Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Writing Sample Critique Corner


eng_dude786

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have any ideas on the following prompt:

 

Discovery of the truth leads to justice.

 

someone posted their response to this prompt. although i would approach it a little differently.

 

i simply start off by defining key terms, so in this case truth and justice are the ones that stick out.

 

truth can be a set of facts that have been verified. and justice as a quality of being fair in a judicial setting it would be one that would allow for the a harmonious relationship between conflicting parties.

 

so you can go about the thesis, in a legal setting.

 

and the antithesis can be done with to what extent truth is verified. again taking examples from teh previous poster, you can say how in the initial investigation all fingers pointed to the initial person, then with the advent of dna fingerprinting and the advancement of molecular biology or wtv, we were able to determine that this was not the case. you can use examples of cases that were later shown to be mistaken and draw the line as in this case, the need to discover the truth as defined earlier did not exactly lead to justice in this instance

 

your synthesis can be depending on how truth is defined, and how facts are conducted to obtain truth, it can or cannot lead to justice.

 

hope this helps. it's obviously not the greatest of essays but i think with a little bit of thought and development you can spin it in a way to ensure that you complete all the tasks coherently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 327
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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

Compromise demands that each party in the compromise lose something

 

Hi,

 

For the second prompt, I'd approach it as such:

 

Thesis: Compromise necessarily requires that each party take a step back from their original position, and they lose something in doing so. For example, when land quarrels are settled by compromising, each party will receive less land than what they were arguing for.

 

Antithesis: Compromise does not always results in a loss by both parties. For example, during intellectual or moral arguements, instead of being arrogant and holding one's view as truth, the parties can learn to compromise with eachother. By doing so, they will start to see the points in the other person's arguements, and will learn to broaden their perspectives.

 

Resolution: Whether someone gains or loses from compromising depends on the matter at hand. If it's an arguement over tangible things such as money or land, compromising will result in a loss on both parties. Otherwise, the parties might actually gain from learning to compromise.

 

The examples might not be very good, but that's the best that i can come up with. I think it'll be sufficient for fulfilling the tasks. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys....mcat in 8 days.....completely neglected WS section until now....focusing on the other sections too much....kinda freaking out because my writing is not that good.....so just want to post something here and please help me critique!

 

My problem is coming up with examples in such a short time.....can anyone give me some ideas that I can use?

 

Heres my topic:

 

Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please voters, not on that is best for country.

 

A democratic government is one where every citizen has a right to vote and elect the people that will represent them in the government. A majority of the vote is required for a politician to be elected, and each politician will have their own campaign and goals to convince the voters to choose them. Often in these campaigns, the goal is to get the most support any means necessary, even if it will not benefit the country.

 

In the recent election in Hong Kong, instead of more important issues like minimal wage and protection against SARS, most of the politicians have been focusing their campaigns on getting the common citizen the right to elect the Hong Kong prime minister. Currently, the prime minister is elected through a board composed of members in the highest ranks in Chinese government. However, even if politicians succeed in getting the citizens the right to vote for the prime minister, it will still not be as influential as the vote of the members of the selected board members.

During extreme situations, politicians might use methods to help the greater good and ignore the majority. For example, the government in Vancouver used millions of tax dollars to set up legal drug injection site all over the city to provide free drugs to all the drug addicts in the city. They claim it will be safer for the general public for them to do drugs in a safe and controlled environment is better than on the streets. The idea was certainly for the greater good of the public, however, the majority was not pleased with spending millions of tax dollars to legally give free drugs to addicts.

So the question is when will the politician have to make this decision to favor the majority of voters or to do what is best for the country? It all depends on the situation. If the situation is uncontrollable like the drug problem in Vancouver east side and only new and radical changes, which might not please the public, can be implemented, it should be done for the greater good. Under normal situations, the politician will most likely try to please the public rather their the greater good, since it is a easier and more logically way for the politician to persuade more voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys....mcat in 8 days.....completely neglected WS section until now....focusing on the other sections too much....kinda freaking out because my writing is not that good.....so just want to post something here and please help me critique!

 

My problem is coming up with examples in such a short time.....can anyone give me some ideas that I can use?

 

Heres my topic:

 

Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please voters, not on that is best for country.

 

A democratic government is one where every citizen has a right to vote and elect the people that will represent them in the government. A majority of the vote is required for a politician to be elected, and each politician will have their own campaign and goals to convince the voters to choose them. Often in these campaigns, the goal is to get the most support any means necessary, even if it will not benefit the country.

 

In the recent election in Hong Kong, instead of more important issues like minimal wage and protection against SARS, most of the politicians have been focusing their campaigns on getting the common citizen the right to elect the Hong Kong prime minister. Currently, the prime minister is elected through a board composed of members in the highest ranks in Chinese government. However, even if politicians succeed in getting the citizens the right to vote for the prime minister, it will still not be as influential as the vote of the members of the selected board members.

During extreme situations, politicians might use methods to help the greater good and ignore the majority. For example, the government in Vancouver used millions of tax dollars to set up legal drug injection site all over the city to provide free drugs to all the drug addicts in the city. They claim it will be safer for the general public for them to do drugs in a safe and controlled environment is better than on the streets. The idea was certainly for the greater good of the public, however, the majority was not pleased with spending millions of tax dollars to legally give free drugs to addicts.

So the question is when will the politician have to make this decision to favor the majority of voters or to do what is best for the country? It all depends on the situation. If the situation is uncontrollable like the drug problem in Vancouver east side and only new and radical changes, which might not please the public, can be implemented, it should be done for the greater good. Under normal situations, the politician will most likely try to please the public rather their the greater good, since it is a easier and more logically way for the politician to persuade more voters.

 

Hello there, first of all I'd just like to say that I got my MCAT score back and received an S, so I may be of some use on this forum!

 

Your examples are concrete and could serve well on this essay topic, however I think you need to elaborate on the explanation of each side further, instead of making your examples the highlight of your paragraphs. Instead, try and explain more in-depth how and why politicians would side with voters at the cost of their country, and the opposite situation.

 

I was also taught to avoid writing questions that I will be answering, but I'm not sure if this is everyone's perception. Also, a more interesting opening and closing statement may help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured I'd add to the thread:

 

Consider the following statement:

 

The best kind of education encourages students to question authority.

 

Write a unified essay in which you accomplish the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which encouraging students to question authority is not the best kind of education. Discuss what you think determines when students should be encouraged to question authority.

