Drafting an Obscenity and Profanity Policy for Schools

Obscenity and profanity have become significant issues that schools must get a handle on. Profanity especially has become a problem in part because students hear their parents using words that are unacceptable at school and model what they do. Furthermore, pop culture has made it a more acceptable practice.  The entertainment industry, especially music, movies, and television glamorizes the use of obscenities and profanity.  Sadly, students are using profane words at a younger and younger age. Schools must have a strong policy to deter students from being profane or obscene primarily because they are often vulgar in nature, the use of these types of words/materials often leads to distractions, and can occasionally lead to fights or altercations. Educating our students is critical in eliminating or reducing the problem as is the case for almost any social issue. Students must be taught that there are other alternatives to using obscenities and profanity during school.  They must be taught that school is the wrong time and wrong place to practice the use of expletive language.  Some parents may allow their children to use profanity in the home, but they need to know that it will not be allowed or tolerated in school. They need to know that using inappropriate language is a choice. They can control their choices at school, or they will be held accountable. Many students are offended when other students use inappropriate language.  They are not exposed to it in their homes and do not make it a regular part of their vernacular. It is especially important for schools to teach older students to be respectful and mindful of younger students.  Schools must adopt a zero-tolerance stance when older students are knowingly using inappropriate language around younger students. Schools should have an expectation for all students to be respectful of one another.  Cursing in any form can be offensive and disrespectful to many students. If nothing else, all students should refrain from this practice because of this.  Ã‚  Getting a handle on the issue of obscenity and profanity will be an uphill and continuous battle.  Schools wanting to improve this area must draft a tough policy, educate their students on the policy, and then follow through with the assigned consequences no matter the context.  Once students see that you are cracking down on the issue, most will alter their vocabulary and comply because they do not want to be in trouble.   Obscenity and Profanity Policy Obscene materials including, but not limited to illustrations (drawings, painting, photographs, etc.) and oral or written materials (books, letters, poems, tapes, CDs, videos, etc.) which are commercially or student-produced are prohibited. Profanity including, but not limited to, gestures, symbols, verbal, written, etc. is prohibited during school and at all school-sponsored activities. There is one word that is strictly prohibited. The â€Å"F† word will not be tolerated under any circumstance. Any student who uses the â€Å"F† word in any context will automatically be suspended out of school for three days. All other forms of inappropriate language are highly discouraged. Students must choose their words carefully and consciously.  Students caught using obscenities or profanities will be subject to the following disciplinary code. 1st Offense - Verbal reprimand. Notice issued to parents.2nd Offense - 3 detention times.3rd Offense - 3 days in-school placementSubsequent Offenses - 3 days out-of-school suspension.

Everything You Need to Know About Ionic Columns

Ionic is one of three column styles builders used in ancient Greece and the Ionic order is one of five classical orders of architecture. More slender and more ornate than the masculine Doric style, an Ionic column has scroll-shaped ornaments on the capital, which sits at the top of the column shaft. Ionic columns are said to be a more feminine response to the earlier Doric order. The ancient Roman military architect Vitruvius (c. 70-15 BC) wrote that Ionic design was an appropriate combination of the severity of the Doric and the delicacy of the Corinthian. Architectural styles that use Ionic columns include Classical, Renaissance, and Neoclassical. Characteristics of an Ionic Column Ionic columns are easy to recognize at first glance in part because of their volutes. A volute is the distinctive spiral whorl design, like a spiral shell, characteristic of the Ionic capital. This design feature, stately and ornate as it may be, presented plenty of problems for early architects. The Volute The curvy embellishments decorating an Ionic capital create an inherent structural problem—how can a circular column accommodate a linear capital? In response, some Ionic