Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[the stranger]

Hey this is great that you are doing this! Here is my response to Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction.

 

I write next week and any feedback is appreciated!

 

 

 

Technology is rapidly changing in today's day and age. New discoveries are constanlty being made, especially in the area of improving communication, as different corporations race to be the first to develop a brand new gadget. Overall advances in communication technology has had a positive impact on society as it has immensly reduced the burden of work on individuals. However, although technology does make certain tasks a lot easier to accomplish, the cost of this efficiency is the quality of social contact.

 

Communication technology has benefitted the workplace considerably. With the development of the internet, phones have been replaced by email as questions can be answered in minutes without having to see or hear the person on the recieving end. Meetings can be carried out in the ease of one's own office in the form of a conference call or a live web meeting. Communicating has become instant, and has allowed businesses to save significant amounts of money, and most importantly in todays, whirlwind society, time. Although an online meeting may allow one to see who they are talking to via a web camera, it is not the same as meeting someone in person and interacting with them right beside them. Clearly the degree of human interaction has been scaled back. Developing communication technology has severly impacted the degree to which businesses allow their employees to direclty interact with eachother. As everyone strives towards greater efficiency, direct human contact is being neglected.

 

Although advances in communication technology in the workplace may have an overall negative impact on direct human contact, these advances have in other cases increased interaction among individuals. Take for example individuals who have had to move away from home for either personal or political reasons. Advances over the years have allowed these individuals to communicate with loved ones back home more easier than ever. In some third world countries the telephone is now considered extremely important and every household has one. Now instead of waiting for months for a letter to reach home, a telephone call can be made and one can connect with others instantly. Along with the further developement of the internet, soon more and more people around the world will be able to participate in online phone calls, where they could use web cameras to see eachother face to face. The development of the interenet and new advances in technology here illustrate positive effects. In the past this type of interaction would have never been possible, but now the quality of communication has significantly increased, allowing one to directly communicate with someone who may be on the other side of the world.

 

Clearly advancements in communication technology have had a profound impact on the way people interact in todays day and age. Depending on the situation, it has had either a negative or a positive impact on the quality of these interactions. Overall the determining factor of how social interactions have been impacted depends on the overall purpose of communication. Developing new communication technologies has benefited personal communication as now more than ever individuals from around the world can interact with eachother to stay updated in eachothers lives. However on the other hand, communication technologies in the workplace serve a completely different purpose. Here communication advancements serve a purpose to increase workplace productivity and efficiency, and ultamitely reduce the quality of human interaction.

 

Hello jl08, hopefully this reaches you in time.

 

Remember that your resolution principle has to offer criteria or conditions that determine when the prompt might be true or untrue. It seems you have only categorized two situation in which the prompt was true or untrue, but this can't be applied to other situations. You need to offer broad criteria that can be applied to many situations. Unfortunately this flaw in your essay will bring your score below a 4.

 

Score: 3.5/6

[the stranger]

Hey Sameer, I'm writing my MCAT again this week. I got a 'P' last year and I never really focused on studying for the written, so this time around I'm trying to get some feedback. Thank you very much in advance for your time.

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses.

The ability of a business to thrive in today's economic conditions is sometimes reflective of the motives of those businesses. Most businesses in today's world owe a large portion of their success to the ability to exploit the weaknesses of their consumers. Private health care providers are prime examples of businesses that thrive on the ability to take advantage of a consumer's weakness. Every person in this world should be entitled the right to health care, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Sadly, this is not the reality in parts of the world where economic conditions are so bad that basic necessities such as food and water cannot even be met, let alone health care. It is even more disheartening when there are developed nations that do not provide the right of heath care for all its citizens. Private health care providers are able to turn what should be a basic necessity into a multi-billion dollar industry by exploiting the fact that its citizens need health care and will pay for it if it is not available elsewhere for free.

 

Alternatively, there are some businesses, though not many, that are able to thrive and persist for many years, without exploiting it's consumers. Non-governmental organization and not-for-profit organizations can be considered businesses that are able to succeed and provide much good for the world, without taking advantage of it's consumers. Organizations such as Doctors without Borders, is able to succeed and provide health care for many people who are not as privileged in our world without taking advantage of consumers, as its driving engine is fueled by the generous donations of people and various other organizations around the world.

 

The need for a business to take advantage of consumers' weaknesses can usually be directly linked to the motives of that business. A business such as a not-for-profit organization, Doctors Without Borders, is sharply contrasting to the capitalistic, cut-throat private health industry. Though both business have a central aim, which is to provide health care, they go about achieving this goal by different means due to the nature of their motives. One is motivated by profits, while the other is motivated by the humanitarian need to provide help to those who cannot help themselves. Ultimately, the motives behind achieving the goal will determine whether a business will or will not exploit the weaknesses of it's consumers.

 

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

 

Education makes everyone equal.

 

Every person in this world is in their own way unique and different from those that are around them. Though this is a great sentiment, it does not provide much information as to who would be more more qualified in the job market. Individual differences allow us to stand out from one another, but there still exists a standard by which we can be compared to those around us. Education seems to be a the standard used in job market, as there is always a minimum requirement of a certain level of education in order to be qualified to even apply for a specific employment opportunity. In this sense, education tends to make us all equal, as it allows everyone to be of a certain caliber and it allows the employer to ensure that all candidates are of the same competency. Individuals who decide to follow medicine as their chosen career path, must adhere to all of the minimum requirements that are necessary in order to proceed to the next steps in their career path. Requirements such as pre-requisite courses and completion of a standardized test, ensure that all candidates have the same amount of background knowledge. In the application process, our education has made us all equal, whether or not we proceed through the application process, is further determined by those unique differences that we have.

 

Although education generally makes everyone equal, differences in the education itself can be a cause for discrepancy. An educational institutions reputation usually affects the quality of the education that is provided. Highly reputable institutions tend to adhere to more rigorous standards, as they must uphold their reputation by attracting only the best and the brightest to their institutions. On the other hand, institutions that are not very reputable, may have lower standards and allow students who may not be as qualified to enroll and complete their education if they have the financial means to do so. This ends up creating a large discrepancy in graduates who come out of various institutions holding various degrees. Students from some institutions may hold the same degree as students from other less reputable institutions, but this does not necessarily mean that they are equal. This is a common problem in the medical field, when a nation that has a high standard of health care, must allow students who are internationally-trained the opportunity to practice in that nation.

 

In most cases, in the general job market, education tends to be the basic standard for determining whether a group of applicants are equally competent and able to potentially do the job. In this case, education does seem to make everyone equal. Nonetheless, in highly-trained professions, this principle cannot be blindly applied as there may be a certain standard that is required, and differences in the standard of education may not allow all candidates to be regarded as equal. Ultimately, it is the education itself, and perhaps the career path chosen that determines whether or not everyone is equal.

 

Hi Turkelton, I hope this gets to you in time to review.

 

Essay 1:

Your task 1 example needs to be more specific – “private health care companies” is too broad. Try to use an example of an actual situation that has occurred that demonstrates the prompt. Your second task is good and your example is ok. My real concern here is with your resolution – the resolution principle should be a set of criteria that determine when the prompt might be true and when it might not be. To simply state that a businesses motives determine whether it will take advantage of consumers weaknesses is not enough – you have to give some determining principles. Although I can see what you mean by “motives” you have to make it clear for the grader since they are not guaranteed to side with you (read: they may dock you marks for having an incomplete task 3). Make sure you clearly state your criteria.

Score: 3.5-4/6 <-depends on whether they think your resolution principal is clear enough, either way though you are limited by your task 3 here

 

Essay2:

Please search the thread for my comments on others’ responses to this prompt to get an idea of what you can improve on. Also remember that you must include specific examples for both task 1 and task 2. Again your resolution principle should offer criteria that can be applied to any situation that determine when the prompt is true and when it is not. Here you have only stated that the prompt can indeed be true or not, but you haven’t said in general what situations it is true / untrue.

Score: 3/6

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer,

 

My MCAT is on Thursday, so this is my last chance for WS feedback. Any tips you can offer will be greatly appreciated!

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.

 

As our world grows and develops, technology has become an increasingly important device within our society. Contrasted with our world in previous centuries, modern society operates in a completely different manner than past generations. While on a large time-scale these changes appear to increase efficiency and improve the overall functionality of the world, when analyzed on a smaller timescale such as within a few decades, these rapid changes can pose serious problems and often alienate many individuals. For example, consider in the mid-1990s when home-computer technology became widespread and the use of emails widely replaced the previous format of manual paper mailing. On the surface, these advancements seem to have simplified interpersonal communication and be entirely positive, but at the same time many older citizens who had lived their entire lives using the older mailing format became alienated and confused with the new technologies. As a result, they were then forced to attempt to learn an entirely new skill set just to function and exist within modern society. Effectively, even though email development signified rapid and dramatic technological advancements in communication methods, it equally exemplifies the newfound confusion and complications associated with adapting to technological progress.

 

This being said, there are times when progress can in fact manage to bring mainly positive benefits and a net simplification. When we examine social laws and constructs, and their advancement over recent decades, we can see that many radical changes have been enacted. Most significantly, in the 1970's human rights movement, the concept of racial equity within North America was revolutionized. Individuals who were previously criticized and alienated for their racial identity began to be accepted and positively integrated into society, effectively dissipating the social complications associated with prior laws. In this situation, we can see that the social progress that occurred in the 1970s managed to reduce social complexity and have a net positive impact on society, effectively simplifying more than it complicated. In addition, these social laws were integrated into society gradually, giving older and existing citizens ample time to acclimate to the changes.

 

A comparison between the two scenarios yields the conclusion that the nature of the progress itself dictates what kind of impact the advancement will have on society, and the magnitude of any negative complications that may accompany the positive progress. If the progress is rapid and technologically-based, then past experience has shown us that it is likely for the fast changes to alienate many older and existing citizens, effectively creating equal amounts of, if not more, complexity within society that it's intended simplifications. However, if the progress is based around social laws and beliefs, and the change becomes integrated into society gradually, then all members of society are able to gradually adjust to the new changes, thereby leaving no one alienated or excluded in the new order, and effectively simplifying society and the world with little accompanying complications.

 

__________________________________________________________

 

 

Laws cannot change social values.

 

In today's modern world, despite the many various laws that have been introduced in recent decades, only a select handful of them have actually managed to change social values and the public opinion. As a whole, new laws are usually created in order to restrict negative behaviour that has become too abundant within society. This implies that at the time of development for a law, the widespread public opinion on the issue is completely opposite to the perspective of the new law, resulting in widespread disparity between newly imposed legal regulations and social values. No matter how much effort is put into enforcing the law, in most cases the social belief on the issue cannot be changed that easily, and the public opinion will remain in opposition to the law. A longstanding example of this is the predominance of underage alcohol consumption in North American culture. While for many years the government has strictly prohibited these behaviours and enacted laws to prevent such events, no decline in the occurrence of underage drinking has been observed. This implies that social pressure to engage in the behaviour severely outweighs the legal consequences outlined for defying the applicable law, and that no amount of legal enforcement will change the social belief prevalent among teenagers with regards to alcohol consumption.

 

This being said, there are some times when the introduction of a new law can in fact change pre-established social value. An excellent example of this can be seen in Canadian culture, with the introduction of anti-racism and equality laws in the mid-twentieth century to restrict negative social behaviour towards First Nations individuals. The introduction of these laws did not only restrict and penalize and negative behaviour that occurred towards citizens of First Nations descent, but they also managed to kickstart a gradual social change resulting in a widespread acceptance and integration of First Nations culture into modern Canadian society. From this, we can see that it is in fact possible for a law to change the public opinion and widespread belief, it is difficult to accomplish, but it can be done. One of the main reasons why this law was so successful in enacting social change was that there was a large portion of the Canadian population, mainly those who were in fact of First Nations ancestry, backing the law and placing a large social pressure on it's acceptance and integration.

