Writing Sample Critique Corner

[maria]

if I could get some feedback on this WS I would REALLY appreciate it. I ran out of time to edit it so I am posting it exactly as I ended. Thanks in advance. The things that I have been trying to work on are organization and conciseness.

 

 

"A student's academic success depends more on hard work than on intelligence"

 

 

Education is highly sought after and encouraged within society. As education increases, so too do the opportunities that exist for an individual. Academic success is measured as part of education both objectively through the determination of Grade Point Averages as well as more subjectively through personal reflection and growth. As such, it follows that there are two aspects to education 1.) intelligence and 2.) hard work. These two often go hand in hand because one can work hard by reviewing lecture material and practicing outside of the classroom to increase intelligence. There are 2 important factors which should be considered when determining whether a student’s academic success depends more on hard work or intelligence. The first of these two factors is what the students wishes to get out of his or her education and second, how is academic success defined?

 

 

There are two opposing sides to this debate. Some individuals would argue that hard work is the most important becase this shapes the individual and develops good life habits and perseverance and when these characteristics develop, them academic success has been achieved. Still others believe that intelligence is more important because academic success involves “making the grade”. In order to be successful one must demonstrate an understanding of the information to go on to the next level of education. The purpose of education it would be argued is to learn the material and continue to higher levels of education. Indeed, this is often the case. Suppose that a student who will be graduating from high school shortly wishes to apply to a prestigious Ivy League school and upon filling out the application form, he or she is told to provide an academic transcript and two teacher references who can objectively attest to his or her academic capabilities. Nowhere on this application is the student asked how many hours of studying they did per week, if they worked a job, or what their domestic situation was. Therefore in this situation, academic success (the student’s ability to gain acceptance to the school) depends on his or her intelligence.

 

 

There are two factors, already alluded to, which are important and must be considered when determining is academic success depends more on hard work or on intelligence. First, it is important to consider what one wishes to get out of his or her education. Does the student wish to get through their education so that they can reach that high-achieving profession that they have always wanted or does the student want to grow as an individual and appreciate what they have worked for. Second, it is important that academic success be defined. Academic success may be measured as achieving a 4.0/4.0 GPA or it may be to create curiosity and learn about your own strengths and weaknesses as an individual.

 

 

The value of education is very well known and it is hard to argue that education is not an asset, but what one wishes to get out of one’s education and what one defines as academic success are important factors to consider. Students should look to themselves to find answers to these questions and determine if they are academically successful or not.

[maria]

Thanks for the comments. I really appreciate it. My ending is weaker than I would like since I was running out of time and just threw together whatever came out of my mind.

[capitalcity]

First off, I know NOTHING about politics, rights, citizenship, so all help would be appreciated.

 

A country's strength increases in direct proportion to its freedoms.

Describe a specific situation in which a country's strength might not increase in direct proportion to its freedoms. Discuss what you think determines when a country's strength will increase in direct proportion to its freedoms and when it will not.

 

Unity in a democracy often results in conformity.

Describe a specific situation in a democracy when unity might not result in conformity. Discuss what you think determines whether or not unity in a democracy results in conformity.

 

By studying other cultures we increase our understanding of our own culture.

Describe a specific situation in which studying another culture might not increase the understanding of one's own culture. Discuss what you think determines when the study of another culture increases the understanding of one's own culture and when it does not.

 

The privileges of citizenship in a democracy involve responsibilities.

Describe a specific privilege of citizenship in a democracy that might not involve responsibility. Discuss what you think determines when privileges of citizenship in a democracy involve responsibilities.

 

 

Thanks!

[chris]

Please help with this antithesis! I'm writing in 2 days and came across this prompt...

 

The primary concern of business should be the safety of its employees.

 

I can't seem to justify in the second task that safety shouldn't be...

 

thx!

[supafield]

Please help with this antithesis! I'm writing in 2 days and came across this prompt...

 

The primary concern of business should be the safety of its employees.

 

I can't seem to justify in the second task that safety shouldn't be...

 

thx!

First of all I would have defined safety as physical safety in the first paragraph.

