Lawn Care Case Essay Example for Free

Lawn Care Case Essay 1) A) Currently Lawn Care focuses on quality and innovation. Their product is said to be the best available with the highest quality grass seed and fertilizer in the world. They are also a very well known company which is another competitive advantage. They specialize in providing the best and quickly delivering the product to the customer demanding the product. B) The company perceives the quality of their products, and their direct delivery to be the order winner for the company. They provide what is expected, in terms of high quality seed and fertilizer, making this also an order qualifier. Another company, such as their competitor may consider the installation they proved to be the order winner, in that it sets them apart from their competition. C) CBP 2) A) Lawn Cares competitor’s current strategic mission is to provide a bundle package. Their competitive advantage is that they also install the product. They save the customer time, and create convenience for the customer because they do not have to find and contact and plan with a third party to have the work done. B) The competitor perceives the need for seed, fertilizer, and sod as the order qualifier, and the installation and additional yard work they provide as the order winner because it sets them apart from their competition, Lawn Care. 3) If Lawn Care were to add the application business to their existing business they would need to secure more employees. They would need employees who have experience in landscaping and are able to do the physical labor. This could take months to find and train the new employees. They would also need to purchase equipment such as lawn mowers, trucks, trailers, etc. to  assist in the application side of the business. This would involve using some of their assets to purchase and later on repair and manage upkeep, but they would achieve a gain in capital equipment assets. Lawn Care would also have to use additional resources to market their new service bundle. The addition of installation would not do the company any good if nobody knew they were now offering the service. It may be beneficial to the company if they contacted previous customers as well to tell them of the changes and see if they need any more work done. Changing advertisements and adding new advertisements and promoti ons would also take months, but would benefit the company in the long run. 4) Lawn Care would have to consider how the community and previous customers would react to the changes and whether they would find the change beneficial and take advantage of the new services offered. Stakeholders would be affected as well with the relocation of assets and the risks being taken by Lawn Care to add such a substantial portion to their business. The changes and how they will effect stock in the company is an important economic sustainability factor for the company to consider. The company was accused of pollution and other damage application mistakes before implementing this new service bundle. The company should consider environmental sustainability and because they would have more control of the application process than they did previously they will need to be more aware of how they are affecting the environment and what they can do to prevent any future claims against them. The company should also determine how they will market the product and how this will affect social sustainability. What can they do to make everyone aware of the products and gain back any customers they lost to their competition before offering the service? Lawn Care needs to consider how sustainable the service will be and make sure that it will be a lasting effort before purchasing the new equipment and implementing new processes.

Intentions of Alexander II and the Failure of the Emancipation of the S

Intentions of Alexander II and the Failure of the Emancipation of the Serfs In the 19th century it was estimated that about 50 per cent of the 40,000,000 peasants in Russia were serfs, who worked on the land and were owned by the Russian nobility, the Tsar and religious foundations. This had been true for centuries; in 1861, however, this was all changed when Tsar Alexander II emancipated the serfs and gave them freedom from ownership. Alexander's decision was based on many reasons, and did not have the desired consequences, for the serfs at least. Therefore, it is possible to question Alexander's motives for such large reform, which this essay will do and will also look at why the emancipation, which had been anticipated for so long, was such a failure. In the mid and late nineteenth century the whole of western Europe underwent immense change, both economically and socially, due to the industrial revolution. Factories, railways and industrial cities were built at an astonishing rate, and trade between countries became even more important as agriculture became less important. In order to survive as a strong power in this new economic and social