 

---

 

This statement implies that educators are not all-knowing – imperfect from a scholastic perspective – and that the educational process is far from being static. In other words, it is implying that the best way to educate generation after generation of students is to place the students in learning environments where they have the capacity to innovate. Oftentimes, innovation involves challenging authorities – textbooks, educators and so-called experts in the field.

 

However, this method of education – this learning environment – might not always be the most effective. Take for instance an introductory level course in a foreign language. In this case, a student is entering totally unfamiliar territory. There are few or no prior skills learned that can be used to benefit this educational experience. The student is essentially dependent on the educator to provide the framework for which is necessary for more advanced knowledge to be acquired.

 

But there are situations in which refusal to question authority can be detrimental to the education experience. Graduate programs at the university level are less confined to a specific curriculum for this very reason. Usually, such programs are looking to train the next generation of innovators within a particular field. How can one innovate if he cannot challenge principles or individuals that he disagrees with? Innovation is bred from new ideas, not by rehearsing established laws or by bowing down to an expert in the field. Students entering graduate programs already have a strong foundation of knowledge upon which advancements and discoveries can be made. In fact, such students are often considered in a position to educate. Take, for example, the involvement of teaching assistants in undergraduate programs.

 

It is hard to say that there is a “best” type of education when it comes to challenging authority. It very much depends on the level of prior education a person has received in the relevant area. It would be counterproductive to constantly challenge an educator when you have no knowledge to base these challenges on. However, as one acquires the necessary foundational knowledge – whatever that may be – it would be counterproductive NOT to challenge authorities upon which you disagree if you are looking to spark a passion for discovery.

 

---

 

Any feedback is appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so this is the first essay i've written in over 3 years so feel free to tear it apart, any help would be greatly appreciated. Its a little too short for my liking, but anyways, thanks in advance.

 

In a free society, individuals must be allowed to do as they choose.

 

Describe a specific situation in which individuals in a free society should not be allowed to do as they choose. Discuss what you think determines when a free society is justified in restricting an individual's actions.

 

Throughout life, people come across millions of situations, in which they, themselves, are to make a decision about what to do. May it be as trivial as what coffee the individual chooses to drink on his way to work, or as life altering as whether an individual chooses to go to college of not. A free society is one in which citizens have the right to make their own choices, based on their own personal beliefs and values, without any law preventing them from doing so.

 

However, there are certain situations, when an individuals own will, is overpowered by the well being of society. Take drinking and driving for example; although in Canada, a country where freedom is given top priority, there is no law prohibiting individuals (of legal age) from drinking, there is a strict law against drinking and driving. This law serves to protect the community and save lives of innocent people, who would otherwise have been victims of possible fatal accidents.

 

A free society is justified in restricting an individual’s actions, when those actions have detrimental effects on the society. By doing so, these laws not only provide safety to other individuals, but also serve to improve the society as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Hi gus I was having a little difficulty coming up with ideas/examples for this prompt. I hope you can help me! I have my thesis, but dont know what to write for the antithesis.

 

The most successful political leaders are those who flatter their constituents

 

In order for politicians to be elected, they have to appeal to their constituents. They must express their opinions, thoughts and ideas of how they’re going to make the world a better place for its citizens. Once the citizens feel that they have been satisfied, they may decide to vote for the politician. Through persuasion and perhaps some flattering, those politicians that are most persuasive and convincing are the ones that may become elected. Flattering is anything that may make the constituent, the voter, feel like their needs and wants are being met. Hitler was an extremely charismatic individual who could easily convince people and make them believe everything he said was true. He was able to successfully influence the German population into voting him into power, so that he could restore Germany to the powerful state it once was and solve all of the problems created by the Treaty of Versailles. By appealing to his citizens needs and wants, he was able to come to power, thus showing that he was successful.

 

For the antithesis I was thinkin something along the lines of:

When success is measured from a politicians perspective, they could have a different definition than what you might think.

No one likes president bush

But he made people aware of terrorism maybe too aware but he took action to prevent another event like 9/11 from occurring

Without his “war on terrorism” proposal many Americans would be unaware of the many terrorist groups in the world today

Terrorism doesn’t only impact Americans, but it is felt worldwide when an even like that occurs.

He’s successful because he created awareness but not many people liked him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys I just write this. I had some trouble coming up with ideas. Feel free to tear it apart and let me now how I can make it better!

 

To master teachnology is to become enslaved by it

 

In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Frankenstein, the doctor, slvaed away day and night trying to create life in a laboratory. He isolated himself from his freinds and family and worked like a madman to create

a human being scientifically. In the end, his creation caused him to die. This is a perfect example of an individual who tried to master technology and became enslaved by it. Technology often forces us to

slave over it, trying to figure out complicated instructions for its use. Technology is a device formed with the help of advanced scientific knowledge. Video games are becoming ever so increasingly

popular and newer games are being invented to keep children entertained. When an individual first begins to learn about video games, he has to learn about te controls on the controller, which can become

quite complicated. After hours of trying to figure out which button does what, the player must learn the object of the game and then try to play the game. However, that still is not enough. Noiw the player

needs to achieve hte highest possible score. This can take up to weeks and months to master. In order to master a game, which was intended for entertainment, we are finding an increasing number of kids

whose physical activity levels are declning rapidly.

 

The purpose of technology is to make life easier and more efficient for humans. Dishwashers and microwaves have sped up the rate at which chores are completed so people have more time to enjoy themselves,

rather than be stuck inside managing household chores. It used to take weeks in order to keep communication with other people via mailing overseas or to other coutries. With teh help of teh internet

and emailing, people can keep in contact withtheir lvoed ones and family members without the hassle of postage stamps, mailing and then waiting for a reply. Emaling can be done over minutes! No

enslaving. technology is here to help us live better lives with higher standard and quality of life. In 2006 Bush advised college graduates to not become enslaved by technology. He stated that technology

was there to help humanity not the other way around.

 

Some technology requires more effort and time to get used to, whereas other technology is there for th primary purpose of

making life easier. Technology can be in the form of entertainment or a requirement in life.

Such as a complicated smartphone required by some companies today. Thus, technology can be beneficial without being enslaved by it, but one must learn how to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most successful political leaders are those who flatter their constituents

 

For the antithesis I was thinkin something along the lines of:

When success is measured from a politicians perspective, they could have a different definition than what you might think.

