Writer's Corner: Free Essay Grading by PastaInhaler

[mikeb88]

Clicked!

 

This is my first attempt since writing the MCAT in 2008. Thank you for reading

 

Prompt: No matter how oppressive a government, violent revolution is never justified.

 

Violence is rarely an appropriate response to oppression, and can often serve to distract others from the root problem. For example, protesters rallying against the recent G20 summit in Toronto were overshadowed by anarchists who invaded and vandalized the city. The violence was unproductive, drawing attention away from the protests and instead to the destruction and devastation of the city.

 

Peaceful measures are often a more productive approach. Take for example the recent occupy movement occurring around the globe. Protestors are rallying together peacefully in public gatherings to protest the unequal distribution of wealth and oppression of citizens living in developed nations. These peaceful demonstrations have had immense success raising public awareness on the topic.

 

However, there are situations in which violent revolution has been productive. Government oppression in countries such as Egypt, Libya, and Syria reached this limit in recent years with massacres and the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians, leading to a widespread revolution that has become known as the Arab Spring. Citizens of these countries took it upon themselves to stand up to armies, fight back, and overthrow government to protect their human rights and their lives.

 

Clearly violence yields different outcomes under different situations. The G20 riots did scarred the city of Toronto and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in damage. However, revolution in Arab nations has given freedom and control back to the people. This disparity begs the question: When is violence an appropriate means of revolt? When a government’s actions against its citizens include physical harm and death, those citizens have a right to stand up against tyranny and fight for their rights. Therefore, violence may be justified only after all other options have been exhausted, and oppression represents a significant danger to human lives.

[MichaelScarn]

Clicked.

 

The main responsibility of a business should be to maximize the physical safety of its employees.

 

Describe a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the main responsibility of a business might not be maximizing the physical safety of its employees. Discuss what you think determines when the main responsibility of a business should be to maximize the physical safety of its employees and when it should not.

 

 

In any business, the welfare of its employees should be a given priority. Businesses should allocate a sufficient amount of resources in order to ensure the physical safety of their workers. Any corporation that exchanges money for goods or services falls under the category of businesses and thus has a responsibility to those that it hires. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act enacted in 1970, every employee has the right to demand a hazard-free environment. Employers are contracted by law to comply, even at the expense of profits or clients. As employees are giving their time to make their respective companies profitable, they should not feel threatened or unsafe while at work. When a company prioritizes its profits and clients before its employees, dire consequences can occur. The devastating nuclear crisis in Fukushima Daiichi on March 2011 is an example of what these consequences can be. Following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, a series of equipment failure, nuclear meltdowns and release of radioactive materials at the Fukushima Power Plant put many of its workers in grave danger, both long and short term. Due to the heavy onslaught of radioactive material from the power plant, many workers developed cancers and many more are predicted to suffer the same prognosis. Japan has been largely criticized on an international level for its poor communication and lack of preparation for such an event. Japan officials released a statement saying that those in charge had been blinded by a false belief in the country’s “technological infallibility” and were taken in by a veil of safety. Furthermore, evidence has shown that some of the power plant’s officials knew of the plant’s potential problems, but chose to remain quiet. In this scenario, the business chose to increase profits rather than protect its employees, causing irreconcilable damage. Had the business been more responsible with its safety regulations, there is a high probability that this disaster would never have had to occur.

 

However, there are instances when a business’ main responsibility might not be to maximize the physical safety of its employees. In certain professions, a risk of physical harm is inherent in the job description and in these situations, it wouldn’t be in the best interest of the business to keep their employees safe at all costs. Jobs like police officers, firefighters, or quasi-military businesses such as the North Carolina Military Business Center, all come with an understanding that physical safety is not a guarantee. Individuals who choose to undertake these professions do so at the expense of their health. It is at the business’ best interest to put its employees in harm’s way in order for its clients to be protected. Here, the main responsibility of a business would be to maximize the physical safety of those who pay for their services, rather than those who do the service.

