Writing Sample Critique Corner

[medhopeful.com]

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!

 

No problem!

 

I highly doubt the graders check the examples, mostly because they probably have so many writing samples to go through that they wouldn't have the time to really check anything, besides comparing what you write to their own personal knowledge base. Of course, that doesn't mean you should make examples up (because you shouldn't). But yah, using local examples is perfectly fine in my opinion. Personally, I ended up using a wide variety of examples, from very local to internationally known.

[future_doc]

 

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.

 

I think you mean objective criticisms.

[anna8]

I think you mean objective criticisms.

 

Oops, I think I originally wanted to say 'constructive' (I dunno why I typed subjective). Would that make sense though?

[Chumps]

Hi guys,

 

I am struggling coming up with examples for the prompt öne must learn discipline before one can learn anything else". Does anyone know a plausible synthesis I could use?

[ayinniya]

Hey guys

it would be great if anyone could give me some feedback

thanks alot =)

 

A politician’s lifestyle should reflect his or her political views

 

In this day and age public figures have very little privacy. In mere minutes of celebrities or politicians leaving their house people around the world can know what their wearing, where their going, and who they’re with. Websites such as twitter and tabloid magazines make the lifestyles of public figures very public. For polticians this means that every thing they do can be scrutinized by the party and people they represent. The above statement means that anything a politician does should exemplify the party they belong to. This means that if a politician is conservative then all the decisions they make in parliament and outside should be conservative.

A politicians’s lifestyle may not reflect his or her politicial views when the decisions they make are very personal. Take for example when Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol had a child when she was a teenager and was not married. Palin in a Republican and has conservative views. Having a pregnant teen is not very conservative, but Palin did not disown Bristol because of it. Palin accepted her daughter and grandchild even though what had happened may not have followed what she stands for. When a person’s family or a very personal matter is at stake, a politician will usually do what they feel is best for their family whether or not it follows their political parties’ beliefs.

Whether or not a politician’s lifestyle reflects their political beliefs depends on each individual politician. To some extent you would assume that a politcian believes in what their party stands for and would therefore exemplify it in their everyday life. But on the other hand there may be times when a politician does not agree with what the majority of their party agrees upon, in these cases the politician should not have to portry in their lifestyle what they individually do not believe in.

[chuntingche]

It is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better to change the law than to tolerate minor defects in it. Discuss what you think determines when it is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it and when it is better to change it.

 

The law was created to provide a means for everyone to have equal rights and to punish those that dared to challenge the law. It was created many years ago and has undergone many revisions by some of the most intelligent people ever born. Is it perfect? Of course not! A law that encompasses so many different concepts, cases and factors can never be perfect. There are bound to be many defects here and there. Minor defects would include such things as loopholes within the law that could potentially be abused by a criminal. In the course of this essay, I will demonstrate that as long as these minor defects are not misused, no changes need to be made in the law to correct them.

 

A lot of these minor defects that can be found within the law are actually deliberately placed there in order to allow for flexibility when tackling obscure cases that require "out of the box" thinking and ruling. Judges are sometimes forced to use these deliberately placed minor defects to their advantage in order to make a better ruling on a case. For example, during the second Mongolian dynasty, the emperor had created a law stating that every family could only have a maximum of one child and any additional children would be confiscated and sent into the military. There was a particular case where a couple had a pair of twins and according to the newly stated law, one of them would have been taken by the military. The judge for this case was Judge Bao. Feeling that it was wrong to separate either one of the twins from their family, he did everything he could to help the family. In the end, he was able to find a loophole or minor defect in the law. As long as one of the twins was adopted by another family that didn't already have children, neither of the twins would be forced into the army. In this example, Judge Bao clearly found a minor defect in the law, but he chose to tolerate it instead of changing it. In fact, he even used it to his advantage in order to help the twins. If Judge Bao had decided to modify the law and fix the minor defect then who knows what would have become of the poor child sent to the military.

 

Similar to how a battery has both a positive and a negative side, there are many minor defects within our law that are deliberate and also many that are not deliberate. Our society is too complex and our law is bound to have minor defects that the creators did not intend upon. Even today, many minor revisions are being made to our law in order to fix these minor defects and to cover the loopholes present. During the Ching dynasty in China, there originally was a law stating that those getting prosecuted could become a witness against other criminals and all charges would be dropped against them. However, this quickly started to become misused and many criminals started framing innocent citizens for crimes they didn't commit in order to have all their charges dropped. Many judges at that time were afraid to modify the law and released these criminals without any punishment. After many years and countless innocent citizens being framed, this defect was brought to the emperor's attention and he immediately eliminated the rule. He was furious that it had taken so long for someone to report these incidents to him. If any of the judges had tried to correct the defect in the law, then many lives could have been saved and a lot of criminals would not have been released without punishment. This clearly shows an example where it would have been better to not tolerate a law that had a defect.

