Advanced Critical Writing

The author’s claim about binge drinking is backed up by the literature with findings that British young people are some of the worst perpetrators of binge drinking (Kuntsche, Rehm and Gmel, 2004) and that almost a quarter of British adults are classified as ‘hazardous’ drinkers (NHS, 2011). In a recent presentation to parliament, David Cameron wrote that â€Å"we have to tackle the scourge of violence caused by binge drinking. And we have to do it now.† (Home Office, 2012). Alcohol is undoubtedly a public health issue and is involved in a high number of road traffic accidents and anti-social activities such as assault, as well as being associated with a number of chronic diseases including alcoholic liver disease and a range of cancers (Rehm et al., 2009; Schutze et al., 2011). Furthermore, the economic cost can be devastating with alcohol-related injury costing the National Health Service (NHS) around ?2.7 billion a year, based on 2006 to 2007 figures (NHS , 2011). Therefore, the Government should indeed feel some responsibility to tackle and reduce these figures if at all possible. The author argues that such a strategy as minimum unit pricing for alcohol will be an infringement on the British people, a violation of the free market economy and will cause moderate and responsible drinkers to pay for the â€Å"crimes of a few.† However, the author later contradicts themselves saying that â€Å"boosting the cost [of alcohol] isn’t going to stop me drinking, it’s going to just leave me out of pocket.† Here, the author has gone from the extreme and dramatic to an almost mocking of the proposed policy. It becomes unclear whether the author truly believes that the policy would severely affect the innocent or whether it would simply leave people short of a few pounds at the end of the month. This type of contradictory writing can also been seen elsewhere in the article. For example, the writer opens the article with a murky and sinister scene using evocative words and phrases such as â€Å"swarming†, â€Å"staggering† and †Å"teenagers hunched over a bottle of Frosty Jacks.† This use of language suggests that the author is disgusted and repelled by binge drinkers and the open consumption of cheap alcohol on British streets. However, the author quickly goes on to denounce Government attempts to tackle the problem as a â€Å"crazy idea†, once again sending out a mixed message to the reader. The author also argues against the claim that an increase in prices for drinks with a high alcohol content will put off the type of people who buy such drinks purely to achieve a state of drunkenness, namely individuals suffering from alcoholism. The author asks â€Å"isn’t it their choice to drink alcohol?† and suggests that it is unacceptable to hurt the average person financially by trying to price such individuals out of the alcohol market. This an extremely reductionist viewpoint, meaning that the author of the article is reducing the plight of an alcoholic to the result of just â€Å"their choice† rather than taking into account the plethora of reasons that can lead an individual down the destructive road of alcoholism, such as homelessness, debt or abuse. Such a view-point is potentially damaging as Spanagel (2009) has warned that a reductionist view of the causes of alcoholism can stand in the way of a better understanding of the underlying pathological p rocesses involved in such addictive behaviour. The author goes on to claim that implementation of a ?0.45 minimum unit price for alcohol is the result of the Government’s attempt to try and make revenue from people who can afford a price rise but are just inconvenienced by it. This is an extreme accusation and the author has failed to take into account the evidence that suggests otherwise. Namely that such a policy could have a positive effect on public health and the economy. Using a price-to-consumption model using various data sources and based on 54 population sub-groups classed as harmful, hazardous or moderate drinkers, Purshouse et al. (2010) estimated that a ?0.45 minimum price unit for alcohol would reduce alcohol consumption by 4.5% and avoid 1,970 alcohol-related deaths. A recent systematic review found that a price increase of alcohol by around 10% would lead to a reduction in consumption of alcohol by around 5% (Wagenaar, Tobler and Komro, 2010). Both of these studies have provided strong evidence that a min imum unit pricing strategy with alcohol would be effective in reducing hazardous alcohol consumption. Further strengthening the argument in favour of minimum unit pricing are doubts that other attempts to reduce alcohol consumption will be far from successful. In a recent editorial, McKee (2012) highlighted that the three main â€Å"lines of attack† for tackling hazardous drinking consist of marketing, pricing and availability. Marketing and restrictions on availability are difficult to control, especially due to the lobbying power that many companies within the alcohol industry possess (McKee, 2012), and education-based interventions have been shown to be ineffective (Anderson, Chisholm and Fuhr, 2009) Therefore, pricing appears to be potentially the most effective and most easily manipulated element that the Government can utilise to tackle hazardous