climate, Russia needed to be able to compete in industrial terms with the rest of the world, particularly as it's agriculture was under threat already. Even though four-fifths of the population were peasants, a prosperous and thriving faming economy had never fully developed, party because of the land itself - much of Russia lay too far north to have soil good enough for either crop-growing or cattle-rearing. From 1840 onwards, the need for serious reform became apparent to the Tsar ... ...of the Emancipation Act show that the real needs and wants of the serfs were not properly considered, and, although he probably believed that what he was doing was right for Russia, Alexander's reforms were based more on his fear of uprising and his vision of an industrialised Russia. Emancipation failed, therefore, because Alexander II forced a freedom onto the serfs that they were neither prepared for nor welcoming of. Bibliography www.spartacus.schoolsnet.co.uk www.pvhs.chico.k12.ca.us Access to History, Reaction and Revolutions: Russia 1881-1924 Michael Lynch (2000) Challenging History: Europe 1890-1990 [1] Michael Lynch, Russian 1881-1924 (2000) p. 10 [2] E Acton, Russia, p.75 (1986) [3] Russell Sherman, Russia 1815-81 (1992) p. 58 [4] Jake Axel, www.webserver.rcds.rye.ny.us

Provisions and Contingencies

Scenario 1Fact: Energy Inc. (Energy, or the Company), which operates in the oil industry, is a U.S. subsidiary of a U.K. entity that prepares its financial statements in accordance with IFRS and U.S. GAAP. A draft law in a country where Energy operates in, which requires a cleanup of land already contaminated, will possibly be enacted shortly after the year-end.Issues: Should Energy recognize a provision, (i) in reporting under IFRSs, and (ii) in accordance with U.S. GAAP?Analysis: (i) Under IFRSs, Energy should recognize a provision for the cleanup costs in its 20Ãâ€"1. IAS 37-14 states a provision shall be recognized if â€Å"(a) an entity has a present obligation, (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made.† When it is not clear if there is a present obligation, IAS 37-15 also defines a present obligation as obligation that â€Å"more or likely than not is r isen by a past event after taking accounting of all available evidence†.Moreover, IAS 37-22 also specifically provides that â€Å"where details of a proposed new law have yet to be finalized, an obligation arises only when the legislation is virtually certain to be enacted as drafted†. As it is virtually certain that the law will be enacted shortly after year-end, it is highly possible the Company will be required to clean up the contamination. The amount of obligation is also estimable, as the Company has cleaned up contaminations in other countries in which it operates. As a result, Energy should recognize a provision.(ii) Under U.S. GAAP, Energy should recognize a loss for the cleanup costs in its 20Ãâ€"1 financial statements. ASC 450-20-25-2 provides that â€Å"an  estimated loss from a loss contingency shall be accrued by a charge to income if (a) information available before the financial statements are issued indicates it is probable that a liability had been incurred at the date of financial statements and (b) the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated†. If the draft law is enacted, Energy will be required to clean up the land that was contaminated by the Company’s operations. In addition, it is virtually certain that the law will be enacted shortly after the year-end. Therefore, it is probable that Energy has incurred a liability because the draft law will likely be enacted. Also, the amount of cleanup cost can easily be estimated as the Company has cleaned up its contamination in other countries in which it operates. As a result, a provision should be recognized.Scenario 2Fact:FuelSource Co (FuelSource or the Company), which operates in the oil industry, is a U.S. subsidiary of a U.K. entity that prepares its financial statements in accordance with IFRS and U.S. GAAP. The Company operates in Dirty Country where it has no environmental legislation that requires cleanup of contamination. However, FuelSource and its U.K . parent have a widely published environmental policy to clean up all contamination and have a record of honoring the policy.Issues: Should FuelSource recognize a provision, (i) in reporting under IFRSs, and (ii) in accordance with U.S. GAAP?Analysis: (i) Under IFRS, FuelSource should recognize a provision for its cleanup cost. IAS 37-17 defines obligating as â€Å"a past event that leads to a present obligation†. IAS 37-17(b) further explains that â€Å"in the case of a constructive obligation, where the event (which may be an action of the entity) creates valid expectations in other parties that the entity will discharge the obligation†. As FuelSource and its U.K. parent tend to honor  their widely published environmental policy to clean up all contamination, it creates expectations in other parties that their operation in Dirty Country will follow their global policy as they always did in the other countries.The environmental policy creates a constructive obligati on as a result of their record of honoring the policy even though legal obligation does not exist in this case. Since FuelSource has a constructive obligation as a result of a past event and an estimable cleanup cost will be required to settle the obligation, it meets all of the requirements to recognize a provision under IAS 37-14. Therefore, FuelSource should recognize a provision under IFRS.