 

So what determines whether a minor defect in the law should be tolerated or not? Clearly, minor defects that are being misused by individuals to sidestep the law should not be tolerated. The example from the Ching dynasty shows us how many individuals abused a defect in the law and used it to get released without punishment. However, minor defects that are not being misused can be tolerated because they represent no harm to our society and can even help judges in some cases. Judge Bao is a great example demonstrating this.

[YorkMan]

I've been studying for the MCAT for 3 years, but I just started practicing writing a month ago, so go easy. Please let me know wht you would grade this. I think its my best ever, even though it's a bit short.

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means. What a profound statement this is, as it will be throughout the future. Politics is the practice or profession of practicing political affairs, and that is offen done with an ends in mind. However, the means to get their is often corrupt. While some people think that it's biased to say that politics are littered with corruption, I can say with confidence that it isn't. If the means of Barack Obama becoming president entailed murder on a mass scale, would that justify his presidency? Absolutely not.

 

But this is not always the case, and sometimes the end does in fact justify the means in politics. If the end is something that is for the better of the nation, then the means are trivial. For example, if the ends equals saving the country from nuclear warfare, than any means are neccessary, even if it means tons of soldiers getting slaughtered in war. This is a tried and true notion in politics and sceince. The promot states the the ends "rarely" justify the means, thus this is not true always, as I have demonstrated.

 

It is true that the ends usually never justifies the means in politicians. But just like everything, even the most brutal things, there is a grey area. While politicians shouldn't use this as an excuse to do whatever they wants, if the means mean public and national safety, then any means are justified. Think of this: if the end were saving your family's life, and the means was killing someone else, would you do it? The point is, everything is subjective, especially in politics, so it depends on the situation.

 

 

thanks in advance!

 

scheduled to write the MCAT next Thurs!

[gb35]

Go ahead, be as mean as possible!

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

The 20th century witnessed huge advances in science and technology. This progress has continued at a rapid pace into the 21st century. While most readily point ways in which technology has made human lives easier, or medical advances have increased our quality of life, progress has not occured without its complications. This begs the question, is progress really making our lives easier?

 

Recently, great advances in biotechnologies and medicine have made stem cell research a frequent feature in national headlines. Few would question the potential positive applications of further advances in stem cell research. This research has the potential to cure congenital diseases, cancer, and maybe even help regrow lost limbs or bones. However, all of this progress has divided the nation over the moral issues surrounding stem cell research. Those opposed to stem cell research and potential medical therapies involving stem cells accuse researchers of playing God, and argue that using the fruits of stem cell research to treat human ailments is morally reprehensible. The scientific progress that has been made is undeniable, but it has raised serious ethical issues that now divide a nation.

 

There are many cases, however, where progress has just simply made things easier. The automation of several different manufacturing and industrial processes, for example, has eliminated some backbreaking and unsafe practices that used to be the norm in industry. The port city of Hamburg is a shining example of progress in automation. Instead of manually unloading container ships and sorting containers around the docks, the entire process is now done by robotic cranes and trucks. Workers are still required to oversee the computers controlling the robots and trucks, and to maintain the equipment, however they are no longer forced to work in direct contact with heavy, dangerous machinery, and dock workers deaths from falling containers are now a thing of the past.

 

Why have advances in automation not been as complicated as advances in other fields, such as the biotech industry? The answer appears to depend on morality. Whenever moral issues surround a new discovery, or new innovation, conflict and disagreement will almost certainly arise. Stem cell research raises obvious ethical questions surrounding the origin of the stem cells, and potential genetic modifications of fetuses. The automation at the Hamburg docks however, does not raise any moral concerns. Some resident may have been concerned that jobs would be lost as a result of the automation, but the new system has in fact created as many jobs as it eliminated!

[kawalac]

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

Often times in science, a new discovery opens up "Pandora's Box". This new information creates a multitude of questions that need to be answered. In the context of science, progress refers to the accumulation of new information about a particular topic. If a new topic has not been studied extensively, then progress often complicates as much as it simplifies. Unconvering new information about a relatively unknown topic usually creates more questions than it answers. Ultimately, this complicates a situation as more unanswered questions arise. For instance, new imaging technologies such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) have allowed reasearchers to observe patterns of energy usage within a working brain. Prior to the invention of the MRI, it was once thought that the brain utilized only aerobic respiration in order to create energy. However, this new technology shows that the brain also utilizes anaerobic respiration to create energy, which is analogous to working skeletal muscle. This new information can be considered progress as the workings of the brain were revealed. However, this information complicates the situation because more questions have arisen while relatively few answers have been provided. Therefore, when a specific topic is in its infancy in terms of research, progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.

