Prep101 - free Writing Sample tutoring

[Nadil]

Hi Nadil, thanks for the criticism. I guess I took the prompt too literally? It didn't even occur to me that a product's image actually meant it's reputation.

 

Also, you said there were several mistakes in writing structure - could you please pinpoint exactly what these were? Thanks

 

oh one more thing - could you tell me (if possible) what a 4 is on the WS scale (ie can you translate my 4/6 into a letter grade).

 

Thanks a lot for your time and help!

 

Hey,

 

No problem. Within the prompt, a product's "image" can be defined as a number of things (reputation, marketing campaign/branding, etc) with the most literal meaning being a product's visual characteristics.

The last two paragraphs are the most problematic in terms of sentence structure: there are a few mistakes and the sentences are long, convoluted and difficult to understand as multiple ideas are being expressed.

The official grading scale for the WS is as follows: Letter Grade(Numerical Grade)

J(1) K(1.5) L(2) M(2.5) N(3) O(3.5) P(4) Q(4.5) R(5) S(5.5) T(6)

[Nadil]

In business, the image of a product is more important than the product itself.

 

At the outset, there seems to be a dichotomy in the emphasis on products which satisfy the consumer. It is not to say there is a compromise in the quality of the product, but a far more important selling point of a product are the associated traits to which the product brings which is sought after. When ideas of status, and power, luxury, and class are the focus of a product, rather than the product's utilitarian functionality, businesses must focus on delivering an appropriate connotation to their product. Rolex has founded a multi-milliond dollar business with the emphasis on what their product brings. Those fortunate enough or capable enough to afford Rolex watches choose to wear the watch for the sense of luxury and wealth that is identified with it. Rolex watches are sometimes more difficult to read compared to cheaper digital watches, and often lack functionality features that may serve useful such as the ability to be read clearly at night, to offer alarm functions, as well as times for other time zones.

 

Rolex watches do serve their purpose in clarifying the status of the wearer, but are not primarily created for their utilitarian traits. This trait however, can be found in products by bicycle companies such as Specialized. Specialized is an American based company that specializes in the manufacture of bicycles for very specific purposes. Although Specialized is like Rolex in that it focuses on developing quality products, Specialized bicycles are meant for their purpose and functionality, rather than a

status symbol. Specialized bikes are useful in allowing people to travel from point A to B in an efficient manner, while allowing for the rider to exercise, and improve health and endurance. Specialized offers a line of commuter bicycles that offer fenders to stave off inclement weather as well as rear racks for installing baskets to carry groceries or other items during travel.

 

While Rolex may focus on developing high-priced luxury watches, their aim is different from businesses like Specialized. Rolex focusses its business model on allowing the wealthy to purchase a product primarily based on its image. When the consumer demands such a product, it is no wonder that a business

exists to meet this demand. However, when the consumer demands a product with much more utilitarian motives, such as to facilitate travel cheaply, and conveniently allowing functionality, products by Specialized Inc. are implicated. Whether the demands of the consumer focus on the importance of the image that a product portrays, or how functional and useful the product is solving problems directs the emphasis of business on style or utility.

 

Hi,

Hope this helps

 

 

Although the arguments presented are logical and in tune with the prompt, there are some problems with the examples chosen. The first example of the Rolex watches is well presented and works well to back-up your argument in the first paragraph. However, the example of the “Specialized” bicycles does not substantiate your argument as clearly. Specialized could still be considered a higher end bike company as compared to Schwinn or CCM, which do produce basic, cheap bikes to meet the simple demands of bicycle transportation and also achieve higher sales than more expensive companies such as Specialized. As such, a more accurate example would provide stronger evidence for your argument. Nonetheless, the tasks outlined in the instructions are adequately met. Furthermore, the concluding paragraph provides a clear and logical resolution for your two arguments/examples.