 

Therefore, it is not always the case that businesses should put the safety of their employees above all else. When the employees choose to work in a dangerous field, their safety is now second to those of the clients’. The distinction that must be made here is whether the individual voluntarily chose to work in an unsafe environment or whether they were involuntarily placed there. For the workers of the Fukushima power plant, they never chose to work in an environment that could cause such damage to their bodies; they were involuntarily placed into this situation because of the negligence of their employers. On the other hand, firefighters and police officers are aware of the situation they are putting themselves in, but choose to do so anyways. Their voluntary disregard for safety is what allows their businesses to put the safety of others before them. It is only when an employee does not choose to work in an unsafe environment that a business must make physical safety a primary responsibility.

 

I went a little overtime with this one, do you have any suggestions for staying within the 30 minutes, but still writing enough?

 

Thank you!

[chenoa]

-clicked-

 

Only those politicians who have learned the art of compromise can achieve their political goals.

 

The ability to reach an acceptable middle ground in any dispute and deciding on a path that partially satisfies the demands of both parties may be called the art of compromise. Politicians- the leaders within a given country’s governmental system-often need to use this important tool. They might do so in order to reach their political goals, such as advancing policies they value. For example, Canada currently has a minority government lead by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. In such a position, if the Conservatives refused to compromise on certain issues, it would be extremely difficult for new legislation to be passed. Also, in a minority government, the ruling party has to balance the goal of advancing its political goals with the knowledge that the opposition parties potentially have the power to band together and bring down the government with a vote of non-confidence. Due to this inherent instability of minority governments, the leader of a minority government must be willing and able to use compromise.

 

However, it is also possible for a politician to reach his/her political goals without using compromise. For instance, during the Cultural revolution in 1960’s China, Chairman Mao headed up a totalitarian regime in which compromising Party goals was certainly not tolerated. Mao’s goal was to regain power and to impose Socialist ideas on the country, while removing capitalist, traditional, and cultural elements. His strategies such as forming a cult of personality, utilizing the Red Guards, and purging the government of other leaders not “revolutionary” enough demonstrate his lack of allowance for deviation from reaching his political goals. Yet, he was able to bring about sweeping social and political change that turned Chinese society on its head, and whose effects still reverberate in that country today.

 

What determines whether or not a politician needs compromise in order to attain his or her political goals is the type of governmental system the politician operates in. In a democratic nation based on egalitarian principles such as Canada, politicians simultaneously cannot please everyone but must also try to appeal to a wide audience to garner votes. Also, when politicians are elected based on voting, minority governments are possible. Within a minority government, leaders often will need to compromise with opposition parties to rule the country efficiently. In contrast, in a totalitarian system, the government leader by definition does not recognize any limit to its authority. In this case, compromise is not necessary to achieve one’s political aims. The deciding factor is the system of government in effect in that particular country.

[JB.]

-clicked- I see Pasta hasn't been on in forever. Hope all is well!

 

Politicians should never compromise their principles.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a politician should compromise. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a politician should compromise.

 

A politician should never compromise their principles. During an election campaign, politicians make promises for their time in office based on their values and ideals. However it is a common complaint that politicians conveniently forgot the promises they made to constituents once they are elected and are faced with lobbyists or special interest groups. It is important for a politician to remember that they are representing a population and that their loyalties should not change upon being elected.

 

However, since a politician is representing many people, there are times where it is appropriate for a politician's personal belief system to be left out of the equation. For example, in the United States, gay rights issues have been the forefront of many debates in congress. Many politicians have strong personal and religious beliefs about the moralality if gay marriage and the civil rights component to this issue. This is a time where it is appropriate for a politician to put personal feelings aside and to vote in accordance with what is best for the people they represent.