 

However, for the DNA researchers Watson and Crick, progress simplified more than it complicated. Watson And Crick were a pair of genetic researchers who sought to determine the structure of human DNA, which contains our genetic information. As opposed to the brain, the field of genetics has been studied extensively beginning with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 1800s. However, the answer to a key question was still eluding scientists: what is the actual structure of DNA? Progress in the area of genetics allowed Watson and Crick to answer this question. Other researchers had determined that DNA is made up of repeating base pairs. This progress in the field of genetics allowed Watson and Crick to devise a model that incorporated the new information with old knowledge. The result was the Watson and Crick theory of DNA structure, which was determined later on by electron microscopy. In this situation, progress in the field of genetics simplified a situation, rather than complicating it.

 

Ultimately, the level of available knowledge on a specific topic determines whether progress complicates or simplifies. In the case of brain research, a basic understanding of brain function was still being developed and not much is understood about how it works. New information that elucidates how glucose is metabolized by the brain created more questions than answers. This is due to the fact that the new information stands on its own without any sufficient supporting knowledge that either supports or refutes it. In this situation, progress in brain research actually complicated more than it simplified. On the other hand, progress in the area of genetics, which has been studied extensively for over two centuries, allowed Watson and Crick to propose a model of DNA structure. New information provided Watson and Crick with a missing link that could join two pieces of prior knowledge. Therefore, if a topic has been studided extensively and a vast amount of knowledge exists, then progress can simplify more than it complicates. Conversely, revealing new information about a relatively new topic often complicates as much as it simplifies.

[medguy5367]

I will mark both of yours, give me your thoughts on mine:

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

 

The word progress inevitably conjures up cliched images in the mind of the reader: once-barbaric tribes becoming civilized, Man landing on the moon, or a scientist inventing a cure to a deadly disease. More simply, progress may be defined as making successive developments in a given area of work, whether it is scientific, sociological, or political. Once the needs of food and shelter are met, the idea of progress becomes the driving force of human civilization. Yet often times the results of progress do not seem to have benefitted us in any notable way. A sociological study found that the amount of time a housewife spends cleaning the house has not changed between the nineteenth and the twentieth century. Perhaps this is because the birth of new situations goes hand in hand with progress. Consider genetic engineering: when this area of science was in its infancy, the people were hopeful that we would one day have cures and remedies for diseases considered uncurable. In some respects, genetic science delivered. Certainly, the diagnosis of disease was made much simpler once progress in the area of genetics was made. However, countless complications have also arisen due to progress in this area. Genetic privacy, genetic engineering, and human cloning have all become controversial, highly complex issues. Thus, although progress does simplify, it also creates new, more complex situations as well.

 

Nonetheless, the onset of further complications with progress is not a rule set in stone. There have certainly been instances where progress has simplified more without creating further complications. One specific situation is the invention of the pen. Before the invention of the pen, people used feathers dipped in ink to write. However, the pen simplified this process greatly. By using a pen, the writer does not have to constantly dip his nib into a jar of ink. Additionally, separate stores of ink do not have to be carried around along with the writer if he might have to write while he is away from his desk. The progress in the development of the pen thus greatly simplified the writing process for the entire world. Without progress in this area, there would still be several complications present whenever someone decided to sit down and write a letter to a friend.

 

The two situations that have been described are contradictory to each other. Does progress complicate, or does it have the potential to simplify? The factor that determines this is the size of the specific area where progress is taking place. The area of progress can be large, such as the science and application of genetics, or it can be small, such as the development of a better writing instrument. In small areas, progress will generally simplify. This is because the end goal is seen clearly in mind (to create an ink-dispensing pen) and this is what progress strives for. However, in large areas, progress will often complicate things. This is because when progress occurs in large areas, it is difficult or impossible to take into account how the major developments will affect other related aspects.

[medguy5367]

Go ahead, be as mean as possible!

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

The 20th century witnessed huge advances in science and technology. This progress has continued at a rapid pace into the 21st century. While most readily point ways in which technology has made human lives easier, or medical advances have increased our quality of life, progress has not occured without its complications. This begs the question, is progress really making our lives easier? This is not what "begging the question" means!!

 

Recently, great advances in biotechnologies and medicine have made stem cell research a frequent feature in national headlines. Few would question the potential positive applications of further advances in stem cell research. This research has the potential to cure congenital diseases, cancer, and maybe even help regrow lost limbs or bones. However, all of this progress has divided the nation over the moral issues surrounding stem cell research. Those opposed to stem cell research and potential medical therapies involving stem cells accuse researchers of playing God, and argue that using the fruits of stem cell research to treat human ailments is morally reprehensible. The scientific progress that has been made is undeniable, but it has raised serious ethical issues that now divide a nation.

