Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[MoMed]

Hi Sameer, here's another one of my essays. Sorry for piling them on to you, but I'm just getting nervous with my upcoming MCAT. Thanks again for your help.

 

For every problem a technological innovation solves, it tends to create another, sometimes greater, problem.

Describe a specific situation in which technology's solving a problem might not create another, greater problem. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the drawbacks of a new technology outweigh its benefits.

 

In the modern world, rapid technological innovation is almost a certainty. We live in a world dominated by our technological progress, making it difficult to image living in a world with minimal modern technology. Being bombarded by so much technology has led some people to take retreats, to “get away from it all.” New technologies are often advertised to solve many of our problems, from a technologically superior vacuum cleaner, to a faster, more efficient computer, all claiming to make our lives simpler. However, certain innovative technologies may in fact create problems of greater magnitude than they solve. When society is introduced to a new technology, particularly a technology capable of altering one’s daily life, the public may react to it in such a way that may be detrimental to society. Take for instance, the introduction of the cell phone. Advertised to solve people’s inability to rapidly communicate while on the go, the cell phone was a great success. However, subsequent to the cell phone’s arrival, many people decided to use this new technology while driving, which led to numerous vehicle accidents. The arrival of this new technology created a new problem that was unexpected because society was unable to restrain themselves from not taking advantage of it at all times, eventually leading to casualties. Certainly, many people would argue that these casualties outweigh the benefits cell phones are advertised to have.

 

On the other hand, there are some cases where innovative technology does not create problems greater than the ones it fixes. This can be exemplified by continuous improvement in the automobile industry. Innovative technology such as the inclusion of airbags in cars, or even the recently developed motion sensor system on some new cars not only ceases to create any problems, but actually solves many. This technology has proven itself to save many lives that would have otherwise been greatly harmed. One would be hard pressed to find any problems associated with the inclusion of airbags. Some individuals may argue that the inflation of airbags actually harms the passengers; however, conclusive data suggests that the benefits of airbags greatly outweigh the slight chance of direct physical harm.

 

How can one determine when an innovative technology will solve more problems than it causes? What must be looked at when making this determination is whether the technology is improving on an existing technology, or whether it is something new to society. It can be seen that the cell phone was a completely new concept, (the idea of communicating on the go was the new concept here). As a result, society was not aware of the implications associated with it, and many people suffered as a result. When new technologies are building upon older ones, society will likely benefit from this. When one looks at cell phones today, the new technology of hands free speaking, and blue-tooth headsets act to prohibit any accidents while driving. This is further exemplified with the benefits airbags have had on people. Therefore, as long as the innovative technology acts to improve an existing technology, benefits will likely outweigh the costs.

[080310]

Hi Sameer, I'm writing in 2 weeks.

 

Government regulation of business is necessary in a democracy.

 

The government has not only the right, but also the responsibility to make decisions that benefit society as a whole. Government regulation is needed in certain aspects of democracy in order for the system to function properly. Although most democratic countries are capitalistic in their nature, a majority have some sort of government regulation in their economic affairs. Even though the free market system is often advocated my many economists, it is not theoretically possible in all businesses sectors. For example, in the recent health care debate in the United States, President Obama introduced more regulations on the part of private health insurance companies. Although many have disapproved of this decision, it is necessary for the well being of the nation. Before the bill was passed, companies could find endless loop holes in their contract and deny patients much needed, often life saving treatment. One of their main strategies is to deny coverage based on the notion of a "pre-existing condition." The media covered a story in which a woman who, after paying her hard earned money for years to her insurance company, was denied coverage for her surgery because she had failed to mention that she had acne. The new bill passed, just a few months ago, prevents these companies from making such claims and taking advantage of their customers.

 

However, there are areas in business where the government should have minimum, if any regulation over. Some businesses should be left to the free market. For example, the recent law that passed in one state prevented restaurants from serving pizza or using salt. Even the recent ban of trans fats in restaurants in New York is an instance when government regulation was not necessary. Although the government should educate people about healthy eating habits, it does not have to right to force restaurants to serve certain foods while prohibiting others. Although the intentions behind these actions are clearly well meant, it is not the role of the government to mandate what is on the dinner plate. A sector such as hospitality services should be left to the free market in a democratic country.

 

Government regulation of businesses should be only towards those that provide essential services. Affordable health care is an essential service. It is not a privilege given to those that can afford it. However dinning at a restaurant is a luxury, not a necessity. Citizens should be able to decide what they want to eat and businesses should decide what they want to serve. If there is a demand for healthy food, then businesses will pick up on this and change their menu. However the demand for affordable health care cannot wait for insurance companies to change their ways on their own. Immediate government intervention is necessary when people's lives are at risk.

[imagination07]

Thanks Again, writing in less than a week, hope feedback gets back in time! Looks like a long lineup

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers’ weaknesses.

 

The key to having a successful business is to make an exorbitant amount of profit by attracting many customers to buy their products and services. Many businesses accomplish this by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses through advertisements. The modern age society has lead people to become insecure about themselves in various ways including the desire to fit in and be well-liked by peers. Frequently on television, consumers are prevalently bombarded by infomercials and commercials promoting their products and services by targeting the viewer's insecurities. A familiar example would be the frequent commercial on Axe body deodorant or other type of cologne picturing many girls hounding after the man who has recently used Axe. As most men feel the want to be desired by many girls, this type of advertisement appeals to that particular insecurity. Many other brand name goods also use a similar method of targeting the consumers' weakness in order to attract customers to buy their product.

 

Although many businesses promote themselves by taking advantage of consumers' weakness, there are those which don't require this method. Such businesses rely on the person's needs or necessities of that product because they will have to buy the goods no matter what the circumstance. An example of this are grocery stores such as No Frills. Such businesses typically do not target consumers' weaknesses because they know the consumer needs the products they offer. Instead, they attract more customers by issuing flyers of foods on sale or coupons. The reason why these businesses succeed in doing so is because they know customers have the need to eat to survive. Such businesses instead of targeting consumer's weaknesses, promote themselves by offering a lower price on their products compared with their competition.

 

The defining line between whether businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses or not depends on the products and services they sell. If the goods are a want and not a necessity, many businesses aim at consumers' weaknesses such as insecurity illustrated in the Axe example. However, if the products are a necessity for the consumers, as illustrated in the No Frills example, there is no rational weakness available for the business to target. Also, because the products they sell are needed by consumers, at the end of the day, the consumers will end up buying their product. Although having examined both sides of the coin on this issue, one must remember that businesses who succeed that don't target consumers' weaknesses must promote themselves in other ways to appeal to customers.

 

Education makes everyone equal.

 

The acquisition of knowledge through education is an essential component of any type of career. The definition of equal in this sense may be attributed to how candidates are selected appropriately for the occupation they apply for. The typical path toward a career today involves elementary, high school, and post-secondary education. Post-secondary education for most people is usually accomplished by going to a well-established college or university. Throughout these steps, people acquire knowledge through the formal education they undergo in order to prepare themselves for a career. People who achieve a certain degree level (be it a Masters, PhD, etc.) are seen as equivalent on paper during a job search. Take two applicants who have a Masters in a similar field of study that apply for the same job. In this case, it can be seen that the degree level each applicant has acquired through their education has made them equal because they both have the qualifications of a Masters degree.

 

In another sense, however, this does not determine whether they are well suited for the job. Although their qualifications on paper may be seen as equivalent, other factors are at work in this situation. Many different occupations require practical skills that cannot be acquired through formal education. Many of these skills are inherent to the individual which enable them to perform at a higher ability than another individual depending on what the skill is and which occupation they are working in. Such skills may extend from their outgoing personality which results in them being more sociable around people, a trait that cannot be learned but is essential to many occupations involving team work. Another such skill may be kinaesthetic skills; some people are more adept at working with their hands than others. An individual who embodies this skill has a significant advantage over another who doesn't in an occupation such as carpentry which involves skillful technique with hands. In this sense, the two individuals may have the same formal education degree, but one is significantly suited better for this occupation than the other.

 

Although formal education can provide a base for equality between individuals, it is the difference in what is required for an occupation that determines how individuals are ranked in their ability to perform. The dividing line between whether or not education makes everyone equal is determined by whether the knowledge or skill is learnable, or whether it is inherited. With learnable knowledge, as seen in university education, this may result in equivalent qualifications for a certain career. However occupations require many other skills that cannot be acquired through learning; such inherent skills such as the kinaesthetic skills involved in carpentry are when education does not make everyone equal.

[mikejones]

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

 

In a democracy, the government consists of representatives elected by the citizens. These representatives are obliged to put the interests of the people as their primary concern. One of the key roles of the governmetn is to make decisions regarding the allocation of limited capital resources towards the needs of the country. As representatives of the people the government must direct much of its capital resources to meet the needs of the citizens in order to ensure their well-being. A prime example of such a decision by a democratic government is the recent introduction of universal heathcare by the US President Barack Obama. This decision ensures that the limited capital resources of the country are directed to meet the healthcare needs of the citizens by providing affordable healthcare to most of the population, thereby ensuring their well-being. While there were opponents who claimed that the capital resources could be spent otherwise, the government made the well-being of its citizens its primary concern and made a decision otherwise.

