Writing Sample Critique Corner

[drhm]

I PM'd you Prateek!

[PreMeder]

Initially, I didn't see how your first example supported the prompt. Only when I read your last paragraph, did I see what you were trying to get at. However, overall, I still don't think it's the best example. I don't quite see how that example supports the prompt. What if a particular woman worked in public office, was a politician, and she had no choice but to not wear her hijab while at work? Does this mean that she approves of the law?

 

For your second paragraph, the anti-thesis, I think you have a good example.

 

Your last paragraph is quite wordy, but nonetheless I understood the point you were trying to get across.

 

Grammar and spelling is fair, but could be improved. Also, try using transition words when you are starting a new paragraph. Your paragraphs seem quite disconnected. For instance, a good way to start your second paragraph could be: "On the other hand, in certain situations, obeying an unjust law might not necessarily mean approving of it."

 

Score: 3-4

 

Thanks! Just trying to get use the 30 min limit is going be tough

[One_God]

Can someone critique this . I am also having difficulty with an antithesis for this:

 

To master technology is to become enslaved by it

Technology has advanced throughout the development and evolution of mankind. From making fire out of stones to building high tech devices to aid us in navigating our daily lives, many people believe mastering technology is to become enslaved by it. For many people, they depend on technology such as their cell phones to work and to stay updated every day. Without it, they find it very difficult to function and pass an ordinary day without it. New York City is known as the business city , in which people are constantly on their blackberry phones, searching the web, on the phone, or text messaging because their occupation/job requires them to do so for the means of communication.

On the other hand, sometimes mastering new technology may not mean becoming enslaved by it. For example, many people are able to …. I NEED HELP!

Overall, the determining factor that decides whether or not mastering technology means becoming enslaved by it depends on the timeframe in which this mastering is taking place. Centuries ago, people did not have the aid or assistance when …. . On the contrary, now it is much easier to master new technology due the advancement of technology, as well as the add ons that are associated with many forms of technological devices.

[One_God]

Also,

is there any tips or suggestions that may help me with writing the WRITING SAMPLE.

 

For me , the MOST difficult thing is coming up with examples for thesis and antithesis for all the prompts that I have practiced thus far.

Please help!

Greatly appreciated!

[PreMeder]

Hello all, this essay took me longer than 30 min but I took my time to see what I could come up with. Any suggestions/comments are greatly appreciated.

 

In business, success is often due to the mistakes of others.

 

 

Business is a competitive environment where winners and losers emerge everyday. Indecisive mistakes by those in charge can lead to disaster for the business in question. Business mistakes can be a failure to forsee certain problems or opportunities that would have a direct affect on the organization in question. Consider the “videotape war” of the 1980’s between VHS and Sony for market share. A similar “war” is playing out today between Sony’s Blu-ray technology and that of the standard DVD. The “videotape war” was the emergence of technology that would allow the consumer to record videos in the privacy of their home. Two incompatible technologies emerged -- Sony’s Betamax and the VHS tapes. Mistakes made by Sony personnel would cost them dearly thereby making their technology obsolete within a few years. Mistakes such as the pricing of their product, length of the total taping time, as well as ease of use would turn into an advantage that VHS capitalized on. Sony would go on to lose most of its market share to VHS. VHS was hence able to succeed because of the mistakes by Sony.

 

On the other hand, many other businesses do not succeed in the event that a competitor makes a mistake. Consider the recent economic downturn. Although the cause of the economic downturn is a complex issue, the downturn can be attributed to the “sub-prime mortgages” offered by American banks to customers that tradittionaly could not afford a mortgage. The initial mortgages were offered at low interest that these customers could afford at the time of mortgage signing. However, interest rates would soon rise and the customers could no longer afford to pay their mortgages. Many homes would succumb to forclosure hurting the homeowners as well as the banks that had initially set up the mortgages. Mistakes made the bank officials, in a similar fashion to those made by Sony executives, would also go on to cost these banks dearly and to even bankrupt such trusted business names as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Because of the banks integral part in our economic society, their failure led to a ripple effect where many other businesses were affected. It would soon lead to a full out economic downturn where consumer confidence plunged hurting more businesses as evidenced by the sharp drops experienced on the stock markets. No major businesses benefited from the mistakes made by these banks.

 

Mistakes made by Sony and the American bank executives were no different in the sense that they failed to foresee future problems with their business models. In Sony’s case, it lead to the success of a rival organization that took full advantage of Sony’s mistakes. In the case of the American banks, their mistakes led to an economic crisis not seen since the economic slowdown of the early 1980s. The banks mistakes, however, did not mean success for other rival corporations. The difference can be attributed to how integrated a corporation is in the economy of a nation. The banks provide loans to many businesses as well as being interconnected with other banks. Sony, however , even if a multinational corporation, is not as big as the American bank giants and as intergrated in the American economy. Hence, mistakes by Sony did not go on to hurt the American economy. This can be summed in Obama’s words noting that American banks are “too big to fail'', suggesting that failure by their own accord would not mean success for other businesses.

[hkmedic]

Hello all, this essay took me longer than 30 min but I took my time to see what I could come up with. Any suggestions/comments are greatly appreciated.

 

In business, success is often due to the mistakes of others.