 

Success for a politician should not merely be to gain and maintain power by flattering their constituents. Rather, success is to be measured by political leaders confronting issues head-on with a view to the betterment of society, whether or not this is popular with the voters. Hitler bent society to his destructive will. Obama is accused of interference in the economic fabric of society as he influences the auto and banking industries that were in self-destruct mode, is accused of interference as he tries to shake up health insurance and improve healthcare. He is taking on Israel over settlements, not necessarily a popular move, but makes himself more credible as being even handed, as he searches to create an Israeli-Palestine peace. Success requires leadership first and pleasing the constituency as a secondary consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey q. question:

 

Is is favourable to use personal experiences in driving your point home in the prompt?

 

Can words be interpreted differently. For example in the past education prompt I interpreted 'education' as not only being formal education, which would be used to teach skills but life education to teach values b/c the prompt did not specify only formal education.

 

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) Personal examples typically < local real world examples < international real world examples (remember, the person/computer correcting your essay will be in the states.

 

2.) Generally advisable to spend a few sentences in your first paragraph defining your terms. Win-win because you fill space and make things clear.

 

WS is actually the section that I excelled at on the real deal. I got an S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, I wrote the following 2 essays and am wondering if I could get some feedback- I did them within the 30 minutes and am not feeling confident with this section so any comments/suggesstions are welcome!:o

 

A teacher's job is not to provide the right answers, but to ask the right questions.

Describe a specific situation in which a teacher's job might be to provide the right answers. Discuss what you think determines when a teacher's job is to ask the right questions and when it is to provide the right answers.

 

A teacher is a hugely influential figure in a person’s academic quest however the role of a teacher changes with the level of education. Higher level education aims to produce the innovators of tomorrow and construct individuals who are continual learners. The aim at this level is not to present the information ‘on a silver platter’ and ‘spoon feed’ students, but rather facilitate a student’s inquiry so that they learn how to learn and gain the tools to discover and be innovators in their field. This is reflected in McMaster Universities’ focus on inquiry learning and their expanding use of problem based learning, PBL. This type of learning is not that of the traditional classroom where lectures and textbooks present information that must be regurgitated on tests, but rather where a trigger is presented and the students are free from there to chart their own path of learning and investigate into the areas that really intrigue them. Along the way facilitators ask questions to help direct the students learning and force the students to consider their knowledge gaps or possible directions for future learning. Asking the right questions in this situation is an advent to a rich learning experience that can greatly impact the students.

 

Before one can self-direct their learning and take responsibility for their academic inquiry, however, they need to have a strong understanding of basic principles in the field. Much of our knowledge base is constructed throughout Elementary school and High school where a teacher’s primary role is to present information and know the answers to student’s questions regarding these topics. Being able to impart accurate knowledge to the students takes president for teachers in these learning institutions as students are aiming to acquire an understanding and lay a solid knowledge base for future academic endevours. This is reflected in the standardized tests imposed in British Columbia, where all high school students must take the same final exams for each course and must pass these exams to complete the course and eventually enter higher level education. It is believed the knowledge and concepts learned in high school are so fundamental to later academic success that it should be standardized throughout the province. Success in obtaining the appropriate academic material will hopefully lay the foundation for future innovated work. It is only through the accurate presentation of information by the teachers and them being able to aid the students learning by providing factual answers to their questions that students acquire this academic foundation.

 

It is the ultimate goal to build students into future innovators and this requires a specific sequence of academic pursuits. In High school a student is laying the framework for their academic future by acquiring basic factual knowledge. This information is best obtained by the straightforward presentation of facts by the teachers and the teacher being more knowledgeable in the subject area to be able to answer any questions imposed on them by the students. Once one has enough basic knowledge they can then start to investigate further into areas of interests and take learning into their own hands. This takes a different set of tools that can best be constructed by teachers asking the right questions. Therefore to produce the ‘innovators of tomorrow’ a teachers job is both to have the right answers and to ask the right questions but when to do so depends on the level of academic education.

 

 

Successful political candidates are those in whom the voters see the most flattering image of themselves.

Describe a specific situation in which a successful political candidate might not represent the most flattering image of the voters. Discuss what you think determines when political candidates succeed because of the flattering image they present to voters.

 

A political candidate’s goal in a democratic society is to be elected by the people as their representative and one is successful in this endeavor if the citizens believe the candidate is one who will best represent their country and their views and who will be the strongest leader. When one individual represents an entire country citizens are inclined to choose the candidate that will convey the most flattering image of them and their country. The most recent presidential election of the United States resulted in the inauguration of President Obama. He is the first African American president, is well spoken, strong willed, and direct. His image is also one of high intelligence and having the power to influence change; a very strong leader. He also creates an image about America as accepting, multicultural, embarking on the new, and a force for change. This change is greatly desired because of the declining faith of American citizens in the government with the current recession and the continuing war that has lost public support. Obama was elected because of the idealized image that citizens saw in him at a time where this higher image was needed to increase American hope for future positive change in their society.

 

When change is not a prominent thought in public opinion it is not necessarily the best and the brightest that one wants as their political representative, but rather one who is most identifiable and similar to them. A relatable political leader is desired, one who also has their flaws, and that can be seen as human and not above the rest of the society. This constructs the ideology that the candidate will best represent their views because they too also are a citizen of society and can relate to the opinions of the greater whole. When great change in the fabric of a society is not strongly desired, citizens enjoy the fact that they can relate to their political leader and will elect one who best represents the ‘real’ image of their society. If one looks at the image constructed of President George W. Bush during his elections it was one of a typical southern man or cowboy type, reinforced with his strong Texas accent, his visits to his Ranch, and the fact that he owned the Texas Rangers baseball team. These qualities separated him from the superior intellectuals and brought him down to the level of the people, demonstrating true ‘American’ qualities and made him relateable. At the time the country was satisfied with the way things were running and elected Bush because he was the familiar. This popular public opinion of Bush remained for the following few years.

 

At a time of change, citizens desire a strong force for change and a flattering image of a individual who is viewed as above the average individual provides hope for this change. A candidate that is seen as greater than the average citizen is successful in this situation because they are seen as having the power to have and influence over current situations and create an impact. When drastic socioeconomic change is not desired or required by a society, a more relatable political candidate is elected because they are seen to be the best to represent the society throughout their political term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of examples for the following and know the liberal and conservative beliefs pretty well - like stance on abortion, gay marriage, environment, affirmative action, economy, etc. But I can't think of a 'rule' or dichotomy of when they are described by what they oppose vs. not. In my mind they are described by both depending on the issue at hand but thats not really concrete at all! Any ideas??