 

On the other hand, there are instances where it is necessary for a democratic government to allocate its limited resources to the needs of the country as whole, and may not be able to prioritize the well-being of its citizens. In such a decision, the immediate well-beings of the citizens may be sacrificed in order to ensure the long-term stability of the nation. An example of this is the allocation of government resources towards global peacekeeping missions. Certainly, the capital resouces may be kept within the country and allocated towards improving the well-beings of the citizens. However, as a democratic, developed, wealthy global citizen, it is the United State's responsibility to ensure global well-being in order to maintain global stability and peace. This act by the government is necessary since global instability may eventually threaten the nation in the long-term in the form of armed confrontation. Thus, there instances where the immediate well-being of the citizen must sacrificed in order to ensure the long-term safety of the nation as a whole.

 

There are a few factors which determine whether a nation should allocate its limited resources towards the well-being of its citizens, or to direct these resources towards other tasks. If this task will benefit the nation in the long-term, such as peacekeeping missions, it may be necessary to sacrifice the well-being of its citizens and divert the necessary resources to ensure the long-term wellbeing of the nation as a whole. On the other hand, if a government is faced with a task that does not address the needs of the citizens nor does it benefit the nation in the long-term, then it must weigh the advantages of providing for its own citizens versuses providing for other tasks, and try to achieve a compromise that will ensure the citizens' well-being while addressing the need for funding the other task.

 

 

 

Thanks in advance for all you help:)

[rraguloj]

Hey Sameer, can you just go over my essay and give me you feedback. Thanks a lot.

 

True leadership leads by example rather than by command

 

 

The ability of an individual to lead his followers to glory and acheivement is the mark of a leader. Alas those who accomplish such a feat with the most success are those who guide their group with their exemplary actions, rather than mere instruction. An individual who consistently demonstrates the manner in which to act to acheive success can claim to truly be leading his group, as Kevin Garnett had done to the Boston Celtics. Before the arrival of Garnett, the celtics were a talented but inexperienced team, whom garnett immediately transformed into a power house of the NBA responsible for inflicting fear into the hearts of every opponent. It was not simply his statistics that helped the celtics, but instead it was his tenacity and passion, the savagery with which he played night in and night out , an attitude which spread to every member of the team like a viral pandemic until they became a cohesive rabid force, devouring all comers on route to a championship.

 

However there are times when a trued leader does not have to lead by example but are instead able to guide their group to great succes, merely on the power of their command. Phil Jackson arrived to coach a disfunctional lakers team in 2000, whom immediately on his arrival, went on to win 3 straight champpionships, simpy by following his instructions and teachings. The players whole heartedly gave into Phil Jackson's philosophy without question for he had won multiple championships in his career, and knew that he was highly capable.

 

In conlusion there is a rather obvious distinction as when a leader must lead by example and when he can instruct his group to acheive its goals. Individuals who themselves have not acheived the success treasured by the group, must prove to the group by their actions that they are capable before they can take true control of the reigns. Whereas those who have relative prestigous accomplishments to their name command an aura of respect, and thus are able to immediately lead by command.

[bangel]

Hey Sameer, thanks for doing this, here are two essays I wrote in a practice MCAT, any suggestions would be really helpful!

 

An understanding of the past is necessary for solving problems of the present.

 

Is history doomed to repeat itself? This is a question that is often presented as a discussion-opener, whether it be in history class during discussion of the world wars, or in a counselling session about the likelihood of an abused child growing up to beat his own sun. This question has relevance in many different circumstances because we recognize that what happens in the past has significant sway over the events of the present and the future. Many of the great world conflicts present today can be traced back through history; often these conflicts have roots in centuries past. Without an understanding of these roots in the past, how can one possibly hope to try and solve the problem in the present? The Rwandan genocide of the 1990's is a perfect example of this type of long-rooted conflict. Though there has long been strife between the Tutsis and the Hutus, it was the massive genoicide of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis in the 1990’s that brought this conflict to international attention and aid. But this is not a type of problem that one can simply intervene in and fix. The problems between the Tutsis and the Hutus began hundreds of years ago upon the colonization of the country by Europeans. The Europeans divided the people of Rwanda into two distinct groups based on physical appearance, forcing them to wear identity tags at all times to show which group they belonged. They treated one group as more superior than the other, and this belief of superiority has poisoned the country and the people over the years to the point that mass murdering became commonplace. Without the knowledge of the past, without the understanding of where this division came from, it is impossible to try and bridge the gap between these peoples. Armed with this knowledge, on the other hand, the world has a whole is that much more prepared to insert themselves into the affairs as diplomatically as possible and try to solve the problem. It is this respect and understanding of the past roots of these conflicts that can - hopefully - eventually lead to their resolution.

 

On the other hand, however, not all of the problems of the present are long, drawn-out conflicts with such deep roots. In our society today we are faced with many problems that are new, with no parallels in the past. For these types of problems, it is not a knowledge of the past that can help us, but instead innovative and new thinking. One of the most terrible epidemics of our times is the HIV virus, responsible for millions of AIDS-related deaths in our society today. Forty years ago, HIV and AIDS were unknown to us. Over the years, it has become a horrific part of our reality. While there have been epidemics in the past, HIV is unlike anything we have ever seen. No past knowledge of how to deal with pathogens can help us solve the mystery of HIV because it operates outside of our accumulated knowledge from the past. Looking to the past will not give us answers. It is only through new scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, through new ways of thinking that are outside the box and outside of what we have experienced before, that will hopefully eventually lead us to a cure.

 

The past, then, has its place and its importance. To discount the lessons learned from the past would be to discount all that has been sacrificed; to not learn from the lives given in war so that humanity could learn a lesson, to not let the same mistake happen again. The past has much to offer us. It contains the roots of many present-day conflicts, an understanding of which is integral to ever coming to a resolution, such as in Rwanda. The past has lessons, from which we must learn if we ever wish to hope for societal improvement across the generations. There is much we can learn from the past, and understanding of what has transpired in history could not be more important. However, our present will also one day be the past, and it is here in our present that roots for new problems are created. New problems, problems without parallel such as AIDS, are not helped by looking to the past - in fact, this can hinder progress, hinder innovative thinking that could lead to solutions. So while looking to the past is undeniably important when present-day problems have past parallels, we must also recognize that we must look to our own present in solving problems that are new and without parallel in the past.

 

 

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

 

The usual definition of a politician is "public servant" - one who serves the public, one who stands up for the public, one who makes heard the voice and will of the public. This is especially true in democratic countries such as Canada, in which each political candidate in the House of Commons is meant to voice the majority will of the people in their riding. As such, these politicians are often not concerned with the greater picture of the entire country of Canada. Their job - and the reason democracies can function - is to ensure that their specific people are represented in the government. They must vote in the House of Commons as their riding expects and trusts them to do. This doesn't always necessarily correlate with what the majority of the country would love - however, it is not their place to do what is best for the country. It is the role of the entire government as a whole to do what is best for the country, and this can only happen with each politician accurately transmitting the will of their people. Thus, many riding politicians base their decisions on what they believe or know would please their votes. This can be clearly seen in the issue of Quebec separation. As a whole, the majority of Canada believes that Quebec separating would be a detrimental affair for the country, in both economic and social senses. Yet, the politicians of the Bloc Quebecois continue to push for this separation, because it is what pleases their people.

 

However, this logic focuses on so-called "small-scale", riding politicians, those who are expected to base their decisions on what would please the majority of their voters. Not all politicians in office, though, can operate this way, especially those who are in positions of higher power. In some situations, these "higher-ups" are required to make decisions for the good of the country that are, generally, unpopular. An example of this type of unpopular decision is that of Trudeau enacting the War Measures Act during the October Crisis of 1970 with the FLQ. Many people felt that this stripped away integral human rights of freedom for a relatively small crisis. However, in the end, the threat was defeated and the country was made safe again. These types of drastic decisions are often made because they will benefit the country as a whole.

 

The basis of political decisions, then, seem to centre around the position of the politician in question, and what role that politician is meant to play in the political world. Truly run-of-the-mill political servants - the ones meant to represent (and thus, please) voters - should be basing their decisions in such a manner. That is their role in society and their job in the government, and this is what allows for multiple voices to be heard, not just one overpowering voice stating what is best for the country. This overpowering voice, though, does have its place. For those politicians in greater power - and thus, having a greater responsibility to a greater public - their decisions are on a grander scale, and should be concerned with the good of the country, and not what would please individuals. This balance is an important one to consider in the world of politicians and in the running of governments, and finding the correct balancing point is the key to successful countries.

[the stranger]

Thanks Again, writing in less than a week, hope feedback gets back in time! Looks like a long lineup

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers’ weaknesses.

 

The key to having a successful business is to make an exorbitant amount of profit by attracting many customers to buy their products and services. Many businesses accomplish this by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses through advertisements. The modern age society has lead people to become insecure about themselves in various ways including the desire to fit in and be well-liked by peers. Frequently on television, consumers are prevalently bombarded by infomercials and commercials promoting their products and services by targeting the viewer's insecurities. A familiar example would be the frequent commercial on Axe body deodorant or other type of cologne picturing many girls hounding after the man who has recently used Axe. As most men feel the want to be desired by many girls, this type of advertisement appeals to that particular insecurity. Many other brand name goods also use a similar method of targeting the consumers' weakness in order to attract customers to buy their product.

 

Although many businesses promote themselves by taking advantage of consumers' weakness, there are those which don't require this method. Such businesses rely on the person's needs or necessities of that product because they will have to buy the goods no matter what the circumstance. An example of this are grocery stores such as No Frills. Such businesses typically do not target consumers' weaknesses because they know the consumer needs the products they offer. Instead, they attract more customers by issuing flyers of foods on sale or coupons. The reason why these businesses succeed in doing so is because they know customers have the need to eat to survive. Such businesses instead of targeting consumer's weaknesses, promote themselves by offering a lower price on their products compared with their competition.