 

The key difference in determining whether or not a new law has the power and the potential to enact social change and alter social value depends primary on whether or not there is a backing social pressure for the law itself. If the law is strongly opposed by the public, much like the case of underage alcohol consumption, almost all social pressure is working in opposition to the law, thereby ensuring it's limited success or effectiveness. However, in the case of racial equity laws in Canada, there was a large social pressure arguing in favour of the law and pushing for it's public acceptance. This extra power and social force supporting the law effectively ensures its integration, and it's ability to eventually change social values.

 

Essay1:

Your example for task 2 is good, but task 1 needs to be more specific – this example is true, but you should include an actual situation that has occurred rather than just an idea. Your resolution principle needs to be more broad – although you have resolved the dichotomy between the two examples you used, your criteria do not apply to a wide variety of situations i.e. what about progress that doesn’t fall into either category? You can appreciate why this resolution would not be as convincing as one that applies to many more situations.

Score: 3.5/6

 

Essay2:

I’m not sure what you mean in you resolution paragraph by “social pressure” and “public acceptance”? Are these not the same thing? I don’t think you have offered a good enough resolution here since a socially supported law doesn’t change anything since the society’s views are in support of the law (thus they aren’t changing).

Score: 3/6

[shin]

Hi Sameer,

 

Here's another 2 writing samples I wrote from a practice test. I know that I've posted a lot lately. I'm just trying to get as much practice and feedback as possible. Thanks so much again. I think these two have been an improvement on my last ones, but I want to see what your opinion is. I do think that the first example used in my second essay may not have been the best. But I hope I made it rational for the point of my essay.

 

Thanks

 

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

 

Prompt: Education comes not from books but from practical experience

 

 

In muslim culture a boy is not considered a fully mature man until he reaches the age of 40. In western cultures, this seems outlandish. However, the reasoning behind it is rational. Until a man has reached such an age, there are so many events in his life that he has yet to experience. It is not enough, in muslim cultures, for a boy to merely know about being married and having children, but the boy must actually be married and have children to be considered mature. In terms of education, a similar view may be adopted. In life, education refers anything learned, whether it be a skills, ideas or even maturity. A great deal of education must be experienced, and not merely learned from books. In the medical profession, for example, when students graduate from medical school they may take a licensing exam to qualify them as doctors. However, upon passing their licensing exam, they are not allowed by the medical board, to practice independently. They are first required to undergo practical training, called residency. Only upon completing their practical training as medical residents are they allowed to practice as independent physicians. Thus, it is evident that education is required to come from practical experience in the development of independent physicians.

 

However, it is not always the case that education is not learned from books but from practical experience. In many instances a bulk of education is acquired from books. Even going back to the example of training physicians, much of their medical education came from books. Prior to graduating from medical school, medical students study and learn extensively from text books. In some instances, education may even come soley from books. For instance, there was a young boy who grew up in a slum in India. At a young age he stumbled upon a discarded calculus text book. He was able to learn advanced calculus from this text book without any formal education from any schooling whatsoever. After mastering the mathematics learned in the textbook, he mailed a letter to MIT and they gave him a scholarship to learn at their institute. The complete basis of his education up to that point was from books.

 

Thus, we see that education comes from books at times, and at other times comes from practical experience. It is important to note that both types of education are important. However, education from books can only educate up to a point. For instance, the boy who learned all of his mathematics from a textbook needed to go to MIT, in Michigan, to further his training as a mathemetician with practical research experience. Education from books may serve as a basis for practical knowledge. For example, medical students learn from books, but expand on that foundational knowledge with practical medical training as residents. In the end, however, it is the practical experience that develops and produces a mature individual. Experiences like these are irreplacable, just as a young muslim can not replace the experiences of life by reading about life.

 

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

 

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

 

The main characteristic distinguishing human-kind from all other known forms of life, is the ability to learn and discover. This is also the basis and driving force for scientific pursuits. The results of scientific pursuits have both aided and damaged society and human-kind as a whole with the advent of medicine, weapons and technology. This has both occured by accident as well as by design. However, in the pursuit of scientific discovery, threat to human life is rarely justified. Meaning, the importance of the scientific discoveries, themselves, are rarely worth more than the life of a human being. Recently, there has been great contention and debate of the use of human embryonic stem cells in research. With the current US government, under the administration of Obama, relaxing regulations of the use of these stem cells, there has been a protest of citizens against this. In this debate, there is no contention on whether it is right or wrong to research and threaten the destruction of a human being. All parties involved understand that it is morally wrong to do so. The contention lies in the definition of a human being. Whether an embryo is actually considered human is under debate. Under the Bush administration, the embryonic stem cell was considered a human life. In that instance, the threat to human life was not tolerated and stem cell research was not allowed. However, under the Obama administration, the embryonic stem cell is not considered equivalent to human life. So still, under this definition, the threat to human life is not tolerated.

 

On the other hand, there are instances when a threat to human life is tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Take, for example, the Kennedy administration sending a man to the moon in the 70's. Certainly, the astronaughts of those lunar landing missions were facing real threats to their lives. For the scientific discovery, not only was the threat to human life tolerated but it was celebrated. Similarly, people undergoing experimental drug treatments or procedures have their lives threatened by undergoing unknown treatment. However, this is tolerated by the scientific community as well as society as a whole.

 

Thus we see that, in the pursuit of science, the threat to human life is tolerated in some instances but not in others. The threat to human life can only be justified and tolerated when the individuals whose lives are being threatened can consent to the possible threats that may harm their lives. In the moon landing missions, the astronaughts knew of the dangers imposed on their lives but consented to the missions regardless. This is also true of patients undergoing experimental treatment. However, embryonic stem cells are unable to consent to experimentation on themselves. If these stem cells are considered human life, then such experimentation can not be tolerated (as it wasn't during the Bush administration). Scientific pursuits lead to many things both positive and negative on society but whether those pursuits can justifiably threaten human life depends on the consent of the lives that are being threatened.

 

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

[Dr.Henderson]

The more people rely on computers, the more people become alienated from one another.

 

In a world where technology is continually evolving to make our everyday lives easier, there is always the risk of distancing ourselves from the very aspects of our society that made us successful as a species. Communication, and by default, social interactions are what experts have identified as critical components of the rapid advancement of the human species.

 

The statement in question raises an important issue, as the technology designed to make our lives easier may lead us astray from the very concepts that made us successful as a species, such as communication. As we become more and more dependent upon technology such as computers there is the possibility to become alienated from one another. This is evident in the way we approach problem solving currently as opposed to the methods used traditionally. Traditionally if one had an issue the best course of action would involve asking those who have life experience in the area or are experts. For instance a young adult may ask a parent for advice on how to prepare a meal, or may ask a mechanic or teacher for advice on how to change the oil in their car. Increasingly though, we utilize computers to serve the same purpose that people once fulfilled. A simple internet search may yield not just a single recipe or expert opinion, but tens of thousands.

 

However, it may also be argued that computers have also brought us closer together. Before the advent of computers, communication between people at distances greater than those that could be reasonably travelled in the normal course of a day was difficult at best. As technology such as postal service, telegram, and telephone evolved communication was vastly improved. With the introduction of the computer and later the internet, communication is possible nearly instantaneously at a global scale. Not only are we able to speak to our neighbour, but we can just as easily speak to a relative who is on the other side of the globe with the same amount of effort. With the click of a few buttons one can speak to anyone, anywhere in the world who has the same technology, for free on a teleconferencing program such as Skype.

 

Whether computers alienate us or unite us with one another largely depends on how the individual person utilizes them. While computers make our lives easier it must be noted that they are not an outright replacement for face to face interaction and the benefits that are garnered from that process. Similarly, it must be considered that computers have offered us a means to vastly expand our traditional range of communication and can be powerful tools that provide global social interaction. Ultimately whether computers alienate us from one another or bring us closer together depends on how we use them and how we integrate them into our society.

[missmathematics]

The large increase of citizen involvement in social networking sites has permitted a different kind of political support-one involving the internet as a primary tool for campaigns. One example in particular is Facebook. The number of registered users is well into the hundred million rang; a number that has been increasingly growing since Mark Zuckerberg created the site in his dormitory at Harvard University. A particular example of a campaign would be that of Obama’s back in 2008. Obama hired one of the co-founders of Facebook, Chris Hughes, to set up his campaign page, clearly foreshadowing the plentitude of success that would soon come. Having a political campaign on Facebook allows for interactivity between voters and the campaign and allows the Politician get a better sense of what the voters expect of him/her, such that expectations will not only be met but also exceeded. Ordinary citizens, which can be defined as followers in this case, work as a group to ensure that the nation chooses the best leader with their technical skills such as posting on people’s walls about the campaign and to help get others involved. Everyone in the world, no matter how far away they are from each other, are easily connected through Facebook, which is what makes this social networking site so unique and demonstrates the power of technology. Overall, Facebook provides a connection to politicians on a personal level and therefore is a tool that is being used to create history in this modern era without any signs of slowing down.

 

 

Alternatively, there are instances in which heroes, rather than ordinary citizens, determine the history of a nation. Heroes are those with whom the masses can relate to and is one held in high esteem. A hero is charismatic, a talented orator, and altogether an outstanding individual. Martin Luther King dutifully meets this description, a prominent African American who was majorly involved in the civil rights movement in the United States before he was assassinated. It is well known that he was one of the greatest orators in history, this undoubtedly contributed to his popularity and success. His dream of living in a color-blind society appealed to the masses not only because of the ethical side, but also because he had the talent of speaking to others in such a way that inspired them and made citizens want to strive for change. To influence an entire nation is a skill that few can learn so well as Martin Luther; he was a key inspirational figure in the history of the United States and will always be loyally seen as a hero.

 

 

 

In conclusion, determining the history of a nation can be done by working as a group or from the performance of an outstanding individual. People are more likely to work as a group when they are provided with convenient technology to do so. The advancement in computers and easy-to-use features lets anyone learn quickly how to be proficient in different computer programs, especially the internet. It comes as no surprise that people are then linked to each other through the internet and work together for a common cause. It is an efficient use of time to rally for a cause that has tons of supporters; it is for this reason that Facebook has millions of groups targeting various issues whether they deal with cures for cancer or a political campaign. These groups are places where people with a common interest can get together and share their thoughts and goals, helping with the advancement of the cause. In contrast, ordinary citizens did not use computers frequently in the past. The society of the past called for one hero to guide people towards the ethical right and to appeal to the masses. To have the skill of speechmaking was essential back then, perhaps even more than it is now to determine the history of a nation. Hence, whether ordinary citizens or heroes determine the history of a nation depends on whether technology is in easy reach and access.

[SolitaireAddikt]

Alright, I posted this on the other thread as well, but my MCAT is just around the corner so I need as much help as I can get.

 

Wealthy people cannot offer fair representation to the people

 

Throughout history humanity has experimented with a variety of forms of self governance. However, one theme common between many, if not all, of these forms of governance has been that power has been concentrated in the hands of a select few. This select few was almost invariably wealthy, while the vast majority of their subjects lived in squalor. Due to the stark contrast between their social position and means in comparison to that of the general populace, it can safely be said that these rulers would have been out of touch with their subjects, and as such wealthy people cannot offer fair representation to the people. One particularly famous example is that of Marie Antoinette and King Louis the 16th of France. The reign of this King and Queen was a period of political upheaval in France. France, at that time, was overcrowded, poor and starving. However, nestled in their positions of wealth and prestige the King and Queen were sheltered from this reality and were ineffective at helping to alleviate the suffering experienced by their subjects. As such, they were unable to represent their people adequately, ultimately leading to societal upheaval and a revolution which saw both King and Queen fall victim to the guillotine.