 

A political party's position is often defined by what the party opposes.

Describe a specific situation in which a political party's position might not be defined by what the party opposes. Discuss what you think determines when a political party's position is defined by what the party opposes and when it is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studier44,

 

I have a flight to catch so I'll make this quick:

 

Grammar/Spelling/Style:

1. Avoid colloquialisms ("hugely"). That goes for just about any written thing. Try thinking of more professional words instead (substantially, greatly, considerably). Also, be very careful of expressions ("spoon-feed").

2. Try reading a bit more, you're using homonyms which a big no-no: " takes president for teachers" should be "takes PRECEDENCE for teachers"

3. Make use of commas, to break up your sentences. For instance, "This information is best obtained by the straightforward presentation of facts by the teachers and the teacher being more knowledgeable in the subject area to be able to answer any questions imposed on them by the students." would be better written as "This information is best obtained by the straightforward presentation of facts by the teachers and the teacher, being more knowledgeable in the subject area, should be able to answer any questions imposed on them by the students."

4. Break up your sentences in general, they're a bit long (i.e. "

A political candidate’s goal in a democratic society is to be elected by the people as their representative and one is successful in this endeavor if the citizens believe the candidate is one who will best represent their country and their views and who will be the strongest leader."). Notice you have three "Ands" in there. You could easily break it up into two sentences.

 

 

Idea wise:

You understand the idea of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and you're giving examples which is excellent. However, you could make your TAS more concise. Keep the descriptions of what the words mean, but make your arguments crystal clear. You do a good job of tying in your examples, but if you had crystal clear arguments, it could be even better.

 

Study wise:

I would first practice and master the written area without using a time-limit. There are some really good example essays by Kaplan/Princeton in their books you can use for reference. Have your essays read by people you trust as well. Writing was actually my weak area and I went from an N on my practice tests to an R on the real thing. The key is to master the essay first, and with practice, you'll find that you'll be able to write it easily in 30 min. (Also, the examples/arguments you come up with can often be reused for various prompts).

 

Good luck, and I hope this helped!

 

 

Hi Guys, I wrote the following 2 essays and am wondering if I could get some feedback- I did them within the 30 minutes and am not feeling confident with this section so any comments/suggesstions are welcome!:o

 

A teacher's job is not to provide the right answers, but to ask the right questions.

Describe a specific situation in which a teacher's job might be to provide the right answers. Discuss what you think determines when a teacher's job is to ask the right questions and when it is to provide the right answers.

 

A teacher is a hugely influential figure in a person’s academic quest however the role of a teacher changes with the level of education. Higher level education aims to produce the innovators of tomorrow and construct individuals who are continual learners. The aim at this level is not to present the information ‘on a silver platter’ and ‘spoon feed’ students, but rather facilitate a student’s inquiry so that they learn how to learn and gain the tools to discover and be innovators in their field. This is reflected in McMaster Universities’ focus on inquiry learning and their expanding use of problem based learning, PBL. This type of learning is not that of the traditional classroom where lectures and textbooks present information that must be regurgitated on tests, but rather where a trigger is presented and the students are free from there to chart their own path of learning and investigate into the areas that really intrigue them. Along the way facilitators ask questions to help direct the students learning and force the students to consider their knowledge gaps or possible directions for future learning. Asking the right questions in this situation is an advent to a rich learning experience that can greatly impact the students.

 

Before one can self-direct their learning and take responsibility for their academic inquiry, however, they need to have a strong understanding of basic principles in the field. Much of our knowledge base is constructed throughout Elementary school and High school where a teacher’s primary role is to present information and know the answers to student’s questions regarding these topics. Being able to impart accurate knowledge to the students takes president for teachers in these learning institutions as students are aiming to acquire an understanding and lay a solid knowledge base for future academic endevours. This is reflected in the standardized tests imposed in British Columbia, where all high school students must take the same final exams for each course and must pass these exams to complete the course and eventually enter higher level education. It is believed the knowledge and concepts learned in high school are so fundamental to later academic success that it should be standardized throughout the province. Success in obtaining the appropriate academic material will hopefully lay the foundation for future innovated work. It is only through the accurate presentation of information by the teachers and them being able to aid the students learning by providing factual answers to their questions that students acquire this academic foundation.

 

It is the ultimate goal to build students into future innovators and this requires a specific sequence of academic pursuits. In High school a student is laying the framework for their academic future by acquiring basic factual knowledge. This information is best obtained by the straightforward presentation of facts by the teachers and the teacher being more knowledgeable in the subject area to be able to answer any questions imposed on them by the students. Once one has enough basic knowledge they can then start to investigate further into areas of interests and take learning into their own hands. This takes a different set of tools that can best be constructed by teachers asking the right questions. Therefore to produce the ‘innovators of tomorrow’ a teachers job is both to have the right answers and to ask the right questions but when to do so depends on the level of academic education.

 

 

Successful political candidates are those in whom the voters see the most flattering image of themselves.

Describe a specific situation in which a successful political candidate might not represent the most flattering image of the voters. Discuss what you think determines when political candidates succeed because of the flattering image they present to voters.

 

A political candidate’s goal in a democratic society is to be elected by the people as their representative and one is successful in this endeavor if the citizens believe the candidate is one who will best represent their country and their views and who will be the strongest leader. When one individual represents an entire country citizens are inclined to choose the candidate that will convey the most flattering image of them and their country. The most recent presidential election of the United States resulted in the inauguration of President Obama. He is the first African American president, is well spoken, strong willed, and direct. His image is also one of high intelligence and having the power to influence change; a very strong leader. He also creates an image about America as accepting, multicultural, embarking on the new, and a force for change. This change is greatly desired because of the declining faith of American citizens in the government with the current recession and the continuing war that has lost public support. Obama was elected because of the idealized image that citizens saw in him at a time where this higher image was needed to increase American hope for future positive change in their society.