 

The defining line between whether businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses or not depends on the products and services they sell. If the goods are a want and not a necessity, many businesses aim at consumers' weaknesses such as insecurity illustrated in the Axe example. However, if the products are a necessity for the consumers, as illustrated in the No Frills example, there is no rational weakness available for the business to target. Also, because the products they sell are needed by consumers, at the end of the day, the consumers will end up buying their product. Although having examined both sides of the coin on this issue, one must remember that businesses who succeed that don't target consumers' weaknesses must promote themselves in other ways to appeal to customers.

 

Education makes everyone equal.

 

The acquisition of knowledge through education is an essential component of any type of career. The definition of equal in this sense may be attributed to how candidates are selected appropriately for the occupation they apply for. The typical path toward a career today involves elementary, high school, and post-secondary education. Post-secondary education for most people is usually accomplished by going to a well-established college or university. Throughout these steps, people acquire knowledge through the formal education they undergo in order to prepare themselves for a career. People who achieve a certain degree level (be it a Masters, PhD, etc.) are seen as equivalent on paper during a job search. Take two applicants who have a Masters in a similar field of study that apply for the same job. In this case, it can be seen that the degree level each applicant has acquired through their education has made them equal because they both have the qualifications of a Masters degree.

 

In another sense, however, this does not determine whether they are well suited for the job. Although their qualifications on paper may be seen as equivalent, other factors are at work in this situation. Many different occupations require practical skills that cannot be acquired through formal education. Many of these skills are inherent to the individual which enable them to perform at a higher ability than another individual depending on what the skill is and which occupation they are working in. Such skills may extend from their outgoing personality which results in them being more sociable around people, a trait that cannot be learned but is essential to many occupations involving team work. Another such skill may be kinaesthetic skills; some people are more adept at working with their hands than others. An individual who embodies this skill has a significant advantage over another who doesn't in an occupation such as carpentry which involves skillful technique with hands. In this sense, the two individuals may have the same formal education degree, but one is significantly suited better for this occupation than the other.

 

Although formal education can provide a base for equality between individuals, it is the difference in what is required for an occupation that determines how individuals are ranked in their ability to perform. The dividing line between whether or not education makes everyone equal is determined by whether the knowledge or skill is learnable, or whether it is inherited. With learnable knowledge, as seen in university education, this may result in equivalent qualifications for a certain career. However occupations require many other skills that cannot be acquired through learning; such inherent skills such as the kinaesthetic skills involved in carpentry are when education does not make everyone equal.

 

Hey imagination07, since you're writing soon here is feedback for all your unmarked essays.

 

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

 

Your examples and arguments are not as convincing as they could be. You state that Barack Obama resembles the average citizen, which may be true in terms of some of the values he holds but not in a lot of other facets of his experiences, upbringing, and other major factors. As well, your second examples talks about a politician standing up for the people he represents, which I would argue is in fact an example of when a politician does resemble the average citizen (since far too often we complain about politicians not standing up for their constituents). As well, one could argue that Obama also took unorthodox or radical measures to succeed in politics (i.e. reforming a health care system that most people assumed would never be changed). You need to make your arguments and examples more coherent and unified for a better score.

Score: 3.5-4/6

 

The primary goal of every business is to maximize profits.

 

Your overall argument and resolution were good but your examples could be better. Example 1 was decent but you should explain further how those measures are “solely” to maximize profit (since one could argue that the company expanded their menu to meet customer demands and convenience, or some other reason). Make sure you spend enough time explaining the significance of your examples. Example 2 was also ok but you should avoid using very local examples – remember that you should always aim to use examples from general knowledge or the public domain to make the example easily recognizeable to the AAMC grader.

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

You need to use more specific examples here. Both examples are rather hypothetical and would benefit greatly from some specificity (even the names of technologies could help in making these more specific). Also your overall resolution is quite narrow – does the impact of communication technology only extend to our short or long distance relationships with people? And what about short distance relationships that are enhanced by communication technology (i.e. friends in the same city who can keep in touch regularly and organize spending time together via communication technology, despite busy schedules)? Your resolution needs to be broad enough to be applied to many situations and should be more in depth.

Score: 4/6

 

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

 

Again example 1 needs to be more specific (at least use the name of a company). Your overall argument is good however you need to make sure you address the prompt specifically – drugs and clothing both are not “services” at all. Always address the prompt in the way it is written. Your resolution of needs vs wants does hold up but you’re not addressing the exact prompt, so you would most likely lose points for this.

Score: 3.5-4/6

 

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

 

Your overall argument is again hurt by the fact that your examples do not correspond to the prompt exactly – the prompt talks about politicians that must learn the art of compromise, not governemnts. Thus you would be better to cite a examples of actual politicians that have had to or not had to comproize to achieve their political goals. I’m pretty sure the word “politician” is used rather loosely in North Korea. As well, you need to pay attention to sentence structure, word choice, and other mechanical issues. This is a concern for all of your essays so far – you need to tighten up your proofreading. You should now go back and read through all your essays so far and point out for yourself where your sentence structure and grammar could use some work. This will be helpful for your future essays so you can eliminate errors as you write. Also pay attention to transitions between paragraphs (the transition between p1 and p2 in this essay is especially choppy)

Your overall resolution here is ok but again, weakened by the less relevant examples.

Score: 3.5-4/6

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers’ weaknesses

 

This was better overall – you provided more specific examples (although still general situations and not actual situations from the public domain that have actually occurred), and your resolution relates back to your examples. Avoid bringing in new ideas in the resolution paragraph (i.e. your last sentence) as this can convolute your argument. Other wise this was pretty good.

Score: 4.5/6 <- more specific examples would help

 

Education makes everyone equal.

 

Once again, more specific examples are needed. These are only descriptions of hypothetical situations that may occur and may be true, but you want to include examples of actual situations that have occurred that support and refute the prompt. Your overall argument here is good however – I like that you have distinguished between learned knowledge and natural abilities. However, you could have shown more depth of thought by examining the social implications of this prompt – search this thread for other responses to this prompt that scored higher to see that approach.

Score: 4-4.5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hello SolitaireAddikt, since you're writing soon here is my feedback.

 

Essay 1:

Overall this essay was good – you provided specific examples and tied everything together well. Your resolution was good also however it could have been more encompassing – there could be examples of times when even those that did not have to work for their money could still represent their people. Try to be more broad in your resolution for more points. Lastly as a quick note, try to use the formal version when mentioning prominent figures in your essay (i.e. Mr. Obama rather than Barack).

Score: 5/6

Essay 2:

Your first example is excellent, however your second example may be unfounded. You are offering your opinion on the law concerning polygamy, but you haven’t offered a concrete example of why this would be the case. As well, your contention about that particular law is debateable and indeed controversial. You should avoid offering your opinion in these essays and remain objective, and in fact you are better off not using examples of highly controversial topics as these tend to polarize your reader (and you wouldn’t want to polarize your pro-polygamy AAMC grader against you). It’s always better to use a less controversial example when possible. Your overall resolution here is good however it is weakened by your second argument since the conclusion regarding it is debateable.

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, here's another one of my essays. Sorry for piling them on to you, but I'm just getting nervous with my upcoming MCAT. Thanks again for your help.

 

For every problem a technological innovation solves, it tends to create another, sometimes greater, problem.

Describe a specific situation in which technology's solving a problem might not create another, greater problem. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the drawbacks of a new technology outweigh its benefits.

 

In the modern world, rapid technological innovation is almost a certainty. We live in a world dominated by our technological progress, making it difficult to image living in a world with minimal modern technology. Being bombarded by so much technology has led some people to take retreats, to “get away from it all.” New technologies are often advertised to solve many of our problems, from a technologically superior vacuum cleaner, to a faster, more efficient computer, all claiming to make our lives simpler. However, certain innovative technologies may in fact create problems of greater magnitude than they solve. When society is introduced to a new technology, particularly a technology capable of altering one’s daily life, the public may react to it in such a way that may be detrimental to society. Take for instance, the introduction of the cell phone. Advertised to solve people’s inability to rapidly communicate while on the go, the cell phone was a great success. However, subsequent to the cell phone’s arrival, many people decided to use this new technology while driving, which led to numerous vehicle accidents. The arrival of this new technology created a new problem that was unexpected because society was unable to restrain themselves from not taking advantage of it at all times, eventually leading to casualties. Certainly, many people would argue that these casualties outweigh the benefits cell phones are advertised to have.

 

On the other hand, there are some cases where innovative technology does not create problems greater than the ones it fixes. This can be exemplified by continuous improvement in the automobile industry. Innovative technology such as the inclusion of airbags in cars, or even the recently developed motion sensor system on some new cars not only ceases to create any problems, but actually solves many. This technology has proven itself to save many lives that would have otherwise been greatly harmed. One would be hard pressed to find any problems associated with the inclusion of airbags. Some individuals may argue that the inflation of airbags actually harms the passengers; however, conclusive data suggests that the benefits of airbags greatly outweigh the slight chance of direct physical harm.

