A conflict I had with my science teacher over the possibility of an answer answers itself in this highly informal "essay"

Given a question which asks for a case that there is no suitable answer, one may conclude that writing nothing would suffice. However, it would appear that such an assumption is incorrect and that therefore they should not be warranted with the tally that says they understand something they understand. Because, the tally of what one understands is more their ability to follow an undescribed set of instructions which are assumed to be intuitive

To assume that each mind follows the same path of thought and intuits the same end, or that it should be punished for not tending to that that end, is to have a narrow view on the diversity of the world. To not allow one’s thoughts to follow a passage in which finding one’s own method of thought is to harm the very foundation of what our future requires. To meld each mind into something which can jump through the same hoops could very well cause them to lose the ability to jump through others

As such, it should be defined what the education system is. Some would say it is a place of social engineering to train the children of our land how to cooperate with each other. In this case, such a goal has no importance to this issue except that which would be to socially engineer each person to work with someone similar to themselves or to socially engineer each person to work with another person of unique characteristics

If it is defined by the words it is born from, then the education system is created to educate the youth so that they may be brought up to progress through society and improve it in some direction. This direction is most likely that of a more intellectual esteem than the past, and will thus require a wider range of unique labourers to fit the wider range of intellectual positions. The education system should not, therefore, teach the art of thought as a trade like that of a plumber, but like that of a free scholar. One should be free to follow the path of which they answer questions without the burden of having to guess how their path is to be evaluated

Why is it then that the form in which one answers a question comes into question? The argument against granting the marks was stated as that of seeing no answer. That if someone had done nothing, they would have to also be granted this mark

But that is a foolish argument. The person who answered all but the final question obviously OSHI- the person could of easily been unable to find the answer, and thus left a blank because they had no answer. It would then be shown that there was no answer to which they would now have that one answer unanswered and lack the ability to understand the concept of mu. Therefore, they do not obviously know the answer that is to be justified by there being no answer