 

When change is not a prominent thought in public opinion it is not necessarily the best and the brightest that one wants as their political representative, but rather one who is most identifiable and similar to them. A relatable political leader is desired, one who also has their flaws, and that can be seen as human and not above the rest of the society. This constructs the ideology that the candidate will best represent their views because they too also are a citizen of society and can relate to the opinions of the greater whole. When great change in the fabric of a society is not strongly desired, citizens enjoy the fact that they can relate to their political leader and will elect one who best represents the ‘real’ image of their society. If one looks at the image constructed of President George W. Bush during his elections it was one of a typical southern man or cowboy type, reinforced with his strong Texas accent, his visits to his Ranch, and the fact that he owned the Texas Rangers baseball team. These qualities separated him from the superior intellectuals and brought him down to the level of the people, demonstrating true ‘American’ qualities and made him relateable. At the time the country was satisfied with the way things were running and elected Bush because he was the familiar. This popular public opinion of Bush remained for the following few years.

 

At a time of change, citizens desire a strong force for change and a flattering image of a individual who is viewed as above the average individual provides hope for this change. A candidate that is seen as greater than the average citizen is successful in this situation because they are seen as having the power to have and influence over current situations and create an impact. When drastic socioeconomic change is not desired or required by a society, a more relatable political candidate is elected because they are seen to be the best to represent the society throughout their political term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the feedback GorillaGlue! I am just wondering what you mean about making my arguments more consise/clear- should I be more upfront about them at the beginning of my paragraphs? Is it better to be to the point and try to get my ideas across in a shorter essay?

Thank you! :)

 

 

 

Studier44,

 

I have a flight to catch so I'll make this quick:

 

Grammar/Spelling/Style:

1. Avoid colloquialisms ("hugely"). That goes for just about any written thing. Try thinking of more professional words instead (substantially, greatly, considerably). Also, be very careful of expressions ("spoon-feed").

2. Try reading a bit more, you're using homonyms which a big no-no: " takes president for teachers" should be "takes PRECEDENCE for teachers"

3. Make use of commas, to break up your sentences. For instance, "This information is best obtained by the straightforward presentation of facts by the teachers and the teacher being more knowledgeable in the subject area to be able to answer any questions imposed on them by the students." would be better written as "This information is best obtained by the straightforward presentation of facts by the teachers and the teacher, being more knowledgeable in the subject area, should be able to answer any questions imposed on them by the students."

4. Break up your sentences in general, they're a bit long (i.e. "

A political candidate’s goal in a democratic society is to be elected by the people as their representative and one is successful in this endeavor if the citizens believe the candidate is one who will best represent their country and their views and who will be the strongest leader."). Notice you have three "Ands" in there. You could easily break it up into two sentences.

 

 

Idea wise:

You understand the idea of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and you're giving examples which is excellent. However, you could make your TAS more concise. Keep the descriptions of what the words mean, but make your arguments crystal clear. You do a good job of tying in your examples, but if you had crystal clear arguments, it could be even better.

 

Study wise:

I would first practice and master the written area without using a time-limit. There are some really good example essays by Kaplan/Princeton in their books you can use for reference. Have your essays read by people you trust as well. Writing was actually my weak area and I went from an N on my practice tests to an R on the real thing. The key is to master the essay first, and with practice, you'll find that you'll be able to write it easily in 30 min. (Also, the examples/arguments you come up with can often be reused for various prompts).

 

Good luck, and I hope this helped!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at Princeton methodology, they often say to paraphrase the prompt. It's not necessary to put it right at the beginning, or shorten your essay, I think your essays are a good length actually. Just have one or two phrases in there that clearly outline your argument (i.e. paraphrase the prompt), and you should be good to go!

 

Good luck,

 

GG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any critiques will be greatly appreciated.

 

The benefits of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete.

Describe a specific situation in which someone not willing to compete might benefit in a competitive society. Discuss what you think determines when the benefits of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete.

 

 

Almost all people are living in a competitive society regardless if they’re from a democratic nation such as the U.S and Canada or a repressed regime such as North Korea. A competitive society is loosely defined as one in which all levels of society tries to one-up the other: from students who tries to get the highest grade in class to workers in a company trying to climb up the corporate ladder to multi-billion dollar corporations competing against each other to receive the highest prices for their stocks and products. Competition conducted in a fair environment undoubtedly leads to benefits to all parties competed. In an interview with Michael Phelps after his 8th gold medal at the Beijing Olympics, he revealed that his practices involves friendly competition with teammate Jensen Lazark, who is also a gold medalist lead to improved performance for both. Michael Phelps’ huge success is mainly due to his competitive streak to swim faster than his teammate. The end result of this cycle of trying to out-swim the other is improved performance for both athletes.

 

However, in different circumstances when the competition is not between two individuals, but between larger groups of people such as in corporations, the benefit extend to people not involved in competition as well. HBC has had a monopoly of Canadian market in terms of department stores. When Sears opened stores in Canada in the 1980s, it brought heavy competition. This resulted in the lowering of prices of both companies, and consumers, who are not involved in competition between HBC and Sears benefited from this.

 

Competition is an unavoidable part of everyday life in society. It is present on every level and all walks of life. In general, society or individuals benefit from friendly and fair competitions. However, who the beneficiary is is determined by who is involved in the competition. Competition between individuals only benefit those who compete where as competition between large groups of people has the potential to benefit others not involved in the competition. Such as consumers who benefit from the lowered prices of goods and services in a competitive market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Golfyfan,

 

You have the overall idea of what makes an essay, but you still have a long way to go. See if you can get your hands on some mcat course books for writing, there are a lot of pointers you could grab from there (i.e. paraphrasing the prompt to make up your arguments, how to present your counter-arguments, etc.) (Personally I used hyperlearning princeton, but I'm sure kaplan has a similar book)

 

For your thesis, you present a lot of examples, but you don't really elaborate on any of them. Remember, quality over quantity. For your antithesis, you need to elaborate more (intro, conclusion, etc.). Same for your conclusion.

 

Watch out for spelling/grammar mistakes (i.e. "from students who tries " should be "from students who TRY", and expressions ("one-up". You could say surpass or outperform, etc.). You have quite a few of them, so have your peers review your work as you progress as well.

 

Also, you can be more assertive ("a competitive society is loosely-defined as") would be better phrased "a competitive society is defined as "

 

Hope that helps,

 

GG

 

Any critiques will be greatly appreciated.

 

The benefits of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete.

Describe a specific situation in which someone not willing to compete might benefit in a competitive society. Discuss what you think determines when the benefits of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete.