 

 

Business is a competitive environment where winners and losers emerge everyday. Indecisive mistakes by those in charge can lead to disaster for the business in question. Business mistakes can be a failure to forsee certain problems or opportunities that would have a direct affect on the organization in question. Consider the “videotape war” of the 1980’s between VHS and Sony for market share. A similar “war” is playing out today between Sony’s Blu-ray technology and that of the standard DVD. The “videotape war” was the emergence of technology that would allow the consumer to record videos in the privacy of their home. Two incompatible technologies emerged -- Sony’s Betamax and the VHS tapes. Mistakes made by Sony personnel would cost them dearly thereby making their technology obsolete within a few years. Mistakes such as the pricing of their product, length of the total taping time, as well as ease of use would turn into an advantage that VHS capitalized on. Sony would go on to lose most of its market share to VHS. VHS was hence able to succeed because of the mistakes by Sony.

 

On the other hand, many other businesses do not succeed in the event that a competitor makes a mistake. Consider the recent economic downturn. Although the cause of the economic downturn is a complex issue, the downturn can be attributed to the “sub-prime mortgages” offered by American banks to customers that tradittionaly could not afford a mortgage. The initial mortgages were offered at low interest that these customers could afford at the time of mortgage signing. However, interest rates would soon rise and the customers could no longer afford to pay their mortgages. Many homes would succumb to forclosure hurting the homeowners as well as the banks that had initially set up the mortgages. Mistakes made the bank officials, in a similar fashion to those made by Sony executives, would also go on to cost these banks dearly and to even bankrupt such trusted business names as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Because of the banks integral part in our economic society, their failure led to a ripple effect where many other businesses were affected. It would soon lead to a full out economic downturn where consumer confidence plunged hurting more businesses as evidenced by the sharp drops experienced on the stock markets. No major businesses benefited from the mistakes made by these banks.

 

Mistakes made by Sony and the American bank executives were no different in the sense that they failed to foresee future problems with their business models. In Sony’s case, it lead to the success of a rival organization that took full advantage of Sony’s mistakes. In the case of the American banks, their mistakes led to an economic crisis not seen since the economic slowdown of the early 1980s. The banks mistakes, however, did not mean success for other rival corporations. The difference can be attributed to how integrated a corporation is in the economy of a nation. The banks provide loans to many businesses as well as being interconnected with other banks. Sony, however , even if a multinational corporation, is not as big as the American bank giants and as intergrated in the American economy. Hence, mistakes by Sony did not go on to hurt the American economy. This can be summed in Obama’s words noting that American banks are “too big to fail'', suggesting that failure by their own accord would not mean success for other businesses.

 

Very good! Strong examples. Good use of language. I don't really have any negative criticism.

 

 

Score: 6

[dw88]

Hi Ladies and Gents,

 

so, I'm still in the development stages of getting ready for this essay thing - I still got 2 months no biggy right? =P

 

Anyways - with the following prompt, for the life of me I can't think of a counterexample.

 

Prompt: The nature of democracy requires that its citizens be dependent upon one another.

 

part II = Describe a specific situation in which citizens in a democracy might justifiably not be dependent upon one another.

 

This seems so highly contradictory to me that well it seems unanswerable, democracy implies people depend on others so how can it not? haha.

 

One other question: Is it wise to follow a 3 paragraph structure where the first paragraph addresses the first question, 2nd to 2nd and 3rd to 3rd?

 

Thanks

[kthakore]

Here is one I did. I was running out of time, but don't let that affect your marks.

 

Prompt:Too many politicians turn public matters into private gains.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a politician might not turn a public matter into a private gain. Discuss what you think determines whether or not politicians will turn public matters into private gains.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Most western countries have systems that have elected politician, that act as representatives of the voters. Each politician represents the voters buy voting on many bills and issues in parliamentary houses. Since the representative may vote any way they choose, this representative system requires a some trust from the voter. It is up to the politician to build their trust with the voters. However, not all voters consider the politician's history of keeping promises when the ballots are placed. It is more often that a politician is elected due to popularity and falsely perceived attributes. In such cases is presented where the politician will take advantage of public matters for personal gain. One such example is the former mayor, of an Alaskan city, Sarah Palin. She had several reported cases of misuse of public funds for personal gains. Despite this record and due to her popularity she went on to be the Governor of Alaska. In the new position she continued to misuse public fund to a even wider degree.

 

On the other hand there when elected politicians who have been elected due to their record of trust and not their public image have kept the trust. The mayor of Mississauga, Ontario, Hazel McCallion is such a politician. Despite a rocky campaign and first term as mayor, she had done her best to meet her promises of bringing more economic activity to Mississauga. When voters reelected her based on her first term, mayor Hazel has kept the trust by making Mississauga a debt free city. More over due to her rezoning laws and bylaws there was a direct increase in economic activity for Mississauga.

 

Therefore in a representative system where politicians can take choose to turn public matters to private gains, it is the duty of the voter to make an informed decision. The voter must research prospective candidates and take their previous terms into consideration. If there is a new politician without a previous term then it is up to the voter to keep a close watch on them. Voters can spend weeks and months arguing the best singer for American Idol they can surely accomplish this. However this is not the case that we see today in politics. We do see voters asking for more transparency in governance, but no calls for public education to teach voters how to vote.

[kthakore]

In business, success is often due to the mistakes of others.

 

 

Business is a competitive environment where winners and losers emerge everyday. Indecisive mistakes by those in charge can lead to disaster for the business in question. Business mistakes can be a failure to forsee certain problems or opportunities that would have a direct affect on the organization in question. Consider the “videotape war” of the 1980’s between VHS and Sony for market share. A similar “war” is playing out today between Sony’s Blu-ray technology and that of the standard DVD. The “videotape war” was the emergence of technology that would allow the consumer to record videos in the privacy of their home. Two incompatible technologies emerged -- Sony’s Betamax and the VHS tapes. Mistakes made by Sony personnel would cost them dearly thereby making their technology obsolete within a few years. Mistakes such as the pricing of their product, length of the total taping time, as well as ease of use would turn into an advantage that VHS capitalized on. Sony would go on to lose most of its market share to VHS. VHS was hence able to succeed because of the mistakes by Sony.