columns end up being two-sided with one very wide pair of volutes, while others squeeze in four sides or two narrower pairs atop the shaft. Some Ionian architects considered the latter design preferable for its symmetry. But how did the volute come to be? Volutes and their origin have been described in many ways. Perhaps they are decorative scrolls meant to symbolize long-distance communication developments of ancient Greece. Some refer to volutes as curly hair atop a slender shaft or even a rams horn, but these musings do little to explain where the ornaments come from. Others say that the capital design of an Ionic Column represents a key feature of feminine biology—the ovaries. With egg-and-dart decoration between the volutes, this fertile explanation shouldnt be quickly dismissed. Other Features Though Ionic columns are most easily recognizable for their volutes, they feature other unique characteristics that set them apart from Doric and Corinthian equivalents as well. These include: A base of stacked disksShafts that are usually flutedShafts that can be flared at both the top and bottomEgg-and-dart designs between the volutesRelatively flat capitals. Vitruvius once said that the height of the Ionic capital is only one-third of the thickness of the column Ionic Column History Though the inspiration behind the Ionic style is unknown, its origins are well-recorded. The design originated in 6th century BC Ionia, an eastern region of Ancient Greece. This area is not referred to as the Ionian Sea today but is part of the Aegean Sea, east of the mainland where the Dorians lived. Ionians migrated from the mainland in about 1200 BC. The Ionic design originated around 565 BC from the Ionian Greeks, an ancient tribe that spoke the Ionian dialect and lived in cities around an area now called Turkey. Two early examples of Ionic columns still stand in present-day Turkey: the Temple of Hera at Samos (c. 565 BC) and the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (c. 325 BC). These two cities are often destination points for Greece and Turkey Mediterranean Cruises due to their architectural and cultural splendor. Two hundred years after their isolated beginning, Ionic columns were built on the mainland of Greece. The Propylaia (c. 435 BC), the Temple of Athena Nike (c. 425 BC), and the Erechtheum (c. 405 BC) are early examples of Ionic columns in Athens. Architects of Ionia There were a number of principal Ionian architects that contributed to the success of the Ionian style. Priene, an Ionian city of Ancient Greece located on the western shores of what is now Turkey, was home to the philosopher Bias and other significant Ionian designers, such as: Pytheos (c. 350 BC): Vitruvius once called Pytheos the celebrated builder of the temple of Minerva. Known today as a shrine to the Greek goddess Athena, the Temple of Athena Polias, along with the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos, was built by Pytheos in the Ionic Order.Hermogenes (c. 200 BC): Like Pytheos, Hermogenes of Priene argued for the symmetry of the Ionic over the Doric. His most famous works include the Temple of Artemis in Magnesia on the Maeander—even grander than the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus—and the Temple of Dionysos in the Ionian city of Teos. Buildings with Ionic Columns Western architecture is filled with examples of Ionic columns. This column style can be found in some of the most prestigious and historic buildings in the world, such as the following examples. The Colosseum in Rome: The Colosseum highlights a blend of architectural styles. Built in 80 AD, this building features Doric columns on the first level, Ionic columns on the second level, and Corinthian columns on the third level.Basilica Palladiana: The European Renaissance of the 1400s and 1500s was a period of Classical reawakening, which explains why architecture such as the Basilica Palladiana can be seen with Ionic columns on the upper level and Doric columns below.Jefferson Memorial: In the United States, Neoclassic architecture in Washington, D.C. shows off Ionic columns most notably on the Jefferson Memorial.U.S. Department of the Treasury: The U.S. Treasury Building, after its first two iterations being destroyed by separate fires, was rebuilt into the building that still stands in 1869. The facades of the North, South, and West wings feature 36-foot-tall Ionic columns. Sources â€Å"History of the Treasury Building.†Ã‚  U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Government, 27 July 2011.Pollio, Marcus Vitruvius. â€Å"Books I and IV.†Ã‚  The Ten Books on Architecture, translated by Morris Hickey Morgan, Dover Publications, 1960.Turner, Jane, editor. â€Å"Architectural Orders.†Ã‚  The Dictionary of Art, vol. 23, Grove, 1996, pp. 477–494.