 

There are many cases, however, where progress has just simply made things easier. The automation of several different manufacturing and industrial processes, for example, has eliminated some backbreaking and unsafe practices that used to be the norm in industry. The port city of Hamburg is a shining example of progress in automation. Instead of manually unloading container ships and sorting containers around the docks, the entire process is now done by robotic cranes and trucks. Workers are still required to oversee the computers controlling the robots and trucks, and to maintain the equipment, however they are no longer forced to work in direct contact with heavy, dangerous machinery, and dock workers deaths from falling containers are now a thing of the past. This is awkwardly phrased. It might be better as two separate sentences. Also, it seems to focus on "safety" rather than "simplicity". Perhaps elaborate more on how this has simplified matters.

 

Why have advances in automation not been as complicated as advances in other fields, such as the biotech industry? The answer appears to depend on morality. Whenever moral issues surround a new discovery, or new innovation, conflict and disagreement will almost certainly arise. Stem cell research raises obvious ethical questions surrounding the origin of the stem cells, and potential genetic modifications of fetuses. The automation at the Hamburg docks however, does not raise any moral concerns. Some resident may have been concerned that jobs would be lost as a result of the automation, but the new system has in fact created as many jobs as it eliminated! Strong criteria in the last paragraph! However, there is no need to mention a potential weakness in your example in the last sentence the evaluator will read!

 

 

 

I am not an official marker, but overall 5 out of 6.

[medguy5367]

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

Often times in science, a new discovery opens up "Pandora's Box". Great allusion! It captures the attention of the reader. This new information creates a multitude of questions that need to be answered. In the context of science, progress refers to the accumulation of new information about a particular topic. If a new topic has not been studied extensively, then progress often complicates as much as it simplifies. Unconvering new information about a relatively unknown topic usually creates more questions than it answers. Ultimately, this complicates a situation as more unanswered questions arise. For instance, new imaging technologies such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) have allowed reasearchers to observe patterns of energy usage within a working brain. Prior to the invention of the MRI, it was once thought that the brain utilized only aerobic respiration in order to create energy. However, this new technology shows that the brain also utilizes anaerobic respiration to create energy, which is analogous to working skeletal muscle. This new information can be considered progress as the workings of the brain were revealed. However, this information complicates the situation because more questions have arisen while relatively few answers have been provided. It would be good if you could elaborate further on how this complicated things. Perhaps a stronger example would have been better! Therefore, when a specific topic is in its infancy in terms of research, progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.

 

However, for the DNA researchers Watson and Crick, progress simplified more than it complicated. Watson And Crick were a pair of genetic researchers who sought to determine the structure of human DNA, which contains our genetic information. As opposed to the brain, the field of genetics has been studied extensively beginning with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 1800s. However, the answer to a key question was still eluding scientists: what is the actual structure of DNA? Progress in the area of genetics allowed Watson and Crick to answer this question. Other researchers had determined that DNA is made up of repeating base pairs. This progress in the field of genetics allowed Watson and Crick to devise a model that incorporated the new information with old knowledge. The result was the Watson and Crick theory of DNA structure, which was determined later on by electron microscopy. In this situation, progress in the field of genetics simplified a situation, rather than complicating it. Again, how did this actually SIMPLIFY things? Maybe elaborate on ways in which the science of genetics was simplified! You just mentioned that new information was acquired and that it simplified a situation without explaining how it did this.

 

A transition would be helpful here... instead of jumping right into the criteria! Ultimately, the level of available knowledge on a specific topic determines whether progress complicates or simplifies. In the case of brain research, a basic understanding of brain function was still being developed and not much is understood about how it works. New information that elucidates how glucose is metabolized by the brain created more questions than answers. This is due to the fact that the new information stands on its own without any sufficient supporting knowledge that either supports or refutes it. In this situation, progress in brain research actually complicated more than it simplified. On the other hand, progress in the area of genetics, which has been studied extensively for over two centuries, allowed Watson and Crick to propose a model of DNA structure. New information provided Watson and Crick with a missing link that could join two pieces of prior knowledge. Therefore, if a topic has been studided extensively and a vast amount of knowledge exists, then progress can simplify more than it complicates. Conversely, revealing new information about a relatively new topic often complicates as much as it simplifies.

 

 

You accomplished all three tasks, but there were issues with the depth of your explanations. Also some minor spelling/grammar errors. I give it 4 out of 6.

[YorkMan]

very well written and you addressed all three tasks thoroughly... i would give it a 5, maybe a 6... what about mine?

 

I will mark both of yours, give me your thoughts on mine:

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

 

The word progress inevitably conjures up cliched images in the mind of the reader: once-barbaric tribes becoming civilized, Man landing on the moon, or a scientist inventing a cure to a deadly disease. More simply, progress may be defined as making successive developments in a given area of work, whether it is scientific, sociological, or political. Once the needs of food and shelter are met, the idea of progress becomes the driving force of human civilization. Yet often times the results of progress do not seem to have benefitted us in any notable way. A sociological study found that the amount of time a housewife spends cleaning the house has not changed between the nineteenth and the twentieth century. Perhaps this is because the birth of new situations goes hand in hand with progress. Consider genetic engineering: when this area of science was in its infancy, the people were hopeful that we would one day have cures and remedies for diseases considered uncurable. In some respects, genetic science delivered. Certainly, the diagnosis of disease was made much simpler once progress in the area of genetics was made. However, countless complications have also arisen due to progress in this area. Genetic privacy, genetic engineering, and human cloning have all become controversial, highly complex issues. Thus, although progress does simplify, it also creates new, more complex situations as well.