 

Politicians are often accused of compromising on the values and ideas that got them elected. It is important for politicians to stay true to their promises made while they are in office. Representing the people in their riding is an important job in serving their country. As easy as it is to allow lobbyists to dictate what bills get passed and how votes are cast, politicians should always strive to follow the blueprint they laid out during their campaign as these values are the reason the politician got elected in the first place. However there are also times when it is neccesary for a politician to put their personal values aside and vote in accordance that is best representive of the people they serve.

[biochembro]

Clicked.

 

 

Prompt: Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens.

 

The establishment of government is a prime example of a system that centralizes and takes responsibility for the well-being and growth of its citizens. There are many aspects in the life of a citizen that are regulated by the government, taxes being a commonly-debated topic. However, there are more critical areas of citizen life, which the government must control and make reasonably accessible to its citizens. For example, the issue of centralized healthcare services is widely contested throughout many contries, with the USA being a predominant example. However, in some countries such as Canada and Britain, the healthcare for the citizens is centralized, or in other words it is controlled by the government. Branching off of healthcare services is the important issue of drugs supply, which is solely in the handds of big private companies. In such a situation, it is the governments responsibility to not only monitor but also regulate the type of drugs that are being introduced in the market by the big pharmaceutical companies. The introduction of the Canadian government body, FDA, which was established around the mid 1900s was due to the major medical incidents that occured in the past, such as the thalidomide poisoning of countless people that had happened because of the lack of care of the pharmaceutical company responsible for its development. After several such instances, the government decided to establish an government body that would regulate the production and distribution of drugs to the Canadian people. In the case of drug distribution, the government was pressured to intervene as it was causing an adverse impact on not only the health but also the psychology of its citizens; however, there are also many necessary services to which the government does not feel the need to intervene.

 

A necessary service that is regularyl used by almost of the citizens is the Bank. There are many different banks, owned by separate companies, of which many provide the same basic service to the the citizens: loans. Loans are a necessity to majority of the citizens, to not only pay off the cost of their education but also to invest in the their future, which includes purchasing a home, a car, etc. Such purchases cannot be made in cash payments and as such, the citizens are forced to seek the help of a privately-owned bank. This privately-owned bank (one of several around Canada) loans out their private funds to the citizens on certain conditions, one which is to return the money borrowed back in full with interest on top, unsurprisingly. The interest rates of different banks falls within a wide range and thus citizens must make an educated decision to prevent losing money and their future when they sign a contract with a bank. The government does not feel that it should step in to regulate the amount and/or the interest rate the citizens can get because it, simply, does not have an immediate threat to the well-being of the citizens.

 

Governments are in place to protect the freedom and well-being of their citizens and the government must also ensure that their citizens receive equal rights and services necessary to their citizens in an equal manner. Clearly, the government cannot regulate every single aspect of their citizens' lives, which would be an indication of a non-democratic government, but it does have a responsibility to regulate services provided by companies that may put the lives of its citizens at risk, or when the services provided by companies may harm the well-being of its citizens. Nevertheless, if some services that are also critical to its citizens, such as the loaning of money through private banks, but does not put its citizens in harms way does not have to be necessarily regulated by the government as the outcome or impact of these services on the lives of citizens is independent of the amount of regulation the government can put forth for this type of service. The effectiveness in the regulation of services provided by companies that affect the well-being of citizens can be a primary indicator for the happiness of the citizens under any government, and the government should be aware of their capabilities every time they pass a law or a bill.

 

Thanks so much!

[chandlerbing]

Clicked. Thanks for the help and the good cause.

 

ART SHOULD NOT CHALLENGE OUR PERCEPTION OF THE WORLD.

The role of art in society has been debated for centuries by philosophers from all around the world. Some philosophers claim that art is essential in expressing and enforcing the status quo whereas others believe that art allows the identification of various flaws in society in order to facilitate change. Psychologists also have several theories similar to the Zapir-Whorf hypothesis which states that novel words alone can enable individuals to think of ideas that had never occurred to them prior to the introduction of that novel word. Since art not only encompasses paintings, music and dance, but also, literature, it is possible that through the Zapir-Whorf hypothesis, art is able to induce a reformation in our perception of the world. However, in order to determine whether art should be used to change our perceptions, the history or the purpose behind the piece of art must be considered.