Ifrs 10 Application to Hyundai and Kia Free Essays

string(24) " the total volume of 2\." ————————————————- ACCT333 Advanced Financial Accounting ————————————————- Group Project Assignment (IFRS 10) Cheong Wang Shen Gordon Prepared for: Prof Bernardine Low Prepared by: Gordon Cheong Wang Shen Jason Tan Zhu En Twain Teo Wei Ren Wee Huixiang (G4) Table of Contents Question 1: IFRS 10 flowchart3 Question 25 (a) Identifying ambiguity of control5 Background5 Control issues5 Co-owning of subsidiaries5 Inter-company director relations6 Same platform manufacturing6 b) (c) Application of IFRS 10 flowchart to determine existence of control by Hyundai7 Step 1: Determine the purpose and design of investee (Kia)7 Step 2: Determine relevant activities7 Step 3: Determination of ability to direct relevant activities8 Step 4: Determine if exposed to variable returns9 Step 5: Determine if Hyundai is a principal or an agent10 Question 310 Identification of four requirements in IFRS 10 that are challenging to interpret and apply10 Considering the purpose and design of the investee10 Determining the relative size of voting rights11 Considering related parties12 Determining if investor is a principal or agent12 References14 Question 1: IFRS 10 flowchart Question 2 (a) Identifying ambiguity of control Background The Hyundai Motor Company (hereafter referred to as Hyundai) is a multinational automaker based in Seoul, South Korea. Hyundai is one of the two best-known divisions of the global conglomerate Hyundai, the other being Hyundai Heavy Industries, the largest shipbuilder globally. A famous Korean businessman, Chung Ju-yung, founded Hyundai in 1974. We will write a custom essay sample on Ifrs 10 Application to Hyundai and Kia or any similar topic only for you Order Now Following the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, Hyundai bought over Kia Motors Corporation (hereafter referred to as Kia) in 1998, which resulted in the formation of the Hyundai Kia Automotive Group (HKAG). It consists of multiple affiliated companies related through complex shareholding agreements, although Hyundai is taken to be the de facto representative in transactions done with HKAG. During the acquisition of Kia in 1998, Hyundai out-bidded Ford motors to acquire 51% of the company’s shareholding. After a series of divestments over the years, the total ownership of Hyundai in Kia has been reduced to only 33. 5%. Hyundai and Kia are both listed individually on the Korean Stock Exchange. In 2008, Hyundai was ranked the 8th largest automaker in the world. It was also the fastest growing automaker globally for 2 consecutive years (2010 and 2011). The chairman and CEO of Hyundai is Chung Mong-koo, one of the surviving sons of Chung Ju-yung. Control issues Hyundai currently has a 33. 75% direct shareholding in Kia, with the remaining shareholdings being presumably widely dispersed. As such, it evidently has significant influence over the operations and running of Kia’s business. However, establishing direct control between Hyundai and Kia is not as straightforward. There are a number of issues that we have to look at. Co-owning of subsidiaries Hyundai and Kia co-own a large number of subsidiaries. As evidenced by the 2010 consolidated financials of Hyundai, the global branches of the Kia Motors Group are 100% held by Hyundai through Kia themselves. Both companies also have percentage ownership in Hyundai’s various component manufacturing companies like Hyundai HYSCO Company Limited and Hyundai Powertech Company Limited. Aside from this, they also have holdings in Autoever Systems Corporation, where their main Research and Development unit is located. Inter-company director relations The current Chairman and CEO of HMC is Chung Mong-koo. He took over Hyundai in 1992 when the Hyundai Group split into its various divisions. The Hyundai group itself follows a South Korean Business form of conglomerate known as chaebol, where the unique characteristic is that it is usually a huge family controlled corporate group. As such, it is not surprising to see that many of the third generation members of Chung Ju-yung’s family are heading many of the different divisions of the Hyundai Group. Chung Mong-koo’s only son, Chung Eui-sun was a key operating officer in various corporate planning divisions in Hyundai-Kia before eventually heading Kia as its president from 2005 to 2009. Currently, he is the vice chairman of Hyundai and is on the internal board of directors for Kia. Aside from this, Chung Mong-koo also has a 5% shareholding in Kia. Same platform manufacturing Both Hyundai and Kia co-own manufacturing subsidiaries that produce component parts to both companies. As a result, their production facilities get the similar component parts from the same suppliers. The companies also use the same power trains (engines and transmissions) all manufactured largely from the Hyundai Powertech Company Limited. A majority of the automobile electronic components from both brands also come