 

Nonetheless, the onset of further complications with progress is not a rule set in stone. There have certainly been instances where progress has simplified more without creating further complications. One specific situation is the invention of the pen. Before the invention of the pen, people used feathers dipped in ink to write. However, the pen simplified this process greatly. By using a pen, the writer does not have to constantly dip his nib into a jar of ink. Additionally, separate stores of ink do not have to be carried around along with the writer if he might have to write while he is away from his desk. The progress in the development of the pen thus greatly simplified the writing process for the entire world. Without progress in this area, there would still be several complications present whenever someone decided to sit down and write a letter to a friend.

 

The two situations that have been described are contradictory to each other. Does progress complicate, or does it have the potential to simplify? The factor that determines this is the size of the specific area where progress is taking place. The area of progress can be large, such as the science and application of genetics, or it can be small, such as the development of a better writing instrument. In small areas, progress will generally simplify. This is because the end goal is seen clearly in mind (to create an ink-dispensing pen) and this is what progress strives for. However, in large areas, progress will often complicate things. This is because when progress occurs in large areas, it is difficult or impossible to take into account how the major developments will affect other related aspects.

[future_doc]

Each of your examples are at the extreme edge to make your point and you provide no middle ground. You could have used real time current events such as BP and the massive oil spill, which occurred due to cutting corners to save money. They sure did not save money. I would encourage you to try first to think of current/real examples to make your point instead of unlikely scenarios.

 

Regarding the nuclear option, well, North Korea has threatened this when USA and South Korea said they planned 'war games' from which they did not back down. Each side wentto the extreme to make a point, South Korea and USA was in effect saying 'don't you dare do what you just did or you may need to suffer the consequences". N.K. said 'watch out, cancel or else' and there was no cancellation.

 

I hope this may help and best of luck!

 

I've been studying for the MCAT for 3 years, but I just started practicing writing a month ago, so go easy. Please let me know wht you would grade this. I think its my best ever, even though it's a bit short.

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means. What a profound statement this is, as it will be throughout the future. Politics is the practice or profession of practicing political affairs, and that is offen done with an ends in mind. However, the means to get their is often corrupt. While some people think that it's biased to say that politics are littered with corruption, I can say with confidence that it isn't. If the means of Barack Obama becoming president entailed murder on a mass scale, would that justify his presidency? Absolutely not.

 

But this is not always the case, and sometimes the end does in fact justify the means in politics. If the end is something that is for the better of the nation, then the means are trivial. For example, if the ends equals saving the country from nuclear warfare, than any means are neccessary, even if it means tons of soldiers getting slaughtered in war. This is a tried and true notion in politics and sceince. The promot states the the ends "rarely" justify the means, thus this is not true always, as I have demonstrated.

 

It is true that the ends usually never justifies the means in politicians. But just like everything, even the most brutal things, there is a grey area. While politicians shouldn't use this as an excuse to do whatever they wants, if the means mean public and national safety, then any means are justified. Think of this: if the end were saving your family's life, and the means was killing someone else, would you do it? The point is, everything is subjective, especially in politics, so it depends on the situation.

 

 

thanks in advance!

 

scheduled to write the MCAT next Thurs!

[YorkMan]

Each of your examples are at the extreme edge to make your point and you provide no middle ground. You could have used real time current events such as BP and the massive oil spill, which occurred due to cutting corners to save money. They sure did not save money. I would encourage you to try first to think of current/real examples to make your point instead of unlikely scenarios.

 

Regarding the nuclear option, well, North Korea has threatened this when USA and South Korea said they planned 'war games' from which they did not back down. Each side wentto the extreme to make a point, South Korea and USA was in effect saying 'don't you dare do what you just did or you may need to suffer the consequences". N.K. said 'watch out, cancel or else' and there was no cancellation.

 

I hope this may help and best of luck!

 

what mark would you give it?

[medguy5367]

I've been studying for the MCAT for 3 years, but I just started practicing writing a month ago, so go easy. Please let me know wht you would grade this. I think its my best ever, even though it's a bit short.

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means. What a profound statement this is, as it will be throughout the future. Politics is the practice or profession of practicing political affairs, and that is offen done with an ends in mind. However, the means to get their is often corrupt. While some people think that it's biased to say that politics are littered with corruption, I can say with confidence that it isn't. Sounds way too personal and opinionated! If the means of Barack Obama becoming president entailed murder on a mass scale, would that justify his presidency? Absolutely not.