 

However, just because a person has wealth does not always mean that they will be ineffective at representing their people. One example of this would be the current president of the United States, Barack Obama. Barack Obama was born to a teenaged mother and spent his formative years under the care of his middle class grandparents. He managed to pay his way through university and ultimately Harvard Law School. In between his time at in undergrad and his time at Harvard he worked as a community organiser where he got to see the lives of the poor first hand. Barack eventually went on to become a Senator and published two books about his life. Both books went on to become bestsellers, earning him a small personal fortune of around 4 million dollars. Now a wealthy man, Barack went on to run for the presidency of the United States. Barack ran on a platform of change- the general populace of the United States was tired of the ways of the Bush Administration and Barack vowed to change this. Barack went on to win the presidency and administer the desires of the people who elected him. Although his presidency has not been perfect, he has set into motion many of his campaign promises and thus fulfilling the desires of the people. In this way, as a wealthy man, Barack Obama has been capable of fairly representing the American people.

 

Being in a position of wealth can isolate one from the general populace and make one less effective at governing, like in the case of Marie Antoinette and King Louis of France; on the other hand, as in the example of Barack Obama, having wealth does not necessarily preclude one from understanding the needs of the people. Thus, it can be said that being wealthy can prevent a person from fairly representing the people if that person’s wealth has allowed them to live in isolated from the rest of society and unable to understand the needs and wants of the average person; on the other hand, if this wealthy person has gained life experience amongst the common folk, his or her wealth does not preclude him from representing them fairly. In the case of Marie Antoinette and King Louis, their wealth enabled them to live charmed lives, away from the concerns of the common folk, thus making them ineffective rulers. In the case of Barack Obama, he obtained his wealth on his own, and had gained much life experience from his middle class background and his work in the inner city. In this way, wealth is a hinderance to one’s ability to understand the common person so long as the person with the wealth uses it to isolate themselves from the common people.

 

In a Free Society Laws must be subject to change

 

A free society is a society in which no person is subject to unjust restrictions. However, cultural attitudes on what justifies ‘unjust’ tend to shift as time goes by. As such, in order for a society to remain ‘free’, its laws must be subject to change. This is true for instance, in the case of gay marriage. For centuries marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. This typically was for financial purposes- a woman was seen as property, and a marriage was simply the transfer of property from a father to another man. However, as time went by women became liberated, and marriage morphed from a business transaction and into the union of two people who loved each other. However, the archaic principle that only a man and a woman could be married remained. This archaic idea prevented gay couples from being able to marry each other, thus unjustly denying them of priveledges and heterosexual couples currently enjoy. In Canada, in 2004, this situation was rectified by changing the marriage laws, so that they could include gay and lesbian couples. In this way, the gays and lesbians were freed of the unjust restrictions on their ability to wed each other and make their family units whole, and Canada proved to the world that it was a free society where in that its people were not subject to unfair restrictions.

 

On the other hand there are some laws that simply cannot be changed. One such law would be laws concerning polygamy. Polygamy is a practice wherein one man is married to two or more ‘wives’. Polygamy is practiced in an isolated Latter Day Saints community called Bountiful in British Columbia, Canada. One could say that polygamy is not the business of the government, and although some of the women in Bountiful may have entered into these polygamist relationships of their own free will, there is evidence that some of these women were married off to men while they were below the age of consent, and putting into question whether or not they really had a ‘choice’ in the matter. Additionally, the system of polygamy devalues women by treating them as chattel, something that a man may accumulate for his own personal gain. Since polygamy tends to victimise young women who cannot possibly consent to their marriages and devalues women in general, it is a practice that is wrong and should continue to be banned by the government, despite the fact that it is ostensibly a ‘private’ matter.

 

Thus, in a free society, laws must be subject to change. However, not all laws can be changed. Laws that can be changed are ones that adhere to archaic values and restrict the freedom of groups of people. One such law was the marriage laws, in which only a man and a woman could marry each other. This law was archaic, and Canada, as a just society, rightly struck it down. However, some laws should not be changed in a free society; any law that involves the safety, be it physical, mental, or emotional of the citizens of the nation should not be subject to change. The laws concerning polygamy are laws that involve the safety of people- particularly young girls who may be coerced in the marriages that they are not physically, mentally or emotionally ready for. In this way, in a free society laws that restrict people’s liberty unjustly should be mutable, while laws that protect that safety of the citizenry should be immutable.

 

Thanks in advance!

[am889182]

Hi Sameer,

here's my essay on prompt #1

 

Privacy is a human right, and thus, breaching a person's privacy can result in serious legal punishment. Sometimes, one person's affairs can affect another person's, or can for example, affect the company for whom they work. If the private affairs of an individual can have affect a company, is that company entitled to know the details? To what extend should the company be allowed to breach an employee's privacy? All employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace. In this case the workplace can be defined as an office, and the right to privacy can be explained as the right to not have person information or communications monitored by the company. The personal affairs of an individual should be of no concern to a government office, as a leak of that information could have serious negative consequences on that individual. The best example of this would be if the government collected information about an individual's marital troubles. This information in no way benefits the office, but could seriously affect the individual concerned if that information was leaked and became public. If an employee had an affair for example, and the office was entitled to know that information, it would need to be stored somewhere. Thus, at least one other person would have access to that information. Should that person find out and spread the information, or should someone fall upon that information by accident, the news would be spread and the individual's reputation could be seriously affected. The individual could also be very emotionally hurt. Thus, employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace, and the office should not be able to meddle into that person's affairs. This is because that information, though having no relation to that individual's work, could be spread around the office, and negatively affect the individual.

 

However, in certain very specific situations, it would be necessary for the employees to have less privacy in the workplace as they normally would outside the workplace. If an employee's work is top secret or dangerous, and could drastically affect the population should that information be shared, it would be important for that employee's life to be monitored to ensure the safety of that information. An employee working in a high-security lab for example, would have access to very dangerous pathogens. The spreading of these pathogens would result in nation-wide infection. It might be important to monitor that employee to ensure he does not share details about the pathogen and how to obtain access to it. This could include monitoring that employees e-mails for example. Although this would normally be considered a breach of privacy, it would be important to ensure the employee wasn't spreading dangerous information to the wrong people. Thus, in certain scenarios, an employee should have less rights in the workplace then normally allowed out of the workplace, as best exemplified by the monitoring of communications of an employee who has access to information that could endanger the global population.

 

In sum, the defining factor in whether or not an employee should have the same rights to privacy in and out of the office would be whether or not the affairs of an individual's life pertain to the well-being of the office in any way. Information of a person's marital affairs does not pertain to the office, nor could put the office in harm's way, thus, the office should not be allowed to breach that individual's privacy in order to obtain that information. On the other hand, foreign communications between a high-security lab worker and any unauthorized second person could result in a national crisis. In order to prevent the spreading of dangerous information, the office should have the right to monitor an individual's communications, even if this entitles ignoring his right to privacy.

 

 

 

Thanks!

[MoMed]

Hi Sameer, here's another one of my essays. My MCAT's just a week away, so any help is greatly appreciated.

 

A government has not only the right, but also the responsibility, to regulate what is broadcast over the public airwaves.

 

In an age where society is privileged with abundant broadcasting over public airways, the public can receive rapid information and entertainment. In a society where democracy and free speech is looked up at, it is important that individuals can express themselves over public airways, where they will be seen or heard on television or the radio. Having said that, it is just as important that the public airways are not infiltrated by media that can lead to public harm, be it psychological or physical harm. In this case, the government holds the responsibility to ensure the welfare of its citizens by providing non-harmful media to be broadcast over public airways. Anti-government propaganda or terrorist messages can influence certain individuals by causing them to act out against citizens in their country, resulting in innocent casualties. The public must also not sustain psychological harm as a result of media aired over public airways. This is exactly why many news organizations prohibit scenes of mass slaughter, and censor scenes where individuals may have gruesomely been shot. This restriction ensures that the public does not sustain any harm, suggesting that they can safely obtain media without the concern of being harmed.

However, as previously mentioned, the government must ensure that free speech is maintained and that the public is fully informed of world events. For instance, when the US aided Indonesia (their Cold war allies) in the massacre of East Timor in 1975 by providing economic and military support, the government not only lied to the public about their assistance in the massacre, but also pressured the media not to place any emphasis on the war. Therefore, by interfering in what is broadcast over public airways, the US prevented its citizens from obtaining the truth and prevented them from reacting (positively or negatively) towards its government aiding in another country’s war. It can clearly be seen that in doing so, the government limited freedom of speech and took away the citizens’ right to protest or support the government’s actions.

In determining when the government does or does not have a right to regulate what is broadcast over the public airways, the message of what is sent over public airways must be looked at. If messages were capable of causing any type of harm to the citizen body, then the government has the responsibility to ensure that such messages are not broadcast. This can be seen with the government’s censorship of very greusome images from the news, this prevents the public from obtaining any psychological harm. However, in cases where the information could not lead to any public harm, what is broadcast should not be censored. This is exemplified by the US’ censorship of information regarding the government’s actions. This information could not have caused any harm to the public, but rather it prevented the public from being fully informed and reacting appropriately to what its country was doing.

 

Edit: Just added another essay, thanks again.

 

Leadership involves speaking out when others might keep silent.

Describe a specific situation in which leadership might involve keeping silent.

Discuss what you think determines whether a leader should speak out or keep silent.

 

When asked to identify the first person to come to mind when thinking of a "leader", typical answers would be people

like George Washington, Alexander the Great, and Martin Luther King Jr. This is because famous leaders are remembered

for the great deeds they accomplish and for the ideals they stand for. In addition, in many cases a leader - whether

political, military, or financial - is judged based on what they say. This is because vocal leaders are equated with

being effectual; in order to make one's ideals known, direct one's followers, and persuade one's opposition, one

is often required to speak out loudly and frequently. Therefore, many leaders are succussful because of their charisma,

and because they know how and when is an appropriate time to speak up. A famous leader who embodies this quality is

Winston Churchill. Throughout World War II, Winston Churchill was known for his rousing public addresses telling the

people of Britain to never lose hope and to assure the populace that victory was attainable. His conviction was

paramount in raising morale in the face of a Europe crumbling to the Nazis. Furthermore, this attitude was a stark

contrast to the soft-spoken Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister who preceded Churchill. The people of Britain

needed their leader to exude confidence to keep their spirits up, and thus good leadership, in this case, called

for speaking out.

 

In other instances, however, a silent leader may be the most beneficial to his or her followers. This is because

circumstances may allow for a leader's people to unanimously stand for a certain course of action. The energy and

conviction of the masses may thus allow for a movement to be carried out with minimal influence from the leader. A

perfect example of this principle was embodied in Canada during the Second World War. The Prime Minister of Canada,

William Lyon Mackenzi King, knew that war was imminent following Germany's invasion of Poland. However, in order to

solidify Canada's autonomy from Britain, King did not begin mobilizing the military as soon as Britain declared war.

Instead, he allowed Parliament to vote on whether or not to join the war and for the Canadian population to form their

own opinions. Sure enough, the population was on board with the war effort and Parliament voted in favour of aiding

Britain. While the leader of the Conservative opposition, Arthur Meighen, would have immediately come to Britain's

aid, King's original silence allowed the war effort to gather steam with the people prior to any mobilization. The

result was a confident, exuberant, autonomous, and even frenzied Canada. The almost unanimous support of the population

went a long way in encouring the troops to serve their country proudly.