 

and then for the antithesis

 

Non-dangerous jobs? It only makes sense that safety is a priority if there is a realistic change the employee can get hurt. It makes no sense for a regular office type environment (insert bank or any other big company) to be overly concerned about safety. They can then move their primary concerns to something like employee Mental health or many other things...

[Violet]

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

 

I just had this on a practice test and I BLANKED. And I'm still blanking. Especially for the anithesis. Help anyone?

[supafield]

ahha i'm doing aamc # 5 today! and just finished writing that prompt and am now on break waiting for the bs section to begin....

 

I just had an ethics class so i talked about some governing ethical principles...

 

basically pro was when testing a new drug the control group has to receive the current standard of treatment, you can't leave them as a true untreated control. While that may impede realizing the benefits of the drug it's untolerable to leave someone untreated... ie: tuskagee syphilis study.

 

anti was the first experimental surgeries on conjoined twins.... when you realize that death likely results in the absence of treatment then it may be ok to take a risky chance to save a life that is otherwise doomed....

[capitalcity]

First off, I know NOTHING about politics, rights, citizenship, so all help would be appreciated.

 

A country's strength increases in direct proportion to its freedoms.

Describe a specific situation in which a country's strength might not increase in direct proportion to its freedoms. Discuss what you think determines when a country's strength will increase in direct proportion to its freedoms and when it will not.

 

Unity in a democracy often results in conformity.

Describe a specific situation in a democracy when unity might not result in conformity. Discuss what you think determines whether or not unity in a democracy results in conformity.

 

By studying other cultures we increase our understanding of our own culture.

Describe a specific situation in which studying another culture might not increase the understanding of one's own culture. Discuss what you think determines when the study of another culture increases the understanding of one's own culture and when it does not.

 

The privileges of citizenship in a democracy involve responsibilities.

Describe a specific privilege of citizenship in a democracy that might not involve responsibility. Discuss what you think determines when privileges of citizenship in a democracy involve responsibilities.

 

 

Bump. Thanks!

[phulmayaa]

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

 

I just had this on a practice test and I BLANKED. And I'm still blanking. Especially for the anithesis. Help anyone?

 

I think you have to ask yourself: to what extent can we use non-human subjects, such as mice and rabbits, for endeavours aiming to improve human health? The use of human subjects, in spite of a potential threat to their lives, is often inevitable in some research development (such as the testing of drug efficacy), yet we continue to allow this in society because of voluntary, informed consent. The subject must be aware of the potential risks involved in an experiment, and his decision to participate must be a choice rooted founded on self-autonomy. This is naturally a stark contrast to the horrid experiments enforced on prisoners by Hitler's people.

[Shadowplay]

First off, I know NOTHING about politics, rights, citizenship, so all help would be appreciated.

 

A country's strength increases in direct proportion to its freedoms.

Describe a specific situation in which a country's strength might not increase in direct proportion to its freedoms. Discuss what you think determines when a country's strength will increase in direct proportion to its freedoms and when it will not.

 

Unity in a democracy often results in conformity.

Describe a specific situation in a democracy when unity might not result in conformity. Discuss what you think determines whether or not unity in a democracy results in conformity.

 

By studying other cultures we increase our understanding of our own culture.

Describe a specific situation in which studying another culture might not increase the understanding of one's own culture. Discuss what you think determines when the study of another culture increases the understanding of one's own culture and when it does not.

 

The privileges of citizenship in a democracy involve responsibilities.

Describe a specific privilege of citizenship in a democracy that might not involve responsibility. Discuss what you think determines when privileges of citizenship in a democracy involve responsibilities.

 

 

Thanks!

 

I really, really like BBC news as an easy to understand source of information for political stuff. They're the best I've found for being completely unbiased, and if you ever want more information about a topic, they link a few related articles to each story. http://www.bbc.co.uk As to your examples above, I'll give examples for the first one, as I definitely need the practise:

 

A country's strength increases in direct proportion to its freedoms.

I would say for thesis, take a look at the members of the G8 - all developed democracies: the USA, Canada, France, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy. As (arguably) democracy is the governmental system providing the most freedom, and the G8 controls collectively huge amounts of economic and political sway, strength increases with freedom.

