On life, knowledge, aspirations and more.

This is one of the topics i attempted for argument while prep. Haven't refined it much, so it's very crude and gives a sense of my first draft.

Topic

"A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression."

My response

The author in this argument links a study of chronic fatigue and depression to be significantly higher in North Americans when compared to Asians. In particular he mentions this to be 9 and 31 times higher for fatigue and depression respectively. This striking difference is compelling at first glance and the first thing which comes to our mind is what could be reason for such a striking difference. There can be numerous factors which can contribute to this if we analyze in depth. But the first factor which comes to our mind is food habits and author has predictably come up with one such findings. He has attributed this to disparate studies of Asian food habits to those with Americans in terms of soya, while linking these two factors together. It may be noted that these two facts can be co-related, however we cannot attribute them to be linked without any concrete evidence or study.

Soy is an interesting food ingredient widely consumed by Asians and as author suggests have shown to prevent some disease properties, but author completely fails to mention what these disease preventing properties are. He fails to point out if they are in anyways are related to chronic fatigue and depression. Moreover, the author mentions about chemicals in soy which maynot be fully attributed to any of the studies of depression and fatigue.

To logically deduce the conclusion and find reasons of what could be the factors which have resulted in such a difference, the author must consider several factors and in particular if they have been any relation to the study in terms of disease. Definitely food can be a common link and which seems quite obvious. Author in order to justify his findings must research on other food items as well, for example Asian cuisine seems to be less dominant in fat, more in widely accepted nutritional ingredients like rice, pulses, fish etc. So why do we need to limit our findings to just soy, a concrete study of other Asian ingredients can also be a key to justifying the argument. The most appropriate findings would be if any of these ingredients can be linked to specific fatigue or depression conditions.

Other factors which can also be looked at will be lifestyle, environmental factors, family orientation etc. A holistic approach and giving weighted attention to several factor can truly add worth to the argument which is proposed by author.
Based on these factors we can safely contribute towards suggesting methods of preventing these diseases. For example if the findings confirm a linkage between soy's chemical isoflavones and its effect on reducing fatigue and depression, the author can safely suggest consumption of them.

Only after analysis and justification can we say with confidence of the reasons which are linked to fatigue and depression and suggest appropriate ways of preventing them.

This time I have tried to use some examples from net, to add volume to topic and also accumulating examples which will be useful in other essays.

"It is always an individual who is the impetus for innovation; the details may be worked out by a team, but true innovation results from the enterprise and unique perception of an individual."

Innovation is defined as the act of introducing something new or something which has been newly introduced. Innovation needn't necessarily be invention. While invention is attributed as an impetus in individual I believe innovations are more likely to occur when individuals work together. By brainstorming and organizing thoughts from individuals with specialized knowledge a unique innovation can be foreseen.

For example concept of internet in Bell Labs as a ARPANET project, has been contributions of several people. The packet-switched technology was first conceived by Leonard Kleinrock, while the ARPANET project was successfully being developed at MIT's Lab. Other important contributors for this project were Dennis Ritchie and Kenneth Thompson for developing UNIX operating system at Bell Labs. All this innovation and many more put together formed the internet as visioned by Licklider. He articulated the vision of a "galactic" computer network as a globally interconnected set of processing nodes through which anyone anywhere can access data and programs.

With growing complexity in fields, most of the the innovations are results of improvement in an existing product. These improvements will relay on the expertise of a members in a team. Let's take an example when a manufacturer wants to modify an existing cereal with healthier ingredients. He will need a team which shows expertise at all the fields. He will need a person, who justifies the healthier ingredients in the cereal, like a nutritionist. He needs a expert like a data analyst, who will justify the perception of new cereal based on the survey or existing data of consumers. He will also need expert advice from his Marketing personnel, who will illustrate the process of launching this product, a financial advisor for feasibility of plan. And with several people like them he can make a informed decision.

Individuals specializing in a niche area, working as a team is the most productive way to lead to a new innovation. However when we need that revolutionary idea like "Electric Bulb" we will definitely need a Thomas Edison.