 

When deciding when a leader should remain silent or be vocal, the morale of the leader's followers must be considered.

When the people served by the leader are dejected, demoralized, and in need of inspiration, a good leader will

speak out to lift spirits and exude confidence. When a leader's people, on the other hand, are in high spirits and

in strong support of an objective, a good leader will let the momentum of the people carry them forward without

interference. Both Churchill and King were instrumental in the resilience of the Allies in the face of the German

war machine, and each accomplished this in their own way.

[agold]

Hey Sameer,

Found you! Here are three essays I have written.

 

~Alexander

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Almost every great fortune is made at the expense of other 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 fortune might be made without harm to other people. Discuss the principles you think determine whether or not fortunes are made at the expense of other people.

 

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

 

 

Wealth, power, fortune and the american dream - it all comes at a cost: Hard work, long hours, and manpower. A white coller executive stands on the shoulders of his subordanants and reaps the benifits of their collective dedication and labour. An unfair class distinction is made even in the most 'progressive' of western and european nations, leaving wealth in the hands of the few while the rest can only dream of one day having their own fortune.

 

Interational corporations, aided by international free trade laws, the International Monitary Fund and the World Bank develop industries and resources in poor and developing nations. They claim to, and in some cases do raise the general standard of living for the average person - but the true profits never reach the workers or the country, and the people remain impoverished. Nigeria is a country on the west coast of africa, rich in both oil and cheap labour. For decades it has been stricken with civil unrest and terrorism. Radical groups fight to try and raise the living conditions, safety standards, and wages of the nigerian prolitariot - but to no avail. Corrupt government and greedy oil corporations stifle all attempts to make changes. Profits are made in excess, huge oil reserves are tapped and exported and exectives laugh their way all the way to the bank. Regardless, profits are heightened by the abuse and exploitation of people on which the corporation depends. People who have no education, minimal health care, and no choice but to try to eek out a living on the scraps they are thrown.

 

 

Now, it may be true that corporate and executive wealth comes largely at the expense of the workers, but there are examples of fair corporations, who share the benifits of sucess with the people who made it happen. Starbucks is a multinational corporation which makes enormous profits. It is well known to have high wages, buy only fair traid coffee and to have above industry standard employee benifits. It spreads the wealth a little (if only a little) and ensures employee well being. In the case of Starbucks, we can see that corporate profits do not come at anyones expense.

 

 

It is not intutively obvious whether or not all fortunes come at the behest of doing people harm. In order to make the distinction between fair and harmful profits, one must examine the direct treatment of the workers and the standards of the industry which produced the profit. Oil companies not only allowed for Nigeria to be left an impoveristhed nation, its unjust treatment lead to civil unrest and deadly terrorist bombings. Starbucks on the other hand is looked upon as a model corporation in terms of its workers wages and benifits. It may be inescapable that only a fraction of people actually acheive incredible wealth, power, fortune and the american dream - but these fortunes can be evaluated on their harmfulness based on close examination of the living conditions and industry treatment of the workers.

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

2)

New technologies often hide problems that are only revealed later.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the benefits of a new technology might not hide later problems. Discuss what you think determines when the benefits of a new technology outweigh potential problems.

 

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

 

Corporations have been characterized as sociopaths. Their specific stated function is to amass profit for their shareholders and nothing else. They guard their secrets, and they present a pretty picture. New technologies seem perfect, unhindered by problems, superior, and are marketed as if they will never experience a single issue. Unfortunately, we all know this is not true. Microsoft corporation has now developed an error reporting system, allowing the computer to record data on any computer error or incompatibility issue and send the data to Microsoft. Patches and updates are issued continually, and with the hundreds of thousands of programs available for computer users incompatibility issues and security threats are boundless. Unfortunately, only mainstream market programs are tested and designed for use on the latest operating systems (such as windows xp, vista or 7) and many users are left to wonder if the less well known program they just purchased will run smoothly on their computer. These issues are unforseeable and incredibly frustrating.

 

 

It may be true that some operating systems will be unpredictably incompatible with future programs, but there are others which offer more flexibility, and allow the user to forsee and correct some problems. Linux is a widespread system which operates under a freeware licence agreement, meaning it can be distributed and changed by anyone. It is known as 'open sourced' and is touted by the 'hippies' of the computer word, superseeding profit mongering by giant corporations. Any user can view the source code (the core of the program) and make their own changes. Comercially available programs lock this data away as a corporate seret and users are left to wait to see if they experience problems. When they do, they are reliant on microsoft and any other software producers providing a fix.

 

 

It is not always easy to define an operating system as predictable, but as a general rule open sourced software allows computer savy users to peer into the innards and estimate what will and will not work on their computer. Microsoft hides the source code and forces users to rely on their own error fixes where as linux users can forsee and correct problems themselves. Open sourced software does not hide future problems but closed source software does.

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

3)In times of war, maintaining public support is often the most difficult battle.

 

Describe a specific situation in which maintaining public support in a time of war might not be difficult. Discuss what you think determines when maintaining public support in times of war is difficult and when it is not.

 

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

 

 

The Iraq war has now surpassed the Vietnam war as the singe longest military campaign the United States has ever been involved with. People dont want to be fighting a war. People don't like to think of the american casualties, or the civillian casualties, or the perpetual global conflict. People donlt like to see trillians of dollars spent a year on military, while there are hundreds of thousands of people living on food stamps. They just want to say enough is enough. No more death, no more killing. But wars are more complicated than simply pulling out. And some leaders believe that in order to ensure peace, a campain must be seen through to the end. They must fight the hardest battle on the home fronts, keeping the support of the people. Former President George W. Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq seven years ago, and yet American troops are still fighting and dying. For what? For for the non-involvment with the attacks of 9-11? For the non-existant weapons of mass distruction? For a doomed puppet democracy in a divided tribal nation? The public does not want to fight this war. Republicans and democrats alike want to see the troops come home. The most difficult task of the current adminstration is to maintain public support for the military presence in Iraq.

 

Now it is true, the long drawn out conflict in Iraq is difficult to support, but when George W. Bush sent America to war once again, he did so with overwhelming support of the people. Immeadiately after the September eleventh attack on the world trade center by Osama Binladen, George bush starting to use the words, Al Queda and Sadam Husein in the same sentence. He rallied the people resonating with anger and fear from the tradgedy in new york, and directed their fear and fury towards the leader of Iraq. He fired the coals with 'proof' of weapons of mas distruction, and he manipulated the American public into accepting an unjust war. Fighting the home fronts was the easy part in the beginning.

 

Its not always easy to decide if maintaining support for a war is harder than actually fighting it, but when the people can see something affecting them directly, and affecting them now, they will stand behind global conflict and will hoot and hollar to kill the enemy. September eleventh struck home to the American people so hard that they went to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attack. Today, as the lies of the Bush presidency sit bare before us, the only direct effects the people see are their loved ones dying, and their deficit growing. They can no longer support this unjust war.

[imagination07]

Hey Sameer, hope I'm not posting too many, but I am writing in less than a week so any feedback is appreciated! Thanks again!

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

 

 

Companies in the modern age are frequently regulated directly or indirectly by the government through various guidelines and restrictions. The majority of these same companies provide many services to the general public which may include banking at a local teller, or selling a certain product to customers. It is important to note that every citizen of Canada is protected under the Human Charter of Rights and Freedoms to food, shelter, and health care. The latter of the three mentioned is extremely important when discussing government regulation in companies involved with this aspect of the rights of the citizens. An example are large pharmaceutical companies who develop and sell prescription drugs and medication to the citizens should be under governmental regulation. The government has a liability to regulate these types of companies because it has a responsibility to provide adequate health care to its citizens as drafted in the Charter. Regulation of these companies may include but not limited to prices, quantity available for purchase, or insurance coverage of a certain medication that is required by a citizen to treat their condition. Likewise, poor regulation of such companies may result in potential hazards in society involving abuse of the drugs by drug users. What is important to remember is that governments have this responsibility because these are necessities linked to their citizens' survival.

 

Although many goverment has a responsibility to regulate many companies, there are some that may be excluded. This may include popular clothing line stores such as Hollister, or other companies who sell brand name clothing. In this day and age, it can be said that clothing is a necessity as it is illegal to walk out in society without it. Typically, clothes that are bought from such brand name stores are higher than their equivalents in other large department stores such as Sears, The Bay, or other outlet stores. However, the government has no obligation to regulate these brand name companies; although the type of product they offer is a necessity, there are other means of getting it at a fraction of the cost. The second option is usually affordable by even the poorest of citizens.

 

Having discussed to different types of companies where the government has responsibility to regulate one but not the other, what determines whether the government has such an obligation? The distinction can be drawn between needs and wants. With companies that deal with medications drugs that are linked with the health of citizens, the government must regulate such companies as health care is a basic necessity of its citizens. At first, wants may be counterintuitive in the example of clothing as all citizens need clothing. However, the brand name and accessories that come with such products at jacked up prices do not require governmental regulation because all these extras can be considered wants. In addition, it is possible for citizens to fulfill that necessity by other stores which they can afford. Although government regulation is required for many companies, there other companies for which this obligation is not required.

 

Here's a second one from a practice test!

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

 

To an ordinary Canadian citizen who observes a copious number of advertisements on the television and radio about the Liberal, Conservative, and New Democratic Party and the familiar politicians' faces plastered all over posters and billboards may assume one thing is in the near future: election. The foundation of the Canadian government lies on the voting process of electing politicians into power influencing the many policies and regulations of how the nation is run. A typical government in Canada would consist of the leader party which contains the majority of elected politicians representing that party and the opposition parties, the remaining politicians elected who represent the other political parties. It can be said that without compromise, political goals are near impossible to achieve due to the nature of the structure of this type of government. Often times, the passage of a bill requires the support of the opposition party, who has different political goals than the leading party. Compromise has to be taken in order for that particular political goal to be achieved. Another example of this can be seen in last year's TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) strike over the summer. The reason for the strike was a dispute in various aspects of an agreement between the union workers and the government. It can be said that the ultimate goal of the government was to provide the transportation service to the citizens of Toronto through the TTC, which was not possible if the TTC were on strike. The trade-off between the two resulted in many compromises in the agreement to achieve that goal.

 

The monotonous mundane life presented in the novel, "Brave New World" by Huxley can draw similarities to a governmental situation that persists today in parts of the world. Sole supremacy is seen in countries such as North Korea where the political government is the only governing body in the country. They have total influence over the media, trade, and essentially control the actions of their own citizens. In these situations, they have no reason to learn the art of compromise in order to achieve their political goals, because they have no opposition. What the party deems to be law, becomes law, there is no other alternative. This total dictatorship of a nation has no sense of compromise as military action crushes those who even voice an opposing opinion.

 

What deems the necessity of a politician to learn the art of compromise is whether they are part of a democratic society, or a communist one. Another way this can be put is whether there is an existing opposition to their goals or not. In a democratic society, opposition is an integral part of the governmental system where equality towards different peoples is a primary objective. With opposition, there must be compromise, because a different set of perspectives is brought to the bargaining table. To move forward and achieve the political goals, some of each parties' conditions will have to be compromised. However, in the case of a communist society, the government has sole control over the laws and there is not even a remote chance of an opposition as it is immediately eradicated. Due to the nature of this type of society, there is no need for the politician in power to learn the art of compromise as he essentially, is the law. In either case, the ultimate political goals with each individual side always aligns with the beliefs and values of the politician who is working to achieve them.

[the stranger]

Pride weakens powerful nations.

Describe a specific situation in which pride would not weaken a powerful nation. Discuss what you think determines whether or not pride weakens powerful nations.