 

On the other hand, many other businesses do not succeed in the event that a competitor makes a mistake. Consider the recent economic downturn. Although the cause of the economic downturn is a complex issue, the downturn can be attributed to the “sub-prime mortgages” offered by American banks to customers that tradittionaly could not afford a mortgage. The initial mortgages were offered at low interest that these customers could afford at the time of mortgage signing. However, interest rates would soon rise and the customers could no longer afford to pay their mortgages. Many homes would succumb to forclosure hurting the homeowners as well as the banks that had initially set up the mortgages. Mistakes made the bank officials, in a similar fashion to those made by Sony executives, would also go on to cost these banks dearly and to even bankrupt such trusted business names as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Because of the banks integral part in our economic society, their failure led to a ripple effect where many other businesses were affected. It would soon lead to a full out economic downturn where consumer confidence plunged hurting more businesses as evidenced by the sharp drops experienced on the stock markets. No major businesses benefited from the mistakes made by these banks.

 

Mistakes made by Sony and the American bank executives were no different in the sense that they failed to foresee future problems with their business models. In Sony’s case, it lead to the success of a rival organization that took full advantage of Sony’s mistakes. In the case of the American banks, their mistakes led to an economic crisis not seen since the economic slowdown of the early 1980s. The banks mistakes, however, did not mean success for other rival corporations. The difference can be attributed to how integrated a corporation is in the economy of a nation. The banks provide loans to many businesses as well as being interconnected with other banks. Sony, however , even if a multinational corporation, is not as big as the American bank giants and as intergrated in the American economy. Hence, mistakes by Sony did not go on to hurt the American economy. This can be summed in Obama’s words noting that American banks are “too big to fail'', suggesting that failure by their own accord would not mean success for other businesses.

 

The highlighted line is too strong a claim and you don't support it enough. Instead of 'no business' make it 'most business'.

[medtech]

Prompt: Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

In this modern age of hustle and bustle, many people have realized that life has gotten more complicated rather than simplified. It have not come to light until very recently that we have become slaves to technology rather than enjoying it's benifits. We are currently in the information age and computers have become man's new best friend, yet so called conviences such as the internet have let to widespread problems around the globe. Identity theft has become much easier with personal information published so carelessly and freely on the internet. Internet viruses have crippled stock markets, factories and even government agencies because everything is computerized and linked by the internet.

 

However if progess have only caused us problems, we would have never left the stone age. For example, new forms of governments have allowed everyone to be treated under the law. The idea of specialized trades allowed everyone to get unique jobs so they can master it, thus serving the community is a better way. The invention of language allowed everyone to communicate so we can cooperate and strive as a speicies.

 

In the end it's usually the technological advances that we have which creates more problems than it solves, while social evolution has made helped individuals understand themselfs and other in a better light. Nature has given us everything we need to succeed, so rather than using our intelligence to invent new machines that pollute and kill. We can just as well accomplish goals more quickly through social progress that lead to mutual understanding and cooperation.

 

________________________________________________________________

Prompt: Laws cannot change social values

 

The objective of any law is to enforce the values and morals of a society. Laws cannot come into being without the intellectual input of the citizens it governs, so naturally laws change according to social values and not the other way around. For instance, prohabition of alchohol in the United States was highly unsuccessful and ultimately repealed because the law did not corespond to social norms. Although it was illegal to consume alchohol, the majority of citizens felt alchohol was not harmful enough to be banned and engaged in illegal drinking regardless of the law.

 

On the other hand, societies change with time and overtime a law may become accepted by society. A good example would be the abolision of slavery. When slavery was first abolished in the United States, the civil war was started because the southern states felt the law did not fit it's social values. Over time however, as new generations of citizens are brought into the world, the idea that slavery was evil was accepted by everyone. A similar example can be made regarding religion in school, where an older generation believe religion in schools should be allowed because "that's the way we were raised" and younger generations insist on seperating religion and public education.

 

In the end, Laws can never change social values outright, and it's only with long periods of time that social values can change accordingly to accept new laws. This is illistrated by the "generation gap" that exsist in values and morals, where older members of society will often take a conservative stance on which laws are justified while younger individuals are more liberal in accepting new laws.

 

________________________________________________________________

Prompt: Education comes not from books but from practical experience

 

They say an action is worth a thousand words and this is absolutely true when it comes to education. No matter how many books you read or how many lectures you hear, a person cannot fully understand a concept and become proficient at it without applying it first. A fine exmple would be the medical profession and the years of residency it requires after formal education from "books" are completed. Medical students would agree that when they first start on the job training, the realization hits that text book cases cannot apply to patients because each individual is unique. Other tactile procedures such as stiching up a wound or inserting a introvenous needle also requires practise to grain proficency.

 

Even though practical education is a must, medical education would never start there due to saftey concerns. Without the required background knowledge from textbooks, students learning on job would kill patients very easily. The study of medicine is so complex that a solid foundation in theory must be built before practical education should be attempted.

 

In the end, education comes from both theory and practise. Practise should only be the main source of education when it opposes no danger to anyone, such as practising a musical instrument. When practical education can cause harm in anyway to anyone, comprehensive background knowledge must be taught first such as learning in the field of medicine or accounting.

[SweetTwisted]

Hello! I've been reading through the thread and I've found everyone here to be really helpful!

This is for the prompt "the strength of a democracy depends upon each citizen's respect for the ideas of others". I'd appreciate any comments you have.