(ii) Under U.S. GAAP, FuelSource should not recognize a loss in its financial statement, and is not required to disclose the potential obligation of the cleanup cost. ASC 410-30-25-1 requires â€Å"the accrual of a liability arisen by environmental obligation if both (a) it is probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred; and (b) the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, are met†.To determine the probability of an environmental remediation liability, ASC 410-30-25-4 further explains that â€Å"two elements need to be met: (a) litigation has commen ced or a claim or an assessment has been asserted or, commencement of litigation or assertion of a claim or an assessment is probable; (b) it is probable that the outcome of such litigation, claim, or assessment will be unfavorable†. However, in this case, the Company has no legal obligation to clean up the contamination in Dirty Country as there is no such environmental legislation that requires to do so. Moreover, cleanup of contamination in other country outside of United States is not required by any of the Federal laws or Codification.It is remote that there will be any litigation; claim or assessment asserted that FuelSource would be responsible for participating in a remediation. Therefore, it fails both of the criterions under ASC 410-30-25-4 and recognition of a provision is not required. ASC 450-20-50-6 states that â€Å"disclosure is not required of a loss contingency involving an unasserted claim or assessment if there has been no manifestation by a potential clai mant of an awareness of a possible claim or assessment†. As there is no law or regulation that requires a cleanup in Dirty Country, disclosure is not required by the Codification.Scenario 3Fact: A number of changes to the income tax system are introduced by the government and Energy, or the Company, will have to retrain its administrative and sales workforce to ensure compliance with new system. No retraining has taken place as or the balance sheet date.Issues: Should Energy recognize a provision for the expected costs to retrain the staff (i) under IFRSs and (ii) in accordance with U.S. GAAP?Analysis:(i) Under IFRS, Energy should not recognize a provision for the expected costs to retrain the staff. IAS 37-14(a) specifically requires â€Å"a provision shall be recognized only when an entity has a present obligation as a result of a past event†. As no obligation was imposed by the government to provide the training to its staff or the obligation is not owed to any third party, the liability should only be recognized as it occurs (when the retraining takes place). Furthermore, IAS 37-80(b) provides that â€Å"A restructuring provision shall include direct expenditures that are not associated with the ongoing activities of the entity† and IAS 37-81(a) specifically states that â€Å"a restructuring provision does not include such costs as retraining or relocating continuing staff†. As a result, no provision should be recognized, as the retraining of the staff does not arise any present obligation since the retraining has not taken place yet and it does not qualify as a restructuring expenditure.(ii) Under U.S. GAAP, Energy should not recognize a loss in its financial statement for the current year. ASC 450-20-25-2(a) provides that â€Å"An estimated loss shall be accrued if it is probable that an asset had been impaired or a liability had been incurred†. As the changes of income tax did not impose any obligation on the Company by the government or company policy to provide retraining of the staff to ensure compliance with the system, the Company has no liability at the time of the change or before the year-end as the retraining has not  taken place yet. ASC 450-20-25-4 further explains that â€Å"the condition in ASC 450-20-25-2(a) is intended to proscribe accrual losses that relate to the future periods†. As the retraining of staff would enhance the efficiency of future operation, it will become a liability to the Company as it occurs. Therefore, the retraining shall not be recognized as a loss for the current year.Scenario 4Fact: FuelSource, or the Company, is required to install smoke filters in its factories by June 30, 20X2 under new legislation. FuelSource has not yet installed the smoke filters as of December 31, 20X1.Issues: Should FuelSource recognize a provision of December 31, 20X1 (i) under IFRSs and (ii) in accordance with U.S. GAAP?Analysis: (i) Under IFRS, FuelSource should not recog nize a provision but