 

In some cases, art is used in order to simply match the opinion of the general public and therefore, does not induce a change in perception. For example, the photograph of the “Sailor Kissing Nurse” taken at the end of World War II in 1945, depicts a sailor who just received news that the war had ended and that his brother, who was a Japanese Prisoners of War, has been granted freedom. In utter rejoice, he reaches out and kisses a nearby nurse while a conveniently located photographers captures an image of the kiss. Even today, this image is used on wedding invitations and as an exemplar in commercially available picture frames. The purpose of this joyful image was to echo the sentiments of all individuals in America (and the Allied Nations) who were ecstatic about the fact that the war had ended and that their loved ones could return home. In this case, the picture did not change the perception of the world but simply enhanced the pre-existing feelings of explosive happiness and relief experienced globally.

 

However, there are times where art has played an important role in enabling a much needed change in society. For example, Lysistrata, a famous play written by the Greek playwright Aristophanes, points out the anti-feminist society that governed much of Greece during his lifetime. When Greece was participating in the Peloponnesian War, it was up to the women to run the households but they were not allowed to take control of the treasury or other important facets of the society since they were deemed unsuitable to carry out these crucial tasks. In revolt, the women in the play locked the soldiers out of the city of Greece when they returned from war and proved to the men that they were easily capable of running the city without their presence. This play helped Greek society realize its mistreatment of women and subsequently granted them more freedom and authority. Therefore, Lysistrata is an example of a piece of art that rightly induced a change in the Greek men’s perception of women.

 

From the two aforementioned examples, it is clear that there are situations where reinforcement of the status quo may be preferred rather than going against it and there are times where the opposite is also true. The key determining factor in each of the cases is the purpose or history behind the art. In the case of the “Sailor Kissing Nurse”, the photograph was able to enhance the a rosy perception of the world during a time where an opposing perception would be unnecessary and possibly harmful to the morale of the people. However, Arisphanes’ Lysistrata attempts to make Greek society a better place for women and therefore, the change in perception is justified. Overall, if the era surrounding the art is one that is positive and requires no significant change, the art should not attempt to unnecessarily induce an undesirable change. On the other hand, if the purpose or context within which the art is developed requires amelioration, then art should be used to induce that change in perception.

[doctorbetty]

Clicked.

 

Thank you for the feedback!!

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer’s weaknesses.

 

 

21st century businesses tend to prey upon consumer weaknesses in order to make a profit. For example, in a competitive society, consumers typically compete with one another to purchase the “best.” While Joan lines her garden with multi-coloured roses, Sara may be compelled to purchase dozens of beautiful hanging baskets, bursting with sweet smelling petunias to line her deck. Additionally, businesses may take advantage of consumer tendencies to seek "deals." By simply placing a red tag on items, consumers may be inclined to purchase more - even if they are not in the best financial position to do so. Most significantly, in a neoliberal economy, businesses also tend to take advantage of their very own workers, who are also consumers, by lowering wages or cutting jobs.

 

Nevertheless, businesses cannot always take advantage of consumer weaknesses, especially when consumers lack purchasing ability. During the recent financial crisis in the U.S. and world, for instance, as consumers lost purchasing ability, many lost their homes and businesses had to eat their losses – at least initially. In smaller economic downturns, this is also seen as stores are forced to close. The bottom line is that if consumers do not have enough money to put food on their tables, they won’t be able to sustain their “fun” purchasing, which most businesses rely on to make substantial profits.

 

Whether businesses are able to take advantage of consumer weaknesses usually depends on the current economic situation. At times banks may circumvent dwindling market demand by increasing their lending to consumers. However, this is a risky business: if consumers are unable to pay the debt back, banks and businesses can experience huge losses. The financial crisis and housing bubble in the U.S. is a case in point.