 

In the Roman Catholic faith, pride is cited as one of the seven deadly sins. Too much pride in an individual is believed to represent an undesirable quality, and will ultimately lead to the downfall of that individual. Likewise, just as it can weaken on a individual basis, pride can also weaken powerful nations. For example, the United States is unequivocally one of the most powerful nations in the world, and is also considered to be one of the most proud. Americans are very rightfully proud of their country, and their constitution which outlines the rights and freedoms of it's citizens. However, although most aspects of the constitution strengthen the country and the principles on which it stands, there are certain aspects which may in fact weaken the nation. In particular, the "right to bear arms" is one of these constitutional freedoms which can ultimately cause harm to the country. This right gives way to a great deal of issues for the US including greater incidence of gun violence, crime and gang activity. These are very serious issues which take away from other aspects of the country which should be focused on including the economy, education and healthcare. Thus, because of the pride that accompanies the constitution including it's "right to bear arms", the issues that go along with this right have caused harm and suffering in other members of society, and have weakened the country overall.

 

Although pride is generally considered to be a negative quality, there are situations where pride does not weaken a nation, and may in fact even strengthen it. A good illustration of this fact is the referendum in Quebec in the 1990's. The people of Quebec were concerned that their needs were not being addressed by the government of Canada, which led to a referendum asking the province a simple question; whether Quebec should remain a part of Canada, or whether it should separate to become it's own nation. The results of the vote showed that 49% believed that Quebec should separate, and thus, because of this Quebec remained a province of Canada. In this case, the pride that 51% of Quebeckers felt for Canada was enough to keep the country together. This was an extremely important piece of history for Canada, because the diversity that Quebec offers for the country is valued by many other Canadians. In this case, pride did not cause any harm or suffering, but contributed to strengthening Canada by keeping the country together.

 

Where in some cases national pride can elicit feelings of unity and respect for one's country, it can also have detrimental effects. Pride is a quality which is generally looked upon with disgust, and therefore often weakens nations which possess too much of this quality. On the other hand, some national pride can provide a sense of unity and togetherness which will ultimately strengthen a nation. Perhaps a determining factor is whether or not the pride results in the harm of others. In the case of the US constitution, although many americans are very proud of this document and the freedom that it implicates, some aspects of it, most notably the right to bear arms, have caused many problems for the nation due to the violence and the harm that it has caused to members of the country. Therefore because the pride ultimately leads to the harm of others, it has weakened the nation. In the case of Quebec, the pride that was felt by a slight majority of the people of Quebec determined that Canada remain whole and that Quebec not separate as a distinct nation. This pride manifested itself as a sense of national unity, rather than causing harm to others, and thus has strengthened the country.

 

Hey jflear,

Your overall argument and resolution are good – you have shown some depth of thought and treated this prompt in a coherent, unified way. However your first example is weakened by the fact that you are arguing for a point, rather than providing an example of a situation that demonstrates or supports the prompt. Think of it this way – you state that the right to bear arms causes harm, however there is a large base of Americans that would fight that contention to the death (probably with arms). You should avoid making statements of a subjective nature and stick to using examples of actual situations that have occurred that support or demonstrate what the prompt is trying to get at.

Score: 4.5/6

 

P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html

[the stranger]

Thanks for the quick response on my last one. Here's another I just wrote. I'm loving the feedback and trying to improve with more practice and hopefully better examples. Thanks again!

 

"In a truly free and open society, censorship can never be justified"

 

Democratic societies pride themselves on the liberties granted to their citizens. It is a source of great national pride in these societies. One that is taught and engrained into young children and teaches them to grow up into citizens who appreciate, and love their country. Censorship is a form of with holding information. When information is witheld from citizens, for instance, by the government, citizens no longer feel free and liberated. In these instances the society feels more stifled, as if their libereties have been stripped. In a truly free and open society, censorship is rarely justified. An instance of when citizens (as well as the press) felt our liberties were being stripped away was during the G20 summit in Toronto in the summer of 2010. During this summit there were many protests occuring many of them peaceful but some protests were not so peaceful. As a precautionary measure riot police stood by in the protest areas. However, the manner in which the riot police acted was overly authoritarian. Included in these overly authoritarian actions were a complete disrespect of members of the press. Members of the press were treated the same as the protestors and many were arrested for no apparent reason at all. These press members were hindered from reporting on about the G20 protests at that time and in essence were being censored by the police in the protest areas. Many stories have been printed since that time, but the censorship of recording equipment and camera equipment used by press members truly took away from their freedom as well as from the freedom of society to hear these stories in their uncensored format.

 

However, it is not always the case that in a truly free and open society, can censorship never be justified. Even in a free and open society, citizens may choose to not want to expose their children to certain media. For instance, the rules on the radio prohibit any profanity prior to 9pm. However, after 9pm this censorship no longer holds and language on the radio after 9pm is more relaxed from rules. This rule serves to protect children from listening to vulgar language. It also serves to aid parents in raising children in an environment where they would be constantly worried to expose their children to radio. Because of this, parents can be free to take their children to public places like malls and grocery stores where the radio is frequently played.

 

Thus we can see that in some instances censorship of the press and media are justified. However, in many cases for a society to feel free and open, it is not. It is the case for censorship to be justified when the majority of the citizens agree that certain material is inappropriate for the general public especially younger audiences. However, it is never justified when individuals choose to withhold information from others for their own benefit. When this occurs liberties are censorship causes liberties to be stripped from citizens. However, in the case where the majority of citizens agree to censor certain programs and media citizens are empowered.

 

Hello shin,

You seemed a bit rushed in this essay. Try to pace yourself and write more equally for all your paragraphs (that is, your first paragraph was a lot more detailed than the others). Your examples were good however your second example could have been more specific if you had given a bit more detail about that particular “rule” (i.e. what body enacted it, for what reason, etc). Still your examples were effective. Also be sure to spend more time explaining the significance of your examples to your argument (this was especially true in paragraph 1 where you really only described the example without clearly relating it back to the argument). Your resolution was good.

Score: 4.5-5/6 <- there was also some issue with readability, which I thought attributed to the rushed feeling. Try and pace yourself and write clearer, more concise paragraphs with less small broken up sentences. This should enhance readability.

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer,

 

Thank you for your feedback on my last essay. I was having trouble being clear in my supporting and refuting paragraphs so that's what I tried to work on in this essay (the prompt is from a practice mcat). Your comments are greatly appreciated!

 

-----

 

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

 

In a functioning society, governments can often play a key role in representing the interests of citizens. In many cases it can be beneficial to citizens that their government take an active role in setting up legislation and policies in order to regulate the manner in which some companies providing necessary services to citizens conduct business. Such regulation is especially needed in cases where a company is the sole provider of a specific service, in order to ensure that citizens who need the service are not taken advantage of when it comes to pricing. Consider, for example, the power company BC Hydro. BC Hydro is the sole provider of electricity in the province of British Columbia, and as such maintains a monopoly over providing this service. Although BC Hydro is a business, it is regulated by and must report to the BC provincial government. As a result, the government can regulate aspects such as the cost of electricity, preventing the company from potentially demanding high prices for its services as it is the sole provider of electricity. In this case, the BC government has the responsibility to BC's citizens to regulate the manner in which BC Hydro conducts business.

 

Although in the case of BC Hydro it should be the government's responsibility to regulate the company, it is not always necessary for the government to regulate a company that provides a necessary service. One can look at Loblaws as an example. Loblaws is a large grocery store chain that has made itself a highly successful company by providing food to consumers, which can be considered a necessary service. In comparison to BC Hydro, Loblaws is not the only company to provide its service to consumers, as there are multiple other such grocery retailers. The competition that exists between these multiple companies enables fairer pricing for consumers than may have existed had only one company provided the service. This makes it unnecessary for the government to impose regulations on a company like Loblaws.

 

It is not immediately clear under which circumstances governments have the responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. However a key determinant is whether the company in question has a monopoly over the essential service it offers. In the case of BC Hydro, it is the only company to provide electrical services to the BC population, therefore the government should have the responsibility to impose regulations upon the way the company conducts business. In the case of a necessary service where there exist multiple companies providing the service, as in the case of grocery services provided by Loblaws, it becomes unnecessary for the government to impose regulations on these companies as competition between the companies can prevent the service from becoming excessively costly to consumers.

 

Hey medschoolhopeful10,

Excellent essay. Well written, coherent and concise. You hit the major points and your resolution was excellent. Your essay was unified and presented good, clear examples. I would only say to spend a little more time explaining why your example supports your arguments (this was especially true for task 1).

Score: 5.5/6

[the stranger]

Thanks so much for your help!

 

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

 

In our society, it can be said that “technology makes the world go round.” Daily, we are confronted with a wide array of new and innovative communication technologies; from blackberries and iPhones, to facebook and email, the possibilities are endless. The convenience of being able to chat with friends, while surfing the net, or working, causes less inclination to interact in person because it would require more time and energy. Major phone companies, including Fido and Rogers, have developed “free texting” phone plans, enabling Americans to avoid the use of human interaction when it is simply easier to send a “text”.

 

However, communication technology does not always reduce the quality of human interactions; when communicating with long distance friends or relatives, communicating via network applications such as Facebook may be the only method of keeping in touch. Facebook was invented by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004, and it is free and very accessible to people all over the world. This networking tool allows users to share photos, send gifts, and even chat online. In the case of long distance relationships, communication technology actually serves to increase the quality of human interaction by providing a more accessible and less expensive medium in which to communicate.

 

An important aspect of understanding the advancements in communication technology is being able to accept the flaws and appreciate the benefits. Regarding relationships between friends or relatives that live relatively close to each other, communication technology can often hinder the quality of human interaction because it is easier to send a text while multitasking rather than arrange a date to talk in person. Alternately, in the case of long distance relatives and friends, the advancement of accessible technology has served to strengthen the quality of human interaction since people are more readily able to “stay in touch.” Communication technology can greatly benefit a long distance relationship, while strongly obstructing a close distance relationship.

 

Hello madison007,

Although you’ve presented some valid points, overall your essay falls a bit flat because of your resolution – it is too narrow. To only consider the impact of communication technology on long vs. Short distance relationships is not encompassing enough. Communication technologies play a role in many more aspects of our lives than just relationships. You should always aim to provide a resolution principle that is broad enough to be applied to many situations that the prompt could apply to. Also your examples are ok but you should use examples of specific situations that have actually occurred that fulfill your tasks.

Score: 4/6

[the stranger]

Thanks for looking at this Sameer...

 

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

 

Todays solutions in communications create the problems of tommorrow. While this is a cliche, perhaps the problems of tommorrow are already upon us now. The quality of human interaction has been degraded from human contact, sharing experiences and even hearing each others voice, to beeps and computer prompts. This is particularly true for our current communication dilemma in the developped world where individuals are equipped with smart phones that enable the user to email, text, surf the internet, and lastly use it as a telephone. Take for example the online social networking internet site Facebook. This web forum "connects" family, friends and old friend and acquaintances. However, is it really connecting people? The ability of someone to log on through a portable device to Facebook, at any instant, has degraded human interaction to vitual post it notes. Facebook, prompts you when it is someones birthday so you can leave a message on the birthday recipients wall. This has taken the place, or someone thinking about a loved ones birthday, buying a card, writing a thoughtful note, buying a stamp and mailing it. Sure, the though was there, but the quality of interaction has been degraded from a personal card to a generic post.