 

Antithesis: I'd probably go with something along the wars of WWII Germany. Its a cop out maybe, but obviously there weren't a lot of freedoms, and yet Germany managed to begin a war that involved most of the world. I'd say thats a pretty big show of power.

 

I'd think the difference would be aggression and military, based on those two examples, and my argument would end something like "strength is proportional to freedoms enjoyed by the country's people, unless the country's government uses acts of aggression along with military strength to gain power over other nations.

[capitalcity]

Ya, it's the antithesis that kills you. I was thinking of perhaps the neutral countries. During WWII, they could more or less travel anywhere but they aren't powerful as their freedoms rely on others accepting them and not invadind them. Sure, the swedes have an army but...

[Dr.Mash]

I really, really like BBC news as an easy to understand source of information for political stuff. They're the best I've found for being completely unbiased, and if you ever want more information about a topic, they link a few related articles to each story.

 

Dude, there simply can't be such a thing as "completely unbiased", because the extent of bias depends on from what point and what distance you consider it. The BBC news can only be completely unbiased for BBC itself, for others it may be less obvious why, e.g., ordination of gays in Anglican Church is more important than earthquake in China, mentioned closer to the end of the news block.

[med_eng]

Hello

 

First of all, thank you everyone for posting some examples and their responses. They are really helping me, especially since i'm most worried about the writing sample section of the mcat, and i'm writing in a couple of weeks!

 

This is one example I came across today:

 

"Of all the forms of media, television has the strongest influence on the public opinion"

 

This was my thought process (in point form):

 

forms of media: television, newspaper, radio, internet (all have biased opinion)

what is public?: could mean local (town, city) or international; younger generation or older generation

 

Possible essay #1:

- international opinion vs local opinion

- For the general (international) public, television would have the strongest influence because it provides an opinion influenced by many sources worldwide (such as you can have local news, tune into CNN, or BBC news). It also provides footage which is solid evidence to back up the opinion which they are expressing.

- However, for opinion on local matters, it is best provided by a local newspaper or radio station. Furthermore, these are the opinions of your neighbours which you may trust/value more than a tv journalist from another country.

 

Possible essay #2:

- younger generation vs. older generation

- Younger generation strongly influenced, especially in political topics, by television. Many rely on the Colbert Report, and Jon Stewart for their update in political events. It is presented in a convenient package, which includes humour, in a time frame of 1 hour or less.

- Older generation are more influenced by the political opinions expressed in the newspaper and magazines such as Time Magazine. They may see the information presented in these forms of media as more researched and reliable (since it comes from someone who specialized in that field and in the field of journalism). Therefore they would value their opinion more than those expressed in a generalized tv segment.

 

 

Yes....i know the above sounds like the rant of a madman, but please bear with me. Are any of the above ideas any good? (please be honest). And how would you have answered the above statement.

 

Thanks!

[GorillaGlue]

Wow, i'm impressed with how large this thread has grown! Anyways, I was hoping for some critiques for two of my essays. I've tried to use the formats prescribed by Princeton so hopefully they're a little less crappy than my original ones. I have to admit though, I'm still having trouble completing my essay in the 30min time limit. This is what I managed under real-time conditions:

 

1. The primary goal of every business should be to maximize profits.

 

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 maximizing profits might not be the primary goal of a business. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the primary goal of a business should be to maximize profits.

 

All businesses and enterprises exist to serve a particular purpose. Businesses such as manufacturing plants exist to make a product while soft-skilled consulting businesses exist to provide a service. The main goal of these businesses, especially in capitalist markets like Canada, is to provide these goods while minimizing costs and building profits. Building profits means more market share and more room for expansion and growth. The more money a business can generate, the more employees it can hire and the better the overall economy. This is best illustrated by recent closures in car plants in Ontario. Many automobile companies have been unable to maintain profits and are in fact losing money, forcing some to close or be bought out. This has resulted in massive plant closures, adversely affecting the Canadian job market and economy. Companies that do not seek to maximize profits cannot compete in a capitalist market and often fail before emerging. This is due to the fact that companies that do not minimize costs and maximize profits often allocate these costs to the goods, resulting in more expensive and less competitive products. A company that cannot sell its product is doomed for failure. Thus, for the sake of the survival of a company and for the economy in which it is situated, it is best for profit-orienting businesses to seek ways to minimize their costs and maximize their profits.