 

Score: 4/6 (Treatment of the prompt is coherent and adequately developed)

[PastaInhaler]

Hi,

Hope this helps

 

 

Although the arguments presented are logical and in tune with the prompt, there are some problems with the examples chosen. The first example of the Rolex watches is well presented and works well to back-up your argument in the first paragraph. However, the example of the “Specialized” bicycles does not substantiate your argument as clearly. Specialized could still be considered a higher end bike company as compared to Schwinn or CCM, which do produce basic, cheap bikes to meet the simple demands of bicycle transportation and also achieve higher sales than more expensive companies such as Specialized. As such, a more accurate example would provide stronger evidence for your argument. Nonetheless, the tasks outlined in the instructions are adequately met. Furthermore, the concluding paragraph provides a clear and logical resolution for your two arguments/examples.

 

Score: 4/6 (Treatment of the prompt is coherent and adequately developed)

 

Thanks for your insight, Nadil. It is most appreciated. If I had chosen Schwinn as an example for my argument, hypothetically, what would the score be? Would it change, or remain the same? I presume I am sitting at a "P." Is this correct?

[nowitzki41]

Hi Nadil.. Hope i made it in before the deadline.. thanks for looking at it

 

In todays competitive market, businesses are driven to take any action which will set thier brand and product apart from the others. Sometimes the businesses put an emphasis on the image and the associated status symbol of the product, over practical use. By businesses I speak primarily about goods based businesses. This can be seen countless times in the fashion industry. In the fashion industry, specifically the high end or "couture" niche of the industry businesses live and dye by thier image. For example, high end fashion houses such as Louis Vuitton, Dior, Coach, and Armani are sucessful not because of the products themselves, but the associated image of the product. This can be clearly illustrated in their advertising campaigns, which focus on selling you on a lifestyle which is associated with thier brand. Rarely do you see a Dior advertisment in a magazine which shows off a particular article of clothing with the aim to sell you that product. The high end fashion industry is a clear example of where in business the image of the product is more important than the product itself.

 

However, not all businesses operate to sell a particular lifestyle. Not all products are status symbols. Some businesses focus on solely practical items like gardening tools, calculators and television sets. In our society one rarely associates a particular status to the owner of a John Deer lawnmower over an owner of a Black and Decker lawnmower. Because of this in such industries the product itself is more important than the image itself. The focus of the buyer is on the items specifications and warrenties, rather than what the nieghbors will think. Advertisments for such products outline all of the products capabilities. Such companies rarely create ads which promote the brand, and the associated lifestyle of those who buy into the brand. This is not a focus, because the consumers in this market do not give high enough emphasis for these aspects. In product based business which focus on practical items the product itself is more important than the image.

 

When is it then, a business should focus on the image associated with a product, and when is it that the business should focus more on the product itself? It all depends on the values of the society in which the market is in. In the North American society, high fashion and luxury cars can be considered as status symbols. Such status symbols rely heavily on the image and such if your market in luxury cars or high fashion your image should be of primary concern. However if your market is geared to those consumers who would not use the product as a status symbol, then the primary focus should be on the product. This however is a hard line to draw, and for the purposes of this essay I chose extreame examples. In the real world the business plays a balancing act between image focus and product focus. In the end, a business can be sucessful adopting either of these two policies, it all comes down on the market.

[Platypus]

Hi Nadil,

 

Thanks so much for doing this, and sorry that I'm a little late! I hope you can still offer some feedback on it.

 

________________________________________________________

 

 

In today's technological era, mass media reigns. Advertisements and visual appeal can make or break the success of the product. Some even go so far as to say that "image is everything". Image, is simply how a product is presented to the general public. An image of a product can be good or bad depending on a variety of factors. Such factors as the target audience, the message portrayed in the ad, and the physical aesthetics of the product itself. The image of a product is more important when the product is very similar to another product in the market. This means that the business in question must compete with a competitor for the same target audience. An example of this is the ongoing battle between Coke and Pepsi. Since these two drinks have comparable look, taste, and price, they must alter their packaging and advertisements in attempts to diverge and appeal to the public in different ways. Coke is seen in advertisements sponsering the Fifa World Cup, the Olympics, and other sporting events. For some, Coke becomes synonamous with national pride, and victory. Pepsi on the other hand, has celebrities such as Brittany Spears and Christina Aguilera to endorse their product, and features the slogan "forever young". As a result, Coke and Pepsi have created many die-hard fans, who will be faithful to their brand for their rest of their lives.