 

Modern advancements in communication have also lead to an ease of communication, and an accesibility of communication never seen before. The advances of modern voice over internet protocol (VOIP) such as Skype has drastically reduced the cost of telephone calls internationally. This abdvanced method of communication, enables humans to connect over great distances where physically sharing a moment is not possible. Take for example an immigrant to Canada who has left their friends and families in another country. It can be a lonely and intimidating experience to be in a new country trying to make ends meet and develop a new life. With VOIP and very little cost, the new immigrant would be able to communicate with their family back in their home country. Skype will allow the user to call out to a landline phone, so the recipient of the call does not need to have internet. This communication advancement, benefits the quality of human interaction where it is not possible to physically share a moment with a loved one.

 

Advancements in communications in developped countries have degraded the quality of human contact and sharing experiences with one another to text messages and vitual post-it notes. When individual live in the same city, modern communication tools such as Facebook has connected individuals in a lifeless virtual way, robbing individual to genuinely share a laugh together. These technologies would be better suited to arrange a plan to book time together, instead of share a virtual thought. The advancement of modern technology can also have the potential to do good, it can break down the barriers of distance to enable loved one to communicate over long distances, and for a fraction of the cost. Advanced communication technologies should be reserved for situations where distance or other methods are not viable to communicate.

 

Hi Ibismaximus,

Avoid using overly subjective language in your first paragraph – you will only have to refute your own statements in paragraph 2. Reread your essay and notice the complete change in tone between the end of p1 and start of p2: this is an awkward transition, but would have been smoother if you hadn’t been so categorical in your first paragraph. Try to use more neutral language to smooth things over. Also your resolution principle is ok but you could have been more broad – your resolution only applies to peoples relationships but what about other facets of our life where communication technology plays a role? Your resolution should be broad enough to be applied to many situations.

Score: 4.5/6

 

P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html

[the stranger]

DRASTIC ACTION IS SOMETIMES THE ONLY WAY TO BRING ABOUT POLITICAL CHANGE

 

Through-out history, certain events brought on by politics can be marked as significant on a global scale, and thereby be recognized as drastic action. These actions help to promote political change in a nation by supporting positive movement in the directions of social and economic needs. The final take-down of the Axis military in World War II by the Allied forces is an example of when drastic action was taken in order to install political change. By dismantling the Axis military, Hitler's dictatorship and Third Reich crumbled. The overthrown German government, whose use of the nation's resources was expendible to a great extent, now had the chance to recover from its ordeal. By completely dismembering the ruling government, war-torn Germany had the opportunity to recover its economy (though over many years), as well, restore its social order, and instill overall political change.

 

Although the drastic action of WWII was necessary to bring political change to Germany, it is not always neccessary. The passing of the Canadian Health Care Act of 1984, is a perfect example of how a large, global event is not necessary to see political change in a nation. By using tax dollars, the Canadian government is able to fund a health care system where treatment for a large range of medical problems is free. This system has allowed for society the freedom free healthcare, and contrary to popular belief, has been able to be sustained within the economy. So unlike the acts in war, drastic action was not necessary for the Canadian Health Care Act to be passed in order to instill political change.

 

When deciding if drastic action is the only way to bring about political change, a dichotomy must be considered. When a nation is facing obstacles which extend through the main party of government, the use of national resources, and unnecessary destruction of human lives, drastic action, like war, is necessary in bringing about political change. This was seen in the overthrowing of the German dictatorship in 1945. However, when a nation is faced with an obstacle which does not directly descend through the ruling party, the extensive use of national resources, and most importantly the arbitrary termination of lives, drastic action may not be needed to infer political change. The passing and continuing of the Canadian Health Care Act is an example of political change that was not brought on by a signficant and global event.

 

 

Thank you!

I was also wondering how many more weeks will you be grading prompts?

 

Hello RoughER,

 

I'll be grading prompts for a couple more weeks, probably until the end of the month.

 

Your resolution principle was a bit unclear since you haven’t defined what “extending through the main party of government” and other statements like this mean. You should be clear about what you’re trying to elucidate in your resolution. Try to be more concise and choose your words wisely. I also felt your first example was a little unclear. You should go back over your essay to proofread for clarity. Some of your sentence structure and word choice could use some tweaking.

Score: 4/6

 

P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer. Thanks so much for helping us out! It would be great if you could provide me some feedback and a score on this prompt. Since this is my first WS attempt, it took me 50 minutes to write!

 

 

The more people rely on computers, the more people become alienated from one another.

 

 

Advancements in technology have given mankind the gift, or the nuisance, as some might argue, called computer. Advocates of the computer's technological miracles might argue that it has transformed this world into a "global village". Thoughts of a village should evoke feelings of warmth and love blossoming among a close-knit community where people know & help each other. But a keen observer will notice that the village the computer has produced is not quite the same. Computers have spread like a plague into peoples' homes and offices in the past few decades. Their widespread use has come at a cost to modern societies. Computer users tend to spend more time staring at a computer screen than at the faces of their loved ones. The more time people devote to computers, whether for justified reasons or not, the more they cut down on quality time with family and friends. Moreoever, many people have found a source of entertainment in the computer.Thanks to Youtube, the the living room TV is no longer needed as much. Youtube has stolen the time one might have spent watching TV with his/her loved ones. Computer has minimized opporunties for interactions with other people in social settings. It engrosses its users into a world of its own where they tend to be unconscious of their surroundings. Enter a students' lounge or a cafeteria at a university in off-peak hours and you will likely not see a very social scene. People with laptops on their laps, typing away constantly with their eyes glued to their screens will seldom take the opportunity to introduce themsleves or talk about the wheather or about thier upcoming exams. They are also very likely to feel bothered by your attempt to initate a conversation with them. It can hence be arugued that increased reliance on computers may produce behaviours that are not very conducive to harbouring social interactions among people and thus people can become alienated from one another.

 

But to claim that computers always alienate people from one another would be questionable. Despite reducing physical and verbal communication with others, computers do offer oppurtunities for virtual interactions. For instance, social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have had dramatic

effects on peoples' social lives. Such sites have provided a way to stay in touch with family and friends, whether nearby or far away, very effectively. Knwoing how a freind is feeling or what he is doing or where he is going on his vacation is just a click away. Chatting services with video call and webcam features have made connecting and communicating with other people feel almost real. Email has provided a fast and efficient alterntive to paper mail. Not only can one cherish existing relationships with people, he also has numerous oppurtunites to create new ones through the internet. Therefore, it is reasonale to argue that computers might promote social interaction rather than eliminating it in some situations.

 

One might then ask what determines whether computers promote or inhibit social interactions? The answer is not very simple. It depends on the specific situation, preferances, and intent of the user. A self-employed single man with no family members or friends living in a studio apartment will likely find that Facebook is great to fulfill his social needs. He can find a whole new community throught the internet and get to know all sorts of people and stay connected with them. Children of a busy businessman or software engineer on the other hand might feel that computer is stealing their quality time with their father. Parents of a teenager might feel that their son loves his Facebook friends more than them. Regardgless of the situation however, the intent of the user can play a great role. If one decides to create a balance between family/freinds and computer time, he will likely not get alienated from anyone. If he however values computer gaming or internet browsing more than people, he will be more prone to social alienation.

 

Hi darknebula,

Unfortunately this feedback won’t be as useful for you since your essay would really only be as good as the 30 minutes allows. However if you had completed within the timeframe, here’s what I would say:

Your examples were all right but you need to provide actual situations that have occurred that demonstrate and refute the prompt. Try to think of examples from current events, history, or any other recognizeable source. Also, you should avoid bringing up multiple arguments and examples in each paragraph – stick to one clear example that fulfills the task, rather than several. This is especially true in your resolution paragraph – you should never bring up new examples in task 3, in fact you should relate your criteria back to the examples you used to increase unity. Your resolution was good however you could have explained it more clearly.

Score: 4.5/6

 

P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer, this is another WS i've written from a practice mcat. Thanks again for your feedback!

 

------

 

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

 

The job of a politician frequently involves initiating new policies and legislation in many different fields, from business and the economy to health care and education. During the process, politicians, whether they be mayors of a city or presidents of a country, often have to communicate with other politicians and opposing political parties with different viewpoints in order to ensure new policies are in all citizens' best interests. Therefore compromise, or the act of negotiating, is a vital tool for a politician to be successful in instating new policies and ideas to achieve their political goals. An example of a politician who needed to use the art of compromise to achieve their political goals is United States President Barack Obama. When President Obama first took office in 2009, one of his first plans was for health care reform. His new legislation involved making the US government play a bigger role in providing health care insurance to Americans. In order for this new health care legislation to pass, President Obama needed to greatly compromise on certain key aspects in order to have opposing politicians agree to the changes. In this case, since the changes to health care proposed by President Obama's health care reform were very controversial, he needed to use the art of compromise to great effect in order to achieve his political goal of health care reform.

 

Although in many instances compromise is necessary for a politician to achieve their political goals, it is not always the case that compromise is necessary. We can again look to US President Obama for an example. Following the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama was successful in passing a temporary moratorium on drilling of new marine oil wells. In this case, because of the drastic affects caused by the oil spill on the environment and on the livelihood of many residents of states bordering the gulf, President Obama was not faced with as much opposition as the temporary moratorium was deemed necessary. Therefore, in this case, compromise was not vital for him to achieve his political goal.

 

It is true that politicians who are skilled in the art of compromise are usually successful in achieving their political goals, but it can also be the case that compromise is not always necessary. Whether a politician requires compromise to achieve their goal usually depends on how controversial is a new policy. In the case of his controversial policies on health care reform, President Obama was required to skillfully compromise with other politicians in order to pass his new legislation. However, in the case of the moratorium on the drilling of new oil wells, compromise was not a necessary factor for him to pass the new policy. Therefore, although it is important for a political to be skilled in the art of compromise, it is not always the case that compromise is necessary to bring about political success.

 

Another successful essay. Clear and coherent, and unified. I like the use of two Obama examples, however the second example could be seen as a bit inaccurate because the moratorium was strongly opposed by other world leaders. Still this example does go to show your point.

 

Score: 5.5/6

[sarup]

Hi Sameer. Thanks for doing this. I really had trouble with this one

 

 

Laws cannot change social values.

 

Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a law might change a social value.

Discuss what you think determines when laws can change social values and when they cannot.

 

Social values encompasses the ethical and moral views of an individual. Often times, these values are instilled and firmlay rooted in the individual by their family and community when they are young. As a result, this makes it hard for any law sanctioned by the government to change an idividuals social values. For example, in the 1930's, the US government

intiated a period of prohibition, stopping the public from having access to alcoholic drinks. Many individuals felt that it was not morally irresponsible to enjoy a beer or other alcoholic bevarage. As a result, many people obtained their drinks illegally from gangsters and bootleggers. Seeing the futility, the government evnetually overturned the prohibition law.

 

However, there are times where a law can change certain values. This is especially the case when there is mounting pressure for the creation of a law. For example, take the legalization of abortion. Before Wade vs. Roe, many pregnant women were forced to go underground and obtain illegal abortion. The legalization of abortion no doubt changed the values of some young women and allowed women another option when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

 

What should determine when laws can change social values and when they cannot is whether there is pressure to create the law. In the case of prohibition, there was very little pressure to change. In the case of abortion, there was increasing pressure to provide women this option legally, rather than forcing them to go underground and having the procedure done in questionable conditions.

[the stranger]

Hey Sameer,

 

Here are another couple of prompts I wrote about. Thank you.

 

"To master technology is to become enslaved by it."

