[Writing Sample] How many of you describe a specific situation for thesis statement?

[Jixe]

Normally you're asked to describe a specific situation for the antithesis. How many of you describe/give an example of a specific situation for the statement itself (in addition to explaining the statement)?

[Jochi1543]

What do you mean? How many? Well, all the ones who got a decent score, presumably, lol....it's one of the tasks, after all.

[Kuantum]

^^Jochi said it perfectly. I hope everyone who knows what they are doing does that...you likely won't even get a P or Q without at least doing that.

[Jixe]

^^Jochi said it perfectly. I hope everyone who knows what they are doing does that...you likely won't even get a P or Q without at least doing that.

 

Wrong. Nowhere does it state you have to.

 

In education, the newest way is not always the best way.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in education when the "newest way" might in fact be the best way. Discuss what you think determines whether or not innovation in education is an improvement.

 

Nowhere does it state that you have to provide an example of when the newest way is not always the best way - you just have to explain it. The only time an example is required is for the antithesis: when the "newest way" might in fact the best way.

[Jochi1543]

Wrong. Nowhere does it state you have to.

 

In education, the newest way is not always the best way.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in education when the "newest way" might in fact be the best way. Discuss what you think determines whether or not innovation in education is an improvement.

 

Nowhere does it state that you have to provide an example of when the newest way is not always the best way - you just have to explain it. The only time an example is required is for the antithesis: when the "newest way" might in fact the best way.

 

Oh, ok, I misread your first post, because your title talked about a thesis and then antithesis, so I thought you just made a typo.

 

 

No, you don't have to prove the original statement, you only need to disprove it, as per directions.

 

 

However, you basically address this in the last task - " Discuss what you think determines whether or not innovation in education is an improvement." It's hard to fulfill this task w/o saying a word about when the original statement WOULD indeed apply.

[Jixe]

Oh, ok, I misread your first post, because your title talked about a thesis and then antithesis, so I thought you just made a typo.

 

 

No, you don't have to prove the original statement, you only need to disprove it, as per directions.

 

 

However, you basically address this in the last task - " Discuss what you think determines whether or not innovation in education is an improvement." It's hard to fulfill this task w/o saying a word about when the original statement WOULD indeed apply.

 

Okay, so I guess the majority of people do provide an example then. I always provide an example for the statement, but just wanted to know whether most others did as well. Ms. "T" Jochi has spoken.

[Jochi1543]

Okay, so I guess the majority of people do provide an example then. I always provide an example for the statement, but just wanted to know whether most others did as well. Ms. "T" Jochi has spoken.

 

I pity the fool who doesn't provide an example.

[Kuantum]

Wrong. Nowhere does it state you have to.

 

In education, the newest way is not always the best way.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in education when the "newest way" might in fact be the best way. Discuss what you think determines whether or not innovation in education is an improvement.

 

Nowhere does it state that you have to provide an example of when the newest way is not always the best way - you just have to explain it. The only time an example is required is for the antithesis: when the "newest way" might in fact the best way.

 

I guess you are right. However, I would anyways just to help illustrate your description. At least...this is how I've always done it and it seems to work.

[Vitum Medicinus]

I pity the fool who doesn't provide an example.

 

I agree.

 

The most important thing to know, though, it isn't the quality of the example... it's how well it fits and how well you write around it.

 

I was kicking myself during my MCAT because I was writing something about underprivileged companies and used World Vision as an example. World Vision?! Anyone could have come up with that. But, on the spot, I couldn't think of anything better.

 

I ended up getting an S.

 

So yes, providing an example is important, but don't waste too much time on it.

[Jochi1543]

I find I always end up writing about South African politics

 

"Oh, MAN! It's THAT guy again!":D

[JOTCH]

I agree.

 

I was kicking myself during my MCAT because I was writing something about underprivileged companies and used World Vision as an example. World Vision?! Anyone could have come up with that. But, on the spot, I couldn't think of anything better.

 

 

And I would have given anything to come up with that

[lostintime]

I'm having trouble thinking of a counter-argument for this one:

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

 

Why wouldn't they have a responsibility? *scratches head*

[Medhopeful]

I'm having trouble thinking of a counter-argument for this one:

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

 

Why wouldn't they have a responsibility? *scratches head*

 

Try thinking of it more as why would it be bad if the Governments regulate the companies that provide necessary services? One possibility is that if the governent is too restrictive, then it discourages the companies from operating (i.e. they would rather choose to shut down) or from starting up in the first place. If you don't have companies providing the necessary service, then the Government will have to step in or it won't be provided. You could argue that it's better for the companies to provide it becuase they have the experience and know how, and would be better equip to supply it than the Government. The government, if it takes up providing the service, would probably take either more money or more time to be able to provide the service at a level an experience company would be able to do. So it would be in the citizen's best interest to have experienced companies provide the service rather than the government.

[lostintime]

Try thinking of it more as why would it be bad if the Governments regulate the companies that provide necessary services? One possibility is that if the governent is too restrictive, then it discourages the companies from operating (i.e. they would rather choose to shut down) or from starting up in the first place. If you don't have companies providing the necessary service, then the Government will have to step in or it won't be provided. You could argue that it's better for the companies to provide it becuase they have the experience and know how, and would be better equip to supply it than the Government. The government, if it takes up providing the service, would probably take either more money or more time to be able to provide the service at a level an experience company would be able to do. So it would be in the citizen's best interest to have experienced companies provide the service rather than the government.

 

That makes sense, but what would you actually use for a type of service then? The thing that irks me is that they're talking about "responsibility"...and technically, they do have a responsibility, which doesn't necessarily mean they'll abuse the power.

[Medhopeful]

That makes sense, but what would you actually use for a type of service then? The thing that irks me is that they're talking about "responsibility"...and technically, they do have a responsibility, which doesn't necessarily mean they'll abuse the power.

 

Their responsibility is to the citizens, and to ensure that the citizens get the best that there is for the necessities. So by them regulating too much, they risk not being able to provide the citizens with the best service, or none at all. So to be truely be responsible, they have to do what's in the citizen's best interest. Sometimes that is regulating, and sometimes not. (This is essentially how you would bring the two differing arguements together). Sorry, can't think of a specific example.

 

Edit: To help you think of an example, think about this: in the US, the people don't want the government to regulate the health care system, but one could argue that health care is a neccesary service.

[Medhopeful]

Remember, it's all about how you define the statement they give you. By you defining what they mean by "responsibility", they you can argue it whatever way you want.

 

Also, you may want to start timing how long it takes for you to come up with the supportive and counter examples and forcing yourself to come up with the examples, as bad as they may seem, it's worse not being able to think of something than to have a lousy example.

[The Law]

That makes sense, but what would you actually use for a type of service then? The thing that irks me is that they're talking about "responsibility"...and technically, they do have a responsibility, which doesn't necessarily mean they'll abuse the power.

 

Companies that run senior homes could be an example. Perhaps allowing them to be private provides a more competitive atmosphere among homes, and thus improves the lives of people living in them.