 

 

Almost all people are living in a competitive society regardless if they’re from a democratic nation such as the U.S and Canada or a repressed regime such as North Korea. A competitive society is loosely defined as one in which all levels of society tries to one-up the other: from students who tries to get the highest grade in class to workers in a company trying to climb up the corporate ladder to multi-billion dollar corporations competing against each other to receive the highest prices for their stocks and products. Competition conducted in a fair environment undoubtedly leads to benefits to all parties competed. In an interview with Michael Phelps after his 8th gold medal at the Beijing Olympics, he revealed that his practices involves friendly competition with teammate Jensen Lazark, who is also a gold medalist lead to improved performance for both. Michael Phelps’ huge success is mainly due to his competitive streak to swim faster than his teammate. The end result of this cycle of trying to out-swim the other is improved performance for both athletes.

 

However, in different circumstances when the competition is not between two individuals, but between larger groups of people such as in corporations, the benefit extend to people not involved in competition as well. HBC has had a monopoly of Canadian market in terms of department stores. When Sears opened stores in Canada in the 1980s, it brought heavy competition. This resulted in the lowering of prices of both companies, and consumers, who are not involved in competition between HBC and Sears benefited from this.

 

Competition is an unavoidable part of everyday life in society. It is present on every level and all walks of life. In general, society or individuals benefit from friendly and fair competitions. However, who the beneficiary is is determined by who is involved in the competition. Competition between individuals only benefit those who compete where as competition between large groups of people has the potential to benefit others not involved in the competition. Such as consumers who benefit from the lowered prices of goods and services in a competitive market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Describe a specific situation in which government policy might be directed at addressing concerns of the future rather than the needs of the presents. Discuss what you think determines when government policy should be directed at addressing present needs and when it should be directed addressing future concerns.

 

 

In a recent poll, US citizens believed that 58 % of new policies made were satisfactory, while 20 % believed that they were excellent, and 18 % believed that the polices made were poor and unfair. An obvious observation is that new policies made can never satisfy everyone, however politicians usually adapt laws and regulations that are reflective of the issues presently at hand in order to meet the needs of its constituents. If a government failed to deliver policies reflective of the present or rather ignores them, they risk losing their political power due to discontent citizens. Furthermore, they also risk turning a small issue into a major problem that will haunt them in the future. For example, the Ontario government tried to address the issue of the incidence of lung cancer, as it’s has the highest incidence rate among all cancers in Canada, by introducing a provincial law prohibiting smoking in restaurants, public venues, and in cars. The result was a 5 % reduction in lung cancer rate over a time span of four years. Had the government been ignorant to the problem, it is very likely that lung cancer rates would still be on the rise, killing more Canadians every year.

 

Nevertheless, there are situations where government policies are directed at concerns of the future. Politicians seldomly think of making policies that benefit the future, as this usually does not confer any benefit in terms of getting re elected, since the results will not be seen until the politicians term is over. However, during times of economic recessions or depressions, policies must be made concerning the future, so that the recessions in the future can be prevented. For example, policies regarding how much money should be spent on educational reforms or policies addressing the issue of how to reform the educational system, or health care system. Changes to the educational system would not show any significant results until at least one generation time has past, and therefore if successful, it’ll prove beneficial to future generations.

 

Economic conditions is a key factor in determining whether the government focuses on addressing the needs of present or if the government focuses on future needs. If the economic conditions are such that unemployment rates are extremely high and the economy is in a recession, the government should focus not only on short term solutions but rather focus more on long term solutions. However during times of economic prosperity, politicians should focus on making policies that address the current problems so that they are not exacerbated. For the case of the Ontario Smoking Ban, the government acted in response to the current issue of rising lung cancer rates, in order to prevent future increases in medical costs and fatalities. Conversely, during an recession, if the government ignored their own mistakes for causing the recession, instead of focusing on investing in the future, history may repeat itself.

 

 

 

To obey an unjust law is to approve of it.

Describe a specific situation in which obeying an unjust law might not necessarily mean approving of it. Discuss what you think determines when disobeying a law is justified.

 

 

Laws are made in a complex process which involves both politicians and its constituents. The citizens of a society play a crucial role in formulating, and modifying new or existing laws. Without the proper guidance of the society at large, politicians are often blinded by their own biases and values, consequently creating laws that are unjust. However, in a democratic society citizens act as watchdogs and protest when a new or existing law needs to be fixed. Therefore, it can usually be assumed that when citizens do not voice their opinions or protest on new or existing laws, then the citizens approve of this law even if it may inherently be unlawful.

 

Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, racial segregation, and discrimination towards African Americans were permitted in the US and had been in effect for over half a century. The chief reason why racial discrimination was permitted for such a long time was due to the lack of oppression hitherto against this law, which allowed the government to believe that this law was justified. In fact, almost all Americans of Caucasian decent and most African Americans obeyed this law, and took it for granted, when in actuality it is an intrusion to the basic human rights. Thus, the lack of oppression or protest can usually be used as a predictable marker to access how popular or justified their laws are.

 

However, there are circumstances in which obeying an unjust law does not correspond to its approval. This is especially true, if disobedience results in personal injury, incarceration or worse. Consequently the lack of protest or oppression from its constituents in this case cannot be an accurate measure of how popular or just the law is. For instance, during world war II, Nazi Germany made it a law to segregate people of Jewish decent into concentration camps around Europe. It would take a very bold and brave individual to disobey and protest, as they would either be detained or killed. It was in this manner, that social stability was sustained in Germany during WWII, but in no way is it an accurate representation of how individuals actually feel about the laws imparted by the Nazi’s.

 

Citizens are justified in opposing a law only if the contents of the law effect basic rights of human freedom. The problem, however, is that even though their disobedience may be justified, people will remain obedient in a totalitarian government in lieu of being detained or killed. In contrary, if the system of governance is democratic, and supports the freedom of speech, disobedience to an unjust law is not only justified but usually acted upon. This is exemplified in the case of the Civil rights movement, where public demonstrations, and protests starting with Rosa Park resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which illegalized racial discrimination. In conclusion, laws are made by politicians and molded by their constituents, however the degree of freedom to which laws can be changed depends entirely on the system of governance.

 

 

Any comments/critiques are valued and appreciated. Also, I am having a little bit of trouble finishing my essays in less than 30 min. It usually takes me 40 min to finish one. Although i only just started practicing, any advice would help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bubblebath,

 

I only took a look at your first essay, and I really don't have much to add. I think it looks really good and you don't have much to worry about. Three nitpicky things:

1. "immersing himself". Previous posters have mentioned that using masculine/feminine forms is less preferred. Perhaps you could say "themselves"?