 

The strength of a democracy depends upon each citizen's respect for the ideas of others.

 

 

The purpose of a democracy is to allow each individual voter to have a say in how the country is run. Important decisions about law and order, health care, and education are made by individuals who have been chosen to represent the wishes of each citizen of the country. For such a system to flourish and withstand crises, each individual must realize that they may have a difference of opinion regarding the country’s major issues. As well, it is vital that these different perspectives be respected: people should not berate others for disagreeing with them. If different opinions can co-exist in harmony, a democratic system will remain strong.

 

A situation in which this statement certainly applies is Canada’s current government. Canada is somewhat unique compared to other modern democracies in that there are more than two major political parties. In contrast to other countries, where one party’s platforms represent the left-wing and the other party’s platforms are remarkably right-wing in nature, Canada’s four major political parties are spread out on the political spectrum. Consequently, Canada is often led by a minority government: no one political party has the majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Thus, for any motion to be passed, members of the different political parties must reach a compromise on the issue at hand. For example, if the New Democratic Party and the Liberal party band together to pass a bill regarding funding for education, they must respect the fact they may very well disagree on another issue, such as health-care. Canada’s government is stronger because of this need for compromise and mutual respect. This need strengthens Canada’s democratic system because all issues are resolved by people from a variety of places on the political spectrum, instead of all decisions being made by a strongly left- or right-wing government that happens to be in power at the time.

 

Of course, there are times when a democracy is not made stronger by respecting the opinions of others. An especially poignant situation in which this is true is the case of Ernst Zundl, the Holocaust-denier who taught young children in Western Canada about neo-Nazism claimed that the Holocaust was a fabrication plotted by the Jews. Although freedom of speech lies at the core of every democracy, Zundl was poisoning the mind of children with hateful lies. Canada is a young country with a hugely multicultural population. Teaching children about Aryan pride and the “Race Hierarchy” actually weakens a democracy at its core: it shows children that people are not equal, and that certain people’s ideas are inferior.

 

Respecting the ideas of others strengthens a democratic system only when the ideas will not cause harm to anyone. Racist ideas are certainly harmful, and to expose children to such ideas shakes a democratic system at its core. Certainly, it is vital that we acknowledge that others may have different opinions than ours, but if these opinions are racist or harmful, and if they are being taught to impressionable people such as children, citizens should not allow them to be spread.

[nowitzki41]

Still very new at this.. would love any advice.. especially those of you who are poor spellers, i wonder if i should worry about it.. because i do make quiet a few spelling mistakes along the way.. Thanks a million!

 

In a country that fosters freedom of speech, the expression of ideas should never be censored.

Describe a specific situation in which the expression of an idea should be censored, even in a free society. Discuss what you think determines whether an idea should be permitted expression.

 

The great civilizations of the western world have all been founded upon ideals of justice and liberty. These two concepts although at first appear to be mutually exclusive, act as checks and balances upon the other. Although justice and liberty are concepts founded upon the underlying concept of equality, the former places emphasis on protecting citizens from each other, while the later places emphasis on protecting citizens from the governing powers. Many people agree that our freedom of speech, should liberate us from the fear of expressing our views, and thus should never be censored. This view is clearly articulate this point of view can be seen in cases of political discontentment. Under our freedom of speech, we have the right to make our views heard, even if they are in direct opposition of the governing powers. This can be seen at work currently in the City of Toronto, where billions of dollars of accomodations are being made to faciliatate the protesters of the G20 summit. Under our freedom of speech, those voices which are in direct opposition to the leadership must not be censored, and must be given the arena to be heard.

 

However, as with any liberty, taken to its extreme it has the ability to do more harm than good. And for this reason limits must be placed on the freedom of speech, in so promoting justice over liberty. The line is usually drawn when the speech moves from the purpose of raising concern, to the purpose of starting violence. Overall in order to promote the greater good of peace, we must limit the freedom of speech. Examples of such can be seen in opposition of hate groups. Groups such as the Neo-Nazi movement and the Klu Klutz Klan have the goal of using violence to promote change. Throughout the United States and Canada, the congregation of organizations with the goal of promoting violence have been outlawed. In such as case the balancing act of liberty and justice sways in the way of justice. The outlawing of such speech will prevent violent crimes and promote equality through protecting citizens from each other.

 

So when does the freedom of speech win out? Also when do governmental and judicial bodies have the duty to citizens to limit the speech of some? I believe that in cases where the speech directly leads to violence and hate the government has the right to uphold justice and protect citizens from each other. However when such speech is not geared towards violent acts, and poses no harm to any other citizen, liberty wins out and expressions should not be censored. This is a tough balancing act for any judicial body to uphold. Examples are never so cut and dry. What may words may spur on violence and hate in a certain individual, may be interpreted as peaceful resistence to another. This is one of many issues which plague societies at the very root, and such needs to be examined thoughly before action can be taken.

[medtech]

I'm guessing none of my prompt will actually be edited in time... I write in about a weeks time

[medguy5367]

In a country that fosters freedom of speech, the expression of ideas should never be censored.

 

 

The great civilizations of the western world have all been founded upon ideals of justice and liberty. These two concepts although at first appear to be mutually exclusive, act as checks and balances upon the other.

Why do justice and liberty "appear to be mutually exclusive"?