 

However, there are businesses which exist for more socially-oriented reasons. These businesses are labeled not-for-profit, and while they do not seek to maximize money, they also seek to provide goods and services. Take the Salvation Army for instance. Its main goal is not to maximize profits, but to maximize help and services to at-risk or needy people. They do not rely on purchases of products or services like the aforementioned profit-oriented businesses, but on voluntary donations. Because they depend on the generosity and welfare of others, they do not have to rely on maximizing money in order to survive. As such, instead of prioritizing profits, they can prioritize the reason for their existence: providing of goods and services to less fortunate people.

 

Ultimately, the goals of a business are uniquely determined by the nature of the business. Corporate businesses exist to provide goods and services to the general public, but they do so for self-serving reasons and cannot depend on donations or volunteer labour. These types of businesses must be able to compete with similar businesses, and must therefore provide goods or services at a competitive price. To do this, it is necessary for the company to lower costs where possible, and generate profits for expansion and growth. Not-for-profit businesses, on the other hand, exist for more worthy reasons, such as helping the needy. Thus, they can depend on the general public’s donations and volunteering spirit to maintain the company. Instead of attempting to maximize profits and growth, their main objective is to provide as many goods and services to underserved regions as possible.

 

 

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

 

Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. (etc.)

 

There has been much debate on the topic of children and instant messaging systems. Many parents argue that with the advent of internet and systems such as MSN Messenger, many children spend hours typing at their computer and chatting with their friends instead of interacting on a more social level. While children who commonly chat online have superior typing skills, they often lack public speaking, social and oral skills. Moreover, their grammar and written skills suffer from the chat lingos so often used. Recent advances in communication technology have placed human interaction in an unprecedented framework, and many argue that it has significantly reduced the quality of human interaction as a whole. Instead of encouraging interaction amongst people, it encourages isolation and anonymity, since people can hide behind personas or facades. Users often have no incentive to leave their cyberworld.

 

However, others would argue that these recent advances have enhanced the quality of human interaction. With programs such as Skype, families and friends can use their internet connection to call each other at a low price rate. They can also video call each other, simulating face-to-face interaction. A century ago, the only way to contact a loved one long distance was through letters and impersonal telegrams. Now, technologies like video call allow for more realistic interaction, despite realistic circumstances, and significantly improve communication.

 

Advancements in communication technology, just as in any other technology, has its benefits and its costs. When technology is accused of reducing the quality of human interaction, it is because it has replaced a certain aspect of human interaction. Chatting online has replaced talking, and is thus accused of creating socially-inept and isolated people. However, technologies that increase the quality of human interaction often enhance existing technologies. Video calls enhance telephone conversations by providing face-to-face videos and real-life interaction. Long-distance separations feel smaller and interaction can happen not only on an auditive level, but on a visual level as well.

 

 

FIRE AWAY!!

[GorillaGlue]

HI med_eng, sorry for usurping your post. I came across that same prompt and came up with the following, maybe it'll help:

 

Arguably the most entertaining and relaxing form of media, television has, in the past few decades, managed to find itself in every household in North America. The average Canadian watches over five hours of television per day. When socially-charged issues, such as the recent Tibetan protests in China, come to light, it is through the screen of a television that we become aware of it. When Tibetans started rioting, North American newscasters showed footage of armed Chinese soldiers aggressively battling weaponless monks. The Chinese government was depicted as brutal, violent and over-controlling. This served to illustrate to North Americans the cruelties and barbarism of a Communist government. Where available, more information from television is sourced than the radio, paper and word of mouth collectively. It is no surprise that when it comes to public opinion, its roots can be found in the programs of television.

 

However, with the advent of the world wide web, the internet has shown an even stronger influence on public opinion. As we become more informed through the internet, we also become more aware of television networks’ biases. Take, for instance, the aforementioned example of the Tibetan protests. Chinese television is controlled by the government, and Tibetans were depicted as veritable terrorists. Chinese newscasters showed footage of armed Tibetans destroying homes and deliberately targeting innocent Chinese tourists. The word “terrorist” was, in fact, used by Chinese newscasters to label Tibetans. However, with the help of the internet, Chinese people were able to access North American footage to see a more complete story of the Tibetan protests. Perhaps both the Chinese and Tibetans were brutal and violent to each other, and neither can be portrayed as victims.

