Nadil - Free Writing Sample Feedback Prompt #2

[Nadil]

Hello everyone,

 

So here is the second prompt:

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people. Discuss what you think determines whether a wealthy politician can or cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

 

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above.

 

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

 

Post your essay in this thread on the Forum and I will post comments and a score here

 

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the Forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

 

Deadline to post your essay: Sunday July 18 (I will post another prompt on Monday July 19)

[shir312]

Hi Nadil, thanks for doing this! Here's my essay:

 

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people

 

Politicians are individuals in society who help formulate laws and policies for the betterment of the people they serve. Of much importance is the fairness and equality politicians display while formulating these policies to ensure that they represent all citizens of every race from every socioeconomic standing. However, certain politicians, namely those who are considerably wealthy, allow personal interests to influence the decisions they make and the policies they consider regardless of its benefit to the citizens they are meant to protect and represent. Politicians like George W. Bush have been known to come from a significantly wealthy background- with the Bush wealth stemming from family investments in oil. As a result of this, during his presidency Bush was pushed to pass policies that favoured the protection and expansion of oil drilling operations both international and domestic regardless of the detrimental effect it had on the US economy. Bush is an example of a politician who allowed the bias for the protection of his own wealth to supercede his duty to the people he was meant to represent.

 

However, not all wealthy politicians are unable to represent their people fairly. John F. Kennedy of the wealthy Kennedy family is well known for being one of the most memorable presidents of the United States after being murdered prematurely in 1963. While the Kennedy family had various sources to their wealth stemming from earlier decades, JFK is famously known to have advocated for the equal treatment of all citizens in the US, specifically the African American population, the majority of whom were enslaved. In addition to equality amongst his people, JFK advocated for a number of civil rights and immigration reforms to raise the quality of life amongst many people in the US who were living in less than satisfactory conditions at the time. From this we can see that John F. Kennedy, although a very wealthy politician, was able to represent his people fairly through the reformation of a number of domestic policies because his wealth remained unaffected.

 

Therefore the difference between the effectiveness of wealthy politicians lie in the sources of their wealth. If the wealth stems from a source that remains detrimental to the welfare of the people they are to represent, then fair representation is bound to remain absent throughout the politicians' political careers, as was evident in the presidency George W. Bush. However, if the source of a politician's wealth remains separate from the policies and reforms needed to be made to benefit the people he is meant to represent, there will certainly be a fair representation of all those people, as was seen in the presidency of John F. Kennedy.

[Nadil]

Hi Nadil, thanks for doing this! Here's my essay:

 

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people

 

Politicians are individuals in society who help formulate laws and policies for the betterment of the people they serve. Of much importance is the fairness and equality politicians display while formulating these policies to ensure that they represent all citizens of every race from every socioeconomic standing. However, certain politicians, namely those who are considerably wealthy, allow personal interests to influence the decisions they make and the policies they consider regardless of its benefit to the citizens they are meant to protect and represent. Politicians like George W. Bush have been known to come from a significantly wealthy background- with the Bush wealth stemming from family investments in oil. As a result of this, during his presidency Bush was pushed to pass policies that favoured the protection and expansion of oil drilling operations both international and domestic regardless of the detrimental effect it had on the US economy. Bush is an example of a politician who allowed the bias for the protection of his own wealth to supercede his duty to the people he was meant to represent.

 

However, not all wealthy politicians are unable to represent their people fairly. John F. Kennedy of the wealthy Kennedy family is well known for being one of the most memorable presidents of the United States after being murdered prematurely in 1963. While the Kennedy family had various sources to their wealth stemming from earlier decades, JFK is famously known to have advocated for the equal treatment of all citizens in the US, specifically the African American population, the majority of whom were enslaved. In addition to equality amongst his people, JFK advocated for a number of civil rights and immigration reforms to raise the quality of life amongst many people in the US who were living in less than satisfactory conditions at the time. From this we can see that John F. Kennedy, although a very wealthy politician, was able to represent his people fairly through the reformation of a number of domestic policies because his wealth remained unaffected.

 

Therefore the difference between the effectiveness of wealthy politicians lie in the sources of their wealth. If the wealth stems from a source that remains detrimental to the welfare of the people they are to represent, then fair representation is bound to remain absent throughout the politicians' political careers, as was evident in the presidency George W. Bush. However, if the source of a politician's wealth remains separate from the policies and reforms needed to be made to benefit the people he is meant to represent, there will certainly be a fair representation of all those people, as was seen in the presidency of John F. Kennedy.