 

Although justice and liberty are concepts founded upon the underlying concept of equality, the former places emphasis on protecting citizens from each other, while the later places emphasis on protecting citizens from the governing powers. Many people agree that our freedom of speech, should liberate us from the fear of expressing our views, and thus should never be censored. This view is clearly articulate this point of view can be seen in cases of political discontentment. Under our freedom of speech, we have the right to make our views heard, even if they are in direct opposition of the governing powers. This can be seen at work currently in the City of Toronto, where billions of dollars of accomodations are being made to faciliatate the protesters of the G20 summit. Under our freedom of speech, those voices which are in direct opposition to the leadership must not be censored, and must be given the arena to be heard.

 

[First paragraph is good - you defined freedom of speech and gave a great example!]

 

However, as with any liberty, taken to its extreme it has the ability to do more harm than good. And for this reason limits must be placed on the freedom of speech, in so promoting justice over liberty. The line is usually drawn when the speech moves from the purpose of raising concern, to the purpose of starting violence. Overall in order to promote the greater good of peace, we must limit the freedom of speech. Examples of such can be seen in opposition of hate groups. Groups such as the Neo-Nazi movement and the Klu Klutz Klan have the goal of using violence to promote change. Throughout the United States and Canada, the congregation of organizations with the goal of promoting violence have been outlawed. In such as case the balancing act of liberty and justice sways in the way of justice. The outlawing of such speech will prevent violent crimes and promote equality through protecting citizens from each other.

 

[Good - another specific example and how freedom of speech must be restricted!]

 

So when does the freedom of speech win out? Also when do governmental and judicial bodies have the duty to citizens to limit the speech of some? I believe that in cases where the speech directly leads to violence and hate the government has the right to uphold justice and protect citizens from each other. However when such speech is not geared towards violent acts, and poses no harm to any other citizen, liberty wins out and expressions should not be censored. This is a tough balancing act for any judicial body to uphold. Examples are never so cut and dry. What may words may spur on violence and hate in a certain individual, may be interpreted as peaceful resistence to another. This is one of many issues which plague societies at the very root, and such needs to be examined thoughly before action can be taken.

 

Good essay, but you have some poor grammar throughout and you might lose points on the MCAT! (sorry to be so harsh, I just want to help)

[medguy5367]

Someone PLEASE give me some feedback:

 

The best kind of education encourages students to question authority.

 

Human beings are rare among mammals in that, for approximately the first two decades of their lives, the majority of their time and effort goes into passing through an educational system. Indeed, the focus on education is one of the reasons that humans have made so much progress in their lifestyle; rather than using their strength and speed, humans use their brains and the power of abstract thought to gather necessary resources. Education is a word that applies to many styles of teaching and learning, but it can broadly be defined as being trained in a correct way of thinking. To say that a person is educated is to say that they have a deep understanding of a given set of established concepts. The prompt statement means that if students are free to question what is being taught, it will result in a better, more profound learning experience. Rather than simply memorizing facts, the student’s questioning process will allow them to have an understanding of the ‘why’ as well as the ‘what’.

 

 

Nonetheless, encouragement of students’ questions does not always result in a better education. There are instances where, if students are presented with an open opportunity for all questions, it will hinder the educational process. Consider an elementary school student that is learning about atoms and how electrons circle the atom, creating an octet. If the student is confused, and continues probing the teacher for his edification, he will soon realize that what he has been taught is not correct at all. Instead, it is a simplified scientific model designed to introduce the student to the general concept of electrons and atoms in an established amount of curriculum time. It would be a waste of energy for the teacher to explain electron localization probabilities and nuclear forces because these concepts require more time to comprehend. In fact, it would have been much better for the teacher to ignore extraneous questions and stick with the simple model that was presented earlier, giving an overarching view of the atom to the students.

 

 

Educators need a criteria for determining when to encourage questions and when not to. The factor that can aid them in their decision is time. As educational authorities, they have a responsibility to cover a certain amount of material and to make sure that all educational goals are met. Otherwise, the education of the students will suffer. Since there is a limited amount of time allocated to each concept in a teaching curriculum, the number of questions to authority that are allowed must be determined by using time as the criteria. If the given time for a topic is used up, the educator must move on to the next one, thus enabling him to meet the educational goals.

[gkdl823]

The prompt:

Violence is never a real solution to a political crisis.

 

 

 

 

Violence is a physical form of creating hurt and pain directed from the superior to the inferior, of which we are very familiar with by observing, or even experiencing, war. These wars always occur when there is a serious political crisis between different countries. Disagreement between countries and competition for greater power leads to violence, which never seem to be a real solution.

 

However, the basis for defining a real solution defines whether or not violence solves a political crisis or not. If the solution is based on gaining peace, violence is never a real solution. Consider the war between the United States and Iraq. Countless soldiers, even ones not from the two countries at war, have died. How can peace be obtained at the expense of death? When each soldier has lost their life due to violence of war, it is not only that soldier, but his friends and family who suffer. With violence always comes a form of loss and pain. With the death of even one person, total peace can never be attained, and thus, violence would not be considered a real solution.

 

But when the definition of a solution differs from peace, this is quite another story. If the solution is based on gaining power for the country, then violence can, in fact, be a real solution. With violence, there is always a winner. No matter how competitive or how long a war may be, one side will always become the superior. Thus, in a case of war between two countries, ultimately, one country will always win and gain power over the other. Because the definition of a real solution was defined to be power for the country, violence is the actual solution.

 

Therefore, to justify whether or not violence is acceptable to solving such a crisis, we must determine what we want our solution to be. When the gain seems to be worth more than the loss, violence may be justified. For example, the people of a country may want power at the expense of loss of thousands of soldiers. In this case, their values reside in pride. This would differ totally from people who value family and friendship more than their pride, who would rather be taken over and be ruled by a different country as long as their own lives are saved. Thus, violence being a solution to a political crisis really depends on the people involved and where their values are held.