 

Television makes us more aware of issues and events, and they force us to have an opinion. It is the most engaging of forms of media as it allows us to experience events with our eyes and our ears. However, television does not necessarily exert an influence on the opinion itself, especially if the television network is strongly biased or censored. Television exerts the strongest influence on public opinion when it is regarded as truthful and unbiased. When programs allow us to see events from various perspectives, we are inclined to believe what we see and hear. It is when television is controlled by governments or biased parties that we question its validity. This is when other forms of media, such as the internet, usurp television’s position as the greatest influence on public opinion.

 

-------

 

If anyone wants to critique this one as well you are more than welcome to!

[goose]

Here's a prompt I thought was a little tough - mainly because when I read it i wasn't sure exactly what it meant until I started jotting some ideas down.

 

In business, competition is superior to cooperation.

 

Write a unified essay.. blah blah blah.

 

In the business world, it is widely appreciated that efficiency is essential to success. When efficiency is increased, be it through more cost or time effective methods of production or service; profits, customer satisfaction, employee cohesiveness and other such important areas of business success are maximized. Keeping a business running as efficiently as possible requires a constant external pressure to evolve the best methods for completing all necessary tasks. This stress often comes in the form of competition. Competition both within the business as occurs between employees, and between businesses that share a market is of utmost importance to well established businesses. Consider a cellular telephone provider that has been running successfully for several years. The employees of that company are driven to complete more sales to better coworkers in hopes of receiving a raise and do so by using time more efficiently. The company is forced to lower rates to compete with other similar companies for the market, and can compensate profits by increasing efficiency at the production level.

 

Another important detail of business is cooperation. Cooperation, much like competition can occur within or between businesses. The cellular telephone providing field is constantly invaded with new companies that strive to get a piece of the so-called corporate pie. In such companies, cooperation is far more important than competition for success. Employees must cooperate with one another to maintain the group dynamic and stay focused on the goals and tasks at hand so that the company stays organized. Cooperation with various engineers and contract workers to build and maintain new networks is essential to ensure that the company has a product to offer. In this case, competition with other larger, more established companies is what ultimately leads to the demise of many of the newcomers. Cooperation is the primary concern for companies that aim to survive in the business world.

 

Ultimately the balance of importance between competition and cooperation is delicate. While more established businesses thrive on competition to maintain efficiency, newer companies, a category in which most of the world's businesses fall, require cooperation between employees and with other contracted companies. Cooperation remains an important aspect of all businesses for the duration of their activity, while competition drives the evolution and success of well-established companies.

 

 

 

Feel free to tear it apart - any advice is greatly appreciated!

[sbrugby]

Hi GorillaGlue, just wanted to provide some comments for your essays on (1) business/profits and (1) technology/communication:

 

(1) Overall I think your ideas are very solid and it is pretty well written. I would highly suggest that you provide more details about your specific examples, and then imbellish on the overall idea. I wish you could be a bit more specific in your automobile industry in example 1 - naming some companies would def. help in my opinion.

 

(2) For this one, I think what you need to do (and always do) is define the prompt in the way you want to interpret and attack it. What defines quality of interaction? How is chatting online less social than talking in real life? How do you define social? If you can't define these things clearly, your argument becomes much weaker.

 

I like your 2nd example, but I think your closing paragraph does not clearly state what your synthesis is. I think I know what your synthesis is, but I can't just assume as a reader.

 

When I wrote the MCAT, I ALWAYS wrote my synthesis clearly as the very first sentence of my last paragraphs. They usually sounded like this: "What determines whether advancements in communication technology have enhanced quality of interaction depends on...". I did this for both my essays, and I did get a T - not saying this is the reason why, but I feel like stating a very clear synthesis in the last paragraph states your argument obviously, and for ppl spending 2 minutes to read this, clear > everything.

