Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[madison007]

Thank you so much for your help:)

 

The pursuit of knowledge is always justified.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the pursuit of knowledge is not justified. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of knowledge is justified and when it is not.

 

In our society, the notion that “knowledge is power” is one that is ingrained firmly into our minds. Knowledge is viewed as the “magic ticket” to a secure job, a high salary, and a happy future, and most people will stop at nothing in order to achieve this. Stem cell research is a current controversial topic at which many scientists are focusing their attention. This area of research provides countless options for curing disease as well as challenging the frontiers of modern medicine. In 2009, American president Barack Obama lifted the ban on stem cell research which had been previously imposed by former president George Bush. No American citizens are being directly harmed by this research and the removal of this ban will allow researchers to extend their knowledge on stem cell research. Obama’s quest for knowledge is for the sole purpose of providing the best possible healthcare for all American citizens.

 

Although attaining a vast knowledge base is important in becoming successful, there are situations in which the pursuit of knowledge may not be completely justified. This scenario comes into play while examining the development of AIDS research in Africa. Many Western pharmaceutical companies, in their quest for knowledge, have begun to experiment with new and untested drugs on certain African individuals who are suffering from AIDS. Understanding that these individuals are unable to afford healthcare and are desperate for a cure, these Western companies are able to manipulate these citizens into serving as “guinea pigs” for potential new treatments. Along with these possible cures, have also been many undiscovered health implications that have not been shared with the individuals undergoing the treatments. As important as it is to find a cure for AIDS, this pursuit for knowledge should be accomplished without the direct harming of innocent individuals.

 

An important factor in distinguishing whether the quest for knowledge is justified is to evaluate the effect it is having on others. When an individual, such as Obama, is focusing his country’s attention on gaining knowledge in an undiscovered field, he must be mindful of the potential harm. Since stem cell research is not directly causing harm to another human being, his pursuit of knowledge in this field is justified. However, when it comes to gaining knowledge in a field in which human beings are directly being harmed in return for discovering a potential cure, this cannot be justified on any level. When evaluating whether the pursuit of knowledge is justified, it is important to remain aware of how the quest for knowledge is affecting others.

[someone00]

A little bit nervous about this response...

 

Only the history of free nations is worthy of study.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the study of a nation that was or is not free might be worthy of study. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a nation's history is worthy of study.

 

Essay:

Histories are inherently subjective works, containing of not only historical facts and accounts, but also the historian's evaluations of personalities and events. They are necessarily coloured by the personal view point of the historian, who makes judgements based on his or her personal beliefs and ideologies. Thus, an objective view of history rely on the coexistence of multiple viewpoints, which is only tolerated by a society that enshrines the freedom of thought. On the other hand, repressive regimes throughout history have used official histories as a political tools, to legitimize the present regime, cover up scandals, and restrict the thoughts of the intelligentsia. Many argue that official histories of non-free nations are unworthy of study due to their one-sided view point, as well as the hidden political and ideological drives behind them.

 

For the last two millennia, various dynasties in China have ruled China with an iron-fist. One of most important ways for them to maintain their power is to control the thoughts of the learned, and the official histories serve as one of their most important propaganda tools. Those historical accounts speak at length about the imperial family, and extol the virtues of the past rulers. This is done to legitimize the monopoly on power held by the current regime. Furthermore, alternative histories are invariably suppressed through book-burning, and imprisonment of scholars. Such histories are tainted by their biased, one-sided views, and their hidden propaganda purposes, resulting in diminished scholarly values for researchers.

 

On the other hand, these official histories are often the only historical accounts available to present day scholars, since much of the primary sources, such as government archives, have been destroyed or lost. Moreover, the close-door policy practised by many repressive nations often means their official histories offer the only glimpse into their inner workings. The official histories of China, despite their ideological leans and scholarly deficiencies, are viewed as valuable documents for this very reason. Despite the unbalanced evaluations, these accounts still offer important facts that enable present day historians to study those regimes, and often allow re-evaluations of historical events and personalities.

 

Ultimately, the official histories of restrictive regimes cannot compare to the diverse, and multifaceted historical accounts available in free nations. Yet they are sometimes the only source of information available, and still carry value in terms of their factual content. In order to make good use of these sources, researchers must be aware of their one-sided, biased nature at all times. By viewing these sources with a critical eye, and sorting out the facts from distortions, historians can extract valuable information, and offer their own evaluations of those regimes. Through this process, valuable lessons about those nations will be learned, which can aid in dealing with restrictive regimes of the present.