 

 

 

 

Thank you!!

[hopeful_student]

Hey guys these are the first two I wrote. Don't be afraid to go hard on me. Any input is appreciated.

 

1) ONE SHOULD ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH

 

Write a unified essay in you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which one shuld not tell the truth. Discuss what you think determines whetther or not one should tell the truth.

 

One of the core values that society ingrains upon every citizen is that he has the absolute moral responsibilty to tell the truth at all times. Thus, there is an inherent obligation enforced upon everyone to be honest in all scenarios.

 

This is a neccessary foundation, upon which a group of individuals need to fulfill, in order to function efficiently. It is impossible for any people to work towards a common goal if there is not a base of mutual trust due to a suspicion that others are lying for personal gain. For example, when the government of a nation is accused of lying to its citizens, that government invariably loses lots of support among its constituents. This is due to it breaking the fundamental trust needed to maintain a healthy relationship between two parties.

 

However, there are some scenarios in which lying can be more effective and efficient than honesty alone. Lying to benefit others is a morally acceptable excepion to being honest. Almost every parent has exploited lying to raise their children to the best of their abilities. One of the common lies told is, "If you eat too much sugar, your teeth will fall out by the time you are twenty". Obviously this is a gross exagerration, yet it benefits the child because they will reduce sugar consumption out of fear, and thus, increase their health. Overall, honesty is important when lying would benefit the actor. However, it is acceptable to lie when it benefits the observer.

 

2) POLITICIANS SHOULD NEVER COMPROMISE ON THEIR PRINCIPLES

 

Write a unified essay in 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 whetthera politician should or should not compromise..

 

A characterstic of any well respected politician is that he doesn't sacrifice his principles. In order for the political process to function it is important that politicians move forward with new laws and policies, with the belief that they are whats best for the country. A politician who wavers on his principles, demonstrates that he is incapable of backing his decisions with integrity. Abraham Lincoln is recognized as one of the greatest political leaders of all time. His nickname; "Honest Abe" denotes that a big part of his populatarity was a commintment to his ideals such as abolishing slavery.

 

However, it is important for politicians to recognize when a commintment to their principles isn't neccessarily the best for their constituents. A politician should waver from his principles if it infringes on the rights of anyone that he is supposed to be representing. An example of a man who didn't recognize when a commintment to your principles is a flaw was Adolf Hitler. He stayed committed to his principle that saw non-Aryans as inferior. However, this principle infringed on the right of a huge proportion of the people he was representing, and ultimately lead to many of their deaths.

 

Ultimately a politician who doesn't sway from his principles is one that is to be resepected, only as long as their principles don't infringe on the liberties of others.

[ladeeda]

The world is currently experiencing rapid technological progress, with computer use becoming increasingly more prevalent over other more traditional forms of communication. The goal of these technological progresses is to simplify the lives of those utilizing the technology by decreasing the amount of time individuals spend on certain tasks, thereby making their lives more efficient. In many cases however, rather than simplifying the lives of those using the technology, progress tends to complicate their lives instead. This is often true when the individuals using the technology are inexperienced with the new technology at hand. For instance, if an individual only trained in maintaining a database of his company's inventory using a paper and pen is given a new advanced computer software to manage inventory wihtout any training, it is highly likely that he will not know how to correctly use the technology. Rather than simplifying his life, the progress will serve to complicate his life, as he will be baffled on how to use the new software.

 

However, it cannot be asserted in all cases that technological progress complicates rather than simplifying the lives of those utilizing the technology. In several cases the contrary is true, as technology greatly increases the efficiency of those using it. This is true when the individuals using the technology know how to utilize it. For instance, if a man, who took a class on how to use a new database software to manage inventory is given the database to use at work, it will not serve to complicate his life as he knows how to use the technology.

 

Thus, it cannot be asserted that in all cases progress complicates as much as it simplifies. This is only true in situations in which the individual is not experienced in the technological progress in question. For instance, for the man used to using a paper and pen to manage inventory and has no knowledge on how to use the advanced software, progress will appear to complicate more than it simplifies. However, if an indivudal is expereinced with the technological progress, the progress will serve to simplify life rather than complicate it. This is apparent in the case where the individual who has taken classes on how to use databases to manage inventory, is given the database to use at work. Ultimately, whether the individual is knowledgeable about the progress determines whether the progress will complicate or simplify that person's life.

[kinmed]

Prompt: Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

In this modern age of hustle and bustle, many people have realized that life has gotten more complicated rather than simplified. It have not come to light until very recently that we have become slaves to technology rather than enjoying it's benifits. We are currently in the information age and computers have become man's new best friend, yet so called conviences such as the internet have let to widespread problems around the globe. Identity theft has become much easier with personal information published so carelessly and freely on the internet. Internet viruses have crippled stock markets, factories and even government agencies because everything is computerized and linked by the internet.

 

However if progess have only caused us problems, we would have never left the stone age. For example, new forms of governments have allowed everyone to be treated under the law. The idea of specialized trades allowed everyone to get unique jobs so they can master it, thus serving the community is a better way. The invention of language allowed everyone to communicate so we can cooperate and strive as a speicies.

 

In the end it's usually the technological advances that we have which creates more problems than it solves, while social evolution has made helped individuals understand themselfs and other in a better light. Nature has given us everything we need to succeed, so rather than using our intelligence to invent new machines that pollute and kill. We can just as well accomplish goals more quickly through social progress that lead to mutual understanding and cooperation.