 

However, the importance of image falters when the product in question is somehow different than those on the market. For instance, When a product is innovative or novel, there is nothing to compare it to. Hence, its function becomes of interest to the prospective buyer. So ads should target less so on how the product looks, but focus more on what the product does. For instance, in the case of Apple versus Microsoft, both corporations attempt to attract consumers by highlighting the uses and conveniences of the products. Relying less on gimmicks and slogans, they emphasize the actual purpose of the product.

 

What distinguishes the importance of product image is the relative similarity of the product with its competitors. Image is more important when the product is similar to its competitors, because image allows the audience to differentiate between the two, and develop a preference. Here, preference depends on the message connected with the product. However, when the product is dissimilar to its competitors, the product itself is of more importance. Here, the actual functionality and usefulness of the product is what wins the business more consumers.

[Ibismaximus]

Hi Nadil - Here is a prompt. Thx for the feedback...

 

In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

 

Democracy in developped countries allows representation of the common persons voice through an elected leader. To be successful as a politician, you must be liked by the substituents in your riding, and be elected to represent your riding. An ordinary citizen maybe in an reasonable individual that can be chosen at random to represent a sample of the population. For a politician to be liked and succesful, it is helpful for the politician to come from the community in which they represent. For example, in the late 1980's and early 1990's Ernie Eves was elected as the succesful MP for the riding of Muskoka Parry Sound in Ontario. Ernie was a fellow member of the community that ran for federal office and was elected. Because Ernie was a member of the community, he represented a member of the homogenous, culturally stunted small town. He maintined his status as an MP for many years, by delivering federal money to the small community, because he too lived in the community.

 

Although Ernie was a good representative as an ordinary citizen of the community this is not always the case in democracy. Take for instance Jack Layton's riding in Toronto. This community is very large, and heterogenously mixed in culture and citizens. This community would have a much diverse representations of races, financial status, education and age categories. Jack Layton does not represent an ordinary citizen of this community. He is white, low-upper class, well educated and middle aged. However, Jack is succesful in his riding, but not because he represents the ordinary citizen, but because he represents what is best for there community. For instance, Jack promotes "Taste-of-the-Danforth" a once a year summer festival that celebrates Greek culture in his riding. He is also an avid fan of supporting public transportation, because even if he has a car, most of his substituents do not. Jack is successful not because he represents the ordinary citizen but because he respects and represents the communities needs.

 

In order for a politician to be successful in a democracy, they must be liked and thereby elected to power by the constituents in their riding. However, in democracy a successful politician does not have to be an ordinary citizen from the community. Jack Layton is a very successful politician in his riding. He is not an ideal representative of his hetergenous community, but is succesful because he responds to the needs of the citizens. Ernie Eves on the other hand is a successful politician because he came from the homozygous community from which he was elected. Thus, to be a successful politician in a small homogenous community it is better to be elected from the community to accurately represent the ordinary citizen. However, in a large hetergenous community, it is not necessary to resemble the ordinary citizen, but rather support the needs of the community.

[yeti187]

Nadil, thanks for all your help

 

Politicians should concentrate on making policy rather than attempt to affect people's beliefs.

 

 

Our modern representative democracy revolves around the actions of our elected politicians. Voters elect politicians so that their representatives legislate laws. Far to often the media focuses personal beliefs of political leaders. Naturally, politicians should reflect the peoples will through policy making. A notable example of this is seen with the recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The catastrophic oil spill resulted in an immense damage to the environment and the local economy. Consequently, the main concern of the American citizens was for President Obama to urgently take action and resolve the crisis. As it is evident, in a time of crisis a politician should concentrate on making policy.