disclose a contingent liability. IAS 37-19 specifically states that â€Å"It is only those obligations arising from past events existing independently of an entity’s future actions that are recognized as provisions†¦In contrast, because of commercial pressures or legal requirements, an entity may intend or need to carry out expenditure to operation in a particular way in the future (for example, by fitting smoke filters in a certain type of factory). Because the entity can avoid the future expenditure by its future actions, for example by changing its method of operation, it has no present obligation for that future expenditure and no provision is recognized†.In this case, FuelSource should not recognize a provision as it has no present obligation at this point of time and installing smoke filters would allow the Company to avoid future expenditure. However, IAS 37-86 states that â€Å"unless the possibility of any outflow in settlement is re mote, an entity shall disclose each class of contingent liability at the end of the reporting period a brief description of the nature of the contingent liability†. FuelSource will be  required to disclose the information regarding of the contingent liability in its financial statement(ii) Under U.S. GAAP, FuelSource should not recognize a loss in the financial statement for the current period. ASC 450-20-25-2 explains that â€Å"the purpose of the conditions described in (a) and (b) is to require accrual of losses when they are reasonably estimate and relate to the current or a prior period†¦even the losses that are reasonably estimable shall not be accrued if it is not probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred at the date of an entity’s financial statements because those losses relate to a future period rather than the current or a prior period†. Since the new legislation does not require the Company to install smoke filte rs until June 30, 20X2, which is after the balance sheet date, it has not yet incurred a liability to the Company as of December 31, 20X1. As a result, it fails the timing requirement under ASC 450-20-25-2 and FuelSource is not required to recognize a provision. ï » ¿Provisions and Contingencies Scenario 1Fact: Energy Inc. (Energy, or the Company), which operates in the oil industry, is a U.S. subsidiary of a U.K. entity that prepares its financial statements in accordance with IFRS and U.S. GAAP. A draft law in a country where Energy operates in, which requires a cleanup of land already contaminated, will possibly be enacted shortly after the year-end.Issues: Should Energy recognize a provision, (i) in reporting under IFRSs, and (ii) in accordance with U.S. GAAP?Analysis: (i) Under IFRSs, Energy should recognize a provision for the cleanup costs in its 20Ãâ€"1. IAS 37-14 states a provision shall be recognized if â€Å"(a) an entity has a present obligation, (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made.† When it is not clear if there is a present obligation, IAS 37-15 also defines a present obligation as obligation that â€Å"more or likely than not is r isen by a past event after taking accounting of all available evidence†.Moreover, IAS 37-22 also specifically provides that â€Å"where details of a proposed new law have yet to be finalized, an obligation arises only when the legislation is virtually certain to be enacted as drafted†. As it is virtually certain that the law will be enacted shortly after year-end, it is highly possible the Company will be required to clean up the contamination. The amount of obligation is also estimable, as the Company has cleaned up contaminations in other countries in which it operates. As a result, Energy should recognize a provision.(ii) Under U.S. GAAP, Energy should recognize a loss for the cleanup costs in its 20Ãâ€"1 financial statements. ASC 450-20-25-2 provides that â€Å"an  estimated loss from a loss contingency shall be accrued by a charge to income if (a) information available before the financial statements are issued indicates it is probable that a liability had been incurred at the date of financial statements and (b) the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated†.If the draft law is enacted, Energy will be required to clean up the land that was contaminated by the Company’s operations. In addition, it is virtually certain that the law will be enacted shortly after the year-end. Therefore, it is probable that Energy has incurred a liability because the draft law will likely be enacted. Also, the amount of cleanup cost can easily be estimated as the Company has cleaned up its contamination in other countries in which it operates. As a result, a provision should be recognized.Scenario 2Fact: FuelSource Co (FuelSource or the Company), which operates in the oil industry, is a U.S. subsidiary of a U.K. entity that prepares its financial statements in accordance with IFRS and U.S. GAAP. The Company operates in Dirty Country where it has no environmental legislation that requires cleanup of contamination. However, FuelSource