[someone00]

Moral principles should be absolute, never affected by the circumstances of a given situation.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a person's moral principles might be affected by circumstances. Discuss what you think determines when a person's moral principles should be absolute.

 

Essay:

Moral principles are the foundation of a society's value system. They are practical guidelines that direct people's actions and decisions in everyday life. Moral principles set out acceptable and unacceptable behaviours for members of a society, which facilitate the formation of trust between individuals, and forms the the basis of trust with a society. Some argue that moral principles must be absolute, that they should not be affected by external factors, such as facts surrounding a particular situation, as well as the emotional state of the people involved. They argue that, like laws and regulations, which must be administered in a fair and just manner, without consideration to irrelevant cirumstances, in order to maintain order within a society, moral principles must be applied in a consistent manner. When moral principles are allowed to be influenced by arbitrary circumstances, they will not be applied in a reliable manner, which undermines the trust within a society.

 

The case of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen charged with the killing of an American soldier at the age of fifteen, has lead to heated debates regarding possible intervention by the Canadian government. Khadr, the son of an al Qaeda financier and close friend of Osama bin Laden, has not garnered much sympathy due to his family background. Many Canadians view him as raised in a family of terrorists, and believe he should be tried as an adult and face the consequences of his actions. On the other hand, there is another group of Canadians who argue that as a signatory of relevant UN conventions, Canada has a moral obligation to keep its words, and object to the trial of a child soldier. By not intervening in Khadr's case, they argue, the Canadian government will have abandoned the moral principle of keeping a promise, merely due to a dislike of Khadr's family background. This will not only lead to questions regarding the government's other promises, but also doubts about its willingness to act in a moral way, ignoring outside influences. Clearly, moral principles must be viewed as absolute, and applied without being influenced by external factors, in order to maintain the integrity of trust within a society.

 

On the other hand, there are certain situations where more than one moral principles are at stake, and one of the principles conflicts with another. Such cases are known as moral dilemmas. In these cases, one of the moral principles must be chosen over another. For instance, a downtown Vancouver hospital has recently started to offer a basket for women to abandon their babies due increased number of infant deaths from abandonment. In this particular situation, two moral principles are at stake: the value and sanctity of life, and obedience of laws and regulations. The hospital can either choose to obey the law and do nothing; or they can offer a safe place for abandoned babies. While this act condones a criminal behaviour, it also offers abaondoned babies a chance to a full life. The hospital chose the value and sanctity of life over obedience of laws, since it is viewed as more central to Canadian values. This choice is further supported by the Constitution Act of Canada, which enshrines the right to life as one of the fundamental rights. In cases of conflicts, the physical and emotional factors surrouding situation need to be carefully analyzed to determine the crux of the conflict, as well as realistic course of actions. In the end, the moral principles that is more fundamental to the value system of a society should override conflicting moral principles.

 

In summary, moral principles should be treated as absolute, and applied in a consistent manner without circumstantial influences. This will ensure they are stable, and reliable enough to act as the cornerstones of trust within a society. The case of Omar Khadr has demonstrated the dangers of letting emotional factors get in the way of our moral obligations. On the other hand, in cases of moral dilemmas, where two moral principles are in direct conflict with each other, such as the situation faced by the downtown Vancouver hospital, the circumstances of the situation will come into play, and must be carefully analyzed to determine the principles in conflict, as well as realistic action plans. Ultimately, moral principles that are fundamental to a society's system of values must be protected, and if necessary, override other principles that are in conflict.

[Slimy]

Thank you for the last reply, Sameer.

I found these particular topic to be challenging.

I really appreciate your hard work, thanks again!

 

The nature of democracy requires that its citizens be dependent upon one another.

 

In nature, citizens of a democratic society have individual rights and freedoms. Often times, the protection of one's rights and freedoms inevitably depends on the action of another citizen and vice versa. This case is clearly exemplified in the Korean War. During the war, the South Korean citizens, men and women, battled hard against soldiers deployed by communist states, such as North Korea and China, to protect their democracy. If the South Koreans were to lose and forfeit the war, their individual rights and freedoms would have been taken away by the North Korean communist regime. Clearly, at the time of the war, the protection of a citizen's rights and freedoms clearly depended upon the action of other citizens who battled in another part of the Korean peninsula.