 

Despite the importance of policy making, it must be acknowledged that in certain cases politicians should not engage in rapid legislating. Many controversial issues require great deal of public discourse in order to be effectively implemented. Consider for instances, the highly controversial issue of gay marriage in the United States. Such an issue is highly complicated and requires a great deal of though and a significant involvement of public opinion. With regards to issues such as Legalization of Homosexual Marriage, the public does not expect an urgent response from their political leaders. In such a case, politicians must attempt to discuss and affect people's beliefs.

 

On first glance it may seem difficult to determine whether or not politicians should solely concentrate on policy making, but upon careful consideration it becomes evident that the determining factor is the urgency of an issue. Political issues have varying priority and politicians should engage such issues accordingly. As with a major crisis, such as the BP oil spill, politicians must act urgently to implement an urgent policy. Any delay in political action could result in tremendous damage. In contrast, when it comes to non-urgent issues, a politician is expected to engage in discourse and convey his message to the people.

[blain_therapist]

Hey there,

 

Im writing my MCAT for the 2nd time in a couple of weeks. Last year I got a 29M. I went in with never having one of my essays looked at, and well, I think a big problem were that they were too short.

 

If you could critique this one, that would make me very happy.

 

 

 

Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens

 

Strict government regulation versus deregulated markets is an often debated during political campaigning. People have strong opinions on whether or not the government should take control or regulate companies which provide services required by the population.

 

One viewpoint states that government regulation is very important for a well functioning society. Evidence of the good that can come of such regulation is seen int he Canadian province of Manitoba. Manitoba has long had government regulated water, which has led to lower costs for citizens in that province when compared to provinces that have private controlled water. The water itself is a natural resource of Manitoba and there is wide consensus in the province that this natural resource should be at the will of the people, and not controlled by companies that are looking to line their own pockets. Because money is not being syphoned off to the higest executives, it is more equally spread throughout the company, providing better and more stable employment opportunities for citizens of this province.

 

Before the existence of cellular phones, Manitoba had only one phone company. This company was regulated by the government and was once regarded as one of the top employers in the province, and also provided very reasonable rates when compared to other phone companies in the country. Unfortunately, this company eventually became deregulated and was followed by decreases in the quality of employment and increases in prices. One of the main problems was that the company, now de-regulated was still the only one providing phone service for the province. Therefore, they were free to raise prices and cut employee benefits leading to a general feeling of unease for the people of Manitoba.

 

However, in a world of infinite possibilities, it is advantageous to not stick to strict ideology concerning an issue such as this. Government deregulation in the pharmaceutical industries may have its downsides in terms of costs to the public, however the united states, which has deregulated this industry, is also the forerunner in medical innovation and technology. It has been argued by many doctors, scientists, and politicians that it is these high prices of drugs that are making strong research possibly. It is the open market approach and competition between rival companies that help drive them to out perform each other. It is likely that money is the driving force for some of these people, but in this case it appears to be paying off.

 

Another look at phone services, this time in the United States, and in terms of cell phone companies, draws a different picture than that seen in the home phone services in Manitoba. The United States has long had a number of carriers of home phone service; when cell phone services became available there was already a lot of competition. This heavy competition resulted in a number of cell phone carriers all with much lower prices than seen in present day Manitoba. The prices in Manitoba are still very high as other companies have just started to move in to compete with the original, once regulated home phone company. This pricing system had been set higher in manitoba before competition started, so the people here now suffer under price wars at a higher level.

 

It seems that there are many different scenarios that can determine whether a government should be regulating a company. What does the company provide/ Is there room for competition? Is regulation better for the populous as a whole? These are important things to consider. In terms of natural resources, where no competition lies, governments should be doing their best to protect both the environment, and their citizens. When there is a market that is open to competition, competition that can benefit the consumer and the country together, then it is best for governments to take a step back. The case of home phone services in Manitoba provides somewhat of a a paradox. Perhaps if regulation stayed in place, things would have turned out better. It is also possible that deregulation from the start may have provided the same good results seen in the US.