from Hyundai MOBIS Limited. Both these companies are co-owned subsidiaries of Hyundai and Kia. Both Hyundai and Kia also share design studios. In fact, the vice president of design based in HMC actually oversees the design management of both brands. The family controlled heading of both Hyundai and Kia allows us to consider the possibility of Hyundai having a controlling influence over Kia, especially with Chung Eui-sun’s dual positions on both companies’ board of directors. Furthermore, given the fact that both companies virtually sprout from the same supply chain, and control over their research and development and design of the vehicles are headed by staff based in Hyundai, we can see hat these revenue generating activities greatly affect the business operations of both companies. Even though Kia is clearly not a subsidiary at first glance, given the meagre 33. 75% ownership by Hyundai, it would appear that Hyundai may be exerting more than just significant influence over Kia through the various factors mentioned. (b) (c) Application of IFRS 10 flowchart to determine existence of control by Hyundai Step 1: Determine the purpose and design of investee (Kia) Hyundai purchased shares in Kia for 1. 18 trillion won in November 1998. The purpose of this acquisition in Kia is for Hyundai to gain significant foothold and widen its market share in the auto industry. By taking over Kia Motor, the Hyundai-Kia group was able to forge a solid position having over 70% of domestic market share and become the 7th or 8th global automaker by combining its affiliates’ production capacity into the total volume of 2. You read "Ifrs 10 Application to Hyundai and Kia" in category "Essay examples" 9 million units in 1999. Step 2: Determine relevant activities Activities| Does it significantly affect investees’ returns – relevant activities? | Example of decisions about relevant activities| How decisions about relevant activities are made? Research and development| Yes| Reduce the number of platforms to 718 by the end of 2005, in order to save the costs of product development and manufacturing and produce a variety of car models having differing external styling and interior options for the brands of Hyundai an d Kia| Decisions are made by a joint RD Division led by the Chief Technology Officer (for Hyundai and Kia combined)| Auto-assembly| Yes| Which type of vehicle that each plant should produce? Whether Hyundai and Kia should share power-train parts (i. e. engine and transmission) to be supplied to assembly plantsWhether Hyundai and Kia should share production technology| Decisions are made by top management of the Hyundai-Kia group, where the de facto representative is Hyundai| Auto parts supply| Yes| Which vendor should supply auto parts to the companies? How many vendors should they engage? | Decisions are made by Joint Material Handling Division that Hyundai and Kia set up| Marketing and competition| Yes| Whether to focus on price or non price competition such as customer service and product quality| Decisions are made by top management of the Hyundai-Kia group| Step 3: Determination of ability to direct relevant activities Hyundai owns 33. 75% of the shares in Kia Motors. In addition, Chung Eui-sun, the son of the Hyundai Motor Group Chairman, owns another 1. 73% of the shares. This presumably gives Hyundai control of 35. 48% of Kia Motors, which is significantly less than the 50% shareholding that would give Hyundai the majority of the voting rights. However, we are unable to find any evidence that anyone has control of a large proportion of the remaining shares, and thus we feel that the assumption that the rest of the shares in Kia are highly dispersed is a reasonable one. If that is the case, then it is almost impossible that all these shareholders will collectively outvote Hyundai when a decision needs to be made, so Hyundai can be said to have power over the relevant activities. Another factor to consider is that Mr Chung is both the vice chairman of Hyundai and an internal director of Kia. As Mr Chung sits on Kia’s board, he should have a certain amount of influence over Kia’s decision-making process. This factor, coupled with Hyundai’s holding of voting rights, lend much weight to the claim that Hyundai can direct the relevant activities. Last but not least, we notice from the table above that the Hyundai and Kia managements jointly make most decisions regarding relevant activities. In fact, Hyundai and Kia share almost the same supply chain. Many companies in the supply chain are subsidiaries or associates co-owned by these two parents. However, because Hyundai owns a larger portion of shares, and hence voting rights, in most of these entities, Kia is understandably at risk if it goes all out to oppose Hyundai in some way or another. It can be seen that when decisions are made, Hyundai is better represented because of both the presence of its management and its voting rights, and Kia would tend to concede ground to Hyundai when there are