A hypothetical example can work, but in this case it is too extreme! Why not mention some examples of violent revolutionaries from history?

 

But this is not always the case, and sometimes the end does in fact justify the means in politics. If the end is something that is for the better of the nation, then the means are trivial. This statement is far too general and vague. For example, if the ends equals saving the country from nuclear warfare, than any means are neccessary, even if it means tons of soldiers getting slaughtered in war. This is a tried and true notion in politics and sceince. The promot states the the ends "rarely" justify the means, thus this is not true always, as I have demonstrated.

 

It is true that the ends usually never justifies the means in politicians. "Usually Never" is poor phrasing. But just like everything, even the most brutal things, there is a grey area. While politicians shouldn't use this as an excuse to do whatever they wants, if the means mean public and national safety, then any means are justified. Think of this: if the end were saving your family's life, and the means was killing someone else, would you do it? The point is, everything is subjective, especially in politics, so it depends on the situation.

Your final paragraph could have been a lot stronger. Rather than introducing a new idea of "killing someone to save your family", you could have developed and linked your previous arguments to the idea of safety. Also, try not to make sweeping statements like "everything is subjective".

thanks in advance!

 

scheduled to write the MCAT next Thurs!

 

 

I would give this a 3 but like I said, I am not a qualified marker. There were serious problems with grammar, spelling, and tone throughout the response. However, you attempted all three tasks.

[future_doc]

what mark would you give it?

 

I refrained from giving one b/c I honestly don't know. Between 4 and 5 I liked it but saw how I believe it might have been improved and that is why I gave my constructive (hopefully comments).

 

Continue with your same approach. However, when you think of your examples, before writing, ask yourself "Are there any current examples/real scenarios playing out in the world that might fit here?" before using other examples. And keep North Korea in mind as it fits so many potential questions, e.g., hunger, nuclear, education, medicine..they are in the dark ages and stand for a real extreme example for almost anything.

 

Wish I could be more helpful, sorry. Best of luck!

 

In terms of score medguy probably knows more than I do.

[chuntingche]

Hi, I'm taking the MCAT on Aug 5th and I'm aiming for a 'R' or above since I'm trying to apply for Canadian schools. I timed myself on this essay as well. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

Once a democracy elects its leaders, citizens should be able to trust those leaders to decide what is best for the country.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a leader in a democracy might not be fully trusted to decide what is best for the country. Discuss what you think determines whether or not citizens in a democracy can trust their elected leaders to decide what is best for the country.

 

The purpose of an elected democratic leader is to represent and make decisions on behalf of their supporters. They are expected to make decisions that will benefit their country, namely those that help with social progress. Social progress includes social positives such as health care as well as elimination of social negatives such as poverty and child abuse. Citizens would prefer a leader who is experienced as well as realistic because these are the key qualities a leader needs in order to make the best decisions. A prime example would be the political election in Gua Jin, China twenty years ago. At that time, there were two politicians trying to become the next political leader. Han Lee had ten years of credentials in the political field while Bi Ling only had two years of experience under his belt. It was evident in their proposals that Han focused on the most pressing matters such as poverty and starvation while Bi focused on idealistic goals taught in school such as strengthing international relationships. Based on a political poll and the final results, Han Lee beat Bi Ling very convincingly due to his experience and focus on realistic goals.

 

So when do citizens not trust a leader to make the best decisions for their nation? The key to this is inexperience and idealism. Lack of experience and idealism actually have a lot of correlation with each other. In most cases, those with less experience as a politician make proposals based on idealistic goals. These proposals usually don't contain adequate solutions for the more pressing matters of a nation and this is what causes the citizens to not trust these inexperienced leaders as much to make decisions on their behalf. Nobody living in Hani, China was shocked to see that Pi Lee, a newly graduated university student, was not elected to become a politician. His proposals for the construction of more tourist attractions rather than addressing issues such as pollution and poverty showed his inexperience in the field. His lack of experience and focus on idealism eventually lead to his defeat in the elections.

 

So how does one determine whether or not a leader is trusted to make the best decisions for a nation? The answer lies in the experience of the politician. Those with experience usually have realistic goals in mind and citizens will trust them to make the best decisions for the country. Han Lee provides a great example of an experienced politician that the citizens trusted wholeheartedly. On the other side of the spectrum, inexperienced individuals will often have idealistic goals in mind and will not have answers to the more pressing realistic matters and this causes citizens to not trust them as much to make the best decisions for the country. Pi Lee provides a prime example of an inexperienced politician focused on ideals which the citizens did not trust or approve at all.

[Ahhdumb]

Consider the following statement: An item may be in the news only because nothing else happened that day. 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 an item may be in the news although other events happened that day. Discuss what you think determines whether an item may be in the news.