drinking. However, in addition to the positive effects that a minimum pricing policy has been predicted to have, there were a lso a number of drawbacks. For example, an increase in type 2 diabetes in young women was predicted due to a loss of the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption and most of the reductions in harm would have been seen in chronic disorders in the over 45s, limiting the positive effect on the health and well-being of younger people (Purshouse et al., 2010). Furthermore, the figures produced by Purshouse et al. (2010) were based on a time period 10 years after policy implementation, suggesting that the benefit of a minimum pricing policy could be a long time coming. These drawbacks could be seen to support the author’s claim that the Government would use a minimum pricing strategy primarily to increase their income, seeing as though implementation of the policy would be limited in its immediate and overall beneficial effects on public health. Furthermore, alternatives to minimum pricing such as increasing tax on alcohol, have also been found to decrease levels of alcohol consumption (Elder et al., 2010). However, the existence of potentially equally as effective strategies for tackling hazardous drinking does not automatically suggest a conspiracy by the Government to reap more revenue through a minimum pricing strategy. The author of the article disagrees with the claim that alcohol fuels crime and with the figure that intoxicated people are involved in causing around 5,000 avoidable crimes every year. However, it is well documented that alcohol is prolifically involved in crime. From 1998 to 1999, 70% of crimes were found to have involved alcohol (Home Office, 2001), with alcohol being a component in up to 70% of all stabbings and beatings, 40% of domestic violence incidents and 50% of child protection cases (Alcohol Concern, 2000). These figures are highly disturbing and the author’s credibility is severely damaged in denying belief in such figures. The author ends the article with a rhetorical question by asking whether we would want â€Å"to live in a free country where people live as their consciences tell them† or whether we want to try and â€Å"control the behaviour of the poor by pricing them out of activities that we disapprove of?† A similar use of rhetoric can be seen throughout the article. For example, the author suggests that the next stage after minimum unit pricing may be an increase in theatre tickets to reduce the number of â€Å"poorer, less educated people who might talk during the show.† This is an example of hyperbole where the author is exaggerating in order to manipulate their audience and create a strong emotional reaction. Through the use of rhetoric, the author will hope to encourage their audience to ‘come round’ to their way of thinking. However, the article would be far more persuasive if the author were to use more facts and empirical evidence to support their view s. In conclusion, the article is well-written in terms of persuasiveness and in using rhetoric to create a strong emotional reaction in the audience. However, the author too often makes statements that contradict current empirical evidence without justification, which damages the credibility of the source. References Alcohol Concern (2000) Britain’s Ruin: Meeting Government Objectives via a National Alcohol Strategy. London, UK: Alcohol Concern. Anderson, P., Chisholm, D. and Fuhr, D.C. (2009) Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Lancet, 373, pp. 2234-2246. Elder, R.W., Lawrence, B., Ferguson, A., Naimi, T.S., Brewer, R.D., Chattopadhyay, S.K., Toomey, T.L. and Fielding, J.E. (2010) The effectiveness of tax policy interventions for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 38(2), pp. 217-229. Home Office (2012) The Government’s Alcohol Strategy. London, UK: Home Office. Home Office (2001) Fighting Violent Crime Together: An Action Plan. London, UK: Home Office. Kuntsche, E., Rehm, J. and Gmel, G. (2004) Characteristics of binge drinkers in Europe. Social Science and Medicine, 59, pp. 113-127. McKee, M. (2012) Minimum unit pricing for alcohol – the case for action is overwhelming. European Journal of Public Health, 22(4), pp. 451. NHS (2011) Statistics on Alcohol: England, 2011. London, UK: The NHS Information Centre. Purshouse, R.C., Meier, P.S., Brennan, A., Taylor, K.B. and Rafia, R. (2010) Estimated effect of alcohol pricing policies on health and health economic outcomes in England: an epidemiological model. Lancet, 375, pp. 1355-1364. Rehm, J., Mathers, C., Popova, S., Thavorncharoensap, M., Teerawattananon, Y. and Patra, J. (2009) Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders. Lancet, 373, pp. 2223-2233. Schutze, M., Boeing, H., Pischon, T. et al. (2011) Alcohol attributable burden of incidence of cancer in eight European countries based on results from prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal, 342, d1584. Spanagel, R. (2009) Alcoholism: A systems approach from molecular physiology to addictive behaviour. Physiological Reviews, 89(2), pp. 649-705. Wagenaar, A.C., Tobler, A.L. and Komro, K.A. (2010) Effects of alcohol tax and price policies on morbidity and mortality: a systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 100, pp. 2270-2278. Advanced Critical Writing The author’s claim about binge drinking is backed up by the literature with findings that British young people are some of the worst perpetrators of binge drinking (Kuntsche, Rehm and Gmel, 2004) and that almost a quarter of British adults are classified as ‘hazardous’ drinkers (NHS, 2011). In a recent presentation to parliament, David Cameron wrote that â€Å"we have to tackle the scourge of violence caused by binge drinking. And we have to do it now.