 

________________________________________________________________

Prompt: Laws cannot change social values

 

The objective of any law is to enforce the values and morals of a society. Laws cannot come into being without the intellectual input of the citizens it governs, so naturally laws change according to social values and not the other way around. For instance, prohabition of alchohol in the United States was highly unsuccessful and ultimately repealed because the law did not corespond to social norms. Although it was illegal to consume alchohol, the majority of citizens felt alchohol was not harmful enough to be banned and engaged in illegal drinking regardless of the law.

 

On the other hand, societies change with time and overtime a law may become accepted by society. A good example would be the abolision of slavery. When slavery was first abolished in the United States, the civil war was started because the southern states felt the law did not fit it's social values. Over time however, as new generations of citizens are brought into the world, the idea that slavery was evil was accepted by everyone. A similar example can be made regarding religion in school, where an older generation believe religion in schools should be allowed because "that's the way we were raised" and younger generations insist on seperating religion and public education.

 

In the end, Laws can never change social values outright, and it's only with long periods of time that social values can change accordingly to accept new laws. This is illistrated by the "generation gap" that exsist in values and morals, where older members of society will often take a conservative stance on which laws are justified while younger individuals are more liberal in accepting new laws.

 

________________________________________________________________

Prompt: Education comes not from books but from practical experience

 

They say an action is worth a thousand words and this is absolutely true when it comes to education. No matter how many books you read or how many lectures you hear, a person cannot fully understand a concept and become proficient at it without applying it first. A fine exmple would be the medical profession and the years of residency it requires after formal education from "books" are completed. Medical students would agree that when they first start on the job training, the realization hits that text book cases cannot apply to patients because each individual is unique. Other tactile procedures such as stiching up a wound or inserting a introvenous needle also requires practise to grain proficency.

 

Even though practical education is a must, medical education would never start there due to saftey concerns. Without the required background knowledge from textbooks, students learning on job would kill patients very easily. The study of medicine is so complex that a solid foundation in theory must be built before practical education should be attempted.

 

In the end, education comes from both theory and practise. Practise should only be the main source of education when it opposes no danger to anyone, such as practising a musical instrument. When practical education can cause harm in anyway to anyone, comprehensive background knowledge must be taught first such as learning in the field of medicine or accounting.

 

Here you go....

Review highlighted parts....in first prompt, in your last paragraph, the determining factor is a bit far from the other two paragraphs. You seem to be focusing on how the progress is used for good vs. evil and your last paragraph talks about social progress...I could be wrong...you have some spelling and punctuation errors...n try to avoid strong statements like the one highlighted...you do not have a strong proof of that .....hope that hleps...best of luck....

[kinmed]

Someone PLEASE give me some feedback:

 

The best kind of education encourages students to question authority.

 

Human beings are rare among mammals in that, for approximately the first two decades of their lives, the majority of their time and effort goes into passing through an educational system. Indeed, the focus on education is one of the reasons that humans have made so much progress in their lifestyle; rather than using their strength and speed, humans use their brains and the power of abstract thought to gather necessary resources. Education is a word that applies to many styles of teaching and learning, but it can broadly be defined as being trained in a correct way of thinking. To say that a person is educated is to say that they have a deep understanding of a given set of established concepts. The prompt statement means that if students are free to question what is being taught, it will result in a better, more profound learning experience. Rather than simply memorizing facts, the student’s questioning process will allow them to have an understanding of the ‘why’ as well as the ‘what’.

 

 

Nonetheless, encouragement of students’ questions does not always result in a better education. There are instances where, if students are presented with an open opportunity for all questions, it will hinder the educational process. Consider an elementary school student that is learning about atoms and how electrons circle the atom, creating an octet. If the student is confused, and continues probing the teacher for his edification, he will soon realize that what he has been taught is not correct at all. Instead, it is a simplified scientific model designed to introduce the student to the general concept of electrons and atoms in an established amount of curriculum time. It would be a waste of energy for the teacher to explain electron localization probabilities and nuclear forces because these concepts require more time to comprehend. In fact, it would have been much better for the teacher to ignore extraneous questions and stick with the simple model that was presented earlier, giving an overarching view of the atom to the students.

 

 

Educators need a criteria for determining when to encourage questions and when not to. The factor that can aid them in their decision is time. As educational authorities, they have a responsibility to cover a certain amount of material and to make sure that all educational goals are met. Otherwise, the education of the students will suffer. Since there is a limited amount of time allocated to each concept in a teaching curriculum, the number of questions to authority that are allowed must be determined by using time as the criteria. If the given time for a topic is used up, the educator must move on to the next one, thus enabling him to meet the educational goals.

 

Intro: I am not aware of any other mammals that does any of that...change it a bid ...I would not compare us to mammals there...I like your atom example..you probably want to include a similar example in the first paragraph for synthesis....as for your determining factor, based on what you have in the first two, the comprehension level of the student would make a stronger determining factor.. other than that..looks pretty good...there are some spelling errors and one statement with an awkward wording..

[anna8]

Can anyone give me an idea of how I'm doing with WS? Here's my first attempt. I would really really appreciate any help!

 

The role of a political opposition is to criticize the policies of those in power.

Describe a specific situation in which the role of a political opposition might be something other than to criticize the policies of those in power. Discuss what you think determines when the role of a political opposition should be to criticize the policies of those in power and when it should not.

 

 

Political oppositions are known for being one of the staunchest critics of those who are currently in power. Their role as part of the opposition is primarily to provide their opinion with regards to public policy that are being created by their political counterparts. Essentially, this is to provide subjective criticisms or to point out weaknesses of the policies that are being proposed. These criticisms often prove to be beneficial to the greater public as they improve on legislation. The political opposition then can serve as a check-and-balance system to the power being exercised by those in the administration as they can point out the disadvantages of the proposed policies. For example, a policy preventing access to certain websites on the Internet may be criticized as a form of media censorship that curtails the rights of the citizens to information.