disagreements. So, even though Hyundai owns less than 50% of the shareholding in Kia, they probably still have enough power to direct the relevant activities. Step 4: Determine if exposed to variable returns If Hyundai has actual control of Kia, they will be exposed to returns, which can be positive, negative or both. Also these returns must be variable rather than fixed. The returns that Hyundai is exposed to can be classified into two categories: 1) Returns not available to other interest holders. This refers to cost savings and synergies that arise from Hyundai owning Kia, which other shareholders in Kia would not be entitled to. In this case, they are mostly in the form of cost savings, due to the similar operations of the two companies. Consolidation of RD centres of Hyundai and Kia, sharing of RD centres allowed both companies to lower costs by reducing number of employees in the RD centres * Products share similar core platforms leads to savings and economies of scale * Sharing of factories leads to further specialisation, for example, Kia’s Kwangju plant was designated as a specialised assembly plant for small-sized commercial vehicles for both Hyundai and Kia, leading to cost reduction * Sharing auto-part suppliers to apply greater pressure on suppliers for cost savings on supplies 2) Dividends Kia paid out 96 billion won in dividends in 2010 * Hyundai’s ownership of common stock entitles them to receive dividends from Kia. Thus, it can be seen that Hyundai meets all our requirements that would allow it to classify Kia as a subsidiary. Our last step would be to ensure that Hyundai is acting in the capacity of a principal, rather than that of an agent, which is holding delegated power. Step 5: Determine if Hyundai is a principal or an agent In determining whether Hyundai is acting as a principal or an agent, we need to consider four factors: 1) Scope of decision making authority * Unable to find information proving that Hyundai has any limits to the decisions it can make for Kia * Presumably, Hyundai can make most decisions for Kia 2) Rights held by other parties * No evidence of rights held by other parties 3) Exposure to variability of returns from investees * High cost savings due to economies of scale Many of Hyundai’s subsidiaries depend on Kia for revenue * Affected by dividends paid out by Kia 4) Remuneration * Almost solely dependent on dividends, which are highly variable * No actual fixed remuneration In consideration of all the four factors, Hyundai is most likely a principal and not an agent. Hence we can reasonably conclude, after thorough application of the framework, that Kia is a subsidiary of Hyundai. Question 3 Identification of four requirements in IFRS 10 that are challenging to interpret and apply Considering the purpose and design of the investee Paragraph B5 of IFRS 10 explains that â€Å"when assessing control of an investee, an investor shall consider the purpose and design of the investee in order to identify the relevant activities, how decisions about the relevant activities are made, who has the current ability to direct those activities and who receives returns from those activities†. Paragraphs B51-B53 then goes on to explain the factors to be considered when determining the purpose and design of the investee. However, IFRS 10 does not explain how the purpose and design of the investee can be used to â€Å"identify the relevant activities, how decisions about the relevant activities are made, who has the current ability to direct those activities and who receives returns from those activities†, which paragraph B5 suggested. A simplistic scenario is given in paragraph B6, whereby the investee is controlled by means of equity investments. Beyond this straightforward case, paragraph B7 directs readers back to the factors listed in B3 to determine control (relevant activities, ability to direct relevant activities, variable returns and ability to use power over investee to affect returns). Furthermore, the factors provided in paragraphs B51-B53 are hard to determine and require much professional judgment. For instance, paragraph B51 states that in the process of assessing the purpose and design, we â€Å"evaluate whether the transaction terms and features of the involvement (at investee’s inception) provide the investor with rights that are sufficient to give it power†. No conclusive elaboration is provided by IFRS 10, and it is uncertain whether being involved in the investee’s inception signifies control. This creates much ambiguity and inconsistent interpretation across firms. Rather than making it seem like an isolated step with little purpose, IFRS 10 should provide clearer guidance for the objective of determining the purpose and design of the investee. Clearer linkages, between the consideration of purpose and design of investee and the other factors to be considered when determining control, could also be provided to improve the flow of IFRS 10. Furthermore, more comprehensive and conclusive