 

 

Hello,

Good job! Hope this helps,

 

The arguments were clearly presented, well developed and indicate depth and complexity of thought. The essay also clearly addresses the 3 tasks and a strong control of sentence structure and vocabulary is evident. One problem I would like to note is the balance between the two examples. While the JFK example was well presented with a good level of detail, the example of Bush lacked some specificity (in comparison). For instance, you could have briefly mentioned some of the policies with regards to oil (e.g. approval of foreign investment in US oil firms which led to increase in oil prices). Furthermore, I would also suggest avoiding highly controversial examples; Bush’s policies and their detriment to the U.S. economy may still be a touchy subject to some Republicans in the States.

 

Score 5.5/6

[PastaInhaler]

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people

 

"You can win some, but you can't win them all," is an old addage that echoes the practical reality of operating within a democratic government. In such a government, politicians are elected into office through a majority vote by all the citizens in which he serves. In order that he retain his post, or is even elected into office in the first place is reflected in his ability to appeal to the interest of as many voters as possible. Perhaps, this task becomes more complicated if a politician is wealthy. The role that wealth plays in this discussion is that the politician's interests may be mixed in with the interests of certain citizens he represents. The politician may want to favour the forwarding of legal policies that would, at least on the financial front, be beneficial to some, the affluent members of society, while ostracizing those who are not affluent, the middleclass citizens and the poor. This notion is illustrated by the politician, Paul Harper of the Progressive Conservative Party of the Canadian government who was elected into office as the Prime Minister of Canada, enjoying the luxurious salary that came with this post. His policies stemmed to allow tax breaks for affluent families and large corporations doing business in Canada as a means to stimulate the economy in Ontario. All the while, the income taxes applied to the middle class and poor remained the same. The middleclass and the poor's interest were certainly not appropriately represented in this case.

 

Even though Harper's tax regime seemed unfair, his entire administration is not entirely unfair. In fact, some aspects of his tax policies and the usage of the governmental income can be beneficial to all the people. Healthcare applies to all citizens of Canada, as it is understood as a right by Canadians. In following this belief, healthcare is freely available to Canadians, in as much as taxes are a mandatory part of Canadian life. The amount of money placed into healthcare services is a percentage based on income, and does not fluctuate drastically from income levels. In this way, a poor citizen can make the same percentage of income contribution as a wealthy citizen. As this percentage is consistent across income levels, it is deemed fair and appealing to all people. Further, all citizens are allowed the same high-level of healthcare in Canada as the next person, and there is minimal dissension about the benefit of such a system.

 

Wealthy politicians working under a democratic government may find themselves with difficulties trying to represent fairly all citizens to which he serves. This task is complicated because he may have a vested interest in financial matters, and ways in which to benefit the wealthy people to which he is a part. Depending on certain subject matters can the wealthy politician not fully represent all citizens fairly and fully. Yet when the subject matter changes, such as to matters of health care where income wanes into a non-issue because the percentage of income collected for healthcare costs from each citizen remains the same, all citizens can be fairly represented even if the politician is wealthy.

[jab4eva]

Politicians’ role in a government is to make decisions that reflect the public’s needs and wants in order to provide better living conditions to all citizens. In an authoritarian state, citizens have no say in how the country is being governed, and the monopolist government need not care about public opinions since there are no other competing parties that could drive the government out of power. Authoritarian government officials’ main interest is to ensure a long-term existence of the monarchy and will try to eliminate whoever gets in their way. For example, during the Tiananmen Square, thousands of students gathered in front of the official building of communism and protested against corruption and deception happening among top government officials. The communist party of China at that time ultimately had to use violence to end the riot and later on sanctioned all media from exposing the truth about the Tiananmen Square and also referred all student protestors as villains. As a result, these powerful leaders of an authoritarian state offered no fair representation to the student protestors and were trying to erase this terrible incident from Chinese history.

 

On the other hand, powerful democratic politicians need to offer all individuals equal fair representation in order to stay in power upon re-election. Knowing that there are potential parties waiting to take over the political role, the current government will find the best way to represent all people and allow fair and equal treatment to all people in the democracy. For example, Canada is known to be a multicultural nation, and only when satisfying the needs and wants of all minorities in Canada will the government have a chance to be re-elected. Recent years, Conservative government offered fifty thousand dollars of compensations to decedents of Chinese railway workers and apologized to the Chinese community for the past mistreatment, and this fairly represents the dream of all Chinese immigrants to be recognized through history and successful wins many Chinese people’s votes.

 

Whether or not wealthy politicians should offer fair representation to all people depend on the type of government. In totalitarian or authoritarian government, voting procedure is not required for the maintenance of power; it often offers unfair representation to citizens who try to change the current governing ideals. Only through misrepresentation will the totalitarian politicians be granted a longer maintenance of power. However, in a democracy, voting procedure is necessary to grant a government’s power, and only through an upsurge of fair representation and treatments to all people will enough votes be granted to the government.

 

Thank you !~

[medUBC2016]

This is my first go, thanks for doing this!