[GorillaGlue]

Hi sbrugby,

 

Thanks for the feedback! Looking back on it, you're right, my synthesis lacks preciseness, and moreover, I think my synthesis was even a bit circular.

 

That's amazing you got a T! I'm still struggling with writing these essays in the given 30 min (as you can see below haha).

 

I also have a question for you, did you happen to take any Princeton or Kaplan courses? Or any writing classes? I've been using the Hyperlearning texts from Princeton but I wonder if there are better sources out there for verbal/writing...

[sbrugby]

I took the Princeton courses..... I thought their method for the WS was the best, though I don't think they give the best example essays in their book...

[golfyfan]

Hi, I'm wondering if someone can critique my samples. I have someone helping me but I'd like to get more opinions if possible. Sorry if the grammar/ spelling is unbearable, I'm still taking around 35 minutes/ essay and rushing to finish on time. So I did not get anytime to correct for those.

 

Critique away! Thanks in advance!

 

In a free society, laws must be subject to change.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a law should not be subject to change in a free society. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a law in a free society should be subject to change.

 

In a free society, laws are made for the protection of its citizens and their properties. They are made by politicians who came into power by obtaining the popular vote. Therefore, the laws reflect the will of the majority and everyon must abide by them. A free society in this essay will have the same meaning as a democratic society. The will of the majority may change from generation to generation, and as a result, laws may be subject to change as well; as long as such change do not violate the fundamental rules of the human race essential for specie survival. A comparison of Canada in the 1800th and present provides an instance where a law was subject to change. In 18th century Canada, women did not have any rights. They were not allowed to vote, to work, or have any say to their body. Abortion was prohibited and illegal in order to protect the life of the fetus. 300 years later, Canadian law has changed regarding abortion to allow the woman’s right to abortion if they so choose. This change in law stemmed from the increase in rights women now are entitled to and have become equals to men. Now both sexes enjoy such rights as rights to vote, to hold public office and rights to his/ her own body.

 

However, in different circumstances where a change to the law is so drastic that it violates the fundamental principles the human race abides by such as one that results in the extinction of our species, then such change in law may not be permitted. For example, if a new religion promoting cannibalism had the majority as followers, they may push for a change in law to allow cannibalism as a legally permitted activity. However, such practice will have devastating effects on society such as prion diseases, decreased morals and most importantly, it may lead to the extinction of the human race. Therefore, certain essential laws, such as ones that protects the human race from extinction should not be changed.

 

It becomes evident from the examples above that in a free society, a law may be subject to change when it does not have serious, detrimental results to society; while a law that may have such devastating affects should not be allowed to be made from pre-existing law. The conditions listed above provide a good starting point to understand the conditions when a law may be subject to change in a society, but as with most rules in life, there will be instances when they are fallible. Further critical evaluation of each novel situation in addition to these rules will lead to the best understanding of when a law may be subject to changes in a free society.

 

The best politician is the one most removed from politics.

 

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 the best politician might not be the one most removed from politics. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the best politician is the one most removed from politics.

 

Politicians plays an important role in every citizen’s life, from the amount of tax they pay to how they perceive other nations based on their country’s diplomatic relations with that country. The definition of a good politician is one who despite criticism and resistance, is able to changes their country for the better in the long run. Politics, in this essay is characterized by the opinion of majority, whether it be majority of the people, or majority of the voting powers. Martin Luther King would be an example of a good politician who was most removed from politics. He supported the notion of equal rights and opportunity for all races in a time period where only whites are allowed to vote; many of whom did not support his cause. He did not push the issue for political reasons; nor did he hope to gain the most vote by pushing his issue since only whites were allowed to vote and they did not like the idea of equal opportunity and rights for blacks. He did it because he felt a more tolerant society of equal opportunities for all would change his country for the better, even if most people did not see it this way in the short run.

 

However, in different circumstances where the majorities opinion is to change their country for the better, a good politician should be one that listens to its citizens and has close ties with politics. Gandi fighting for the independence of India provides one such example. Back when India was a British colony, Indians felt and despised the suppression by the British. Indians felt becoming independent from Britain and establishing their own country would provide a better life for them and their children. Gandi, being a prominent politician at that time, listened to the voice his people and agreed that India would be better off as an independent country. Gandi was a great politician because of his close ties with his people, he was able to change his country for the better. India is the only former British colony able to negotiate its independence without any violence.