Nevertheless, with significant bail-out money, the largest corporations in the U.S. were rescued from these “huge losses.” Ultimately, whether businesses can continue preying on consumers will depend on government policies and actions. In a global market, governments often try to make businesses as competitive as possible. However, by rescuing businesses with large amounts of tax payer money, consumers are taken advantage of in the worst possible way.

[qw098]

Clicked. Thanks!

 

An understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of the present.

 

An understanding of the past is a possibility for solving the problems of the present. Knowing what works and what doesn't work in different situations better prepares you for future events. The best example of this is war. By taking a look at old war tactics and strategies utilized by previous armies, one can know what works and what doesn't work when fighting a war. This knowledge helps us when we ourselves are in a war, be it a physical war fought with guns, or a war fought with words. It is by no means a coincidence that when you are in law school, one reads countless stories of old cases. This enables one, usually a lawyer, to better understand the judicial system and to better equipped to solve the problems of the present.

 

However, it is not always the case that solving a current problem demands understanding of the past. An example of this is seen in experiences where having a fresh view of the matter is of extreme importance. Such ideas are seen in academic research settings. Professor A has developed a wonder-drug that treats all cancers but it has a particular murky molecular functional group present. It has been known for years, that this type of functional group is detrimental to the environment. If Professor A had known of this functional group, he would have certainly not decided to create this drug. By not knowing about this functional group, it allowed Professor A to explore his creativity, and to create a revolutionary drug.

 

When considering both ends of the spectrum, an understanding of the past is not always necessary for solving the problems of the present. When considering the past, it can lead to one-dimensional thinking which will not solve the problems of the present as the same attempts of resolution have been tried before. Having a fresh view on things without referencing the past is the best way to solve the problems of the present. There will be no outside influences to tip the scales in favor of one choice over another. Solving the problems of the present will simply come down to accessing all the possible options at the time without going back in the past and looking at erroneously unrelated possible resolutions.

[MedicalTown]

Is there any other place where I can get my essays graded?

[EnigmatiK]

-clicked-

 

Thank you soo much

 

 

“People should be able to decide what to do with the land that belongs to them.”

 

One should have great control over one's possessions. Living in a capitalist society, we are taught early on about what's ours, and what's not. Land is a resource that can be bought and sold for the most part and as with other things that are purchased, the owner has a right to decide what the fate of said resource will be. For example, if an individual owns land, they should have a great amount of control over what to do with the land. By having ownership of the land, one has property rights on it to sell or gift the land to someone if they so choose. Conversely, the owner may decide to make use of the land to farm, and they should be able to. The sole basis of the real estate market is that individuals may choose to buy or sell property that belongs to them, thus having control over the handling of land; if individuals could not decide what to do with land that belongs to them, there would be no real estate market. Historically, this has been a well accepted norm, ownership of land determines the fate. After the Pearl Harbour attacks in the USA, the Japanese-Canadians that were living in Canada were subject to harsh treatment, including the possession of their houses and land by the government and subsequent sale of said land. Though, the rights of these Japanese-Canadians were breached, in the years to follow, they were compensated by the government with an apology. The government recognized that the property rights of these individuals, among other things, were breached; this suggests that individuals have control over their own land as far as the government is concerned.

 

As with all rights comes responsibility and this is also the case with property rights. Though people should be able make their own decisions regarding their land, there are some cases where this may not apply. Above all, citizens are obligated to follow the federal laws of the state in which they live; this entails that people should not be allowed to grown illegal substances such as marijuana on their land. Moreover, people should not be able to decide to partake in or house any illegal activity on land they own. Furthermore, owners should follow the zoning of the area in which their land is located; if the land is located in a residential zone, they should not be able to decide to build a factory on said land and vice versa. By making such decisions, they would create noise pollutions and disrupt the majority of other who live there. There are some rules and regulations that must be followed when making decisions about one's land.