 

In contrast, at times in democracy, the protection of a citizen's rights and freedoms might not depend on another citizen. In a democratic nation, such as Canada, individual rights and freedoms are protected the nation's constitutional laws. For example, the Constitution of Canada states that a Canadian citizen must not be discriminated from another citizen by their skin color, ethnic background, or religious beliefs. In other words, Canada's national law guards every citizen's right to be treated equally regardless of their personal background. Thus in this case, one is dependent on the nation's law for the protection of his or her rights and freedoms rather than another citizen.

 

At the first glance, it might be difficult to pinpoint when in democracy, citizens are dependent on another. The resolution becomes clear when one considers the state of the democratic society in question. When a nation is in emergency, its law enforcements are insufficient in protecting each citizen's rights and freedoms outlined by its constitution. As in the case of Korean War, its citizens must depend on each other for the protection of individual rights and freedoms. On the other hand, in peaceful times, the law of a democratic society is able to guard each citizen's rights and freedoms. Thus, each citizen does not need to depend on one another for the protection of one's rights and freedoms.

 

Of all the forms of media, television has the strongest influence on public opinion.

 

Media has been one of the favorite tools in politics a very long time. This is clearly true because the strength of media in shaping the public opinion is unbelievably powerful. A famous British politician, Mark B. Ronson once said, "A speech is most influential when one can see the deliverer of speech." His message clearly suggets that, of all the forms of media, television is most influential on public opinion. This is clearly exemplified by the recent study done in the University of Toronto. For the research, Canadian subjects who were uninterested in politics and have never voted were recruited. In the study the subjects were told to read a politician's written electoral speech on newspaper. Then, the group listened to another politician's speech on radio. Finally, they watched yet another politician's speech on a television. In the end, that the majority of subjects responded that they would vote for the candidate they watched on the television. The subjects also were most comprehensive and positive towards the speech of the politician on television. Therefore, the research concluded to shows that of all the forms of media, television has the strongest influence on public opinion.

 

In contrast, at times, television might not necessarily have the strongest influence on public opinion. In the time of Vietnam War, the communist Vietnamese government first used public television in each village for war propaganda. The propaganda showed Vietnamese women and children being brutally killed by U.S. soldiers. However, Vietnamese citizens, who were unfamiliar with television government broadcasting, only considered the propaganda as a movie. Thus, only a few from each village applied for the communist army. However, when the government advertised similar war propaganda message on radio, many more Vietnamese men enrolled to the communist army because they were more familiar with government messages on radio. Clearly, in this case, television was not the most influential form of media.

 

Whether or not television has the strongest influence on public opinion depends on subjects' familiarity with messages conveyed television. For a group of people familiar with watching and comprehending messages through television, the most influential media would be the television. In the case of the university research, television was found to be the the most influential form of media for Canadians because they were very used to listening and comprehending messages viewed on television. On the other hand, when the target of media is unfamiliar with television messages, certainly, television is not the most influential form of media. As seen in the Vietnam War, more Vietnamese citizens were influenced to join in the communist army when the war propaganda was advertised on radio instead of television.

[asglover]

Hi Sameer,

 

I think you missed my essay the first time so I have reposted it. Thanks in advance.

 

 

An understanding of our past is necessary in finding solutions to our present problems.

An understanding of our past in some cases may be beneficial in finding solutions to our present problems. When we are able to go back into our past to look at certain trends,issues or events it gives us an insight to present issues that may be currently taking place and it may provide effective solutions to these problems. A good example of this is the study of the holocaust. A lot of emphasis has been placed on understanding who this event came about, who it affected and how it does not foster collectivity or inclusion in society. By teaching students and members of society what happened during the holocaust, society is able to address the present problem of discrimination in our society. This is because by understanding the past/history of the holocaust, people are able to realize that the holocaust was as a result of subtle discriimination and by avoiding discrimination, they can solve the present problems that result from discrimination including hate crimes and racism,

 

However, understanding the past may not always necessarily help to solve a present problem.Lets consider a political party that has been voted into power for a second term of office. Their understanding of how they ruled the country during their first term of office may not provide solutions to the present problems that the country is facing. The country may have developed a new set of problems that will have to be looked at from a new perspective in order to provide a good solution. In this case, an understanding of the past methods will not be helpful in solving the problem at hand. Rather, the government would have to look for new and innovative strategies to solve the present problem,

 

In conclusion, an understading of the past should be considered in solving present problem based on the type of problem to be solved. When the problem is one of social justice as deciribed in the first example, a society can rely on examples of the past to glean effective solutions. However, if the problem is political and it involves a government developing new strategies, then an understanding of the past is not necessary.