2. You could probably spell out your antithesis a little better. You introduced your antithesis, but you never really summarized it in 1-2 sentences.

3. Good synthesis, but I would change the order. I would start with the "In the end, the importance of a type of education depends on what kind of knowledge is to be gained..." and end off with "All types of education are important". (i.e. your actual synthesis would be better placed at the beginning, and your introduction to the synthesis would be better placed as a final conclusion.)

 

Hope that helps,

 

GG

 

Hey everyone. I've been doing well on the practice tests for most things, but I have no idea where I stand for the writing sample. If anyone could give me some feedback I would really appreciate it :)

 

Prompt: Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

 

Education can be defined broadly as the process of gaining knowledge; as such, there are a variety of avenues through which one can educate himself. A particularly effective method is immersing himself in the knowledge to be gained, or in other words, obtaining practical experience. A prime example of the importance of practical training comes from the field of medicine, as there are many aspects of being a physician that cannot be learned from a textbook. These aspects include social skills and bedside manner, because a great deal of a physician's work involves dealing with patients and families. In addition, moral judgment is important for making the tough, ethical decisions that physicians face on a daily basis. Finally, surgical methods and procedures can be outlined in textbooks, but a physician can never fully master the trade until he uses a scalpel with his own hands.

 

However, practical experience cannot always substitute for education through literature. While social skills and real-life experiences are important, physicians would not be able to provide high-quality care without background knowledge and awareness of current research in their respective fields. In order to fully understand the human body, one must have sufficient and detailed knowledge of the many complex systems comprising it. Such an understanding is difficult to gain without studying and retaining information from textbooks. In addition, researchers are continually updating and building upon the existing knowledge of ourselves and the world. Without keeping up to date with medical advances, a physician would not be able to treat his patients as effectively as current knowledge allows us.

 

All types of education are important, for they are all ways we can further develop our understanding of the world we live in. Therefore, both books and practical experience have educational value in the field of medicine. The question at hand is, however, when one avenue becomes more important than the other. In the end, the importance of a type of education depends on what kind of knowledge is to be gained. If the knowledge is social or to reinforce practical concepts, then practical experience is preferable. If the knowledge is detail-oriented or for background purposes, then books are a more effective resource.

 

And another one, if you're feeling generous!

 

Developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to the underdeveloped nations of the world.

 

Developed nations are those that can provide basic needs to the majority of citizens in their nation. These needs include clean water, proper nourishment, housing and hygiene. In addition, developed nations tend to be technologically-advanced, economically stable and operating in peace. No one has a choice in whether they can live this life of "luxury," however. It is a result of being born into a country that can provide such a life or one that cannot. As a result, developed nations do have some moral duty to provide aid to the others in underdeveloped nations, who were dealt poverty by fate.

 

However, there are cases where it would be acceptable for developed nations to bypass this obligation. Such cases involve underdeveloped nations with corrupt leaders or dictators, as it often results that foreign aid falls into the wrong hands and does not benefit those who need it most. A prime example is that of Zimbabwe and its dictator, Robert Mugabe. Zimbabwe is a nation overcome with AIDS, poverty and malnourishment. The economy has been spiraling downward ever since Mugabe took to power, and inflation has reached monstrous rates. These are all indications of a desperate need for foreign aid, but Mugabe's power prevents the effectiveness of this aid. Money sent into the country goes straight to the corrupt government and there is little incentive to lend funds in the first place due to the poor management of the economy. Healthcare and social aid is also difficult to send in, because customs are very strict with what resources and items they allow into the country. The nation's violence and instability are also deterrents for foreign aid workers. All in all, giving aid to a country like Zimbabwe that cannot properly benefit from the aid would be a waste of resources, when other underdeveloped nations around the world are also in need.

 

In the end, the decision of developed nations to provide foreign aid depends on whether it will actually be of use and benefit to the underdeveloped nation in question. On the whole, those who are born into privileged lifestyles should feel a moral obligation to help those who are suffering around the world, but a decision to not provide or to retract aid from an underdeveloped nation can be made on grounds of ineffectiveness and inability to support the nation in its long-run development.

 

Thank you!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to give you some feedback pebz. I am just starting to get back into the essay writing mode as well. I got an R back in 2006 so I still have a little bit of insight. I just read your first one.

1) That's impressive that you know those stats off the top of your head. It may look nice, but if you are going to be bold enough to put something like that down, you should state the source.

2) A common mistake made by many writers is overuse of descriptors and too much filler. "obvious observation" is unnecessary. If I were to rewrite that sentence, I would say "Observations indicate that modern policies cannot satisfy ___". Another: "tried to address" should be "addressed" (it was addressed wasn't it)

3) The previous example bring me to point three. Your vocabulary choice can be improved upon. Avoid common speech words and writing as if you were speaking (poor style). ie Instead of "usually", use "often". Better yet for that example, "if it leaves doubt, leave it out". In these essays you are forming arguments that you do not want open for attack. Your thesis statement was severely weakened because of this. To learn more about this, study VR passages.

4) Your grammar can be improved upon. I've noticed some simple errors here or there. The use of "however" and "furthermore" should be used with more caution. I would suggest learning about semi-colons. A good place to learn about different key grammar rules quickly would be http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/ . If you throw in a properly used semi-colon, chances are your marker will be impressed.

5) I found too many run on sentences. Semi-colons would help clean that up, as well as segregating sentences.

6) In terms of content, it is ok, but needs a little more fluidity and not so much transition. However, furthermore show up way too often.

 

Once I started pumping out some samples I'll post them for people to look at.

Cheers

 

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

Describe a specific situation in which government policy might be directed at addressing concerns of the future rather than the needs of the presents. Discuss what you think determines when government policy should be directed at addressing present needs and when it should be directed addressing future concerns.

 

 

In a recent poll, US citizens believed that 58 % of new policies made were satisfactory, while 20 % believed that they were excellent, and 18 % believed that the polices made were poor and unfair. An obvious observation is that new policies made can never satisfy everyone, however politicians usually adapt laws and regulations that are reflective of the issues presently at hand in order to meet the needs of its constituents. If a government failed to deliver policies reflective of the present or rather ignores them, they risk losing their political power due to discontent citizens. Furthermore, they also risk turning a small issue into a major problem that will haunt them in the future. For example, the Ontario government tried to address the issue of the incidence of lung cancer, as it’s has the highest incidence rate among all cancers in Canada, by introducing a provincial law prohibiting smoking in restaurants, public venues, and in cars. The result was a 5 % reduction in lung cancer rate over a time span of four years. Had the government been ignorant to the problem, it is very likely that lung cancer rates would still be on the rise, killing more Canadians every year.