† (Home Office, 2012). Alcohol is undoubtedly a public health issue and is involved in a high number of road traffic accidents and anti-social activities such as assault, as well as being associated with a number of chronic diseases including alcoholic liver disease and a range of cancers (Rehm et al., 2009; Schutze et al., 2011). Furthermore, the economic cost can be devastating with alcohol-related injury costing the National Health Service (NHS) around ?2.7 billion a year, based on 2006 to 2007 figures (NHS , 2011). Therefore, the Government should indeed feel some responsibility to tackle and reduce these figures if at all possible. The author argues that such a strategy as minimum unit pricing for alcohol will be an infringement on the British people, a violation of the free market economy and will cause moderate and responsible drinkers to pay for the â€Å"crimes of a few.† However, the author later contradicts themselves saying that â€Å"boosting the cost [of alcohol] isn’t going to stop me drinking, it’s going to just leave me out of pocket.† Here, the author has gone from the extreme and dramatic to an almost mocking of the proposed policy. It becomes unclear whether the author truly believes that the policy would severely affect the innocent or whether it would simply leave people short of a few pounds at the end of the month. This type of contradictory writing can also been seen elsewhere in the article. For example, the writer opens the article with a murky and sinister scene using evocative words and phrases such as â€Å"swarming†, â€Å"staggering† and †Å"teenagers hunched over a bottle of Frosty Jacks.† This use of language suggests that the author is disgusted and repelled by binge drinkers and the open consumption of cheap alcohol on British streets. However, the author quickly goes on to denounce Government attempts to tackle the problem as a â€Å"crazy idea†, once again sending out a mixed message to the reader. The author also argues against the claim that an increase in prices for drinks with a high alcohol content will put off the type of people who buy such drinks purely to achieve a state of drunkenness, namely individuals suffering from alcoholism. The author asks â€Å"isn’t it their choice to drink alcohol?† and suggests that it is unacceptable to hurt the average person financially by trying to price such individuals out of the alcohol market. This an extremely reductionist viewpoint, meaning that the author of the article is reducing the plight of an alcoholic to the result of just â€Å"their choice† rather than taking into account the plethora of reasons that can lead an individual down the destructive road of alcoholism, such as homelessness, debt or abuse. Such a view-point is potentially damaging as Spanagel (2009) has warned that a reductionist view of the causes of alcoholism can stand in the way of a better understanding of the underlying pathological p rocesses involved in such addictive behaviour. The author goes on to claim that implementation of a ?0.45 minimum unit price for alcohol is the result of the Government’s attempt to try and make revenue from people who can afford a price rise but are just inconvenienced by it. This is an extreme accusation and the author has failed to take into account the evidence that suggests otherwise. Namely that such a policy could have a positive effect on public health and the economy. Using a price-to-consumption model using various data sources and based on 54 population sub-groups classed as harmful, hazardous or moderate drinkers, Purshouse et al. (2010) estimated that a ?0.45 minimum price unit for alcohol would reduce alcohol consumption by 4.5% and avoid 1,970 alcohol-related deaths. A recent systematic review found that a price increase of alcohol by around 10% would lead to a reduction in consumption of alcohol by around 5% (Wagenaar, Tobler and Komro, 2010). Both of these studies have provided strong evidence that a min imum unit pricing strategy with alcohol would be effective in reducing hazardous alcohol consumption. Further strengthening the argument in favour of minimum unit pricing are doubts that other attempts to reduce alcohol consumption will be far from successful. In a recent editorial, McKee (2012) highlighted that the three main â€Å"lines of attack† for tackling hazardous drinking consist of marketing, pricing and availability. Marketing and restrictions on availability are difficult to control, especially due to the lobbying power that many companies within the alcohol industry possess (McKee, 2012), and education-based interventions have been shown to be ineffective (Anderson, Chisholm and Fuhr, 2009) Therefore, pricing appears to be potentially the most effective and most easily manipulated element that the Government can utilise to tackle hazardous