 

How can one determine when an innovative technology will solve more problems than it causes? What must be looked at when making this determination is whether the technology is improving on an existing technology, or whether it is something new to society. It can be seen that the cell phone was a completely new concept, (the idea of communicating on the go was the new concept here). As a result, society was not aware of the implications associated with it, and many people suffered as a result. When new technologies are building upon older ones, society will likely benefit from this. When one looks at cell phones today, the new technology of hands free speaking, and blue-tooth headsets act to prohibit any accidents while driving. This is further exemplified with the benefits airbags have had on people. Therefore, as long as the innovative technology acts to improve an existing technology, benefits will likely outweigh the costs.

 

Hey MoMed, here’s all my feedback since your test is coming up soon.

 

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

 

Your example for task 1 should be more specific – like your example in task 2, your example should be an actual situation that has occurred that supports the prompt. Your resolution principle was good as it showed some depth of thought on the issues at hand. You should be careful about word choice and grammar as this hindered your essay at some points.

Score: 4.5/6

 

Leadership involves speaking out when others might keep silent.

 

Great essay. Well structured and included relevant, specific and even intertwined examples. Your resolution was great and lended unity to your entire essay. Easy to read and easy follow your line of argument. The only suggestion I have is to write a sentence or two for each paragraph that clearly states how your examples relate to your arguments.

Score: 5.5/6

 

For every problem a technological innovation solves, it tends to create another, sometimes greater, problem.

 

I liked your overall resolution but I think you could have picked a more relevant example for task 1 – one could argue that cellular phones are just a progression of wireless communication, an already existing technology. This example was good in part however since it is true that cell phones have created some unforeseen problems. In the end your resolution still holds up though since the advent of new technologies is likely more fraught with problems than simply progressing a current technology.

Score: 4.5-5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hey Zaul Zan, here’s my feedback since you are writing soon.

 

Essay 1:

You have to include specific examples of actual situations that have occurred in your task 1 and task 2 to get points for these tasks. Just describing general hypotheticals will often limit you to a 4 at best. Your resolution is well thought out and probably saves your essay here, though you didn’t offer concrete examples to back it up. Your writing style is good and your essay does display unity and coherence.

Score: 4/6 <- with good examples this would be a 5 or more

 

Essay 2:

Again, your essay would have been quite strong if you had provided concrete, specific examples for both tasks. Your task 1 example is specific but you should try to avoid using local examples and opt instead for widely recognizeable situations taken from the more general public sphere (i.e. news/events, history, politics etc). Your resolution principle was good however your task 2 really fell short in backing up your theory in task 3. Provide strong examples to really illustrate your resolution principle and garner top marks.

Score: 4-4.5/6

[Slimy]

Thank You Sameer I tried to make improvements from your comments on my last essay.

Sorry for posting 3 essays of work on you, I'm just so nervous since as test date is approaching

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses

 

Using other people's weaknesses for one's success may sound immoral. However, Ian Iacocca, a former CEO of Chrysler once noted, "The only immoral form of business is the one which cannot produce profits." Although simplistic, his quote signifies that businesses must take any necessary measures to produce profits, since they are, undoubtedly, the measure of the success in the business realm. Consumers in the market have limited needs and unlimited desires. Thus, it would be logical for businesses to target consumers' unlimited desires as the weakness to exploit. This method is clearly illustrated by Malboro, the largest tobacco seller in the world. Since more men smoke than women, Malboro's advertisements has mainly targeted the male population. Through its advertisements, Malboro has appealed to its potential consumers that smoking its cigarettes make them look manly, powerful, and sometimes sexually appealing. Clearly, Malboro has exploited the male consumers' desire for masculinity for the gain of tremendous amount of profits. Therefore, Malboro's success can be attributed to its marketing strategy in taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses.

 

However, a business does not always succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. PEBBLES, an innovative learning system, developed by a North American venture company of educational developers. They believed that every child and teenager should have continuous access to education while being away from school. Students who are hospitalized due to illness or injury can continue their learning through PEBBLES. In the system, a robot surrogate of the student is placed in classrooms, allowing hospitalized students to listen and interact with educators and classmates. Since its great success in elementary schools, the developers have acquired a large amount of profits and investments from both governmental and non-governmental sectors. Indeed, their success originated by supporting students' access to primary education, a necessity for every person in Canada and the U.S.

 

At its first glance, it might be difficult tell whether or not taking advantage of consumers' weakness is necessary for the success of a business. However the dividing line becomes clear by identifying the type of products that a business provides. When a company sells a product that is a form of desire rather than a necessity, as in the case of a tobacco producer, Malboro, the business succeeds by taking advantage of consumers' weakness. However, when a business produces products that aid in claiming one's necessity, such as the elementary education in North America, the business can succeed without taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. In the case of PEBBLES, its developers succeeded not by exploiting students' weaknesses, but by aiding them to access education while being hospitalized. Clearly, although many businesses exploit consumers' weaknesses for their success, there are businesses which succeed by providing access to necessities.

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

In history, technological progresses, such as the development of automobiles and computers, have facilitated the way people live. However, these technological improvements have also been the sources of complications in our society, such as air pollution and cyber crimes. This case is clearly illustrated by the advancement in biotechnology, which indeed contributed in discovering in cures for numerous human diseases and injuries. One of the new streams of biotechnology is stem cell research. It is often deemed as the potential cure for cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and degenerative disorders. However, the stem cell research is surrounded by ethical issues. As the world leader of the stem cell research, the U.S. is also faced with profound ethical debates among the citizens. Groups of scientists and others support the stem cell research because of it has the potential to cure diseases and disorders which affect a large number of population in our society. On the other hand, groups of people are against the research, signifying its potential threat against the human sanctity. Clearly, biotechnological progress has greatly complicated the U.S. society by dividing the citizens into two viewpoints.

 

In contrast, not all technological improvements complicates human societies as much they facilitate people's lives. Smartphones are a new breed of mobile phones,with far more functions than basic cell phones. Smartphones are often considered to be the portable personal assistant by business technology gurus. In addition to its extreme portability, it allows its users to access internet, compose documents, listen to music, watch videos, and do much more. Smartphone users can work and enjoy more entertainment on-the-go than before. Indeed, smartphones have facilitated the way of many people's lives. However, unlike the stem cell research, smartphones have not imposed any ethical issues, thus they have not complicated our society by stimulating rigorous debates among the citizens.

 

At its first glance, it might be difficult to tell whether or not progress in technology complicates our society as much as it simplifies. The decisive factor is the arousal of moral issues by the technological advancement. If a technological progress encompasses serious moral implications, as in the case of the progress in biotechnology, the advancement often complicates our society as much it facilitates. However, if new inventions, such as smartphones, do not impose any moral issues. Thus, such development only simplifies our daily lives by providing new technological functions which were not available before. Clearly, only the new technologies with moral implications are indicative of complications in our society.

 

Laws cannot change social values

 

In society, laws govern the way people act by themselves and how they interact with others. Social values are the factors understood by the people to be in favor towards the common good of a society. Social values are often based on traditions or strong beliefs and, sometimes have more powerful impact than laws in people's decision making. Therefore, it is often difficult for the governing laws to change the social values widespread among the members of a society. Such case is illustrated by the Gothark tribe of the Philippines. Just like in the U.S. or Canada, murder is considered a crime and murderers are punished in the Philippines. However, the Gothark tribe have a tradition of killing elderly members of their tribe because the tribe members have believed that the elderly are better served in the eternal realm of death than on earth. Although the tribe's long tradition have been regularly intervened by the government's law enforcements, the tribesmen's belief have not changed, and the mercy killing of the elderly has continued until today.

 

In contrast, at times, laws might change social values. In late 1800s, the Japanese Emperor ordered that every Japanese men must have their hair cut short instead of pulling their long hair onto top of their head as they did traditionally. The Japanese men had long believed that hair is one the gifts given by their parents. Thus, disposal of their hair would mean great disrespect towards their parents and elders. The shogun's reasons for the new law were that "New Japanese Empire" must resemble the powerful states of Western Europe, and the hair cut was the first step towards Japan's transformation towards Western living style. Therefore, men who cuts their hair short was commended to be patriotic and loyal toward the emperor. Soon, every Japanese men had begun cutting their hair short in belief that by doing so, it show their patriotism and loyalty toward the emperor.

 

At first, it might be difficult to pinpoint when laws can change social values. The decisive factor is whether or not the enforced law commends the obedient members of the society. When the law only punishes the disobedient without praising the obedient, it is difficult for the law the change the social values. As seen in the case of Gothark tribe, the law of Philippines could not change th tradition of mercy killing because the law only punished the mercy killers. On the other hand, the Japanese law which ordered every men to cut their hair short in Western style changed the social beliefs among Japanese men. This could only occur because by their hair cut short, the men were commended as a patriotic and loyal servant of their emperor.

[Thisismyusername]

Hello Sameer, thank-you for so graciously offering your time and services.

 

Here are my responses to two prompts: a Kaplan & an AAMC .

I'd appreciate any general pointers or commentary.

 

 

an item may be in the news only because nothing else happened that day

The statement "an item may be in the news only because nothing else happened that day" argues that a particular news piece may be aired only out of a necessity to fill allotted air-time. This is founded on the assumption that news programmes are obligated to report events of certain priority and relevance, therefore reported events that do not fit this convention must be indicative of a lack of the former.

 

One expects news programmes to deliver information of some importance to its viewers. However, the frequency of the news programme may not always be congruent with the frequency of newsworthy events. Alas, due to fixed scheduling, a programme is expected to deliver regardless and may be forced to report items one might regard as unimportant.