and its U.K . parent have a widely published environmental policy to clean up all contamination and have a record of honoring the policy.Issues: Should FuelSource recognize a provision, (i) in reporting under IFRSs, and (ii) in accordance with U.S. GAAP?Analysis: (i) Under IFRS, FuelSource should recognize a provision for its cleanup cost. IAS 37-17 defines obligating as â€Å"a past event that leads to a present obligation†. IAS 37-17(b) further explains that â€Å"in the case of a constructive obligation, where the event (which may be an action of the entity) creates valid expectations in other parties that the entity will discharge the obligation†. As FuelSource and its U.K. parent tend to honor their widely published environmental policy to clean up all contamination, it creates expectations in other parties that their operation in Dirty Country will follow their global policy as they always did in the other countries.The environmental policy creates a constructive obligation as a result of their record of honoring the policy even though legal obligation does not exist in this case. Since FuelSource has a constructive obligation as a result of a past event and an estimable cleanup cost will be required to settle the obligation, it meets all of the requirements to recognize a provision under IAS 37-14. Therefore, FuelSource should recognize a provision under IFRS.(ii) Under U.S. GAAP, FuelSource should not recognize a loss in its financial statement, and is not required to disclose the potential obligation of the cleanup cost. ASC 410-30-25-1 requires â€Å"the accrual of a liability arisen by environmental obligation if both (a) it is probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred; and (b) the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, are met†.To determine the probability of an environmental remediation liability, ASC 410-30-25-4 further explains that â€Å"two elements need to be met: (a) litigation has commenced or a claim or an assessment has been asserted or, commencement of litigation or assertion of a claim or an assessment is probable; (b) it is probable that the outcome of such litigation, claim, or assessment will be unfavorable†. However, in this case, the Company has no legal obligation to clean up the contamination in Dirty Country as there is no such environmental legislation that requires to do so. Moreover, cleanup of contamination in other country outside of United States is not required by any of the Federal laws or Codification.It is remote that there will be any litigation; claim or assessment asserted that FuelSource would be responsible for participating in a remediation. Therefore, it fails both of the criterions under ASC 410-30-25-4 and recognition of a provision is not required. ASC 450-20-50-6 states that â€Å"disclosure is not required of a loss contingency involving an unasserted claim or assessment if there has been no manifestation by a potential claiman t of an awareness of a possible claim or assessment†. As there is no law or regulation that requires a cleanup in Dirty Country, disclosure is not required by the Codification.Scenario 3Fact: A number of changes to the income tax system are introduced by the government and Energy, or the Company, will have to retrain its administrative and sales workforce to ensure compliance with new system. No retraining has taken place as or the balance sheet date.Issues: Should Energy recognize a provision for the expected costs to retrain the staff (i) under IFRSs and (ii) in accordance with U.S. GAAP?Analysis: (i) Under IFRS, Energy should not recognize a provision for the expected costs to retrain the staff. IAS 37-14(a) specifically requires â€Å"a provision shall be recognized only when an entity has a present obligation as a result of a past event†. As no obligation was imposed by the government to provide the training to its staff or the obligation is not owed to any third p arty, the liability should only be recognized as it occurs (when the retraining takes place).Furthermore, IAS 37-80(b) provides that â€Å"A restructuring provision shall include direct expenditures that are not associated with the ongoing activities of the entity† and IAS 37-81(a) specifically states that â€Å"a restructuring provision does not include such costs as retraining or relocating continuing staff†. As a result, no provision should be recognized, as the retraining of the staff does not arise any present obligation since the retraining has not taken place yet and it does not qualify as a restructuring expenditure. (ii) Under U.S. GAAP, Energy should not recognize a loss in its financial statement for the current year. ASC 450-20-25-2(a) provides that â€Å"An estimated loss shall be accrued if it is probable that an asset had been impaired or a liability had been incurred†.As the changes of income tax did not impose any obligation on the Company by th e government or company policy to provide retraining of the staff to ensure compliance with the system, the Company