drinking. However, in addition to the positive effects that a minimum pricing policy has been predicted to have, there were a lso a number of drawbacks. For example, an increase in type 2 diabetes in young women was predicted due to a loss of the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption and most of the reductions in harm would have been seen in chronic disorders in the over 45s, limiting the positive effect on the health and well-being of younger people (Purshouse et al., 2010). Furthermore, the figures produced by Purshouse et al. (2010) were based on a time period 10 years after policy implementation, suggesting that the benefit of a minimum pricing policy could be a long time coming. These drawbacks could be seen to support the author’s claim that the Government would use a minimum pricing strategy primarily to increase their income, seeing as though implementation of the policy would be limited in its immediate and overall beneficial effects on public health. Furthermore, alternatives to minimum pricing such as increasing tax on alcohol, have also been found to decrease levels of alcohol consumption (Elder et al., 2010). However, the existence of potentially equally as effective strategies for tackling hazardous drinking does not automatically suggest a conspiracy by the Government to reap more revenue through a minimum pricing strategy. The author of the article disagrees with the claim that alcohol fuels crime and with the figure that intoxicated people are involved in causing around 5,000 avoidable crimes every year. However, it is well documented that alcohol is prolifically involved in crime. From 1998 to 1999, 70% of crimes were found to have involved alcohol (Home Office, 2001), with alcohol being a component in up to 70% of all stabbings and beatings, 40% of domestic violence incidents and 50% of child protection cases (Alcohol Concern, 2000). These figures are highly disturbing and the author’s credibility is severely damaged in denying belief in such figures. The author ends the article with a rhetorical question by asking whether we would want â€Å"to live in a free country where people live as their consciences tell them† or whether we want to try and â€Å"control the behaviour of the poor by pricing them out of activities that we disapprove of?† A similar use of rhetoric can be seen throughout the article. For example, the author suggests that the next stage after minimum unit pricing may be an increase in theatre tickets to reduce the number of â€Å"poorer, less educated people who might talk during the show.† This is an example of hyperbole where the author is exaggerating in order to manipulate their audience and create a strong emotional reaction. Through the use of rhetoric, the author will hope to encourage their audience to ‘come round’ to their way of thinking. However, the article would be far more persuasive if the author were to use more facts and empirical evidence to support their view s. In conclusion, the article is well-written in terms of persuasiveness and in using rhetoric to create a strong emotional reaction in the audience. However, the author too often makes statements that contradict current empirical evidence without justification, which damages the credibility of the source. References Alcohol Concern (2000) Britain’s Ruin: Meeting Government Objectives via a National Alcohol Strategy. London, UK: Alcohol Concern. Anderson, P., Chisholm, D. and Fuhr, D.C. (2009) Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Lancet, 373, pp. 2234-2246. Elder, R.W., Lawrence, B., Ferguson, A., Naimi, T.S., Brewer, R.D., Chattopadhyay, S.K., Toomey, T.L. and Fielding, J.E. (2010) The effectiveness of tax policy interventions for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 38(2), pp. 217-229. Home Office (2012) The Government’s Alcohol Strategy. London, UK: Home Office. Home Office (2001) Fighting Violent Crime Together: An Action Plan. London, UK: Home Office. Kuntsche, E., Rehm, J. and Gmel, G. (2004) Characteristics of binge drinkers in Europe. Social Science and Medicine, 59, pp. 113-127. McKee, M. (2012) Minimum unit pricing for alcohol – the case for action is overwhelming. European Journal of Public Health, 22(4), pp. 451. NHS (2011) Statistics on Alcohol: England, 2011. London, UK: The NHS Information Centre. Purshouse, R.C., Meier, P.S., Brennan, A., Taylor, K.B. and Rafia, R. (2010) Estimated effect of alcohol pricing policies on health and health economic outcomes in England: an epidemiological model. Lancet, 375, pp. 1355-1364. Rehm, J., Mathers, C., Popova, S., Thavorncharoensap, M., Teerawattananon, Y. and Patra, J. (2009) Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders. Lancet, 373, pp. 2223-2233. Schutze, M., Boeing, H., Pischon, T. et al. (2011) Alcohol attributable burden of incidence of cancer in eight European countries based on results from prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal, 342, d1584. Spanagel, R. (2009) Alcoholism: A systems approach from molecular physiology to addictive behaviour. Physiological Reviews, 89(2), pp. 649-705. Wagenaar, A.C., Tobler, A.L. and Komro, K.A. (2010) Effects of alcohol tax and price policies on morbidity and mortality: a systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 100, pp. 2270-2278.