 

However, items that defy this perceived convention might not necessarily be reported out of a scarcity of other options. Instead, these items may be chosen deliberately and may challenge only what some particular viewers perceive as important. For instance, a programme may opt to report an event of cultural importance rather than one of political importance in order to provide balanced news content. Therefore, a viewer who feels political events are more relevant than cultural may falsely conclude that 'nothing else' happened that day.

 

A news programme should deliver informational items that both serve to inform viewers of significant events as well as provide a balanced collection of information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

This criticising statement posits that politicians, when posed a problem, will regularly choose the solution that pleases the voters, to the detriment of the nation. The underlying assumption is that the what pleases the voters is not what is best for the country.

 

A politician, in a democratic political system, is typically appointed by the voters to represent their wishes and beliefs. Thus, it is expected that once in office, the politician will come to the decision that best represents those wisbes and beliefs. If a politician were to consistantly make decisions that opposed the desires of the voters who placed them into power, they could potentially undermine the basic princples of the democratic system; this would not be best for the country. For example, if a politician were to gain office by presenting a certain political platform, but ultimately does the complete opposite when in power, voters who based their ballot cast on the advertised platform are essentially left voiceless and cheated.

 

However, politicians regularly face the challange of trying to please everyone, which may not be possible for a given situation. The desires of their voters may be in conflict with what is ultimately best for the country, thus a decision based solely on the desires of the voters may be, in a sense, irresponsible. For instance, current US president Barrack Obama has recieved criticism from those who voted him into office for failing to end military operations in Iraq, however doing so may leave Iraq unstable and could arguably jeoperdize the long-term national and international security as well as foriegn relations, hence one could argue his decision to continue military operations was based on what was perceived to be the best for the country.

 

Thus, as an elected representative, a poltician is expected to please the voters who he/she owes his power to. However, conflicts which pit the immediate wishes of the voters against the long-term health of the nation, demand more critical decision making than simple voter-pleasing.

[SolitaireAddikt]

Thanks Sameer! I'll definitely be taking your suggestions into account as a I prepare for the exam.

[RoughER]

VIOLENCE IS NEVER JUSTIFIED AS A WAY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES

 

Through out history it has been learned that violence is sometimes an unnecessary action in resolving a conflict between two parties. Further, it seems there are more justifiable ways to understand each perspective of the respective parties without turning to physical harm. In recent events, the people of Thailand have turned to protesting as a way of showing their discontent with their ruling government. The turmoil between Thailand's democratic and monarchal governments have caused a massive uprise within the citizens of the country. Although the protesting was invasive and extensive, for example, blocking the main airport in Bangkok, it was peaceful. Disputes between the government and the Thai people may not be fully resolved, however the views of the public and the views of the government have been explicitly expressed and are important steps towards a resolution.

 

Although most morally sound people would agree that violence is not the answer, at times this statement can be context-dependent. In the early 1990's, a Russian movie theatre was taken hostage by a group of rebels seeking media attention and political confrontation. Despite continued negotiations with the rebel groups (for days), the Russian task force was unsuccessful in freeing any of the hostages. Eventually, noxious gas and an intense gun battle was necessary to dethrone the rebel group and free the hostages. In this example, violence was justified in resolving the conflict.

 

It seems that the use and justification for violence is situational and a dichotomy must be considered. If a dispute between two parties is able to express their views without violence, as the case is with the protestors in Thailand, then it is unjustifiable to use violence. When conflict between two parties directly endangers the lives of those involved and efforts to dissolve the conflict via negotiation is proven unsuccessful, violence may be necessary. This was the case for the Russian task force facing a rebel group with hostages. Situational factors are important in deciding when an act of violence is justified in solving a problem.

 

 

Thanks Sameer! I really appreciate it.

[Zaul Zan]

Hi sameer, thanks so much for the feedback!

 

Its good to hear that I'm on the right track; however, I just have a question regarding your suggestion of using historical examples. Ive had numerous sources (those who have taken the MCAT and done very well and people who took various prep courses) say that hypotheticals can garner a T and case studies are needless to memorize. You definitely seem very qualified and experienced so I was just wondering where the focus on concrete case studies comes from?

[imagination07]

Thanks so much for the feedback, this will probably be one of my last essays :S I write this week, I've been trying to find more specific examples, or atleast inputting specific names of companies. Hopefully it's getting better,

 

Education comes not from books, but from practical experiences.

 

It can be said that education is something that exists all around us. The simple fact that learning is ongoing throughout a persons' life derives the conclusion that education comes from practical experiences. As a person grows older and enters post-secondary education, they have a choice of college or university. Although college is typically seen as the route that leads learning from practical experiences, the same can be said for its post-secondary counterpart. Many occupations such as the electrician, plumber, or mechanic learn most of their practice by observing and doing it themselves instead of reading theories from a textbook. This is not to say that the underlying principles of their craft is not important, it is just not as necessary for the purpose of their job. Going back to education in universities, many post-secondary programs at these institutions contain labs and thesis projects which all constitute education from practical experiences instead of books. A specific example of such an opportunity available for students of this caliber is the Canadian Astrobiology Training Program where undergraduate students experience real life research in topics linking astronomy and biology. In collaboration with NASA, this type of education the student undergoes is obtained by performing experiments, making observations, and analyzing data. Such practical experiences is where the education comes from, no textbooks are used to teach anything in this circumstance, and skills learned from research are even transferable to other areas such as robotics, medicine, and astronomy.

 

However, to say that no education ever comes from books is too extreme. Many books consists of background theory in their subject areas which are important for a young person to know. Having a basic understanding of underlying principles is a goal for all formal high school and lower education in preparation for the future. Textbook companies such as Nelson and McGraw-Hill pours an exorbitant amount of money into developing their Physics books with colourful diagrams and equations, with the goal in mind of educating its target: young students. At such a young age, it is more efficient for a teacher to use textbooks as resources for the material they cover in class. The basic foundation of knowledge in preparation for future academia is laid at this stage, and the medium with which this is brought to the student is through books.

 

By examining where education comes from, one can say that it comes from both books and practical experience depending on the circumstances. The factor in dividing this issue is age. During childhood when students are still taking part in formal education before post-secondary studies, the primary form of education that takes place is through books because there is good knowledge that should be imparted on the students in preparation for future uses. On the other hand, when the student has grown into adulthood, it is practical experience that takes over. As seen in the Astrobiology research example, education takes a much diminished role in the form of books, but is primarily obtained through practical experience. In conclusion, it can be said that both books and practical experience provide good education to the student, but the degree in which they provide such knowledge differs with increasing age.

[Iluvsoccer]

Thank you for evaluating!

 

In the political system, the decisions made by a government are scrutinized by every watchful eye on one or more levels of jurisdiction. The decisions, therefore, have to carefully devised to ensure they do not reflect personal prejudices or biases. If so, the decisions will never be justified, even if the end result is a fruitful one. For example, the Bush government invaded Iraq in 2002 with the purposed of finding 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' (WMDs), which were an imminent threat to the world. Months after the country was invaded and Saddam Hussein was apprehended, it was declared that no such WMDs existed in the nation. The hoax of WMDs was perpetuated in order to capture Hussein, who was a looming terrorist threat to the world. Even though the end result of capturing a terrorist was a commendable feat, the act of lying to the entire nation as well as the world in order to meet the personal motive was looked down upon. The Bush administration faced a lot of criticism and was eventually voted out of the office. Therefore, in politics, producing results and meeting one's agenda cannot always justify the means through which such results are obtained.

However, there are circumstances when the results obtained from one's political agenda can justify the means through which they are executed. For example, during the World War II, the Allied Forces united against the Hitler Regime and bring an end to the horrific acts of holocaust and racism that were prevelant in Germany. The Forces also came together to bring an end to the strong military force that was being built under the direction of Adolf Hilter with the purpose of terrorizing the neighbouring nations and the world.The number of civilian casualities that resulted from this war were in the hundred of thousands, on both sides of the war. However, the war, with the effort of the Allied Forces, ended in Hilter's defeat and brought an end to the terror he was spreading around the world. Therefore, even though the war caused the loss of many lives, the end result justified the death of those who either fought or died during the war. Therefore, the war was fought to save the remaining Jews and prevent Hilter from becoming an oppressive threat to the rest of the world.

Therefore, in the political system, the end can only be justified by the means when the acts are being committed for the sake of the greater good and not for personal benefits or agendas. In the case of the Bush administration, the politicians lied about the presence of WMDs in Iraq in order to find a reason to invade the country and apprehend Hussein, who as some political analysts speculate, was on Bush Senior's agenda to apprehend. Therefore, the presence of a personal motive for Bush Junior to fulfill his father's wishes put him in a position whereby he couldn't justify lieing to the public. However, in teh case of the Allied forces, the justification to stop Adolf Hilter and bring an end to the atrocities he was brewing, is acceptable at the expense of innocent civilian lives.

[KaelaShaw]

Hi Sameer,

 

I write on the 20th and would really love for a bit more feedback. I'm still not sure if I'm on the right track. Thank you!

 

 

 

IN A FREE SOCIETY, LAWS MUST BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

 

Over time, laws have slowly been established in free societies to maintain order, and provide equal treatment to all citizens. In the context related to law, a free society must be defined as a society in which the people are physically free to move around and interact with one another; it is equally important that a free society is not seen as a society void of rules and regulations. This free physical movement allows for a society to move in order, disorder, peacefully or violently. Therefore, the statement that 'in a free society, laws must be subject to change', is indicating that due to the physical freedom that a society possesses, it may be essential that laws are able to be changed accordingly, in response to the society's movement or interaction.