 

Politician base their decisions on what pleases the voters and not what is best for the country

There's a famous addage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. This addage expresses the relationship between politicians and their voters. Often times, politians base their decisions on what they feel will please their voters in order to secure votes in the next election. Politicians work primarily to serve the people and they usually ensure that the requests of their voters are stongly considered in order to secure their place in power. A typical example of this was the recent Unified health insurance that the Obama administration tried to implement. Based on extensive research and analysis, the Obama administration had proposed a unified health system where all US citizens can access affordable health care. This was to replace the current "pay as you go" health system. This new system would have benefited all people especially the poor and underpriveleged but it was fought by many affluent Americans who are no doubt voters who can afford health care and don't want to switch systems. The decision to implement this system was not supported as the voters had a huge impact on the Obama adminsitration and the administration had to do what the people requested. This was also because the people had a direct say as to whether or not this system should be implemented. The government could not implement this without the people's approval/ vote on it.

 

However, there are times when politicians base their decisions on what is best for the country and not just what pleases their voters. This is usually what happens when issues of national security are involved. A good example of this is the US sending troops to fight the war in Iraq. Since the US security was involved and the government had carefully considered the consequences, it did not have to directly consult the people before it sent troops to Iraq. It did so as it saw fit. As a result, the US people were not consulted directly on the issue before the decision was made.

 

In conclusion, politicians will decide to either base their decisions on what pleases their voters or on what is best for the country depending on the type of decision to be made. If the decision at hand can be made without the voters approval then politicians will have to listen to their voters. However, if the decision involves an issue of national security where a decision has to be made quickly then the voters will not be involved in the decision making process and as such the politician will have to decide what is best for the country.

[Ann90]

Hi Sameer

I am new to this website but I would greatly appreciate your input on my writing sample attempts. I am posting my first one. Thanks in advance!

Ann

 

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

 

The government is a body of individuals that instigates rules by which individuals of the population are to follow. In a democracy, usually the government is chosen from the members of parliament which were voted for by the citizens. The citizens vote for the politicians who they feel will fairly represent them, therefore, their well-being should be the primary concern of the government. In the United States of America, President Barack Obama recently purchased 61% of the shares of General Motors in order to save the company from bankruptcy. Once bringing the company back to a lucrative state, securing tens of thousands of employees their jobs, he sold back the company through the stock market. By primarily concerning himself with the well-being of American citizens, President Obama, saved the employees of General Motors and their suppliers from unemployment.

 

However, authoritarian governments, which are ruled by one person holding almost absolute and uncontrolled power, do not always concern themselves with the welfare of the citizens of their country. In North Korea, Kim Jung-il, the ruler of the nation (although formally the country is democratic), has been largely discussed as a harsh dictator. Notably, he abruptly announced a devaluation of the currency, allowing the citizens only a short period of time to exchange any money they had or risk losing their savings. Not only did many experience a dramatic pecuniary loss, the citizens had to suffer a 15 fold increase in the price of rice, a North Korean staple food. Thus, Kim Jung-il's desire to elevate North Korea's economical standing trumped the well-being of North Koreans.

 

Logically, it seems a government should always hold the well-being of its citizens as its primary concern. However, the type of government in power usually demonstrates congruency in it's concern for its citizens' welfare. A democratic party is regularly re-elected to ensure the people in power are those the citizens feel will be most adept at representing them. On the other hand, an authoritarian government often is ruled by a person that oppresses the people, possibly believing that they know what is best for the citizens. In countries such as the United States of America and Canada where democracy rules, the well-being of the citizens is most often the primary concern, exemplified in the high quality of living for both countries. Both countries have free health care and freedom of speech, along with many other ostensibly "luxurious" benefits. In contrast, other nations, such as North Korea and Turkmenistan, where the country is led by an absolute ruler and the standard of living experienced by individuals living there is much lower. The well-being of citizens is a primary concern of the governments, often depending on the type of government.

[macaroons123]

Hi Sameer,

If you could please have a look at my essay I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you for all your help!

 

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

 

In many cases, the solution to a current problem is dependent upon how a similar problem was resolved in the past. In such situations, it becomes necessary to analyze the past for a thorough understanding of the matter. This is the basis of judicial precedent. If a case that is presented before the court raises issues similar to that of a previously decided case, then the present case will usually have the same outcome as the prior one. For example, the famous case of Mapp v. Ohio set the precedence that all evidence obtained during an illegal search must be deemed inadmissible in court. Hence, if a present case where the evidence was found through an illegal search was presented, the court would not accept the evidence based on precedence. Therefore, in the administration of law, it becomes necessary to look at precedent cases before solving the current issue. This ensures uniform justice as the administration of laws is kept predictable and consistent. People know what to expect in certain legal situations, and this creates stability and order in society. Additionally, precision and consistency are further established by precedence because of the limited power of the judiciary since the judges must follow precedent cases. Hence, for the proper use of judicial precedent, past events must be analyzed to solve a current problem.