 

When then does one have the right to do as one pleases on their land? Individuals should have a right to do as they please with their lands as long as they do not participate in any illegal activities or disrupt or endanger any beings around that land. Individuals should have a right to decide what they want to do with their lands for the most part, since they paid for it; deciding whether they want to grow rice or wheat for example. However, this should be with the condition that they do not disrupt or harm others in the area. Moreover, there may be an instance where the land an individual owns may need to be used for the greater good of the people. For example, if the government wants to build an army base or a playground for the common good, and the land in concern is privately owned, the government may ask to buy the land from the owner. The owner, in turn should yield to the benefit of the society. Since, in essence, any land of the Earth cannot belong to one individual, even if it may be owned by them.

[DaKirbster]

Guys, its been six months. I don't think Pasta is coming back. I'm sure he has bigger and better things to do than mark our infinitely-large pile of essays haha.

[johnsmith321]

-clicked-

 

Just wrote a practice essay. I think this one is pretty good but I am very bad at being criticial of myself. Would love some feedback!

 

 

Prompt:

 

An Understanding of the past is necessary for solving problems of the present.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which solving a current problem might not require an understanding of the past. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the past should be considered in solving problems of the present.

 

Response:

 

It is often said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. This principle underlies the field of history: the study of past events to understand their causes and consequences. It is believed by doing so people of the present may become more wise and learn from moments past and apply this knowledge to contemporary situations.

 

There are many instances when and understanding of past events has been beneficial in solving important problems of the day. Take for instance the reconstruction efforts in Germany and Japan at the end of World War II. The focus of these efforts was on rebuilding the society and economies of the defeat nations to establishm vibrant and peaceful societies. Unlike the Treaty of Paris signed at the end of WWI, harsh penalities were not imposed upon the surrendered countries. This was avoid the negative consequences witnessed during the interlude of WWI and WWII. The concessions forced upon Germany were seen very negatively by the Germans and Hitler used this to establish the Nazi party and strong nationalism, along with great animosity towards France lead to WWII. Although many factors lead to the outbreak of WWII the consequences of the Treaty of Paris playued a large role. Thus the Allied leaders at the end of WWII knew what may happen if they repeated the same, and so chose the route of promoting peace.

 

However, it is does not always occur that a problem people face is so analogous to a past event. The disease of AIDS greatly exemplifies this, as HIV/AIDS, when it first emerged, was unlike any epidemic before it. Previous study of viruses and the immune sytem were of little use in abrogating the severity of AIDS due to the uniqueness of the disease. Because health officials were unable to apply previously acquired knowledge, AIDS became an epidemic in the gay community which spread to many countries and groups and continues to be a major health issue. To this day a vaccine against HIV remains elusive and inroads against the spread and morbidity of AIDS were only possible due to contemporary study of the disease. Thus a current problem may not require and understanding of the past, nor is it even always possible to apply past knowledge to current problems.

 

To conclude, the role that previously acquired knowledge can play in addressing current problems depends on the extent to which any past events are similar to the situation at hand. When the present scenario is similar to a tribulation faced in the past, the lessons drawn from that would likely be very applicable to the present. Conversly, when the present event is relatively unique and dissimilar from any past event, any understanding of the past will be of little use to solving the problem. Of course, while no two events will ever be exactly similar, so to is there no event that is not in any way influenced by the past. That is to say, the applicability of any lessons gained from the past lies somewhere between those two extremes, dependent upon how closely related the present event is to a past event.

[beckycastro]

clicked

 

 

1. Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens

It is often necessary that governments provide some regulations to companies that provide necessary services to its citizens. This means that the government is responsible for overseeing many of the aspects of the company; such as the price of its goods, the rules governing who receives its products, the distribution of its products among the citizens, etc. The regulation of such companies is important because it reduces the risk of corruption. However it can be unnecessary when the services provided by the company spans a variety of communities with varying needs and expectations.