guidelines could be included to standardise the interpretation of the purpose and design of the investee. Determining the relative size of voting rights According to paragraph B42, an investor can consider the size of its holding of voting rights relative to the size and dispersion of other holdings of the other vote holders to determine whether its rights are sufficient to give it power. However, because relativity encompasses the use of personal judgement, this section may be open to manipulation. In Hyundai’s case, it holds around 35% of the voting rights, including those held by its vice chairman, Chung Eui-sun. If the rest of the voting rights are very widely dispersed, with nobody else holding more than 1%, Hyundai can say that it has control because it is very improbable that all the other parties will come together to collectively outvote Hyundai. On the other hand, Hyundai can also claim that there is still a possibility that the other shareholders will collectively vote against Hyundai if it introduces a policy that does not benefit them, so in that case, Hyundai does not have control. We notice that the voting structure remains the same, yet different interpretations can be derived. Paragraph B42 also says that other circumstances, such as voting patterns at previous shareholders’ meetings, can be considered, but it is hard to say if the historical patterns are able to predict the future. Shareholders might not have voted in previous meetings because there were no major decisions that affected them, but if Hyundai intends to propose something revolutionary, the voting situation will definitely change. IFRS 10 can provide more detailed guidance to ensure that this section is applied appropriately and consistently. For example, when determining how widely dispersed the rest of the voting rights are, an investor should consider only the next 10 largest shareholders. If their combined holding is larger than that of the investor, then the investor does not have control based on this requirement alone. When assessing previous voting patterns, the investor should only look at shareholders’ meetings where issues of similar impact were raised. If previous meetings did not encompass such issues, then the voting patterns for those meetings cannot be considered. Considering related parties Paragraph B18 states that an investor can consider whether the investee’s key management personnel are related parties of the investor when determining if the investor has the practical ability to direct relevant activities unilaterally. However, it does not specify how much influence the related parties must have over the investee, so this may not always be a good indicator of power. For example, Hyundai’s vice chairman, Chung Eui-sun, is also on Kia’s internal board of directors. According to paragraph B18, this should provide evidence that Hyundai has power over Kia. But in order to determine whether Hyundai can direct relevant activities through Chung Eui-sun, we must also consider the amount of influence that he has over Kia’s decision-making process. Kia has 9 directors on its board, of whom two are also presidents in the company, so Chung Eui-sun may not always have his way. If the investor does not take this into consideration, then the determination of control would be flawed. In that sense, this requirement would be more complete if guidance on the influence commanded by related parties was given. Instead of only determining whether there are related parties in the investee’s governing bodies, the investor should also take into account the role and power of the related parties. If the related parties have the final say when it comes to decision-making over relevant activities, then this factor can conclusively determine that the investor has power. But if the related parties do not have the final say, then only a minimal weight should be placed on this factor. Determining if investor is a principal or agent Being able to determine if the investor is a principal or an agent is crucial to determining whether the investor has control over the investee. A principal would have power over the investee, but an agent would only have delegated power. Delegated power is held on behalf of a third party who ultimately controls the investee. The method prescribed in IFRS 10 for determining if a decision maker is an agent is the consideration of the factors listed in paragraph B60. Upon further elaboration of the factors, IFRS 10 provides certain cases where the investee is definitely a principal or an agent. For example, paragraph B70 states that â€Å"a decision maker cannot be an agent unless the conditions set out in paragraph B69 (a) and (b) are present. † However, if none of these extreme conditions are met, we must assume that we would have to take all five conditions into account when trying to decide if the investor is an agent. However, there is no prescription in IFRS 10 about how to consider these conditions. In a situation where some of the