 

However, in certain situations, it may be that an understanding of the past is not required for solving a current problem. In the judicial system, this is referred to as reversal of precedence and its application removes the influence of the prior precedence in determining the solution to a current problem. The most famous reversal of precedence is the case of Brown vs Board, where a father of an African American girl fought to end racial segregation of schools. Precedent cases at that time had set the standard that, “Separate is equal,” and thus justified the segregation of schools. However, the Supreme Court decided that the solution to the problem could not depend on the precedent cases as they violated an amendment and thus segregation of schools was overturned. Therefore, the outcome of this current event was reached independently of precedent cases. Rather, this case itself set precedent for future cases of similar issues. Hence, it is not always necessary for current problems to depend on an understanding of the past.

 

Two main factors determine whether a current problem will be dependent or independent of an understanding of the past. First, the nature of the past cases will have to be analyzed. If the precedent case proves to cause significant harm, then the problem should be solved without the influence of the past. In the case of Brown Vs Board, the significant harm was the violation of an amendment that ensured equality. Secondly, if the precedent has become indefensible over time, and is now clearly wrong in the context of the current issue, the problem must also be solved independently of the past. Societal norms were changing during the time period of the Brown case, and racial inequality was becoming less acceptable. Thus, the precedent became indefensible over time until it was removed. In conclusion, despite the aforementioned criteria, great care is needed when determining whether an issue is dependent or independent of precedent cases.

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hey thisismyusername,

Essay1:

Remember that you must provide concrete examples for your first and second tasks in order to receive an acceptable score. Providing an argument without any concrete evidence to back up your statements will not amount to a convincing essay, so make sure you come up with examples that support and refute the prompt in tasks 1 and 2, respectively. Furthermore, your resolution statement in task 3 must aim to distinguish between situations in which the prompt is true and situations in which it is untrue. Your resolution should provide criteria that can be applied to many situations that determine if the prompt would be true or untrue in those situations. You must address the three tasks in this standardized way in order to receive an acceptable score.

Score: 2/6

 

Essay2:

This was better – you provide an example for the second task, and your resolution is more in line with expectations. However you need to provide an example in task 1, and you should structure your essay so that it flows more easily – we suggest addressing each task in one paragraph, and relating your resolution criteria explicitly back to your examples. Also, your resolution statement should be stated explicitly – what criteria determine when the statement is true, and when it might not be true. Being clear and concise is the name of the game here, while addressing all three tasks.

Score: 4/6

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

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hello again RoughER,

Overall you addressed the three tasks and your examples were both specific and relevant. I would suggest however that you be a bit more clear in your resolution criteria by stating that in both situations it seems that violence is not justified unless all other options have been exhausted. You should also build more of this into your second example by explaining how other options were tried before violence was used. The more you can relate and tie back your criteria/resolution to your examples, the more unified your essay will be. Also be sure to proofread carefully for grammar and sentence structure errors – there were several in this essay.

Score: 4.5-5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hey Iluvsoccer,

Your examples were good - both specific and relevant. Your resolution was also effective in distinguishing the opposing sides of the prompt. You also did a good job of relating your criteria back to your examples. The only concern here is that your first task involves some conjecture on your part as you state that the war must have been simply for the apprehension of Saddam Hussein as part of Bush’s own personal agenda, but you don’t really offer any evidence to support this (other than the fact that there were no WMD’s present – but this could have just been a mistake). I don’t want to quibble on references and hard evidence, but I would suggest that you always try to use examples that do not require you to provide an opinion on the matter but are backed by simple facts instead. This will ensure that no grader can find a hole in your reasoning.

Score: 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]

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.

 

Your resolution is a little unclear here. What exactly are “simple” and “non-issues”? You have to explain any terms you introduce in your essay. This weakens your argument because one is thus unable to apply your criteria to many situations. Be clear and simple in your resolution by extrapolating from your arguments in task 1 and 2 to provide broad criteria that can be applied to many situations. Also, your task 2 is somewhat weak since the news agency, in reporting the effects of previous spills and hypothesizing on the effects of the current spill would still be reporting objectively since they are basing their hypothesis on facts, not opinions. Also, there were several word choice and phrasing errors present here. Make sure you go back over your essay to proofread for mechanical errors when you finish writing.