 

However, one must keep in mind that laws have been formed for a reason, and it may also be essential that these certain laws never change. There is a war currently taking place in the Middle East, specifically in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In these countries, it is currently the role of the United Nations to develop laws, enforce them, and strive to maintain order in the free society. There are many individuals within that society that rebel against the United Nations efforts, and it may seem easiest for the United Nations to halt their efforts, and allow the society to fend for itself. But, if these laws were subject to change, or even to be dismissed altogether, the benefit that they will eventually have in those societies will be lost. In these current situations, law must be maintained.

 

It is clear from this example that it is most important to keep laws firm and unchanging when it is for the benefit of the free society, and will help establish order and peace within it. There is no denying that laws have changed over centuries gone by, but many of the memorable changes involve justice law, and the goal of providing unbiased and equal treatment to all defendants. Therefore, laws in a free society can be subject to change if it is for the overall benefit of the society, but must be firm in times of disorder, when stable laws will help to re-establish order, peace and stability.

 

 

 

WEALTHY POLITICIANS CANNOT OFFER FAIR REPRESENTATION TO ALL THE PEOPLE.

 

The ability of a politician to offer fair representation to all people, first requires an understanding of the definition for the term 'fair'. In the context of a politician's representation, fair will be considered a representation that is unaffected and unbiased by the politician's personal status, beliefs, and other qualities that will tend to vary in the population. The wealth of a politician would be considered one of these qualities. Therefore, the statement that 'wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people' implies that a politician that has considerable wealth will be unable to offer fair representation to the people in a given population due to the influential factors that his personal wealth may have on his perspective of the population.

 

However, throughout history there have certain kings, rulers, or leaders of some sort that have provided fair representation to all their people, and there is no reason that in certain situations a wealthy politician would be unable to do so. For example, the most recently elected President of the United States of America, Obama, is seen by the world as a fair and strong leader. Despite his new-found wealth and status, including living in the White House and access to public media outlets and the fame that has accompanied his election, he continues to represent all the people of his nation. He often describes his struggle and the strength that was needed for him to fulfill his goal as the first African American President. This struggle may have helped keep his new wealth from affecting his representative abilities because it allows him to remain in touch with emotions and past experiences that would relate to the less wealthy population as well.

 

With this in mind, a politician's ability to fairly represent an entire, variable population, may be directly related to his ability to understand each class level's individual struggle. If the politician has not been wealthy for his entire life, but is able to remember tougher times, this will allow him to represent an entire population fairly, and will be less affected by the personal wealth that he now experiences.

[Iluvsoccer]

THANK YOU FOR EVALUATING!

 

With the advent of technology came the ease to stay current with the worldly affairs on a minute by minute basis. Individuals have access to news media through the radio, television or online. However, it may seem that because of the consumer demand for constant updates of the current events, the media has become engrossed with the need to have 'material' to report on.In the race to publish or deliver the 'latest breaking news', the news reporting agencies have lost their objectivity and the sense of reporting the news without personal bias to the public. An example of this is the case of Lindsay Lohan trial that took place in July 2010. The media not only reported on this case extensively but also blew it out of proportion by contacting Lohan's family, interviewing her acquaintances and even hosting certain contests such as 'Lindsay's Lockdown' by Toronto's popular radio station Z103.5. Instead of delivering the news and providing updates as to the decisions of the Judge's verdict on Lohan's jail time, the media turned it into a huge issue with the purpose of increasing the public viewings of their news channel. With the loss of the objectivity in delivering the news, the news reporting agencies not only lose credibility as to what sort of news they deliver but also become a nuisance to those they are reporting on. Thus, lack of bias and judgement is crucial for a credible news agency.

However, there are reasons which demand the allowance of subjective analysis of news by the media. Again, the advancing technology has allowed news reporters to research and collect background data on current events and which allows them to provide a lot more background information on the issue. Therefore, a news reporter, while going through historical data, might observe a predictable pattern and might want to point it out to the public, as a result of his 'research'. For example, when the BP oil spill took place of April 20,2010, CNN reported on its possible consequences by analyzing the aftermath of the Exxon-Valdez spill that took place in Alaska in 1989. By looking at a previous event which was similar to the current issue, the CNN reporters pointed out the possible effects of the BP spill in the future. Even though, by formulating their hypothesis about the future, the reporters forgoed the importance of objectivity, they provided important information to the public regarding a similar previous occurance. By doing so, they educated the public about its history, which will ultimately allow them to formulate their own opinion. This assistance is furthering the public's knowledge about a current issue is also one of the main goals of any a news agency.

Therefore, an objective approach should be taken by the news media when reporting on simple and non - issues. In the case of Lindsay Lohan, the media went overboard with over analyzing her situation just for the sake of increasing consumer viewings and basically, having something to report about. However, in cases where in depth information is required and reporting on the history of the issue increases public understanding, then an objective approach is not as crucial. If providing information on an issue facilitates the audience's ability to form an educated opinion on the issue, then providing a more in depth analysis of the issue is acceptable by a news agency.

[Cyberptra]

Hello, I did not know about this resource until now. I wish I would have used this sooner. I write on the 20th and I would like some feedback. Here are my two recent essays.

 

I would like to thank you in advance.

 

 

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

Progress is the idea by which we have associated with society moving forward, and becoming more advance. As society progresses technologically, certain aspects that affect the lives of individuals may become simpiler, but the same time become more complicated for society. One instance of this technological progress came with the internet. With the aid of the internet, individuals are able to recieve information and an unpresidented rate as well as being able to communicate with other individuals from all over the world. As the internet progressed, the ways by which individuals are able to use the internet made life much more simple. Before the internet, people may have needed to rely on maps and directions in order to get to a specific destination when travelling, which may be confusing and time consuming. With popular web sites such as MapQuest and Googlemaps, individuals are able quickly get detailed directions with a few key words in their search. However, the internet has complicated society as well. With the pace by which information travel and the vastness of the internet, certain ethical and security issues have complicated society such issues involving plagiarism, censorship, and privacy.

 

This statement, however true for the internet, cannot be applied to all types of progress. Some types of progress simplify more than it complicates. For instance, the progress seen in DNA technology as it relates to the justice system is one type progress that has simplified. Before we were able to quickly fingerprint individuals using DNA, evidence in cases were more subjective and and less definite. This is especially true with the way by which blood was analyzed. Blood typing was the way by which blood was analyzed, which is may not be conclusive. in court cases, DNA is not the golden standard because it tells us with almost 100% certainty that the DNA belong to a certain person. Therefore, courts are able to more simply serce justice and protect the innocent.

 

What then determines whether progress complicates or simplifies? The nature of the progress must be taken into consideration. If the progress is purely objective and deals with the tangable such as DNA evidence, its use may be more simplifying than complicating. However, if the progress is something that is intangable such as the internet and may affect society in terms of ethics, then it may be more complicating than simplifying.

 

 

 

Laws cannot change social values

 

 

Law is the set of rules that help govern soceity and keep it in order. Social values are the abstract concepts that we regard as being fundamental, right, and moral. These concepts are fundamental in constructing the way we view society. Therefore, some would argue that laws are made in order to protect these social values, which means that law do not change social values. For instance, a social concept that North American countries value is the fundamental right to freedom of speech. There are laws used to protect each individuals right to this freedom.

 

This statement, however true for laws that protect fundamental values, cannot be appied to all types of laws. Some types of laws change the our preception over time, which may impact society's set of social values. For instance, the laws designed to protect the environment has generally changed our value of the world. As these types of laws are passed, people have become more aware of our impact on the environment. Comparing the practices of human behavior in the past have shown that the attitudes involving the environment different in the 30s than it is today. In the past, sewage and chemical waste were simple dumped into lakes and ocean. The previous generatations did not value the environment as we do today. Laws were made to penalize these sort of carelessness. At the time of it conception, these laws were viewed by many as being troublesome and costly, but children growing up today has placed emphasis on this social value because the law became values.

 

What then determines whether a law might change a social value? The nature of the law and the time in which it was made must be taken into consideration. Laws that are designed to protect existing social values will not change those values. However, laws that do not impact social values at the time it was enacted may change the social value in society over time.

[the stranger]

Thank You Sameer I tried to make improvements from your comments on my last essay.

Sorry for posting 3 essays of work on you, I'm just so nervous since as test date is approaching

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses

 

Using other people's weaknesses for one's success may sound immoral. However, Ian Iacocca, a former CEO of Chrysler once noted, "The only immoral form of business is the one which cannot produce profits." Although simplistic, his quote signifies that businesses must take any necessary measures to produce profits, since they are, undoubtedly, the measure of the success in the business realm. Consumers in the market have limited needs and unlimited desires. Thus, it would be logical for businesses to target consumers' unlimited desires as the weakness to exploit. This method is clearly illustrated by Malboro, the largest tobacco seller in the world. Since more men smoke than women, Malboro's advertisements has mainly targeted the male population. Through its advertisements, Malboro has appealed to its potential consumers that smoking its cigarettes make them look manly, powerful, and sometimes sexually appealing. Clearly, Malboro has exploited the male consumers' desire for masculinity for the gain of tremendous amount of profits. Therefore, Malboro's success can be attributed to its marketing strategy in taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses.