conditions point towards the investor being an agent and some point towards them being a principal, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in whether the investor should be classified as a principal or an agent. This gives the company some leeway in choosing the decision that would reflect a better financial position of the firm. This could lead to reduced accuracy of financial statements and less comparability among financial statements of different companies. To make this requirement easier to interpret and apply, IFRS 10 should clearly state the relative importance of each factor. For example, the factors which are given a higher relative importance would have a higher influence on whether the company is a principal or an agent, as compared to those with a lower importance. As such, in ambiguous cases, companies will know which factors should be considered first. Given this, all companies will have more similar definitions of principal/agent, thereby reducing the ambiguity and increasing comparability among different financial statements. References 1) Hyundai 2010 Annual Report http://worldwide. hyundai. com/company-overview/investor-relations/financial-information-Annual-Report-view. aspx? idx=13nCurPage=1ListNum=11 2) Kia 2010 Annual Report http://www. kmcir. com/eng/library/annual. asp 3) Merger and Reconfiguring of Hyundai-Kia (Byoung-Hoon Lee, Sung Jae Cho) http://gerpisa. org/rencontre/9. rencontre/S13Lee-Cho. pdf 4) HYUNDAI MOTORS’ DE-CHAEBOLIZATION EFFECTS (Hyunjoong Jun) http://gerpisa. org/rencontre/9. rencontre/S13Jun. pdf How to cite Ifrs 10 Application to Hyundai and Kia, Essay examples

Romeo and Juliet Business Letter free essay sample

This can be one of the many explanations as to why Romeo and Juliet hurried their relationship so quickly and did not hesitate to stop and consider the consequences of their actions. This proposition can also lead to another suggestion about Romeo and Juliet’s behavior. Even though the prefrontal cortex and many other sections of the brain are not fully developed till much later on, the nucleus accumbens is developed rather well during the teenage years (Edmonds). Scientist Molly Edmonds states that the nucleus accumbens in the area of the brain that seeks pleasure or reward (Edmonds). Both Romeo and Juliet knew that there would be horrific consequences due to their decision to get married, but their brain did not recognize the delayed satisfaction, and so Romeo and Juliet carried out their marriage even after knowing the consequences for that little moment of pleasure. Consequently, during puberty in a teenager, there is usually an overproduction of cells in the brain (â€Å"Inside the Teenage Brain†). We will write a custom essay sample on Romeo and Juliet Business Letter or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page This causes sections in the brain to take control of smaller areas in the, and because of this, hasty decisions are made and teens often get aggravated more easily brain (â€Å"Inside the Teenage Brain†). Thus, Romeo and Juliet, being in their teenage years, could have had an overproduction of cells and may have been disobedient because of this.. Edmond’s states, â€Å"This is also around the time when teenagers get behind the wheel of a  car  for the first time, as well as when they might be engaging in  sexual behaviors† (Edmonds). Romeo and Juliet, although not knowing the reason being, may have had the urges to behave in a sexual way, or even engage in sexual behaviors because of their sex hormones in puberty (Edmonds). Further on, it has been scientifically proven that a normal teenager’s brain definitely does not resemble a 20 year old’s brain (National Institute of Mental Health). One of the most obvious differences which were noticed in the scans of the brains was the amount of gray matter which was developed (National Institute of Mental Health). Scientifically speaking, researchers claim, â€Å"The scans revealed unexpectedly late changes in the volume of gray matter, which forms the thin, folding outer layer or cortex of the brain†¦Over the course of childhood, the volume of gray matter in the cortex increases and then declines† (National Institute of Mental Health). In other words, the scans which were completed implied that the parts of the brain that are accountable for emotions, impulses, and making decisions are the last to mature and fully grow (National Institute of Mental Health). This research helps prove that Romeo and Juliet are not completely to be blamed for the actions they made. I am not implying that what Romeo and Juliet did was not their fault, but what I am attempting to say is what they did and the decisions they made were not completely all their fault. The teenage years are by far the most difficult and intricate to deal with. Just remember, before completely blaming these teenagers, think about what was going through their minds at the time. I appreciate your time and effort for reading my letter. Sincerely, ___________