Score: 3.5-4/6

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer,

 

Thanks so much! I write in two weeks.

 

 

True leadership leads by example rather than by command

 

The markings of any great leader are intimately tied to the ability to engage and capture those individuals that follow their steed. The most effective and enigmatic method for this to occur is leadership by example, rather than simply commanding at others. Following by example allows others to view characteristics of not only the leader, but also how they can use those markings for their own endeavors. One of the foremost leaders in the scientific field, Marie Curie, displays the true aspects of not only a good leader, but also a scientist. Dr. Curie’s groundbreaking work in radioactivity not only cemented her position as a leader in science, but also as a leader in the newly fashioned feminist movement. She accomplished this by not simply demanding those below her in the laboratory to carry out experiments, but instead fashioned these experiments herself. She not only engaged students with her intelligence and scientific creativity, but actually demonstrated how a female scientist could be successful. These efforts eventually lead to her death, but will remain in the minds of many scientists as a great leader in the field.

 

There are times, however, when leadership by example can lead to faulty situations. Instead, a strong leader is needed that can take control and command of those people around them. Ralph Klein, former premier of Alberta, had displayed in his ten-year position of political power many instances of faulty leadership by the inability to command. Many instances during his time in office were of him socializing with various members of parliament and becoming a friend to these individuals, rather than a leader. More often than not, Premier Klein was found doing menial political work with MP’s rather than distributing the work to them. As a result, instances of political corruption arose due to MP feelings of friendship towards Premier Klein. In this situation, it would have been beneficial to take a hard-lined approach with cabinet and lead by command, rather than example of friendship and colleague-behavior. Money scandals, laundering, etc were afloat during this time and ultimately negatively affected his constituency.

 

Ultimately, a good leader has the charisma to engage an audience and the presence to command and lead to successful outcomes, whatever context those may be. However, a critical trait to this successful leader must be the humility to step down and lead by example, to show the people they are one of them. A blend of these two traits could be seen in former Prime Minister Elliot Treadeau, who advocated feelings of community among the Canadian population and encouraged volunteer work. Not only did he require this of various members of parliament, but he himself went out and participated in many volunteer activities, such as the Terry Fox run. This sort of leadership by command and example are the markings of any successful leader.

 

Hello sparkles3288,

Your first example is good, and your argument for task 1 is effective. Task 2 was less effective because you should use an example of a situation where an effective leader used command instead of leading by example. Your example is a situation when a lack of command resulted in ineffective leadership. Notice the difference in these two arguments. The resolution should provide specific criteria that can be applied to many situations that determines when the prompt will be true and when it will be untrue. Your resolution only states that both sides of the prompt are important – this is not enough. You are asked to distinguish between situations in which the prompt is true (that is, leading by example is more effective) and when it is untrue (leading by command is more effective). Also keep in mind that you should avoid introducing a new example or idea in your resolution paragraph – instead you should provide your criteria and relate back to the examples you used in task 1 and 2, which will increase unity.

Also as a general point, there are a lot of errors with word choice here. Make sure you are choosing words that mean exactly what you are trying to express in your sentence – the best way to do this is to opt for simpler words rather than being verbose.

Score: 3.5/6

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,

Could you please review and grade the two essays provided below. Thank you.

 

An understanding of our past is necessary in finding solutions to our present problems.

An understanding of our past in some cases may be beneficial in finding solutions to our present problems. When we are able to go back into our past to look at certain trends,issues or events it gives us an insight to present issues that may be currently taking place and it may provide effective solutions to these problems. A good example of this is the study of the holocaust. A lot of emphasis has been placed on understanding who this event came about, who it affected and how it does not foster collectivity or inclusion in society. By teaching students and members of society what happened during the holocaust, society is able to address the present problem of discrimination in our society. This is because by understanding the past/history of the holocaust, people are able to realize that the holocaust was as a result of subtle discriimination and by avoiding discrimination, they can solve the present problems that result from discrimination including hate crimes and racism,

 

However, understanding the past may not always necessarily help to solve a present problem.Lets consider a political party that has been voted into power for a second term of office. Their understanding of how they ruled the country during their first term of office may not provide solutions to the present problems that the country is facing. The country may have developed a new set of problems that will have to be looked at from a new perspective in order to provide a good solution. In this case, an understanding of the past methods will not be helpful in solving the problem at hand. Rather, the government would have to look for new and innovative strategies to solve the present problem,

 

In conclusion, an understading of the past should be considered in solving present problem based on the type of problem to be solved. When the problem is one of social justice as deciribed in the first example, a society can rely on examples of the past to glean effective solutions. However, if the problem is political and it involves a government developing new strategies, then an understanding of the past is not necessary.

