Hard questions, easy answers (or when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras)

Perhaps youve heard the saying when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. If youre not familiar with the expression, it means that when searching for an explanation, you should always consider obvious possibilities before thinking about more unlikely options. Whenever I tutor the Writing section of the SAT, I find myself uttering these words with inordinate frequency. Ive worked with a number of students trying to pull their Writing scores from the mid-600s to the 750+ range. Most have done well on practice tests but then unexpectedly seen their scores drop on the actual test. Unsurprisingly, they were puzzled by their performance on the real thing; they just couldnt figure out what they had done differently. And at first glance, they did seem to know what they were doing. When I worked very carefully through a section with them, however, some cracks inevitably emerged. Not a lot, mind you, but just enough to consistently pull them down. They would be sailing along, identifying errors like there was no tomorrow, when all of the sudden they would hit a question whose error (if any) they simply could not identify. When that happened, they would stop and read the sentence again. And when they couldnt hear anything wrong, they would read the sentence again, slowly, trying to hear whether something was wrong (mistake #1). Then, if they really didnt want to choose No error but werent sure whether something was truly wrong, they would start searching for an explanation, usually a somewhat convoluted one, for why a perfectly acceptable construction was ambiguous or awkward or otherwise wrong (mistake #2). Almost always they did so when the actual answers answers based on concepts they understood perfectly well were staring them right in the face. One of things that its easy to forget or, in the case of many natural high-scorers who havent needed to study the framework of the test, to never realize is that hard questions are not necessarily hard because they test hard concepts. Most often, they are hard either because they test (relatively) simple concepts in hard ways or because they combine concepts in unexpected ways. Hard questions can and often do have easy answers. That does not mean that the answer is the option that sounds weird (thats the distractor answer). It does, however, mean that the answer is likely to be an extremely simple word like is or are or it. It also means that the answer probably involves an extremely common error, like subject verb agreement or pronoun agreement, not some obscure rule youve never heard of. The challenge is figuring out which concept is being tested, not understanding the concept itself. So when people who can usually hear the error come across a question whose answer they dont instantly hear, their instinctive reaction is to look for something outlandish to be wrong with it, not to think systematically about what the most common errors are and check to see whether the question contains them. In others words, they hear hoofbeats and imagine that a herd of zebras is about to come racing around the corner. For example, consider the following question, which a very high-scoring student of mine recently missed: (A) Thanks to the strength (B) of the bonds between (C) its constituent carbon atoms, a diamond has exceptional physical properties (D) that makes it useful in a wide variety of industrial applications. (E) No error If you spotted the error immediately, great, but bear with me for illustrative purposes. The sentence itself is rather challenging: it discusses a topic (chemistry) that many students are unlikely to have unpleasant associations with, and it also contains the word constituent, which many weaker readers will have difficulty decoding, and whose meaning many slightly stronger readers will not know or be able to figure out. So right there we have two big stumbling blocks likely to distract from the grammar of the sentence. Many test-takers are also likely to think that Thanks to sounds too casual and would be considered wrong on a serious test like the SAT. Many other test-takers are likely to just not hear any error. In that case, the most effective approach is to consider the structure of the test. The most common error is subject-verb agreement, and when in doubt, its the error you should always check first. There is exactly one underlined verb in the sentence: makes. It singular (remember: singular verbs ends in -s), which means that its subject must be singular as well. But what is the subject? Physical properties, which is plural, so theres a disagreement. The answer is therefore (D). The sentence should read †¦physical properties that make it useful. The moral of the story is that if you dont spot an error immediately, whatever you do, dont fall into the loop of endlessly rereading the sentence and trying to figure out whether something sounds funny. Instead, check systematically for the top five or so errors: subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement (check it and they), verb tense (pay attention to dates and time words), adjectives vs. adverbs (easy to overlook), and, if youre at the end of a section, faulty comparisons. If all of those things check out, the sentence is probably fine.