 

The exponentially improvment of technology is an amazing thing. It seems to have overtaken the evolutionary process, which has been driving our species forward. It is said that the speed of computers doubles every 5 years. At the same time, computers are getting increasingly smaller every year. This seems to have occured without fail since the invention of the computer over 30 years ago. Technology has and always will be created to aid and assist mankind. However, too much of a good thing eventually becomes a bad thing. That is to say, when technology is overly relied upon one becomes enslaved by it. To master technology refers to becoming extremely profficient at using technology. An example of this can be seen in the internet literate culture in the developed world. Especially now with the huge boom of smart phones, such as the iPhone, android phones and blackberry phones, we are witness to a generation of people who find it difficult to disconnect from technology. In recent years there have been more and more complaints of spouses who seem more absent from relationships and unable to disconnect from their mobile devices, which constantly stimulate them with internet news, media and communication with internet social networks. It truly seems that some people are enslaved by this technology. At a social dinner with friends, one can often find that some friends constantly have their noses buried in their devices rather than participate directly in the social event that is occuring right in front of them. In these cases, the smart phones are having a negative impact on the users social lives, taking away from their real life sociability and replacing it with a virtual one. In these cases, although the users wish to participate in such social events, they can not give their full attention because they are constantly pulled back to their smart phones.

 

However, it is not always the case that when one masters technology does one get enslaved by it. Technology is and always will be a tool for our use. If used properly, technology can free and liberate us. Technology can open the door for new opportunities. As shown by the boom of the internet and the recent rise in the dotcom industry, our society has and is mastering the internet. Through the dotcom industries rise, many websites have been created that, when used properly, open the doors to new opportunities. There are now a plethora of travel websites, which make traveling to new and exotic locations easier than it ever has been. There are dating websites, which allow people otherwise too busy with their jobs to have the freedom and flexability to find a partner to date. There are job searching websites like workopolis that help people find a job that is the right fit for them and also for employers to find the right employee. These examples of the internet are liberating. No longer are people confined by their geography, or work situation. With the use of these technologies, people are free to expand themselves beyond where they may have without these technologies.

 

In conlusion, it was discussed that an over use of technology such as the pervasion of smart phones in all aspects of a users life, can enslave the user who has mastered that technology. However, we also see that this is not always the case. Some users who have mastered technology such as in the use of websites to find new careers, are actually liberated by the use and mastery of technology. The distinction is in the users themselves and how they use technology. If one allows technology to override all aspects of one's life, then technology has the ability to enslave. However, in moderation, technology can be liberating. All good things can become bad things in excess. This is true for technology.

 

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

"The primary concern of the government should be the well-being of its citizens"

 

In modern societies citizens tolerate taxes because there is a understanding that although it may be a burden, it is going toward a body larger than individuals that is working toward the well-being of its citizens. In a democratic society, it is the citizens who elect governments and the tax dollars of the citizens that fund the government. For this reason, it should be a main concern of the government to ensure the well-being of the citizens. Well-being refers to what citizens want as well the safety and health of citizens. In most well functioning democratic governments, this is true. So much that peoples in government office are often referred to as civil servants, who work for citizens. An example of the government's main concern being for the citizens is the response of South Korea (as well as the United Nations) after an attack on a South Korean vessel by a North Korean Torpedo. Earlier this year, investigations concluded North Korea fired at and sunk a South Korean vessel killing the crew members aboard the ship, which was situated in near the North and South Korean boarder. In response to this, South Korea has increased its military vigilance as well as preparing and practicing war maneuvers with US military. In doing so, South Korea is preparing to defend itself from the North if war breaks out. The effect of these actions is to defend the citizens of the country.

 

However, it is not always the case that a government can ensure the well-being of all its citizens. In some instances, a government action or inaction will negatively affect some of its citizens while postively affecting other citizens. In some cases, it is impossible to ensure the well-being of all citizens. In these cases, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the rights of all citizens are being respected. For instance, recently a judge in California over ruled proposition 8, which denied recognizing homosexual marital union. In doing so, the citizens who voted in the proposition were furious, fearing that homosexual marriage would threaten the social fabric. However, the gay community was delighted in this triumph. The judge justified his actions citing the proposition was unconstitutional and imposed on the rights of gay people. In this example we see that the government was unable to ensure the well-being of all its citizens. However, the government ensure to uphold the rights of its citizens, even if it was the minority that was being respresented. In the case of proposition 8, it seemed that the majority of voters (who were not gay), were imposing rules on gay citizens (who were a minority). This is similar to the majority of people not wanting to give black people a vote 40 years ago. However, in both instances the rights of the minorities over ruled the demands of the majority.

 

In conclusion we can see that the primary concern for a government should be the well-being of its citizens. For instance to protect them from a neighboring, war nation. However, it is not always the case where the government can look out for the well being of all citizens. In some instances the well-being of some citizens precludes the well-being of others. In these instances, the government has a responsibility to uphold the rights of all citizens. Even if upholding the rights of all citizens means representing the minority of citizens rather than the majority.

 

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

 

Essay 1:

Your examples should be specific situations that have actually occurred rather than general descriptions of situations that can occur. Try to draw from current events, news, history, or other recognizeable sources for actual situations you can use as examples. Also you should define ambiguous terms in the prompt – the word “enslaved” should definitely be clearly defined before you present your examples. Your resolution is ok but you need to explain the words you use – what exactly does using technology in moderation entail? In fact this doesn’t really fit with your second example because if we had used the internet in moderation, we may not have accomplished all that you illustrate in that example.

Score: 4/6

 

Essay 2:

I like your resolution because it distinguishes between “well-being” and “rights”, as sometimes these may actual conflict, as you have shown. Your examples were specific and relevant. I would suggest however spending more time (especially evident in task 1) explaining the significance of your examples to your arguments. Overall this essay was good.

Score: 5/6

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer, this is from a practice test. Thanks for the feedback. Any suggestions for a better resolution?

 

Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the press should not be required to present both sides of an issue. Discuss what you think determines whether the press should be responsible for presenting both sides of an issue.

 

The power of the press reaches far beyond viewers of the news and readers of the newspaper. The media such as televsion, internet and newspaper have a responsibility to provide the public with a thorough view of relevant topics. This includes providing both the pros and cons of a specific topic. The media should provide individuals with two sides of an argument to allow the individual to make their own choice. For instance, the topic of the legalization of marijuana has been in debate in Canada. Television news teams have given the public knowledge of both the advantages and disadvantages of the legalization of marijuana. This information on both sides of the argument allows Canadians to make an informed decision on whether or not they support the decriminalization of the drug. In this case concerning Canadian law, the press should be held accountable for presenting both sides of the issue.

 

The legal issue of marijuana has shown that the press should present both sides of an argument in most situations. In specific instances, however, the press should not be required to two sides of an issue. In many cases, television news reports offer medical advice to viewers based in recent scientific findings.For example, CityTv has reported that second-hand smoke is detrimental to health and can cause lung cancer. This health care information is provided to viewers and they are advised to limit the exposure to second hand smoke. CityTv is not required to report the advantages of second-hand smoke because it is clearly a threat to health. With respect to dispensing relevant health information, the media should not be responsible for presenting both sides of the issue.

 

It is not immediately clear when the press should be responsible for presenting both sides of a specific topic. However, the press should be accountable for reporting two sides of an argument except in cases where healthcare advice is given. The legalization of marijuana represents a topic concerning Canadian law where both the advantages and disadvantages should be reported to help citizens make an informed decision. The report on the dangers of second-hand smoke represents a situation where the media advises viewers on health, and should not be forced to present both sides of the topic. In situations where health advice is given by the press, two sides of the argument is not neccessary, while in other cases, the media should be responsible for presenting both opinions of an issue.

 

Hi answerji,

I’m not sure I follow completely what your argument is. Doesn’t the legalization of marijuana also include a health related discussion? You should make sure your arguments are not so narrow that they can’t stand up to your resolution criteria. Also your resolution is somewhat narrow because there are a number of other situations other than simply healthcare news in which media should present both sides of an argument, and in fact, even in health related news the media should be presenting both sides of an argument in specific circumstances. It would be difficult for me to suggest a resolution to the arguments you’ve presented since your first example may not be consistent with your overall argument here. However if you had taken another approach you may have resolved the dichotomy by discussing situations in which the media relates to special interest or general interest – that is, are the issues being discussed relating to the public at large, or to a specific group? The general public demands objectivity, while special interest groups may not.

Score: 3.5-4/6

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer. Thanks for looking through the essays. I wrote a couple more, if you could look at them that'd be great. bare with any historical inaccuracies

 

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer’s weaknesses

 

In the history of business, there have been several companies that have achieved great success (whether it be in terms of gross profit or sheer expansion of the business itself) by taking advantage of their consumers' weaknesses. These businesses make use of the principle of supply and demand to the fullest, especially when it comes to goods and services that their consumers require and cannot go without. In these cases, the businesses are aware that they are producing essential products and thus they can charge whatever prices they want, knowing that consumers will have no choice but to buy them. This exemplifies the power of the business and the weakness of the consumer. By monopolizing such necessities, business can play upon consumer weakness to achieve financial success. In the South Indian state of Kerala during the 1970's, there was a period of intense flooding due to excessive monsoon rainfall in the region. The rainwater damaged freshwater wells and caused iron to seep into the groundwater tables, leading to a lack of drinking water for many of the state's residents. At the time, a small water company called Bharat Lakes (B.L) was able to supply enough drinking water to the residents, although at two to three times the regular cost. In this time of need, many people were forced to buy the water and B.L achieved record profits, which allowed it to expand and become one of India's largest bottled water producers today.

 

However, there are many cases in which a business does not need to take advantage of a consumer's weakness in order to succeed. If the product that the business is making is creative, innovative and generally useful, then it will attract many consumers. These consumers may not necessarily need the product, but may end up purchasing the product anyway due to its functionality and/or appeal. A prime example of this is the success of the touchscreen handheld organizers made by Palm and other companies. Although these products are not essential for many consumers, they are still popular because they provide a comfortable, innovative method of organizing and scheduling that was otherwise done by paper and pencil. In this case, Palm has managed to succeed by appealing to the "wants" of consumers, as opposed to their "needs".

 

To conclude, it is evident that businesses may succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses, although this is not the only route to success. As with the case of Bharat Lakes, when a business is producing an item that is a necessity, it has the ability to mark-up prices and gain extra profit because consumers are forced to buy them. In this sense, the business holds power over the consumre and is taking advantage of the consumers' weakness. However, success can also be achieved by appealing to the consumers' "wants" as opposed to their "needs". This is exactly what Palm did, by creating a innovative, useful product.

 

Education makes everyone equal

 

In a world that is made up of people from different cultures, backgrounds and upbringings, education can be one unifying factor that makes everyone equal. However, this statement is valid only if one defines what exactly is meant by "equal". Does "equal" refer to being economically equal? Socially equal? Racially equal? Considering the value of education from a purely economic standpoint, it is easy to see that education does put people on a level playing field. Going to school provides all students with certain skills and knowledge that can be used in a job situation or in another professional program. Most professions rely on prior education so that employees have a decent knowledge base upon which to build. In modern times, the necessity of education has become so widespread that those without education are considered unequal. Consider the case of Seymour Schulich, a self-made Canadian billionaire with a personal fortune of over 2 billion dollars. Mr. Schulich graduated from university with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry and attempted to enter the world of corporate finance without much prior background. Not surprisingly, he was denied from all the positions he applied to, as he was not considered equal to other candidates, all of whom possessed at least a Masters-level degree. In order to overcome this, Schulich went back to school and pursued an MBA (Masters in Business Administration), which put him on a level playing field with other job candidates. Soon after, Schulich entered a real-estate business, which enabled him to achieve his astounding financial success. This example shows that without education, one may not be considered equal in the economic world.