 

Politician base their decisions on what pleases the voters and not what is best for the country

There's a famous addage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. This addage expresses the relationship between politicians and their voters. Often times, politians base their decisions on what they feel will please their voters in order to secure votes in the next election. Politicians work primarily to serve the people and they usually ensure that the requests of their voters are stongly considered in order to secure their place in power. A typical example of this was the recent Unified health insurance that the Obama administration tried to implement. Based on extensive research and analysis, the Obama administration had proposed a unified health system where all US citizens can access affordable health care. This was to replace the current "pay as you go" health system. This new system would have benefited all people especially the poor and underpriveleged but it was fought by many affluent Americans who are no doubt voters who can afford health care and don't want to switch systems. The decision to implement this system was not supported as the voters had a huge impact on the Obama adminsitration and the administration had to do what the people requested. This was also because the people had a direct say as to whether or not this system should be implemented. The government could not implement this without the people's approval/ vote on it.

 

However, there are times when politicians base their decisions on what is best for the country and not just what pleases their voters. This is usually what happens when issues of national security are involved. A good example of this is the US sending troops to fight the war in Iraq. Since the US security was involved and the government had carefully considered the consequences, it did not have to directly consult the people before it sent troops to Iraq. It did so as it saw fit. As a result, the US people were not consulted directly on the issue before the decision was made.

 

In conclusion, politicians will decide to either base their decisions on what pleases their voters or on what is best for the country depending on the type of decision to be made. If the decision at hand can be made without the voters approval then politicians will have to listen to their voters. However, if the decision involves an issue of national security where a decision has to be made quickly then the voters will not be involved in the decision making process and as such the politician will have to decide what is best for the country.

 

Hello asglover,

Essay1:

Your first example and treatment of task 1 was good – this example was relatively specific and relevant to your argument. However your task 2 example was not specific enough – you should cite an example of an actual situation has occurred that relates to the argument you are making (this would have been as simple as naming a political party and a problem it had to deal with). The major concern here is you resolution. Although your resolution does relate to your examples, you haven’t provided a broad enough resolution that can be applied to many situations. Your goal in task 3 should be to distinguish between situations in which the prompt might be true and situations where it is untrue, in a general way. Limiting your resolution to only those two types of situations is detrimental to your argument. Furthermore, what about governmental strategies that need to be made for problems that have occurred in the past? Wouldn’t the past be beneficial then? Notice how making your criteria too narrow can limit their effectiveness in really distinguishing the situations.

Also: proofread for mechanical errors, as there were many here. Avoid using personal statements like “let’s”. Avoid restating the prompt in its exact words in task 1.

Score: 3.5/6

 

Essay2:

Here your two examples were specific and however I feel you could have chosen a better example for task 2 as it is rather widely agreed upon that the war in Iraq was not a matter of national security. Your arguments are still sound however so your resolution holds up. The issue with your resolution is that it is rather unclear because of problems with sentence structure and phrasing. You must spend a couple minutes proofreading to ensure that your paragraphs are clearly written.

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]

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

The expression "Don't follow in the footsteps of your uncle or aunt..." is often heard by a young child who is being warned by his or her parents not to follow what they consider a poor path in life. The past can often provide essential insight into the decision making of the future. Through chronicling the history of what has happened before us, history reveals what works and what doesn't. It offers direction when faced with a new problem, by offering how certain approaches in the past have fared. An example of this is clearly seen in governmental responses to the recent recession we face. Through an understanding of recessions in the past they are able to apply policies that effectively combat a recession. The past has shown that depressions follow a cyclical mode, an in order to remove ourselves from a depression we must jumpstart ourselves out of the rut. Such is the policy that has been followed by President Barack Obama. In order to lift the U.S. economy has provided a $700million dollar stimulus package to aid in job creation. His strategy has worked as it should be expected to.