 

All too often local news stations find themselves reporting seemingly silly events due to the fact they have nothing else to report. A lack of news stories forces news stations to dig for stories that may not be all that relevant or important to the target audience. However, news stations have a certain timeslot each night to report the news and it must be filled with something.

 

A recent story done by CTV Calgary detailed the experience of a local farmer of questionable mental state, who claimed to have encountered big foot. This story was of little relevance to citizens of Calgary; however, due to the fact there was nothing else more relevant CTV ran the story. Although the story wasn’t incredibly important to viewers, it was more important and more relevant than alternative stories and certainly more important that airing nothing.

 

Possibly the most “crowded” or full, news day to date is the day of the September 11th terrorist attack on the world trade center. Countless amounts of stories had to be told, from the death toll, to the first hand accounts to the status of the investigation. This event was very significant to almost all who heard of it and people wanted to know more so it makes sense that it had a considerable amount of news time. However that same day CTV Calgary’s news still found room in its program to address local issues such as a fire that occurred in a downtown apartment building. Because this news, like the news of 9/11, was also relevant to CTV’s target audience and therefore must be reported to them. Local news regarding events in Calgary could not simply be ignored and CTV realized this.

 

A logical method of determining whether or not a certain news item should be included is to compare how “full” a news day is, with how relevant a given story is to the intended audience. On a busy day such as 9/11 when there are many stories to report, a local’s tale of a big foot sighting might not be important enough to take away from air time regarding the terrorist attack. However on a day where there is little news to be reported, the relevance of the big foot story, although low, may be enough for it to make it into the relatively empty newscast. The fact remains that news stations have to report something, determining what to report and what not should be done by ranking the relevance of a given story to its target audience.

[theblackmamba]

1st attempt at a writing sample:

 

In advertising, truth is irrelevant.

Describe a specific situation in which truth in advertising might be relevant. Discuss what you think determines when truth in advertising is irrelevant and when it is relevant.

 

 

I think the statement means that successful advertising is based on whether or not the advertisement generates sales, regardless of the truthfulness of the information presented in the ad. Generally speaking, a businesses primary concern is whether or not their product or service is purchased by consumers. Although the business will benefit from secondary objectives such as creating a honest image and gaining the trust of their customers, success and longevity of a business will only be gained by making a profit via the sale of their product. Thus, the chief purpose of an advertisement is to make a sale, not to present absolute truths.

 

Although it is usually of chief importance for a company's advertisement to generate revenue by any means necessary, it is often significant that the company present truthful facts within their advertisements. For example, George T White Ltd. is a small company based out of Windsor, Ontario that sells automation parts to larger automotive companies such as the "big three" of Chrysler, GM, and Ford. In fact, Chrysler comprises close to 90% of George T White Ltd's sales base. Because of their reliance on repeated sales to a single business, it is essential that George T White Ltd. advertises to Chrysler with complete, truthful disclosure of the specifications of each product, because they rely so heavily on this one company for their revenue, and would ultimately be put out of business if they lost such an important customer.

 

Whether or not the statement applies is based on the consumer makeup of the company that is advertising. If the company has a large, diverse consumer base and does not require repeated purchases from the same individuals or businesses, truth in advertising is not relevant. In this case, it is more important for the advertisement to draw consumers to purchase the product. Although false statements will likely cost the business a few customers, the overall net gain in sales will outweigh the losses. However, if the company is heavily dependent on one or a narrow list of consumers for their revenue, truth in advertising becomes relevant, because they simply can not afford to lose a major customer as a result of false promises.

[anto12e]

Hey,

 

Just a question about writing WS..should i strictly follow the order of the writing task? cuz i'm writing my essay and i thought that hinting the principle in the first paragraph might connect the essay better? Or am I complicating things that might lead to a lower ws mark?

 

Anthony

[anto12e]

Here's my essay..Prompt was sort of easy to brain storm.. so i thought i did relatively good.. please critique!

 

 

In business, it takes money to make money.

 

Describe a specific situation in business where it might not take money to make money. Discuss what you think determines when it takes money to make money in business and when it does not.

 

 

 

In the world of business, a business is an organization that has the intention of optimizing its profits by providing a service or product and money often plays a huge role. Any business that starts from the ground-up requires an investment. This investment generally comes in the form of money because of its versatility nature. Money can be used to provide the necessary business supplies, hire employees and cover the costs of manufactoring or distribution. Only when the business is established or have found its niche, an area where the business excel, can the business expect to see a profit. This monetary profit could've not have been achieved without the original monetary investment. This process can be seen with Apple's Iphone franchise. Apple's decision to enter the telecommunication field at such a late period, where many companies such as Sony and Samsung have established, meant that Apple would face tough competition. As a result, Apple needed to find its niche in the market and felt that the only way it could accomplish this was to find money into its research and development team. Apple spent billions of dollars developing the Iphone's user friendly interface, including the touchscreen capabilities. When the Iphone was released into the market, it became a huge success that led to an enormous profit. It was clear for Apple that it took money to create a product that could be marketed and produce a profit.