has no liability at the time of the change or before the year-end as the retraining has not  taken place yet. ASC 450-20-25-4 further explains that â€Å"the condition in ASC 450-20-25-2(a) is intended to proscribe accrual losses that relate to the future periods†. As the retraining of staff would enhance the efficiency of future operation, it will become a liability to the Company as it occurs. Therefore, the retraining shall not be recognized as a loss for the current year.Scenario 4Fact: FuelSource, or the Company, is required to install smoke filters in its factories by June 30, 20X2 under new legislation. FuelSource has not yet installed the smoke filters as of December 31, 20X1.Issues: Should FuelSource recognize a provision of December 31, 20X1 (i) under IFRSs and (ii) in accordance with U.S. GAAP?Analysis: (i) Under IFRS, FuelSource should not recogniz e a provision but disclose a contingent liability. IAS 37-19 specifically states that â€Å"It is only those obligations arising from past events existing independently of an entity’s future actions that are recognized as provisions†¦In contrast, because of commercial pressures or legal requirements, an entity may intend or need to carry out expenditure to operation in a particular way in the future (for example, by fitting smoke filters in a certain type of factory). Because the entity can avoid the future expenditure by its future actions, for example by changing its method of operation, it has no present obligation for that future expenditure and no provision is recognized†.In this case, FuelSource should not recognize a provision as it has no present obligation at this point of time and installing smoke filters would allow the Company to avoid future expenditure. However, IAS 37-86 states that â€Å"unless the possibility of any outflow in settlement is remot e, an entity shall disclose each class of contingent liability at the end of the reporting period a brief description of the nature of the contingent liability†. FuelSource will be  required to disclose the information regarding of the contingent liability in its financial statement(ii) Under U.S. GAAP, FuelSource should not recognize a loss in the financial statement for the current period. ASC 450-20-25-2 explains that â€Å"the purpose of the conditions described in (a) and (b) is to require accrual of losses when they are reasonably estimate and relate to the current or a prior period†¦even the losses that are reasonably estimable shall not be accrued if it is not probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred at the date of an entity’s financial statements because those losses relate to a future period rather than the current or a prior period†.Since the new legislation does not require the Company to install smoke filters u ntil June 30, 20X2, which is after the balance sheet date, it has not yet incurred a liability to the Company as of December 31, 20X1. As a result, it fails the timing requirement under ASC 450-20-25-2 and FuelSource is not required to recognize a provision.

Why College Is Right For Everyone - 1105 Words

Several ponder if college is right for everyone. Stephanie Owen, a senior research assistant at Brookings’ Center on Children and Families at the time of the report’s publication and she currently serves as a research associate at the Urban Institute, and Isabel Sawhill, a co-director of the Center on Children and Families and a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings, wrote an essay called â€Å"Should Everyone Go to College?,† that gives insight on if college is right for every person. While they show reason why college can be a smart investment, they also acknowledge that it is not for all. They also bring attention to the fact that an enormous deal of thought needs to be put into attending to college or not and all the questions that come after that decision. They also mention that it is common knowledge that this topic is highly debated. â€Å"Should Everyone Go to College?† provides an affective argument that features both sides of the debate. Sawhill and Owen achieve this by utilizing logos (mostly) and pathos and ethos. Using a factual appeal along with emotional and ethical appeals typically impacts the reader in at least one way. In â€Å"Should Everyone Go to College?