 

It becomes evident from examples above that a politician is good when he/ she is removed from the politics when he is pushing an issue in which the majority does not agree with, but is the right thing to do for the future of their country. A politician is good when he/ she listens to the public’s opinion when that opinion is inline with policies that will improvement the future of their country. The conditions listed above provide a good starting point to understand the nature of a politician’s tie with politics, but as with most rules in life, there will be instances when they are fallible. Further critical evaluation for each novel situation in addition to these rules will lead to the best understanding of what makes the best politician.

[always_panicked]

Hey everyone,

What a helpful thread! I was just wondering, in terms of the writing sample, do they prefer a nice intro before you set up what you think the statement means...I've been studying from the Princeton material and they say to basically begin your essay with "This statement means..." directly, and I've noticed no one's been doing that (although you all can write fabulous essays!)....also, how long should they be? I'm averaging between 350-400 words :-S ....and how specific do the examples have to be? In some cases I've been using really specific, historical examples, but also more theoretical/hypothetical examples that are not necessarily fact based.

 

 

Thank you so much for any help you can provide!

[GorillaGlue]

Hello everyone,

 

I came across this prompt and was hoping I could get some help with it:

 

Discovery of the truth leads to justice.

 

I thought of debating the idea of justice (justice in a legitimized, social sense vs justice on a personal/individual level), and how though the discovery of truth leads to the correct conclusion (guilty/not guilty), it does not necessarily lead to justice.

 

However, I can see that my essay is weak and was hoping for a better synthesis. Here it is for reference:

 

Justice is defined by social law, and by the people who govern a nation. In Canada, we define justice by the punishments associated with a crime. Unlike the Code of Hammurabi’s “An eye for an eye” philosophy, Canadian law seeks to eventually reintegrate convicts into society. They do this by encouraging good behavior for convicts with incentives like reduced sentences, lower-security prisons and programs for reintegration into society. Justice in the form of revenge or brutality is dismissed as immoral and personal.

 

When a person is accused of a crime, it is the task for both the defense team and crown attorney team to determine the details of the crime, and whether or not the person is guilty or not guilty. Using resources such as investigators, specialists, field experts and modern technology such as DNA identification, both teams attempt to discover the truth about the crime and the people involved. By discovering the truth of a crime, the proper measures of justice, as defined by social law, can be implemented. Take, for example, the case of Harry Winefield who was accused of raping and brutally murdering his 10-year old niece. He was sentenced to death and had been on death row for 15 years. It was only recently, with the implementation of modern technology like DNA testing, that he was pardoned after DNA testing proved that he was innocent. It was only by continuously trying to discover the truth that legitimized justice was attained: Winefield was found not guilty and was freed.

 

However, to many including Winefield himself, freedom after 15 years in jail awaiting death is hardly justice. On a fundamental level, we see justice as “fair”. If someone were to dismember another, justice would see that person dismembered as well. For people such as Winefield, justice would see the shame, the fear and the mental torture he endured, inflicted on those who wrongly convicted him. Likewise, when neighbours concealed behind the identity of a virtual boy named Josh bullied and verbally abused young Megan Meier into suicide, justice would have seen some form of punishment used. For Mrs. Meier, justice would have seen them imprisoned at the very least. Instead, the neighbours were not accused or convicted of any crime. Though the discovery of truth eventually leads to the correct conclusion, it does not necessarily lead to justice as defined by an individual.

 

What ultimately determines if the discovery of truth leads to justice depends on what definition of justice is used. The discovery of the truth tells us who is guilty or not guilty and leads to justice in a social and unbiased context. We use laws and guidelines to determine the appropriate course of action: either sentencing if the accused is found guilty, or freedom if the accused is found innocent. These laws ensure fair treatment for all people by removing emotionally-influencing factors such as revenge. However, on a personal and individual level, the discovery of truth does not lead to the justice sought. The world was outraged to hear of Meier’s bully-inflicted suicide, and though social justice saw them as innocent, many felt the need to administer their own form of justice by bullying her neighbours and their children. Vigilantes, including famous comic book heroes and their fans, feel that the discovery of truth does not lead to the type of justice they feel is appropriate. To them, the discovery of truth only underlines the failures of society’s idea of justice.