 

In modern government the elected politician is bestowed with the task of making decisions for the majority electorate, while keeping in mind their "best interest". In cases where the politicians background may sway them in a certain direction, the politician is not able to offer fair representation to his or her electorate, as the politician may not have been exposed to certain situations that offer him or her an unbiased view. Specifically, a wealthy politician is not able to make decisions regarding financial issues as they have not experienced a situation in which they were without money. Take for example the current financial situation in Greece. Current Prime Minister George Papandreou was born into a particularly wealthy family in the United States. His financial background makes him unfit to decide Greece's future economic plan regardless of its present state, this being reflected in the nation's outcry against the recent tax impositions. Additionally Papandreou's status as a wealthy politician associates him with a certain bias when making decisions regarding finances.

 

Alternatively, former South African President Nelson Mandela, considered one of the great politicians of his age, was more than able to make decisions regarding his nations. This ability was rooted in his source of wealth, as he earned his financial status contrasting Papandreou's inheritance. Due to his tumultuous path to the Presidency, Mandela was able to obtain a broad perspective of the lives of South African's of varying financial status, thus enabling him to consider all his citizens when making national decisions.

 

So what makes a wealthy politician fit to represent his people? The answer to this questions lies simply in the politicians avenue of wealth. In Papandreou's case, his wealth was inherited thus he never obtained a full knowledge of others' financial situations. Juxtaposed with Mandela's financial earning, one can see that the means by which a politician becomes wealthy determine whether or not he is fit to rule a nation and offer representation to its people's.

[Purplehaze]

Hi Nadil,

 

Thanks in advance for your help Here goes...

 

In order to get elected into an office, politicians present a platform to the electorate stating what they intend to do for the community once elected. Their platform indicates how they plan to represent individuals of the community and how they would bring about necessary changes to better the lives of the people they would like to serve. Once elected however, politicians are fully capable of acting in a manner that does not necessarily represent the people they were elected by. If the issues troubling individuals of the community are the same issues that are bringing prosperity to the wealthy politicians, then a conflict of interest is generated. In such situations, wealthy politicians may not be expected to offer fair representation to all members of the community. Take for instance, politicians who have made investments in oil companies. While these politicians have a responsibility to look into the concerns of environmental groups who are worried about the negative impacts of oil usage on the planet, they also have a vested interest in keeping the oil industry alive as it is a source of income for them.

 

However, there can also be many situations where politicians offer fair representation to all members of a community. Take for instance the AIDS pandemic in Botswana. Botswana is the second highest AIDS affected nation in the world; nearly one-fourth of its population is HIV-positive. A few years earlier, when the pandemic was at its worst, the president of Botswana introduced a national AIDS campaign that provided free anti-retroviral drugs to all individuals affected with the virus. Having one-fourth of its population affected with HIV has had a negative impact on the nation as whole. Part of the reason for this is because the number of healthy individuals who are available to work in crucial sectors such as health and education has decreased as a whole. By recognizing the overall impact the AIDS pandemic was having on the nation, the President of Botswana fairly represented his nation in implementing a nation-wide AIDS campaign to help put an end to the pandemic.

 

What determines whether a politician can or cannot fairly represent his community? The answer depends on whether the issue at hand is one that can provide personal gains to the politician; such an issue would generate a conflict of interest, swaying the politician to act in his/her own best interests, as opposed to the community's best interests. If however, the issue is of a general concern to the community as a whole and does not provide a conflict of interest, then a politician can be expected to make decisions that fairly represent his community.

[Wookie]

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this service!

 

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people. Discuss what you think determines whether a wealthy politician can or cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

Politics can often be a contentious and segregated arena, leaving many different sectors of society unsatisfied with certain laws and policies. As such, politicians are often the accountable parties who are subject to public suspicion and inquiry. Specifically, the motives and motivations of wealthy politicians can create dissension amongst the lower and middle class population. These echelons of society may feel that a wealthy politician can never offer fair representation since they are in a more privileged position and are unable to experience their issues. Frank Hubbard summarized this succinctly by stating that, "we'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate." A germane example of this is the 81st president of Nicaragua, Arnoldo Aleman. President Aleman was born in a third-world country but was raised in a very wealthy family. Prior to his inauguration, he was able to obtain a degree in law, work in the commercial banking industry and expand his investment portfolio. After serving five years in office, officials discovered unequivocal evidence of money laundering and embezzlement in the amount of 100 million dollars. Considering that many Nicaraguans were unable to access basic amenities such as clean sanitation at that time, the tenebrous activities of President Aleman was a quintessential example of how a wealthy politician cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

However, not all politicians share the same profile as Arnoldo Aleman. As Henry Kissinger once stated, "90% of politicians often give the other 10% a bad reputation." Michelle Jean, the former Governor-General of Canada, is an example of the "other 10 percent." Dr. Jean was a relatively wealthy journalist and broadcaster for Radio-Canada and the Canadian Broadcast Corporation. After she was appointed as Governor-General of Canada, Dr. Jean tenaciously worked to unite Canadians across the country. Her personal coat of arms read: Briser Les Solitudes, which translated into "Breaking down Solitudes." Dr. Jean's goal was to not only unite the Francophones and Anglophones of Canada, but the improve the relations between people of all racial, linguistic, cultural and gender groups throughout the nation. Thus, this can serve as an example of how a wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people.