† Owen and Sawhill primarily use logos, or a factual appeal. Facts and statics cannot be argued but to a certain extent. For instance, this, â€Å"The best studies suggest that the return to an additional year of school is around 10 percent. If we apply this 10 percent rate median earnings of about $30,000 for aShow MoreRelatedCollege Life1271 Words   |  6 PagesProfessor English 1020 3 February 2013 Everyone Is Not College Material Do you believe that college is for everyone? The article â€Å"Is College for Everyone† was written by Pharinet. It is located on the website AssociatedContent.com. Pharinet states her opinion that college is not for everyone. She explains the challenges of receiving a higher education. Now days individuals are expected to receive an education beyond high school. People believe you have to attend college to earn a degree for a brighterRead MoreThe Importance Of Higher Education745 Words   |  3 Pages Going to school for these years is now becoming a necessity, but now so is college too. In order to make a career for ones self it is necessary for them to attend a university, so wouldnt you say one needs college in order to make a career for yourself. Higher education is important because it can pave the path to a better economy and society, starting a career, and ensuring a better life, that is why going to college should be free. Education is one of the most important things we can giveRead MoreFrank Bruni s Article The Imperiled Promise Of College 918 Words   |  4 Pagesarticle â€Å"The Imperiled Promise of College,† Frank states that college was a success and easily accessible to the population. He wonders why recent college graduates are having blocked roads to the job market. Frank believes college student’s are having problems getting jobs, because of choosing the wrong majors. He says that choosing the right college is important to succeed. Lastly, frank believes that we need to keep college tuition economical in order to help college students succeed. Frank Bruni’sRead MoreWhy I Went To College Essay734 Words   |  3 Pagesliteracy has changed. College comes after receiving the basic educational skills in middle school and high school. It has been debated continuously whether continuing education to college is quite necessary, or if it is just a complete waste of time. Many compare and contrast this topic because college can be expensive and time consuming. College education can improve one’s life for the good however, college is not for everyone. Throughout high school, a student learns that college is important to furtherRead MoreFree Education May Not Cost Paper Money983 Words   |  4 Pages The consequences facing free education could potentially include higher taxes, lowering the value of education, and limiting employment opportunities. When a person decides to attend college, the task of paying off student loans falls solely on the person attending college. With free education, nearly everyone would be taxed in order to help pay for an education, even those with no intention of attending a university. That would not be fair to those who decided not to attend a university. PresidentialRead MoreRhetorical Analysis OfIs College For Everyone?916 Words   |  4 PagesPharinet. â€Å"Is College for Everyone?† In Pharinet’s blog posting, she proclaims her beliefs about the pressing modern issue of whether or not everyone should attend college. Due to the controversial nature of the topic, Pharinet makes use some well-executed rhetorical strategies to convince her audience that her argument was credible. In her article, â€Å"Is College for Everyone?† She uses many rhetorical strategies like tone, calm, nods to opposition and she made mention of examples to support her argumentsRead MoreWho Should Go For College?992 Words   |  4 Pagesto college? Who should go to college? We live in a world where some people are forced to go to college or some people are told college is not for them. Should college only be for those with higher intelligence, should people put college to the side and only focus on work, or is it set in store for some to follow in the footsteps of their parents who did not attend college? There are some that protest against some going to college, on the other hand, there are some that indicate that everyone shouldRead MoreCollege Speech : Does College Make A Difference? Essay950 Words   |  4 PagesDemetria Magazine Ms. Milliner EES21QH:02 26 September 2016 College Interview: Does college make a difference? Our whole lives we are told education is the most important thing. We are told we must go to college in order to be successful. These are the expectations people have of us. After we graduate High School we are expected to go to college. College is supposed to be the goal that everyone wants to achieve. College is an institution of higher learning where you gain life skills and skillsRead MoreThe Importance Of Freedom Of Speech878 Words   |  4 PagesFreedom of speech is a basic fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of â€Å"free speech zones† has made its way to colleges everywhere. A â€Å"free speech zone† is a sidewalk sized place where studentsRead Morerhe torical analysis of an article Essay1057 Words   |  5 Pagesa blog posting from 2007, Pharinet asserts her beliefs about the pressing modern issue of whether or not everybody should go to college. Due to the controversial nature of this topic, many well-executed rhetorical strategies are needed in order for Pharinet to convey her point and convince the reader that her argument is valid. In her article, â€Å"Is College for Everyone?† Pharinet utilizes many rhetorical strategies such as a calm, reasonable tone, nods to the opposition, and an array of personal