[always_panicked]

Hey everyone,

What a helpful thread! I was just wondering, in terms of the writing sample, do they prefer a nice intro before you set up what you think the statement means...I've been studying from the Princeton material and they say to basically begin your essay with "This statement means..." directly, and I've noticed no one's been doing that (although you all can write fabulous essays!)....also, how long should they be? I'm averaging between 350-400 words :-S ....and how specific do the examples have to be? In some cases I've been using really specific, historical examples, but also more theoretical/hypothetical examples that are not necessarily fact based.

 

 

Thank you so much for any help you can provide!

 

 

 

bump.....

[takashi]

Hi guys,

 

You guys are such awesome essay writers. Ive written only a few and definitely need to work on my examples. Heres an essay I wrote last week and I was hoping if guys can look it over. Thanks in advance, your help is greatly appreciated.

 

Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news.

 

Reporters should want to report the facts in the news. The news that they report has a large influence on the opinions of the people. Therefore, what they say in the news can cause change. Consider global warming, a dilemma that is scientifically proven to exist. Because most people do not have the scientific background to understand the significance of climate change, they rely on the news. If reporters state the facts about global warming and how it can dramatically change the environment, people may begin to go "green" and try to help reduce their contribution to global warming. In this example, reporting the facts have resulted in positive change and has benefited everyone as a result.

 

There are situations, however, when reporters should be subjective about the news they report. For instance, during World War II, the news that Canada received about the War was often not entirely true. If the Canadian citizens heard that many Canadian soldiers were being killed in the war, they might lose morale and no longer support the war. Their support was crucial because Canada relied on the citizens to produce equipment and warfare necessary for the war. Therefore, it was necessary for the reporters to not report the all the facts, but change it to maintain the morale of the country. If they reported the facts, this would have resulted in a negative change and everyone would have suffered.

 

Whether reporters should the facts or not depends on whether it results in a positive or negative change. In the global warming example, by reporting the facts to the people, positive change has resulted because the environment will benefit from people going "green". However, if reporting the facts results in a negative change, such as decreasing the morale of the country in WWII, then reporters should distort the truth to prevent suffering.

[eng_dude786]

Hi guys,

 

You guys are such awesome essay writers. Ive written only a few and definitely need to work on my examples. Heres an essay I wrote last week and I was hoping if guys can look it over. Thanks in advance, your help is greatly appreciated.

 

Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news.

 

Reporters should want to report the facts in the news. The news that they report has a large influence on the opinions of the people. Therefore, what they say in the news can cause change. Consider global warming, a dilemma that is scientifically proven to exist. Because most people do not have the scientific background to understand the significance of climate change, they rely on the news. If reporters state the facts about global warming and how it can dramatically change the environment, people may begin to go "green" and try to help reduce their contribution to global warming. In this example, reporting the facts have resulted in positive change and has benefited everyone as a result.

 

There are situations, however, when reporters should be subjective about the news they report. For instance, during World War II, the news that Canada received about the War was often not entirely true. If the Canadian citizens heard that many Canadian soldiers were being killed in the war, they might lose morale and no longer support the war. Their support was crucial because Canada relied on the citizens to produce equipment and warfare necessary for the war. Therefore, it was necessary for the reporters to not report the all the facts, but change it to maintain the morale of the country. If they reported the facts, this would have resulted in a negative change and everyone would have suffered.

 

Whether reporters should the facts or not depends on whether it results in a positive or negative change. In the global warming example, by reporting the facts to the people, positive change has resulted because the environment will benefit from people going "green". However, if reporting the facts results in a negative change, such as decreasing the morale of the country in WWII, then reporters should distort the truth to prevent suffering.

 

Hey takashi,

 

I think you got the layout down pat. You've answered what they were asking for and that means you're probably on the right track. I don't have much to say but maybe you could work on a smoother flow for the whole essay. Like use a hook for the opening paragraph or something like that. But overall you are on the right track I think