GRE Issue Topic 16

Sample 1:

Factors comprising the well–being of a society include social mobility and equality, economic and technological progress, and quality of life. The best societies, then, are able to develop and enhance these areas and create happiness, health, and wealth among their people. Yet, finding a balance among these areas has often proven difficult, with gains in one area often resulting in sacrifices to another. One component of enhanced societal well–being under debate is the questioning of authority: is the well–being of a society enhanced or worsened when many people question authority? Although technocratic and authoritative environments may provide short–term success, we show that they are counterintuitive to long–term progress and happiness. Thus, the well–being of a society is enhanced when many people question authority.

We start by examining the short–term case. There are limited situations where an authoritative management style may be considered appropriate: under a crisis or emergency or in highly risky situations. Responding to criticism, second–guessing decisions, and investigating the outcomes of these decisions all take time. In these types of cases, decisions need to be made quickly (potentially sacrificing effectiveness). However, over a longer period and once the crisis or emergency has been averted, continued authoritative action tends to breed dissent and hatred, often leading to widespread protests or revolts (e.g., the Arab Spring or the American Revolution).

In contrast, in societies with freedom of speech where people can question authority, there is a system of checks and balances to ensure that those holding the power are acting appropriately and that those questioning authority are doing so in a reasonable fashion. Without the ability to question authority – sit at the front of the bus rather than the back, protest for civil rights, or question a leader’s decision to act seemingly in contrast to best interests – social progress is hindered and stopped cold in its tracks. The ability to have a voice that matters is a key driver toward social equality and mobility, ultimately enhancing societal well–being.

Another advantage of the ability to question authority on every level is that it allows for a sort of “crowdsourced” decision–making. For example, great companies have a flat structure versus a hierarchical one. That is, every individual matters and people’s contributions are heard at all ranks of the company. After all, those best qualified to discuss improvements to a certain process are probably those working with the process on a daily basis rather than their manager’s manager who has only a vague idea of what the process even does!
Moreover, innovation thrives when authority is challenged. Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, recently noted that Israel has a strong culture of innovation and entrepreneurship precisely because of its culture of questioning authority and challenging the status quo. A society that openly accepts the questioning of authority is essentially showing its members that taking risks and trying something new are acceptable, leading to bigger risk–taking activities by the people, driving progress.

Therefore, apart from some short–term cases, people should have the ability to question authority and scrutinize authoritative decisions carefully. Ultimately, this improves several key areas of well–being: decision–making is enhanced by allowing more voices to be heard, social and economic mobility and equality are increased through questioning of the status quo, and societal contentment is achieved by avoiding build–ups in dissent and hatred that come with an authoritarian leadership.

Sample 2:

We all live in a society where the authority to run the society is given to some capable hands. It is impossible for all of us to have the authority that is why some representatives chosen by us are given authority to run the social system for us. These people help us to create a better environment for our living. We as citizens have all the rights to question their authority. If we think that certain things are not happening as they should be happening we can question the authority. Although it is the prime responsibility of the people who are given the responsibility to provide us with all the comforts but if we question their authority then these people become more prompt and it certainly enhances the well-being of the society. If we are denied the right to question then this social system would be like monarchy where nobody can question the authority. Therefore, I believe that if we keep exercising our right of questioning the authority it would make the authorities provide us with better facilities.

If a person is not answerable to anybody then in spite of his sincerity he might be negligent in performing his duties. On the contrary if a person is aware of the fact that he is answerable to the public for what ever he does for the society, he would make sure that everything is done properly. Authority and responsibility are the different sides of the same coin. They appear to be different but they are integral parts of each other. Therefore, a person who is given authority has to take the responsibility. It was in the past when there was authoritarian rule like the one of Adolph Hitler but soon people realized the importance of being free and slowly all such practices came to an end. In the present day scenario people are more educated and thus more aware of their rights and they want to question if they are deprived of their rights. The right to question has brought revolution and people have become stronger. Now nobody can make a fool out of them as they know what their rights are.

Although it is the responsibility of the authorities to be answerable to the public but that certainly does not mean that public interferes in all the matters. There are some matters where public interference can not be allowed. There are some decisions that are taken in emergency which are for the betterment of the society and under such circumstances authorities are not answerable to public. If there is too much interference from the society then there can also be delay in important decision making. Such decisions which need immediate attention will take long if there is public intervention.

Therefore, public should question the authorities but public should not prove to be a hindrance in decision making by the authorities. Public should participate but not become an obstacle for the government.