Since companies that provide a necessary service have no threat of closure, there are often cases of corruption. The most common case I can think of is an inflation of price. For example, companies that provide medical services know that they will always be needed, and therefore have no threat of closure. If they weren’t regulated by the government, the people in charge of the medical company can see this as an opportunity of raising their prices without suffering a great loss of sales. Government regulation can limit such problems by introducing a set price for these goods, and this will also rid of the problem that overpriced goods will only be available to the wealthy. Thus the regulation of companies that provide a necessity will be needed to create a fair and equal community.

There are cases in which government regulation is not required and sometimes can be restricting to the functions of the company. One can argue that a school is a company that provides necessary services, in terms of education. In the case of the Canadian educational “company” it provides its services to a large amount of students, which have a variety of expectations and needs. For example, students and parents in Quebec would expect their children to learn more French than English, whereas those in British Columbia would expect the contrary. In cases like these, it would be difficult for the government to provide regulations and rules that satisfy its citizens. Giving the schools the ability to be flexible, in response to the citizens that it teaches, in what they teach would be a more efficient way of handing the situation.

It is often necessary that the government regulates companies that provide necessary services, however when that company provides services to a lot of people all with varying expectations and needs, it can be difficult, and therefore unnecessary, for the government to provide unifying rules for said company.

[dazzle]

Just a question: Some questions ask us for "rules" to decide which cases fall on which side of the rule. But is every writing sample question in this form? In a practice AAMC, I ended up taking a single, sweeping position, like all cases fall in one category.

 

I think this was bad though. Are all questions involving a rule to separate 2 potential example cases?

[taboo]

I think I'm improving, but not sure where I'm at. Anyone have a guess what this would be scored as? Thanks!

 

In Business, competition is superior to cooperation.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which cooperation in business is superior to competition. Discuss what you think determines when competition in business is superior to cooperation.

 

Businesses are build to provide products and services to consumers. The main goal of major businesses is to make the highes profits possible. Businesses may compete with other businesses which provide same or similar products and services. Businesses make a profit by comepting with other businesses in providing better products and services at a lower price. Businesses may also cooperate in sharing expensive infrastructure such as electricity grids, phone lines, or cable lines.

 

Cooperation in business allows for sharing of resources and expertise by various companies. During the 2009 economic recession in Canada, TD Canada Trust cooperated with RBC Bank in buying their under-valued shares to help the company stay in business. TD Canada Trust was able to save RBC from bankruptcy by providing RBS with resources and expertise on how to scale down operations such that the company can remain in business.

 

Competition between businesses allows for the increase in quality of products and service at a lower prices. In order for businesses which provide the same or similar services and products to stay in business, they must offer consumers their products and services at a competitive price. Due to the enormous success of Nintendo's Wii console, Sony reduced the prices of it's Playstation 3 console in order to compete with Nintendo's Wii console. This attracted customers to buy Playstation 3 at a lower price although Sony's profits went down. This allowed Sony to take some of the marketshare of the video game industry by directly competing with Nintendo's Wii console. Consumers directly benefited from this competition because they were able to buy the same product at a much cheaper price.

 

What determines whether competition is superior to cooperation depends on the economic health during the time of competition or cooperation. If businesse are operating in an economic crisis, then cooperation is superior than competition because it allows for the sharing of resources and expertise. TD Canada trust cooperated with RBC during the 2009 economic recession by providing resources and expertise in avoiding bankkruptcy. If economic crisis is not affecting a country, competition is superior than cooperation because higher quality products are produced at a lower price. Sony reduced the price of Playstation 3 to compete with Nintendo Wii. As a result consumers benefited because they were able to purchase the same product at a lower price.

[Rorzo]

The MCAT no longer has a writing section, what is this for?

[MathewsMD]

The MCAT no longer has a writing section, what is this for?

 

I don't know...

[rmorelan]

I don't know...

 

ha, well we aren't going to go back and delete these pretty useful at the time.