 

 

However, the busines world does not solely require one to invest money in order to make money. Many business entrepeneurs who are successful make money because of their valuable skills. These skills that are so unique, makes them one of a kind that they can themself market to make money. In the entertainment business world, many wealthy actors start their career by polishing their acting skills. Take Johnny Depp as an example. When he first started in the early 90's, he didn't have any money whatsoever. What he did have was a skill not everyone else had, a natural ability to act. This valuable skill allowed him to secure motion picture roles such as Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Carribean. His compensation for this role was in the millions because he was the only actor who could accurately portray this character. In this case, Johnny Depp didnt' have any money to make money, he had a skill.

 

 

What determines whether it takes money to make money in a business and when it doesn't comes comes down to whether the business field of discussion. A business that invovles developing, distributing and marketing a product such as the Apple Iphone, doesn't solely depend on one person's skills. Instead, it requires an investment of money to cover the costs necessary to run the business. This original investment led to a development of a product that created an enourmous income. For a business such as in entertainment, skills plays a more important role in income than monetary investment. Johnny Depp, made his fortune by utilizing his acting skills and not by any money. Therefore, it is what the business emphasizes that determines whether money is needed or not to make money.

[marfon]

Oh! It's very beautiful.

See new medical Shop.

[Robio]

Hi, this is the first essay I wrote studying for MCAT, I was wondering if I could get some feedback on it. Thank you!

 

 

 

Some believe that technological improvements have stifled our creativity. In this context, creativity must be understood to mean the ability to express ourselves in unique ways. Those holding this position do so because many new technologies have reverted our attention from activities that promote this very ability, to others that encourage ourselves to be passive. This is apparent in the case of the advent of Youtube because in no ways does it engage our creative mind. The tremendous growth in popularity of Youtube has caused many of us to expend our valuable free time in watching videos that have no positive influence on our ability to express ourselves.

 

On the other hand, other people have objected to this view because while majority of the people watching Youtube opt for “burning” their free time with undesirable videos, some use it to help broaden their creativity. Consider the example where a busy college student wants to use his free time to learn to play the guitar to express himself musically. Youtube can provide a convenient way of learning which would actually facilitate creativity by allowing the student to efficiently use the little free time he has.

 

We cannot simply assert that in all cases technological improvements have suppressed our unique expression. This will in fact depend on the user’s discretion. If the user abuses the new technology to engage in passive activities, the improvement will invariably stifle the user’s creativity. However, when the user recognizes that the new technology can be a more efficient method of pursuing the expression of the unique self, it will lead to an increase in creativity.

[lvillema]

Hi, I've been reading this thread and practicing writing essays for a while. I would really like to get some feedback. It's hard to judge my own essay. Any help is appreciated! thanks

 

Government policy should be directed at addressing the needs of the present.

 

The government has the main objective of implementing policies and laws that will solve or ameliorate societal issues. It is apparent that government policy should, in most cases, be directed at addressing the needs of the present. That is to say that the government should be primarily concerned with society’s current issues, rather than contemplating future concerns. Consider the current situation of increasingly growing wild fires in various regions of British Columbia. The province’s political leaders are very concerned about the safety of those living relatively near the spreading flames and it is their primary objective to stop the fires from spreading and to ultimately end the forest fires before more damage results. The government has thousands of fire fighters and other fire-control crew that are working towards eliminating the fire and supervising the perimeter to ensure more fire won’t start.

 

On the contrary, there are times when it is favourable that the government focus on addressing concerns of the future rather than the needs of the present. Environmental concerns are a good example of an issue that the government often faces, although the effects of pollution and other things that are detrimental to the environment are not necessarily immediate. Climate change is an issue that does not directly affect today’s society in any significant way. Yet, many government bodies are putting more and more emphasis on environmental concerns. In Canada there are many policies that put restrictions on the amount of fuel exhaust that automobiles can emit. In addition, many companies have restrictions on the amount of pollution they can produce, and they are encouraged to reduce their usage of electricity. Although the detrimental effects of climate change are not completely obvious or significant in the present, the government does find it important to make policies restricting pollution in anticipation of it.

 

It may be difficult for a government to weigh the importance of present needs with future, anticipated needs. Yet, in almost all cases it is the present needs that are the priority. If immediate attention is not given to present needs, many detrimental effects may result that could have been avoided. The government of British Columbia needed to step in immediately in order to ensure all the necessary measures were being made to stop the dangerous forest fires from expanding. However, when present needs are temporarily met, are there are few present-day concerns that need to be dealt with, the government must take that time to contemplate future needs and anticipate issues that may arise. This is important because, by doing so, the government may be able to actually prevent a devastating outcome from occurring. Many governments are making more and more policies regarding pollution with the objective of avoiding the increasingly proven hypothesis of global warming.