 

However, a business does not always succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. PEBBLES, an innovative learning system, developed by a North American venture company of educational developers. They believed that every child and teenager should have continuous access to education while being away from school. Students who are hospitalized due to illness or injury can continue their learning through PEBBLES. In the system, a robot surrogate of the student is placed in classrooms, allowing hospitalized students to listen and interact with educators and classmates. Since its great success in elementary schools, the developers have acquired a large amount of profits and investments from both governmental and non-governmental sectors. Indeed, their success originated by supporting students' access to primary education, a necessity for every person in Canada and the U.S.

 

At its first glance, it might be difficult tell whether or not taking advantage of consumers' weakness is necessary for the success of a business. However the dividing line becomes clear by identifying the type of products that a business provides. When a company sells a product that is a form of desire rather than a necessity, as in the case of a tobacco producer, Malboro, the business succeeds by taking advantage of consumers' weakness. However, when a business produces products that aid in claiming one's necessity, such as the elementary education in North America, the business can succeed without taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. In the case of PEBBLES, its developers succeeded not by exploiting students' weaknesses, but by aiding them to access education while being hospitalized. Clearly, although many businesses exploit consumers' weaknesses for their success, there are businesses which succeed by providing access to necessities.

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

In history, technological progresses, such as the development of automobiles and computers, have facilitated the way people live. However, these technological improvements have also been the sources of complications in our society, such as air pollution and cyber crimes. This case is clearly illustrated by the advancement in biotechnology, which indeed contributed in discovering in cures for numerous human diseases and injuries. One of the new streams of biotechnology is stem cell research. It is often deemed as the potential cure for cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and degenerative disorders. However, the stem cell research is surrounded by ethical issues. As the world leader of the stem cell research, the U.S. is also faced with profound ethical debates among the citizens. Groups of scientists and others support the stem cell research because of it has the potential to cure diseases and disorders which affect a large number of population in our society. On the other hand, groups of people are against the research, signifying its potential threat against the human sanctity. Clearly, biotechnological progress has greatly complicated the U.S. society by dividing the citizens into two viewpoints.

 

In contrast, not all technological improvements complicates human societies as much they facilitate people's lives. Smartphones are a new breed of mobile phones,with far more functions than basic cell phones. Smartphones are often considered to be the portable personal assistant by business technology gurus. In addition to its extreme portability, it allows its users to access internet, compose documents, listen to music, watch videos, and do much more. Smartphone users can work and enjoy more entertainment on-the-go than before. Indeed, smartphones have facilitated the way of many people's lives. However, unlike the stem cell research, smartphones have not imposed any ethical issues, thus they have not complicated our society by stimulating rigorous debates among the citizens.

 

At its first glance, it might be difficult to tell whether or not progress in technology complicates our society as much as it simplifies. The decisive factor is the arousal of moral issues by the technological advancement. If a technological progress encompasses serious moral implications, as in the case of the progress in biotechnology, the advancement often complicates our society as much it facilitates. However, if new inventions, such as smartphones, do not impose any moral issues. Thus, such development only simplifies our daily lives by providing new technological functions which were not available before. Clearly, only the new technologies with moral implications are indicative of complications in our society.

 

Laws cannot change social values

 

In society, laws govern the way people act by themselves and how they interact with others. Social values are the factors understood by the people to be in favor towards the common good of a society. Social values are often based on traditions or strong beliefs and, sometimes have more powerful impact than laws in people's decision making. Therefore, it is often difficult for the governing laws to change the social values widespread among the members of a society. Such case is illustrated by the Gothark tribe of the Philippines. Just like in the U.S. or Canada, murder is considered a crime and murderers are punished in the Philippines. However, the Gothark tribe have a tradition of killing elderly members of their tribe because the tribe members have believed that the elderly are better served in the eternal realm of death than on earth. Although the tribe's long tradition have been regularly intervened by the government's law enforcements, the tribesmen's belief have not changed, and the mercy killing of the elderly has continued until today.

 

In contrast, at times, laws might change social values. In late 1800s, the Japanese Emperor ordered that every Japanese men must have their hair cut short instead of pulling their long hair onto top of their head as they did traditionally. The Japanese men had long believed that hair is one the gifts given by their parents. Thus, disposal of their hair would mean great disrespect towards their parents and elders. The shogun's reasons for the new law were that "New Japanese Empire" must resemble the powerful states of Western Europe, and the hair cut was the first step towards Japan's transformation towards Western living style. Therefore, men who cuts their hair short was commended to be patriotic and loyal toward the emperor. Soon, every Japanese men had begun cutting their hair short in belief that by doing so, it show their patriotism and loyalty toward the emperor.

 

At first, it might be difficult to pinpoint when laws can change social values. The decisive factor is whether or not the enforced law commends the obedient members of the society. When the law only punishes the disobedient without praising the obedient, it is difficult for the law the change the social values. As seen in the case of Gothark tribe, the law of Philippines could not change th tradition of mercy killing because the law only punished the mercy killers. On the other hand, the Japanese law which ordered every men to cut their hair short in Western style changed the social beliefs among Japanese men. This could only occur because by their hair cut short, the men were commended as a patriotic and loyal servant of their emperor.

 

Hopefully this reaches you in time.

 

Essay1:

Well done. This was well written and clearly thought out. Your resolution was on point and your examples were clear and relevant, but remember that an example of an actual event is better than a good description of a general idea (task 1). Also be sure to read through and look for awkward phrasing and sentence structure to really tune up your essay. Otherwise this was very good.

Score: 5/6

 

Essay2:

Again this was well structured with a good resolution and it addressed the three tasks. However your first example suffers from some unclear sentence structure and phrasing, and it loses some of its strength because of this. Try to eliminate this in future. Also remember that your examples should be specific situations rather than descriptions of hypotheticals.

Score: 4.5/6

 

Essay 3:

This was excellent! Great examples, clear writing and great overall arguments. I was really impressed with your resolution – thoughtful and complex, and really made me think! Great job. I wouldn’t be surprised if this scored a 6 with some graders, but I’ll have to give it a 5.5 because of a couple mechanical errors and still some issues with phrasing (but definitely very close to a 6). Very well done.

Score: 5.5-6/6

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer,

 

I write on the 20th and would really love for a bit more feedback. I'm still not sure if I'm on the right track. Thank you!

 

 

 

IN A FREE SOCIETY, LAWS MUST BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

 

Over time, laws have slowly been established in free societies to maintain order, and provide equal treatment to all citizens. In the context related to law, a free society must be defined as a society in which the people are physically free to move around and interact with one another; it is equally important that a free society is not seen as a society void of rules and regulations. This free physical movement allows for a society to move in order, disorder, peacefully or violently. Therefore, the statement that 'in a free society, laws must be subject to change', is indicating that due to the physical freedom that a society possesses, it may be essential that laws are able to be changed accordingly, in response to the society's movement or interaction.

 

However, one must keep in mind that laws have been formed for a reason, and it may also be essential that these certain laws never change. There is a war currently taking place in the Middle East, specifically in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In these countries, it is currently the role of the United Nations to develop laws, enforce them, and strive to maintain order in the free society. There are many individuals within that society that rebel against the United Nations efforts, and it may seem easiest for the United Nations to halt their efforts, and allow the society to fend for itself. But, if these laws were subject to change, or even to be dismissed altogether, the benefit that they will eventually have in those societies will be lost. In these current situations, law must be maintained.

 

It is clear from this example that it is most important to keep laws firm and unchanging when it is for the benefit of the free society, and will help establish order and peace within it. There is no denying that laws have changed over centuries gone by, but many of the memorable changes involve justice law, and the goal of providing unbiased and equal treatment to all defendants. Therefore, laws in a free society can be subject to change if it is for the overall benefit of the society, but must be firm in times of disorder, when stable laws will help to re-establish order, peace and stability.

 

 

 

WEALTHY POLITICIANS CANNOT OFFER FAIR REPRESENTATION TO ALL THE PEOPLE.

 

The ability of a politician to offer fair representation to all people, first requires an understanding of the definition for the term 'fair'. In the context of a politician's representation, fair will be considered a representation that is unaffected and unbiased by the politician's personal status, beliefs, and other qualities that will tend to vary in the population. The wealth of a politician would be considered one of these qualities. Therefore, the statement that 'wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people' implies that a politician that has considerable wealth will be unable to offer fair representation to the people in a given population due to the influential factors that his personal wealth may have on his perspective of the population.

 

However, throughout history there have certain kings, rulers, or leaders of some sort that have provided fair representation to all their people, and there is no reason that in certain situations a wealthy politician would be unable to do so. For example, the most recently elected President of the United States of America, Obama, is seen by the world as a fair and strong leader. Despite his new-found wealth and status, including living in the White House and access to public media outlets and the fame that has accompanied his election, he continues to represent all the people of his nation. He often describes his struggle and the strength that was needed for him to fulfill his goal as the first African American President. This struggle may have helped keep his new wealth from affecting his representative abilities because it allows him to remain in touch with emotions and past experiences that would relate to the less wealthy population as well.

 

With this in mind, a politician's ability to fairly represent an entire, variable population, may be directly related to his ability to understand each class level's individual struggle. If the politician has not been wealthy for his entire life, but is able to remember tougher times, this will allow him to represent an entire population fairly, and will be less affected by the personal wealth that he now experiences.

 

Hi Kaela, sorry to get back to you so late but I hope this reaches you in time to review.

Essay 1:

This essay was ok overall but remember that you need to provide an example to support your statements in task 1 as well. The lack of an example here hurts your overall argument because you have nothing to relate back to in your resolution. Your resolution was good however and showed some depth of thought on the prompt. Try also to go back and proofread for awkward phrasing and sentence structure as this can hinder clarity (task 2).