Human right to water Research Paper - 3850 Words

Human right to water (Research Paper Sample) Content: Human right to waterNumber:Course:Date: 1 Executive SummaryIn 2010 July, the UN consented to a novel resolution asserting the human right to clean and safe drinking water as well as sanitation. 120 countries voted in support of the decree; 41 (mainly developed) nations refrained plus there were nil "no" votes. Most developing countries are dedicated to enhancing access to safe and clean water, as well as appropriate sanitation structures for the impoverished human inhabitants of the world. The implication of the right to water is essential, and can narrowly be overemphasized, and therefore, the relevance of ethics to utilization of water and water management is well-defined in a broad sense. It is vital for everybody involved in water resource management to possess a well-reasoned perception of the moral obligations and values, which match that significance. Within the field of ethics, queries of scientific expertise come accompanied by facets of cultural perception a nd meaning and; queries of sanitation, health promotion, as well as conservation come with questions of human rights, equity, and justice; while questions of biodiversity and sustainability come with queries of democratic control, policy, and law. The consequential ethical theories such as utilitarianism state that actions that bring more value are correct and those that do not are incorrect. Utilitarianism supports the right to water since it believes that the right to water brings more value to the community than harm. The justice theory (which entails Justice, equity, and fairness) support an action if the action entails doing the right thing. In this case, they support equity in human right to water since it is the just thing to do. There is a need of governing water at all the pertinent levels, to guarantee a balanced water consideration by valuing the human entitlement to water, especially for the extremely deprived inhabitants both in rural and urban areas. 1 Water as a human entitlement2.1 IntroductionIn current days, the accessibility to safe and clean water for simple individual necessities seems to be progressively considered as a major human right accepted by international law, though in many instances not openly, unlike other rights, for instance, the right to shelter, life, food as well as health and welfare, and shield against malnutrition and disease (Shaw, Barry Sansbury 2009, p. 130).In fact, only two global conventions openly acknowledge the human entitlement to water: the UNà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s 1989 Convention on Child Rights (article 24) as well as the UNà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s 1979 convention on the eradication of all types of bias against women (article fourteen). Before this, surprisingly, only the 1949 Geneva Convention (article 26) recognized human right to water (to war prisoners!). This is, certainly, rather startling as the accessibility to safe water appears to be a requirement that permits numerous other rights, for instance, food, life and health (Crane 2007, p. 100). Nonetheless, it appears this challenge is increasingly being modified. It is not startling to observe the rights to water being progressively mentioned in global declarations and national constitutions. An obvious turning point about this matter was the backing in 2002 by one fifty three Countries of General Comment Number 15 to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights international covenant. It is one of the fundamental human rights accords that are being supervised in the UNà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s human rights system framework ((Alzola 2008, p. 278).The General Comment no. 15 clearly respects the water rights as a necessary requirement to the delight of other human entitlements, affirming that the right to water sanctions everybody to safe, acceptable, adequate, physically accessible as well as reasonably priced water for domestic and personal uses. A sufficient volume of clean water is essential to avoid death from lack of fluids, lessen the threat of water interrelated disease, as well as provide for cooking, consumption, domestic and personal hygienic requirements (Howell 2010, p. 22). The record of the qualities of water that are encompassed within the human right to water, as stated above, is noteworthy. Embracing the definition afforded by the UN, the characteristics include sufficient-adequate quantity consistent with international rules (this normally means 40-50 Liters/day per individual, with a conclusive minimum of twenty Liters); acceptable and safe, namely safe for every usage (meeting incredibly high requirements when utilized for drinking), as well as of a standard color, odor and flavor; physically accessible, namely within secure physical reach- in the house or close to the household; and reasonably priced, namely not to affect a personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s capacity to purchase other vital goods (Alzola 2008, p. 278).The human right to water likewise explicitly embraces the privilege to sanitation. Regarding thi s idea, General Comment no. 15 directs that countries have a duty to widen safe sanitation services, particularly to rural, as well as underprivileged urban areas, in view of children and women. Indeed, the human right to water plus to sanitation is closely related (Bakker 2007, p. 443). The water rights, especially as they connect to quality of water, cannot be guaranteed without sufficient sanitation. Additionally, the sanitation right cannot be attained without accessibility, on a recurring basis, to a modicum water amount. Sanitation and water are, in point of fact, two sides of a coin. Furthermore, they are to a great extent connected to the education and hygiene rights since disease transmission may still transpire even when sanitation and water facilities are set up.Presently, the water right is mostly acknowledged at the global level, as well as is seen as an essential human dignity facet. Obviously; however, in numerous nations, much is yet to be accomplished for its recogn ition at the state level. The unwillingness of some administrations to undertake the law of water rights is frequently linked to the financial intricacies linked with its employment. Many leaders are still scared that acknowledging the water rights implies that water has to be provided at no cost. Water provision does not need to be free of charge, but it must be accessible, safe, sufficient, and inexpensive. The recognition of the water right principle means that water must be deemed as an economic good and a social good (Shaw, Barry Sansbury 2009, p. 130).In advanced nations, the compensation of water provision and sanitation costs by the consumers appears to be progressively accepted. Even within these nations; however, some sets, for instance, those living within particular urban poor or rural areas, might find it hard to shoulder the full expense of the costs linked to their consumption of water for sanitary and domestic uses. There has to be unity or redistribution methods th rough which the wealthy societies in a nation or expanse will participate to guarantee minimum amounts of safe and clean water provision to the underprivileged community members. Water services payments should be centered upon equity criteria, guaranteeing that they are less costly to all, as well as the underprivileged groups as well. Evidently, if funding of sanitation and water supply is supposed to originate only from state reserves, there are just two options for generating funds: tax payers or water users. In the circumstance of developing nations, the funding of sanitation and water supply to all, such as abiding by the Millennium Development Goals requirements, may demonstrate to be impracticable if the alternative is the national funds only. In this circumstance, the usage of resources from external suppliers, for example, Official Development Assistance resources may prove essential (Shaw, Barry Sansbury 2009, p. 388).Historically, the usage of such intercontinental aid r esources has been rather ineffective since the resources invested have been misused, used in constructing water supply structures that are not appropriately maintained once they start operating, plus they are often misplaced because of venality. The water consumers profiting from these resources should be restrained by incentive systems directed to the effectual utilization of water, averting its contamination and waste (Bakker 2007, p. 443). Funding strategies need to be more motivated but also must be better regulated. Especially, any part of investment into the water infrastructures must be set aside for their repairs and for building of capacity, specifically for coaching the women and the men who will be at the helm of their maintenance and operation (Shaw, Barry Sansbury 2009, p. 388).The water rights quantification has been the focus of various discussions. The circumstance that water has become a limited reserve has led to others debates calling for enforcement of control o f water rights. Accordingly, the water right definition normally denotes to essential human needs or basic needs, usually seen as those pertaining to drinking water as well as to the cooking water, and other major domestic water usages. There have been some attempts to link a minimum quantity of water to the fulfillment of these vital or basic water needs (Bakker 2008, p. 241). 2 WATER ETHICSEthics refer to moral principles for human conduct, but ethical conduct must answer the question à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"why must I be concerned?à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ to be encompassed from persons and validate the idea of sustainable usage.The utilitarian position recognizes the value in nature because it is useful to human beings. Water is a basic need for humans since it is inferred by the rights to food, life, and health as specified from the UNà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s human rights universal declaration. In this standpoint, people must worry regarding the disruption of the ...