 

Ultimately, the style of government and the level of public education can determine whether a politician can offer fair representation to all people. In a democratic country such as Canada, most people are educated, the public is cognizant of their rights, the media is transparent and influential, and elections are held to vote for leaders. This puts more pressure on the government to be accountable and inclined to represent all people in a fair manner. This is further supported by the presence of an ombudsman. In contrast, in some nations such as Zimbabwe and North Korea, the style of government may resemble a pseudo-democracy or a totalitarian regime. If "knowledge is power," the people are powerless due to the lack of education or the control of information. For example, in North Korea, although the literacy rate is 99 percent, the government controls the flow of information thus suppressing creativity and critical thinking. The general public of Zimbabwe share a similar fate, where the government controls information by intentionally prohibiting any investment towards public education. Therefore only in the presence of an educated public and a nonpartisan and democratic government can wealthy politicians feel any obligation and accountability to provide fair representation to all people.

[Noval]

Be careful with the spelling of names: Michaëlle Jean.

[Nadil]

Politicians’ role in a government is to make decisions that reflect the public’s needs and wants in order to provide better living conditions to all citizens. In an authoritarian state, citizens have no say in how the country is being governed, and the monopolist government need not care about public opinions since there are no other competing parties that could drive the government out of power. Authoritarian government officials’ main interest is to ensure a long-term existence of the monarchy and will try to eliminate whoever gets in their way. For example, during the Tiananmen Square, thousands of students gathered in front of the official building of communism and protested against corruption and deception happening among top government officials. The communist party of China at that time ultimately had to use violence to end the riot and later on sanctioned all media from exposing the truth about the Tiananmen Square and also referred all student protestors as villains. As a result, these powerful leaders of an authoritarian state offered no fair representation to the student protestors and were trying to erase this terrible incident from Chinese history.

 

On the other hand, powerful democratic politicians need to offer all individuals equal fair representation in order to stay in power upon re-election. Knowing that there are potential parties waiting to take over the political role, the current government will find the best way to represent all people and allow fair and equal treatment to all people in the democracy. For example, Canada is known to be a multicultural nation, and only when satisfying the needs and wants of all minorities in Canada will the government have a chance to be re-elected. Recent years, Conservative government offered fifty thousand dollars of compensations to decedents of Chinese railway workers and apologized to the Chinese community for the past mistreatment, and this fairly represents the dream of all Chinese immigrants to be recognized through history and successful wins many Chinese people’s votes.

 

Whether or not wealthy politicians should offer fair representation to all people depend on the type of government. In totalitarian or authoritarian government, voting procedure is not required for the maintenance of power; it often offers unfair representation to citizens who try to change the current governing ideals. Only through misrepresentation will the totalitarian politicians be granted a longer maintenance of power. However, in a democracy, voting procedure is necessary to grant a government’s power, and only through an upsurge of fair representation and treatments to all people will enough votes be granted to the government.

 

Thank you !~

 

Hi,

I hope this helps:

 

 

Although the ideas presented are clear, they unfortunately do not address the 3 tasks within the prompt. It is evident that there was a lack of understanding of the meaning of the prompt. The prompt was specifically concerned with the background of the individual politician (i.e. wealthy vs. not wealthy) and their ability to connect to the people they represent, rather than the type of government they belong to. As such, the prompt cannot be reasonably re-interpreted to apply to your arguments.

Furthermore, a few spelling and grammar mistakes were also noted. In order to ensure a good score, I would strongly suggest taking the time to carefully consider the meaning of the prompt before jumping into writing your essay, as you cannot achieve a good score without accurately addressing the prompt, regardless of the quality of the actual essay.

 

Score 2/6 (Distortion of the prompt).

[Nadil]

Hello,

 

To everyone who has posted a reply to this prompt, please repost your essay onto the new thread titled "Prep101 - free Writing Sample tutoring". Also, to anyone who is planning to post a reply to this prompt, please also post your essays on the above mentioned thread as I will no longer be answering to essays posted here.

 

Thank you

Nadil

[Wookie]

Be careful with the spelling of names: Michaëlle Jean.

 

Jus curious but would an American AAMC marker really care that I spelled Michaelle as Michelle? I know it's not correct but since I was pressed for time, could I get away with it?