 

Nevertheless, there are situations where government policies are directed at concerns of the future. Politicians seldomly think of making policies that benefit the future. as this usually does not confer any benefit in terms of getting re elected, since the results will not be seen until the politicians term is over. However, during times of economic recessions or depressions, policies must be made concerning the future, so that the recessions in the future can be prevented. For example, policies regarding how much money should be spent on educational reforms or policies addressing the issue of how to reform the educational system, or health care system. Changes to the educational system would not show any significant results until at least one generation time has past, and therefore if successful, it’ll prove beneficial to future generations.

 

Economic conditions is a key factor in determining whether the government focuses on addressing the needs of present or if the government focuses on future needs. If the economic conditions are such that unemployment rates are extremely high and the economy is in a recession, the government should focus not only on short term solutions but rather focus more on long term solutions. However during times of economic prosperity, politicians should focus on making policies that address the current problems so that they are not exacerbated. For the case of the Ontario Smoking Ban, the government acted in response to the current issue of rising lung cancer rates, in order to prevent future increases in medical costs and fatalities. Conversely, during an recession, if the government ignored their own mistakes for causing the recession, instead of focusing on investing in the future, history may repeat itself.

 

Edited version (for grammer/style and not content)

In a recent poll, US citizens believed that 58 % of new policies produced were satisfactory, 20 % believed they were excellent, and 18 % believed they were poor and unfair. Observations indicate that new policies cannot satisfy everyone; however, politicians adapt laws and regulations that are reflective of current issues in order to meet the needs of its constituents. If a government failed to deliver policies reflective of the present, or ignores them, they risk losing political power due to discontent citizens. They also risk turning a small issue into a major problem: this may be disadvantageous for the future. For example, the Ontario government addressed incidences of lung cancer due to the highest incidence rate among all cancers in Canada. This was accomplished by introducing a provincial law prohibiting smoking in restaurants, public venues, and in cars. The result was a 5 % reduction in lung cancer rate over four years. Had the government ignored the problem, it is very likely that lung cancer rates would still rise, killing more Canadians every year.

 

Nevertheless, there are situations where government policies are directed at concerns of the future. Politicians seldomly think of making policies that benefit the future; no benefits exist for re-election. However, during times of economic recessions or depressions, policies must be produced concerning the future to enable prevention of further incidents. For example: policies regarding money allocation on educational reforms or policies addressing educational and health care reform. Changes to the educational system would not show any significant results until a minimum of one generation, but if successful will prove beneficial to future generations.

 

Economic conditions are determining factors in determining whether the government focuses on addressing the needs of the present or the future. If economic conditions are such that unemployment rates are extremely high and the economy is in a recession, the government should focus not only on short term solutions, but rather focus more on long term solutions. However, during times of economic prosperity, politicians should focus on producing policies that address current problems so that they are not exacerbated. In the case of the Ontario Smoking Ban, the government acted in response to the current issue of rising lung cancer rates in order to prevent future increases in medical costs and fatalities. Conversely, if the government ignored their own mistakes for causing the recession, instead of focusing on investing in the future, history may repeat itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If someone can edit mine or give me some feedbacks, i would really appreciate it! I wrote this one in a hurry... I think I really wanted to go to bed when I wrote this one so I didnt come up with any real life examples...

 

once again, thanks!!

 

 

A person who enters public life is necessarily forced to surrender some degree of personal privacy.

 

Privacy, an undeniable right and entitlement to everyone who lives in a free society, can be often neglected as a personal rights since it was granted since the beginning of one’s birth. However, when one becomes a public figure, such as politician, entertainers, one often finds that he/she no longer hold the same rights to privacy as a normal citizen. In today’s media-driven world, with the necessity of TV and Internet, privacy of a public figure is fast approaching non-existence. Although seemingly unjust and unfair to those public figures, sometimes it is essential that they surrender certain parts of their personal lives in order to lead the public toward good values. This is especially evident in politics. Most US citizens expect their representatives whether it’s a senator or the President to live a good life, free of moral corruption and unconventional values. Often, media picks the politician’s private life apart either to show that the politician has indeed lived a proud and traditional life or to show that underneath all the glamour, the politician is living a double life where he/she is morally corrupt with no traditional values. Even though the politician’s private life has no direct correlation with the politician’s ability, his values and beliefs, as reflected from his personal life, indicate whether he is a man that can influence the public with good morals and values. A public figure such as a politician has a tremendous influence on the public, so it is necessary that they surrender their personal lives to show the public and inspire the public with positive morals and values.

 

 

Even though a public figure needs to surrender certain aspects of their personal lives, some aspects should remain private especially when it comes to the safety and well being of individuals. For example, when a public figure is involved in a scandal, other parties of the scandal should remain anonymous to the public even though they are technically a part of the public figure’s personal life. The revealing of this personal information may endanger other parties’ life. Protection does not only apply to other members of a public figure’s life, it also should be considered for the public figure him/herself. When public figures, such as entertainers, are going through treatment for drugs and alcohol, their locations and treatments should be kept private so media wouldn’t interrupt the treatment and cause any harm to the patients. Usually, patients going through rehabilitation have very weak self-will and very low self-esteem; hence the smallest intrusion of their personal lives could cause irreparable damage to the patients. In such cases, it is extremely vital that the public figure has a personal life that is not up for the public to judge and discuss.

 

Public figure and personal privacy seem to be two extremes that cannot coexist togethe. Many believe that once an individual makes the decision of becoming a public figure, he/she inevitably gives up the right to a private personal life. This is deemed important to many because public figures have powerful influences over the public and the most effective way a public figure can influence the public is through one’s own actions. So in the case of Presidential elections, a politician’s personal life becomes scrutinized in order to ensure that the new leader of the country can inspire the public to become better people through their own persona lives. However, public figures have the right to live a safe and healthy life as well, hence when intrusion of their personal lives threatens the well-being and safety of the public figure’s life, this intrusion should be prevented and prohibited. Like many things in life, there is a delicate balance to when a famous individual should public protect one’s personal life. When considering the need to publicize an individual’s personal life, it is important to analyze the influence the public figure has over public and the well-being of the public figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...