oohpsjin Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Hey guys, I have a really troublesome question regarding the WS section. In all of the essays, the 3rd, and last task asks one to find the resolution to the opposing sides to a prompt. But all the time, the wording of the third task seems so CONVOLUTED that I cannot understand what it is asking for. For instance, the third task for the prompt education makes everyone equal reads: Discuss what you think determines whether or not education makes everyone equal....I mean, like, WTF!?!? It first asks to discuss, what I think, determines whether, or not, the prompt. According to Kaplan, for the third task, I am to explain HOW I can resolve the problem, I guess taking it as if I am a judge to two opposing opinions. So this would mean that I have a choice to explain how they CAN be resolved, or that they CANNOT be resolved, because only one side to the debate is right. So really, would it be most effective/and time-saving to simply choose a side and agree or disagree? Or can someone please explain what the hell that third task up there means and what I'm supposed to do with future 3rd tasks...examples of third tasks for other essays would be IMMENSELY welcome. I hope I made this frustrating problem clear enough. Thanks to everyone who helps out here. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyDude Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Basically the 3rd task is asking how you can resolve the specific scenarios you provided in support and against the given prompts in Task 1 and Task 2, respectively. It is not asking you to come up with a resolution regarding the prompt from thin air, but rather how the resolution can be achieved in the particular examples that you've provided earlier. I hope I am making sense. Wait and see. I am sure many intellectuals here would be happy to help you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantaloons Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 So this would mean that I have a choice to explain how they CAN be resolved, or that they CANNOT be resolved, because only one side to the debate is right. Wrong: the whole point of the Writing Sample's 3rd task is to transcend the debate and say that both sides of the debate are right! Your task in the synthesis (the 3rd task) is to show under what conditions one side of the debate is correct and under what conditions the other side of the debate is correct. For a more science-y analogy, it's like coming to a Writing Sample Prompt that states: "Water is always a liquid". In this hypothetical case, your task would in synthesis would be to demonstrate that water can be a liquid, but that it can also be a solid or gas. You would then give the conditions under which water will be a Liquid/Solid/Gas Makes sense? After a while, I stopped reading the instructional text under each prompt--they're the same every time. Just understand the three tasks you must accomplish (they never change). Here's an example of an WS prompt I sketched out on another post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oohpsjin Posted August 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Thanks guys. That's what I've been doing - saying how the prompt can be right sometimes (1st task), but not always (as exemplified by 2nd task). But Pantaloons, I don't think it's always true that you need to show how both sides to the debate can be right. Could you not also agree or disagree completely with the statement, just like many of the example essays in Kaplan are doing, and also some of the examples in the WS Critique thread? So...you can either take an agreeing or disagreeing stance, OR stay neutral by showing how the prompt can be true/false in different occasions. In the case that I decide to stay neutral to the issue, I need to explain: "What I think determines whether or not" the prompt is true. This "what" they are asking for...should be some singular concept, that when it changes, it also changes the truthfulness of the prompt. For instance, for the prompt: "businesses always make profit by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses", the third task could describe how 'competition amongst businesses' - when it is absent, businesses can, and do take advantage of consumers need, and when competition amongst businesses is present, they can't make profit by taking advantage because the consumers would simply choose another business. I hope I'm making sense. Does this sound right guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 1. Please review punctuation rules regarding comma usage. 2. Don't take a side on WS prompts. 3. Explain the prompt with an example and follow with a counter example. 4. Decide what is different about the scenarios you described and write it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whale.of.a.time Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 I personally find this helpful: part 1: thesis part 2: antithesis part 3: synthesis It helps me keep it compartmentalized in my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jelly31 Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 I personally find this helpful: part 1: thesis part 2: antithesis part 3: synthesis It helps me keep it compartmentalized in my head. This is a great way to keep it simple. I like to think that the third part is asking for you to generate a rule when the prompt can/can't be true. (Based on your own examples, of course.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.