HISTORY - choose 1 of the questions to answer Essay

HISTORY - choose 1 of the questions to answer - Essay Example This paper will talk about the conditions that led to the provision of the Compromise of 1850. The paper will also talk about the issues that this compromise left unsettled. By 1850, there were just 14% of slaves present in the entire populace of the United States (Baxamusa 1). Slavery and the slave trade became nearly absent in the northern states. However, there were roughly 51% slaves still present in Mississippi and 58% in South Carolina. Mid September of 1850, the United States Congress, took a number of measures to resolve the issues concerning slavery and forestall Secession. The country, therefore, created the Compromise of 1850. Missouri developed into a state in 1818 (Baxamusa 1). However, the settlers wanted the region to continue being a slave state. The political leaders of the north states, in contrast, did not fancy a slave state. Maine, during the same year, also wanted to be acknowledged as a state under the Union. Thus, in 1820, an accord referred to as the Missouri Compromise was reached, which permitted Missouri to continue being a slave state. Maine, nevertheless, was a slave-free state. This brought about division in the country splitting the nation into two (Baxamusa 1). The southerners, after the Missouri Compromise, carried out all their affairs alone leaving out the northerners. The northerners, however, wanted to unite every state in the United States. After three decades of the Missouri Compromise, California requested to be included in the Union ruling out slavery. However, the Missouri Compromise also split California into two. This dilemma became even more complex owing to the unsettled question of slavery's expansion into other regions, which were offered by Mexico in 1848. Political leaders of the north could not settle on whether or not they should allow California enter as a free state (Baxamusa 1). However, a United States Senator, Henry Clay, from Kentucky was determined to get a resolution to the crisis. Clay, at the age of 70, presented a negotiation on 29th January, 1850. This conciliation consisted of five bills, which would help resolve the nervousness between the free states of the North slave and the states from the South. Texas’ debt to Mexico was one of the leading circumstances, which lead to the 1850 Compromise (Baxamusa 1). The compromise confirmed that Texas would give up the land in dispute. As a way of compensation, Texas would be offered $10 million, which could be used to settle its debt to Mexico. Territorial disputes between New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Utah were also vital circumstances that led to the creation of the 1850 Compromise. The country wanted to organize the territories of New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Utah without incorporating slavery in the matter. The United States congress wanted to find a way through which the inhabitants of these areas would decide upon slave trade and slavery when they wanted to be accepted as states (Baxamusa 1). Slavery in the Distri ct of Columbia was also a crucial matter that led to the formation of this compromise. Northern congressmen previously wanted the slave activity in the District of Columbia to be abolished, but slavery was still allowed. California also wanted to be incorporated as a free state to the United States.

Cemex Case Study Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Cemex Case Study - Coursework Example In terms of markets, the developing countries of China and India may be seen as some of most important due to large scale cement consumption and production fuelled by large scale economic growth (OECD 2010, 2009). It may be expected that in future years as wealth becomes higher per capita in these markets, that demand begins to fall to levels seen in the developed world. In addition, the nature of products consumed in developing markets also varies from those of the developed world. Here there is a preference for pre-bagged building materials as opposed to bulk delivery, a trend which is reversed in developed markets. 2. In terms of global capacity, Cemex ranks as third with a capacity of 64.7 million tons, this compares to market leader Lafarge’s capacity of 108 million tons and Taiheiyo in sixth place at 37.9 million tons. Despite the capacity of the company, Cemex ranks as number one by market share in 9 of its key 13 markets and second in anther three. As such, Cemexâ€⠄¢s overall capacity lags behind the total demand for the company’s products making the company a global sourcer. ... This however, may be seen as linked to the unique characteristics of such markets which have a propensity to favour local or national producers over the large international players such as Cemex. As such, despite being a global player, Cemex may still be seen as lacking a substantial presence in key regional markets in both Asia and Africa. 3. Overall, it would appear that Cemex after the current round of acquisitions is now a â€Å"broad† player within the market for building products, while the firm had previously focused on cement (Jobber, 2007). Recent acquisitions has seen the company moving into both the aggregates and ready mixed concrete market. With regards to Cemex’s generic strategy, it would appear that the company follows a cost leadership model (Porter, 2004). This can be seen in the so called â€Å"Cemex way† in which on making an acquisition the company attempts to implement a two way process of rationalisation taking the best and most cost effect ive practises from both the parent company and the acquisitioned company and then implementing the most cost effective. There is however, one area in which Cemex may be seen as developing a differentiated strategy. In the market for bagged cements, Cemex was the first producer to developed a â€Å"branded† option, thus making the product more attractive in the lucrative home build market segment. In addition, the company also makes small local changes to the produce based upon customer perceptions of quality. For instance while the Egyptian market shows a preference for darker colours cements, Cemex’s home markets in South America require a lighter coloured product. Despite this attempt to differentiate the product, it would appear that the market as a whole is