 

From a social standpoint, there are many cases where no amount of education will make a person equal to another. In many countries, women are viewed as inferior to men and do not have hope to achieve the same social status, regardless of their education. This social disparity is very evident in the eastern world, where traditional values are commonly upheld. Take the case of Benazir Bhuto, a western educated, female Pakistani politician who ran for the Prime Minister position in 2007. Bhuto was well-spoken, smart and well-educated, however, she was looked upon with disdain by many fundamentalist Pakistani groups. These people felt that she was not an equal adversary to the male candidates for the position, as she was a female. During her campaign, she was assassinated by one such fundamentalist group, something which would have unlikely have happened had she been a male. This shows the great social disparity that even education cannot overcome.

 

It is important to look at both social and economic standpoints before saying that education makes everyone equal. From a purely economic standpoint, education may be a necessity to put potential job candidates on a level playing field. Without an education, these candidates may be considered inferior and may lose out on the position (as happened with Mr. Schulich). However, pursuing further educaiton can remedy this. From a social standpoint, there are cases in which no amount of education can overcome certain social disparities.

 

Essay 1:

Overall your arguments are valid but you’ve added a distinction that the prompt doesn’t necessarily involve – “wants” and “needs” may both still be “weaknesses”. You should try to only consider the prompt within its bounds to avoid adding your own new ideas to the discussion. Otherwise your essay was good, your first example was excellent and your second example was ok (you should use an actual situation that has occurred, like your first example).

 

Score: 4/6

 

Essay 2:

Here I like that you have distinguished between “types” of equality, however it may not come across clearly that you are going to be discussing both of these views from the introduction. This is why it’s difficult to discuss two ideas in your essay instead of, for example, offering an example of when education did not level out two people from an economic standpoint ( you could have brought up the reasons for this, i.e. social disparity, within this second more related example), and then tied the two together in your resolution by talking about how other disparities can serve to still distinguish people even though they have equal educations. Anyway I still found your essay to be successful, but it would be hard to say how an AAMC grader would score this essay.

Score: 4-5/6

[Zaul Zan]

Hey Sameer, my MCAT is approaching quickly and would also appreciate any feedback you could provide on a couple of writing samples i did recently, thank so much!

 

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

 

In a modern democracy, the multitide of parties and viewpoints occupying the political arena makes it difficult for any single politician to have their voice heard and increasingly difficult to have their political goals achieved. Thus, compromise is itself an artform utilized by a politician to make sure his viewpoints are given credence, even if not to the full extent. In an issue such levels of taxation on the public, there is an infinite number of possible legislations that can be thought ideal by politicians, but undoubtedly only one can be enacted. In a case of percentages and hundredths of percentages, the impetus to compromise to reach an agreement is large, as no single viewpoint could possibly hope to win over the rest. Furthermore, the politican that compromises in this instance is often seen as "winning" in that his views are being incorporated into law, regardless of to what degree. Oppositely, the politician that fails to compromise will be seen as "losing" in that his stubborness prevented him from acheiving his goals to any degree. Thus, the art of compromise can be a strtegic tool in certain instances for a politician to execute his oplitical influence.

 

However, the political game is usually of a dichotomous nature, pitting the "pro" group against the "anti" group in a battle of wills. A politician may be better served by remaining true to one side of the vast expanse of ideas on the political spectrum to achieve his goals. This is often the case with issues that are considered extremely volatile, such as abortion, euthanasia, or the death penalty. When the electorate represents a passionate split of ideas and the media is doing their best to display the issue as one devoid of any feasible compromise, the politician that is immune to compromise may in fact win this war and reap the benefits of his or her stubborness. On the contrary, the politician that attempts to compromise (no matter how little) may conceivably be seen as betraying the views he once stood for and be unable to regain the trust of his peers and the electorate and no longer have the influence to achieve any future goals.

 

So when exactly does politics favour those who are prone to compromise and when does compomise become the manifestation of weakness that can be detrimental to a politician's aspirations? Ultimately, a politician looking to achieve his goals should look to compromise on relatively innocuous issues that arouse innumerable viewpoints on the political spectrum, but attempt to take an uncompromising stand when it comes to issues that appear to represent two diammetrically opposing viewpoints. For a politican to make his mark he must be willing to play the political game, following the rules that allow him or her to gain the favour of the elctorate and his or her peers. Sometimes this may require a strategic compromise to prevent complete failure while at other times necessitate a staunch commitment to one's political principles when any inkling of weakness could be crippling.

 

 

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

 

In the modern world there is a inordinate amount of products, services, and the companies that provide them. Although many of these goods and services are rather innocuous, certain special services remain a necessity for the functioning of a society and the government has a responsibilty to oversee the companies that provide such services. For example, when considering the development and utilization of necessary infrastructure, such as public transport, the the government must maintain involvement in the companies that are contracted to provide this necessary service so that it can be run affordably, sustainably, and most importantly, safely. When a new urban train line was built in the City of Edmonton, the work was performed by a private company, but before the line was built the planning was performed by the municipal government to make sure it was congruent with the further development of the city and not just motivated by maximizing profit. Furthermore, once built the transport system was subject to rigourous safety inspections before being open to the public to ensure that the city's citizens safety was upheld above all else, even at the expense of the building company. Also, the municipal government took it upon themselves to subsidize prices in order to maintain affordability. Thus, certain necessary services provided by companies must be subjected to regulation by the government to ensure there sustainable operation in a safe and affordable manner.

 

However, some situations exist where a government is not responsible to regulate a company that provides necessary services to its citizens. The principles of the free market dictate that when competition between companies exists, the best product or service will become the most profitable and widely used. Thus, when competition is free to function optimally between companies looking to provide its services to people (whether it is a necessary service or not) there is no need for external regulation of the industry because it is effectively self-regulating - constantly striving towards providing the best service to the consumer. Government involvement would only serve to inhibit competiton by placing restrictions on individual companies or the industry as a whole, at a detriment to the services sought by the consumer, which is especially a problem if the service is a vital one.

 

So when are governments obligated to regulate comapnies that provide necessary services to citizens? Ultimately, a government must seek regulation when there is insufficient competition in the free market to maximize the benefit to the consumer. If the free market is functioning optimally, the government will only be interfering in an industry that is autonomously providing services to its citizens in a mutualistic relationship benefitting all of society. However, when not enough competition is stimulating an industry, such as in the case of a monopoly, the door is opened for injustices to the consumer. Such injustices, such as price inflation and refusal of service may be okay for innocuous conbsumer products, but for necessary services like public transportation and health care, the government must utilize its power to make sure companies provide these services to its citizens effectively and fairly.

[SolitaireAddikt]

Wealthy people cannot offer fair representation to the people

 

Throughout history humanity has experimented with a variety of forms of self governance. However, one theme common between many, if not all, of these forms of governance has been that power has been concentrated in the hands of a select few. This select few was almost invariably wealthy, while the vast majority of their subjects lived in squalor. Due to the stark contrast between their social position and means in comparison to that of the general populace, it can safely be said that these rulers would have been out of touch with their subjects, and as such wealthy people cannot offer fair representation to the people. One particularly famous example is that of Marie Antoinette and King Louis the 16th of France. The reign of this King and Queen was a period of political upheaval in France. France, at that time, was overcrowded, poor and starving. However, nestled in their positions of wealth and prestige the King and Queen were sheltered from this reality and were ineffective at helping to alleviate the suffering experienced by their subjects. As such, they were unable to represent their people adequately, ultimately leading to societal upheaval and a revolution which saw both King and Queen fall victim to the guillotine.

 

However, just because a person has wealth does not always mean that they will be ineffective at representing their people. One example of this would be the current president of the United States, Barack Obama. Barack Obama was born to a teenaged mother and spent his formative years under the care of his middle class grandparents. He managed to pay his way through university and ultimately Harvard Law School. In between his time at in undergrad and his time at Harvard he worked as a community organiser where he got to see the lives of the poor first hand. Barack eventually went on to become a Senator and published two books about his life. Both books went on to become bestsellers, earning him a small personal fortune of around 4 million dollars. Now a wealthy man, Barack went on to run for the presidency of the United States. Barack ran on a platform of change- the general populace of the United States was tired of the ways of the Bush Administration and Barack vowed to change this. Barack went on to win the presidency and administer the desires of the people who elected him. Although his presidency has not been perfect, he has set into motion many of his campaign promises and thus fulfilling the desires of the people. In this way, as a wealthy man, Barack Obama has been capable of fairly representing the American people.

 

Being in a position of wealth can isolate one from the general populace and make one less effective at governing, like in the case of Marie Antoinette and King Louis of France; on the other hand, as in the example of Barack Obama, having wealth does not necessarily preclude one from understanding the needs of the people. Thus, it can be said that being wealthy can prevent a person from fairly representing the people if that person’s wealth has allowed them to live in isolated from the rest of society and unable to understand the needs and wants of the average person; on the other hand, if this wealthy person has gained life experience amongst the common folk, his or her wealth does not preclude him from representing them fairly. In the case of Marie Antoinette and King Louis, their wealth enabled them to live charmed lives, away from the concerns of the common folk, thus making them ineffective rulers. In the case of Barack Obama, he obtained his wealth on his own, and had gained much life experience from his middle class background and his work in the inner city. In this way, wealth is a hinderance to one’s ability to understand the common person so long as the person with the wealth uses it to isolate themselves from the common people.

 

 

In a Free Society Laws must be subject to change

 

A free society is a society in which no person is subject to unjust restrictions. However, cultural attitudes on what justifies ‘unjust’ tend to shift as time goes by. As such, in order for a society to remain ‘free’, its laws must be subject to change. This is true for instance, in the case of gay marriage. For centuries marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. This typically was for financial purposes- a woman was seen as property, and a marriage was simply the transfer of property from a father to another man. However, as time went by women became liberated, and marriage morphed from a business transaction and into the union of two people who loved each other. However, the archaic principle that only a man and a woman could be married remained. This archaic idea prevented gay couples from being able to marry each other, thus unjustly denying them of priveledges and heterosexual couples currently enjoy. In Canada, in 2004, this situation was rectified by changing the marriage laws, so that they could include gay and lesbian couples. In this way, the gays and lesbians were freed of the unjust restrictions on their ability to wed each other and make their family units whole, and Canada proved to the world that it was a free society where in that its people were not subject to unfair restrictions.

 

On the other hand there are some laws that simply cannot be changed. One such law would be laws concerning polygamy. Polygamy is a practice wherein one man is married to two or more ‘wives’. Polygamy is practiced in an isolated Latter Day Saints community called Bountiful in British Columbia, Canada. One could say that polygamy is not the business of the government, and although some of the women in Bountiful may have entered into these polygamist relationships of their own free will, there is evidence that some of these women were married off to men while they were below the age of consent, and putting into question whether or not they really had a ‘choice’ in the matter. Additionally, the system of polygamy devalues women by treating them as chattel, something that a man may accumulate for his own personal gain. Since polygamy tends to victimise young women who cannot possibly consent to their marriages and devalues women in general, it is a practice that is wrong and should continue to be banned by the government, despite the fact that it is ostensibly a ‘private’ matter.

 

Thus, in a free society, laws must be subject to change. However, not all laws can be changed. Laws that can be changed are ones that adhere to archaic values and restrict the freedom of groups of people. One such law was the marriage laws, in which only a man and a woman could marry each other. This law was archaic, and Canada, as a just society, rightly struck it down. However, some laws should not be changed in a free society; any law that involves the safety, be it physical, mental, or emotional of the citizens of the nation should not be subject to change. The laws concerning polygamy are laws that involve the safety of people- particularly young girls who may be coerced in the marriages that they are not physically, mentally or emotionally ready for. In this way, in a free society laws that restrict people’s liberty unjustly should be mutable, while laws that protect that safety of the citizenry should be immutable.