Score: 4/6

 

Essay2:

Again your resolution and overall argument was good here – you’ve shown depth of thought and insight into the topic. But once again, you’re argument is hurt by the lack of an example for task 1 – make sure you include an example when you write tomorrow. Your task 2 example was good, and was explained well. I would also suggest being a bit more clear with your resolution – you state when the prompt might be true, but leave the idea of when prompt might be untrue, but you leave the idea of when the prompt would be true up to the grader. It is always better to clearly state both sides of the criteria in your resolution.

Score: 4.5/6

[the stranger]

Hello, I did not know about this resource until now. I wish I would have used this sooner. I write on the 20th and I would like some feedback. Here are my two recent essays.

 

I would like to thank you in advance.

 

 

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

Progress is the idea by which we have associated with society moving forward, and becoming more advance. As society progresses technologically, certain aspects that affect the lives of individuals may become simpiler, but the same time become more complicated for society. One instance of this technological progress came with the internet. With the aid of the internet, individuals are able to recieve information and an unpresidented rate as well as being able to communicate with other individuals from all over the world. As the internet progressed, the ways by which individuals are able to use the internet made life much more simple. Before the internet, people may have needed to rely on maps and directions in order to get to a specific destination when travelling, which may be confusing and time consuming. With popular web sites such as MapQuest and Googlemaps, individuals are able quickly get detailed directions with a few key words in their search. However, the internet has complicated society as well. With the pace by which information travel and the vastness of the internet, certain ethical and security issues have complicated society such issues involving plagiarism, censorship, and privacy.

 

This statement, however true for the internet, cannot be applied to all types of progress. Some types of progress simplify more than it complicates. For instance, the progress seen in DNA technology as it relates to the justice system is one type progress that has simplified. Before we were able to quickly fingerprint individuals using DNA, evidence in cases were more subjective and and less definite. This is especially true with the way by which blood was analyzed. Blood typing was the way by which blood was analyzed, which is may not be conclusive. in court cases, DNA is not the golden standard because it tells us with almost 100% certainty that the DNA belong to a certain person. Therefore, courts are able to more simply serce justice and protect the innocent.

 

What then determines whether progress complicates or simplifies? The nature of the progress must be taken into consideration. If the progress is purely objective and deals with the tangable such as DNA evidence, its use may be more simplifying than complicating. However, if the progress is something that is intangable such as the internet and may affect society in terms of ethics, then it may be more complicating than simplifying.

 

 

 

Laws cannot change social values

 

 

Law is the set of rules that help govern soceity and keep it in order. Social values are the abstract concepts that we regard as being fundamental, right, and moral. These concepts are fundamental in constructing the way we view society. Therefore, some would argue that laws are made in order to protect these social values, which means that law do not change social values. For instance, a social concept that North American countries value is the fundamental right to freedom of speech. There are laws used to protect each individuals right to this freedom.

 

This statement, however true for laws that protect fundamental values, cannot be appied to all types of laws. Some types of laws change the our preception over time, which may impact society's set of social values. For instance, the laws designed to protect the environment has generally changed our value of the world. As these types of laws are passed, people have become more aware of our impact on the environment. Comparing the practices of human behavior in the past have shown that the attitudes involving the environment different in the 30s than it is today. In the past, sewage and chemical waste were simple dumped into lakes and ocean. The previous generatations did not value the environment as we do today. Laws were made to penalize these sort of carelessness. At the time of it conception, these laws were viewed by many as being troublesome and costly, but children growing up today has placed emphasis on this social value because the law became values.

 

What then determines whether a law might change a social value? The nature of the law and the time in which it was made must be taken into consideration. Laws that are designed to protect existing social values will not change those values. However, laws that do not impact social values at the time it was enacted may change the social value in society over time.

 

Hi Cyberptra, hopefully this reaches you in time.

Essay1:

Your overall argument and resolution are good here – you show that you have given the topic some thought. As well your task 1 and 2 examples are good and you arguments are sound. However the mechanical errors with grammar, spelling, sentence structure and phrasing are really preventing these good points from coming through clearly. You really need to be careful when you write, and spend time going back over to proofread at the end. You have the potential to score highly but you won’t be able to if the grader has trouble reading your essay.

Score: 3.5-4/6

 

Essay2:

Again, your resolution and arguments are sound here, but some structural points are holding you back here. Remember you need to include a clear, specific example in task 1 as well. Also, you should spend some time explaining the significance of this example to your argument (like you did in task 2). Your resolution was good but could have been clearer more complete had you explained what you mean by “impacting social values at the time”.

Score: 4/6 <- you have potential to score 5 and 6, but you need to address the above issues to do so

[the stranger]

Hey Sameer, thanks for your input for my last essay. Here is another one, the example is a little bit bs..but hopefully I made it work...THANKS, really appreciate your comments.

 

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

 

Through the lens of history, we often observe many regulations our federal government enforce on private enterprises. Some of these regulations ensure that ordinary citizens are properly treated with fair services instead of being taken advantage of by giant corporations. In this context, necessary services must be understood as regular citizens’ dependence on private companies to carry a certain lifestyle. Take the case of the Canadian pharmaceutical budget cut, when many pharmacists’ salary was cut to lower drug costs for average citizens. Pharmaceutical distributors such as Shoppers Drug Mart, along with pharmacists, have been complaint by many individuals to charge an obscene amount of money for distributing drugs to citizens. As a result, government stepped in to lower the distribution costs and was praised in doing so. By capping the maximum distribution charge, the government is regulating private enterprises that are serving citizens.

 

On the other hand, there are certain situations in which government should not be responsible for introducing regulations to service-providing corporations. For example, Rogers corporations—Canadian telecommunication company—outsource many of their services in the customer relation department to India. Although many citizens complain that such a move will decrease the amount of jobs to Canadians, the Canadian government did not intervene because not only do companies have legal rights to hire members from other countries, interventions between India and Canada will be problematic. Some other examples of outsourcing are seen in the famous clothing companies Nike. Since there are no global regulations on outsourcing, the government cannot be held responsible for not regulating service-providing companies like Rogers.

 

Nevertheless, there are some elements of truth that government should regulate companies that many citizens depend on for their services. It is fair to expect the government to stand up for their citizens when they are being taken advantage by giant corporations like Shoppers Drug Mart: by lowering the distribution fee, the Canadian government provided justice to their citizens. However, in cases of international diplomacy, as seen in Rogers Corporation outsourcing services to India, there should not be any expectation on the government to intervene. This is because global regulations are difficult to achieve and international diplomacy is often a delicate process. Governments, therefore, should only regulate companies’ policies unless international diplomacy is involved.

 

Hi diu12345,

I think basing your overall resolution argument on whether or not international diplomacy is involved is far too narrow. You need to be broad enough with your criteria that they can be applied to many situations, not just specific ones. This will lend more credence to your essay and score more points. Also make sure you are going back over your work to eliminate mechanical errors, and awkward sentence structure/phrasing. Your examples were quite specific and relevant however as I mentioned, your second example speaks to only a very narrow aspect of this topic (international diplomacy and outsourcing).

Score: 4/6

[the stranger]

Hey Sameer, thanks for marking these essays.

 

 

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

 

Technological advancements with computers in recent times has allowed for them to become more than just tools used in businesses to make their workers more efficient. With today's computers, users can not only engage in business oriented tasks such as word processing, but users can also find a myriad of programs that can provide hours of entertainment. As a result, computers are becoming an integral part of society. While computers may seem to make the lives of their users much easier, a side effect of such technological advancements includes the disconnection of people due to reduced face to face interaction, more commonly known as alienation. People may find themselves alienated from others due to the ability of a computer to provide one with hours of entertainment and the ability of computers to communicate quickly. Instead of phoning others in a business office, one may now send a quick email, thereby reducing the need of human interaction. Instead of going out to a theatre to watch a movie, one may now quickly download one from programs such as iTunes and watch it whenever it is convenient. The computer has now become a viable and popular option for entertainment and communication and it reduces the time people spend with others.

 

While the computer can alienate people from one another due to its ability to its communication and entertainment applications, some computer programs actually allow for people to connect with one another in ways that were previously not possible. The popular social networking website, Facebook, allows for its users to add friends and communicate with them in many ways including instant messaging, sharing videos and photos, and organizing events. Facebook allows for people to add friends from across the world and in some cases, it allows for one to find old acquaintances with relative ease, a task that previously took much time and effort. In this case, a computer application brings people together rather than separating them apart.

 

The use of computers has grown drastically in the past two decades and its uses are still growing today. Many computer programs, such as email or the ability to download popular media, reduce the need for interaction with people causing those users to become alienated from others; however, some applications, such as Facebook, allow for increased social interaction between users. The ability for the computer to alienate people from one another depends greatly on the purpose in which the computer is used. It is based on the intent of the individual whether or not the computer is used to alienate people or to bring people together.

 

Hey gbara,

You have to be more specific both with your examples and your resolution. Your examples are rather general since you describe hypothetical situations that could occur, but you should aim to include examples of actual situations that have occurred, drawn from the realm of public or general knowledge and actual events. This will lend greater depth and clout to your arguments, and thus increase your score. Also, your resolution must be clearly stated and should offer criteria that determine when the prompt may or may not be true, not simply a statement of fact. Overall your essay was well written and with some changes to examples and honing of your resolution you should see your score improve well.

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