter quote. The first quote shows a lack of belief
in the good side of human nature and a disregard to trying to help
other people. The second quote supports a belief that all human beings
deserve a decent lifestyle. I believe that charity is not a "cure-all",
a person must want to work toward helping himself or herself. But
sometimes people in need of charity don't have the material means
or positive attitudes necessary to help themselves better their lives.
Charity can provide both.
One summer my mother and three sisters, and I had to go on welfare.
We did not have enough money for the basic necessities of life despite
the fact that my mother was working. The food stamps and help from
our church that we were awarded were greatly appreciated by us.
Unfortunately, there is an attitude held by many in our society
that recieving charity is degrading and thus I didn't tell many
of my friends about our financial situation. The charity given to
us that summer enabled us to eat. It provided us with the means
to survive until the fall when my mother worked additional hours
teaching. I believe charity is helpful and a necessary act of concern
for human beings in need. There are some people who abuse the charity
given by others but there are always abusers in society. It is not
justified to deny people in need because of the unethical actions
of a few.
COMMENT: This paper handles the question quite well. It is
clearly organized and, although it does not explore all of the possibilities
of the comparison/contrast, it is strong in its use of supporting
example. Its sentence structure, syntax and diction are generally
free from major problems.
SCORE OF FOUR
It is argued that "organized charity provides good for the
good-for-nothing" and that charity is a true benefit to those
in need. These statements, although quite opposite also have some
aspects in common. The difference is largely in the perspective
of the individual directly affected.
To say that charity is doing good for the good-for-nothing suggests
that whose who accept charity are useless and unproductive. In fact
it is likely that the receivers of charity are in fact unproductive,
ie out of work. In that they represent a potential for production
indicates they are not useless however. By accepting charity one
may however feel useless. This is due to the pervasive attitude
that people must be productive to be good- for-something.
Because people are often thrust out of the work force without any
forewarning and because it is common that new work is difficult
to find, the acceptance of charity doesn't always cause distress.
Workers know that their aid is only temporary until they are matched
with a new job.
In either case, when people are in the position where charity is
being offered and is needed, it is likely that they will feel both
unproductive and grateful. Because they are in trouble economically
their lives can indeed be an inferno.
The difference between the gratitude for needed charity and the
feeling of "freeloading" is great when the feeling acts
singularly. Being grateful for help often induces people to organize
and give more of themselves to others. Those who have been helped
often feel motivated to help others.
On the other hand, those who feel unproductive and useless are ashamed
and bitter. They are too ridden with guilt and self- consciousness
to motivate and help others. They are likely to feel anger toward
the society that offers them charity rather than gratitude.
The feeling that is probably pervasive among the disfortunate lies
somewhere in between guilt & gratitude. The gratitude side of
the scale is likely to be more productive in general and therefore
is the prefered state. By gratefully accepting aid, a lot of immediate
problems are solved for the unfortunate and they can then attempt
to reorganize their lives.
The little bit of guilt from the other side
of the scale helps those with aid recognize the needs of disfortunate
people. Then, they can both work together to rebuild their lives
and get back on their feet. For example, a story found in the S.
F. Chronicle recently described two people who were out of work
who became friends and started a firewood business. They were both
previously on public assistance and now are off. They both indicated
that had the aid not been available they would not have made it.
Because of the motivation induced by the acceptance of aid the helping
hand view is accepted.
COMMENT: Although competent, this paper is less successful
than the previous two. The large number of short paragraphs indicates
some difficulties with development of ideas. The overuse of the
passive voice ("It is argued," etc.), some diction problems
("the feeling acts singularly," "disfortunate"),
along with the sketchiness of the example, sometimes interfere with
the writer's meaning.
SCORE OF THREE
The two quotes state that charity does good for a part of society.
To some people both statements might indicate that "good-for-nothing
people" and people in "the inferno of their present life"
are one in the same. To other people, the parts of the two quotes
dealing with people who recive charity might mean that the type of
people mentioned in quote "A" are not the same as those
mentioned in quote "B."
Comparison
For many people life is a living hell, and they are thus in need of
charity. There are people in society however, that believe that these
people create their own hell. While they might maintain that charity
is good for these people, they still think of them as "good-for-nothing".
They probably think that charity cases could climb out of their "inferno"
if they tried, but they will not and are therefore a burdun on society.
Contrast
To many people in society there is a distinction between the "good
for nothing people" reciving charity and those for whom life
is hell also reciving charity. Furthermore, they think that organized
charity might tend to do good for those who do not really desrve it
(the "good for nothing people"). Whereas, charity in general
tends to help out both the good for nothings and the people who really
need it.
Pt.3
Statement "B," is the best because takes a more positive
view to people in need. Statement "A" takes a less positive,
less cynical view.
I know of a person who receives charity that someone who might make
statement "A" would refuse to give charity to. This person
is to proud to tell anyone of his affliction.
COMMENT: Both the comparison and contrast sections of this
paper are undeveloped and contain quite a few problems of syntax,
punctuation and diction. The third part of the answer overgeneralizes
with virtually no support.
SCORE
OF TWO
These two statements contain very strong personal biases toward
the economically disadvantaged, and the people involved in their
welfare. Both quotations seem to contain an element of sarcasm or
negativity. The inevitable plight of the financially unfortunate
person appears to be the attitude represented in these quotations.
Charity is thought to be an ineffective means to this problem.
Quotation A is making a judgment about the people that charity effects.
The "...good-for- nothing people, implies that these people
don't deserve the aid of the organization. In contrast quotation
"B" is speaking more of the hopelessness of charity, and
its minute effect on the masses of disadvantaged.
I feel that even tho organizations concerned in charitable contributions
have only a very small impact on the world at large, it is a beginning
in raising the concerns of others.
COMMENT: This paper is very thin in content and inadequate
in interpreting the quotations. Part 3 is completely unsupported
and there are some serious problems with sentence structure and
diction ("Charity is thought to be an ineffective means to
this problem").
SCORE OF ONE
The only thing statements A and B have in common is charity being
supportive.
Statement A uses "organized" where statement B uses charity
in general. This means statement B can include all of statement A
but A can only be a part of statement B.
Charity is supportive to a lot of people. It is helpful but charity
can also be abused. People living for what other people will hand
out to them won't be living their own life.
COMMENT: This paper is far too undeveloped for even a minimal
answer. |