 

However, there may be times when the role of a political opposition is not about criticizing the policies of those in power. Instead, their role might be to help out in the implementation of policy when they believe that it puts forward the best interests of a nation. This is especially important for troubled nations where unity seems to be a major driving force for change. For instance, a policy that provides workers with better working conditions may be put forward both by those in power and the political opposition in a country experiencing turmoil brought about by union rallies and strikes. In this case, the role of a political opposition is to be a catalyst in convincing those against the current administration that the proposed policy is for the good of all.

 

Therefore, the role of a political opposition may sometimes be to criticize policies or to actually support them. This largely depends on whether the policies being proposed are in the best interest of the nation. Politicians are there for the very purpose of serving the nation and upholding the common good of its citizens. Hence, whether or not you are in the opposition, the role of a politician is to create and support policies that are for the betterment of the society.

[anna8]

bump. anyone care to critique my essay?

[medhopeful.com]

^Hey anna, biggest piece of advice would be to think of specific examples (i.e. events that have actually happened) that illustrate the points you are trying to make. The examples don't have to be fantastic or well-known by any means (I used very local examples in mine, but I gave specific details, and landed a T). But using specific examples strengthens your essay, and helps create a more vivid picture of what you're trying to convey.

[hopeful_student]

Can someone please critique this. I really want some feedback before i go in to write:

Progress often complicates more than it simplifies

 

In last few centuries technology has progressed at a remarkable rate. Much of this advancement, although amazing, has greatly complicated society as a whole. Progress gives people new power, and as the saying goes; “With great power comes great responsibility” A notable, example is the creation of social networking sites, such as Facebook. These sites give new communicating powers to their users, while adding much responsibility. Recently, it was possible to separate your personal life from your professional. However, these new sites allow other users to post inappropriate pictures and comments on your profile page, where potential employers may look to before offering a job. This creates a new modern day complication for the average person. Whereas, before we had the ability to project the persona, we want an individual to see, nowadays, there is a need to be on your best behaviour at all times, because your social network profile will present a blend of who you are in all types of situations for the everyone to observe. Therefore although social networking sites give their users new tools to communicate, it also adds another responsibility, and this complication, to the lives of their users.

 

However, there are occasions when progress has no doubt removed some complications from our life. A notable example is the invention of agriculture, which technology has effortlessly removed one of the biggest time consuming tasks that we faced; the search for food. By removing this complication from our daily routine, progress had indeed managed to simplify our lives. A more modern day example of progress simplifying our lives is the invention, creation and widespread use of food supplements. Whereas before it was important to balance your diet and ensure you obtain all necessary vitamins and food groups, now you can merely take a pill to gain the calcium, protein or vitamins that you neglected. A common link between these two examples, is that they both remove some daily responsibility that in the past was a necessary part of humanity.

 

The obvious question that needs to be addressed is; when is progress good? The answer to this question can be evaluated quite simply. Progress can be seen as complicating life if it adds another responsibility that must be adhered to. Even though we are constantly presented new tools and power, these often come with an added responsibility that we have never had before. However, there are occasions were progress can be a simplifying factor in our lives if it takes away some of the responsibility we are faced with.

 

Laws cannot change social values

 

Laws are generally created to enforce the social values of a nation’s citizens. Rather than being an agent to changing the values of its citizens, laws are created as a result of the convictions of their people. When laws exist that challenge the social values of the citizens, rather than conforming their principles to that of the law, citizens will revolt. An example of this is the French Revolution. It had long been accepted that the king had a divine right to be the leader of the people and often abused his power. However, during the intellectual revolution, French civilians were empowered like never before due to the invention of books and spread of information. And eventually as civilization progressed, the assertion that the king had divine rights contradicted the changing social values of the French. Therefore, rather than adjust or rationalize this law, they resisted. Unwilling to live in a country that no longer represented their principles, the newly empowered French revolted.

 

However, there have been rare instances in which laws did in fact change social values. This occurs when a nation is at its weakest and prone to compromise. A dark area of history is World War 2, in which Hitler was widely supported in Germany after the institution of the famous “Nuremberg Laws” that took away the rights of Jews. Many Germans convinced themselves that Hitler was right and thus altered their social standards to that of the law. Although Germany was one of the most civilized and free countries of the time, it was at its weakest point. The Great Depression compounded with the Treaty of Versailles, left a nation that was eager to move forward and thus compromised their values in an effort to restore their country to a position of strength on the world stage.

 

When a nation is empowered they are less prone to sacrifice their ideals. As in the example of the French Revolution, the wealth and spread of information due to the invention of books gave power and more importantly pride to the French. This empowerment ensured that they wouldn’t compromise their ideals. However, in the latter case, Germans were feeling disgraced and powerless due to Treaty of Versailles following world war one and the worldwide depression. Therefore, they were able to compromise their values in an effort to regain the power that slipped through their fingers.

[anna8]

^Hey anna, biggest piece of advice would be to think of specific examples (i.e. events that have actually happened) that illustrate the points you are trying to make. The examples don't have to be fantastic or well-known by any means (I used very local examples in mine, but I gave specific details, and landed a T). But using specific examples strengthens your essay, and helps create a more vivid picture of what you're trying to convey.

 

 

Thanks so much! It's good to know I can use very local examples. I've always wondered whether I could use them, as I thought that the examples needed to be something well known especially by the checker. I agree with your observation and I'm going to try to work on that for my succeeding essays. Thanks again!