 

In contrast, there are often times situations in which no amount of past understanding will be able to solve the issues at hand. This occurs when the problems we face are entirely novel; they have never been seen before. No amount of past knowledge will apply to the situation and the solution must be so to speak "played by ear". For example the recent oil spill by British Petroleum in Deep Horizon is a novel situation. There have certainly been a number of oil spills but never has an underwater source blown out. This has certainly presented challenges as no solutions repairing the leak previously existed. Past methods of combatting oil spill are unapplicable and as a result the company has been forced to turn to innovative science to churn out solutions to the leak. With much trial and error with different solvents and sophisticated machinery to install caps they seem to have worked to remedying the disaster.

 

Whether a knowledge of the past is a requisite to solving a current problem is dependent on the precedent before it. In the case of the U.S. Economy it would have been foolhardy not to listen to analysts on strategies that worked in the past. By following strategies that worked previously in history the mistakes of the past could be avoided and avoid unecessary lengthening of the problem. In contrast for British Petroleum, information of the past was unable to help as there was no precedent on how to react to the disaster. It only now that British Petroleum has set a precedent for the future that an understanding of the past has paved the road for possible oil spills before them.

 

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

 

President Obama recently said "You know, there's a time and place for campaigning and there's a time for actual policy making." It seems that in a democracy politicians are pre-occupied with maintaining their political position. In order to retain their political power they must appease the voters even if there are in fact ramification to the country as a whole. A prime example of this was seen in the recent U.S. Presidential Election. Senator John McCain strategically picked a running mate who would appeal to a large demographic of voters. His choice was Sarah Palin a woman who had scarcely been heard of before his announcement. Yet her appeal to women was enormous, many could relate to her as a self described soccer mom. At the same time Sarah Palin was a person who was later revealed to lack in depth knowledge of political issues. Her answers given to many probing question concerning political policy were vague and she required extensive preparation from John McCain's campaign team to prepare for the U.S. Presidential Candidate debate. It is clear that the election of Sarah Palin lack of necessary experience and knowledge could have been detrimental to U.S. Policy. After all every policy requires an informed politician who understands the intricate of the issue. This is simply a case where John McCain's self interest in becoming elected was placed ahead of the interest of the country.

 

In contrast in the recent passing of the new U.S. Healthcare policy President Obama faced enormous criticism and saw a significant drop in his approval ratings. It was evident that he was sacrificing his own popularity for a policy that he sincerely believed in. For President Obama, he saw the mounting problems that were intrinsic in the current health system. Many people could not afford health care due to changes in their insurance contracts when an insurance companies found out about a person's conditions. He also saw problems in the doughnuthole in which citizens faced with costs not high enough to be considered critical were receiving no aid from the governemnt. Yet one cannot be led to believe that President Obama is completely altruistic. He enforced this policy in a time in which he was safely elected as president. At this point, as a president who does not intend to seek a second term, he was free to place his political vision ahead of his need to please his voters.

 

Politicians face a precarious balance they must juggle advancing what they believe while at the same time appeasing voters who are often resistant to change. What determines whether a politician will do best what is best for his country or please his voters is dependent on whether he has secured the position he desires. For John McCain in order to exert his power as a politician he would have to first become elected, and therefore at all costs he aimed to please his voters. For President Obama, he has already attained the position he has desired, and now as he says it's time for policy to be made.

 

Hi blending_in,

Essay 1:

Your examples were good and your treatment of tasks 1 and 2 was effective. Your arguments seem well thought out and are well presented here. You did a good job of relating your resolution principle back to your examples however you should also clearly state what exactly your resolution principle is. This will ensure that the grader recognizes exactly what argument you are trying to present. Make sure you proofread to look for awkward or choppy phrasing – there were several instances in your essay. You can clean this up by using more direct language and being concise yet thorough.

Score: 5/6

Essay 2:

 

Your examples were effective here and your treatment of all three tasks was good. You can streamline your writing by spending less time explaining the details of your examples and more time explaining their significance. This will make your essay more coherent because the reader is engaged in your discussion and arguments rather than potentially being lost in the details of examples. Your resolution was good however could have been more broad – don’t politicians still make some decisions based on the popular vote rather than the good of the country, even after they have been elected? You should ensure that your criteria are broad enough to be applied to many situations and not just the situations you describe in your essay.

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

[123coco]

thank you in advance Sameer!

 

An understanding of the past is necessary in finding solutions to our present problems

 

It is often said that history has a way of repeating itself. In other words, the same social phenomenon tend to re-occur in a different context and different time. As such, we can glean from history to understand how to avoid modern problems. For example Northern Ontario, Canada, is highly populated with Aboriginal peoples. When Aboriginal peoples agreed to share their land with European settlers, the Crown had to sign certain treaties that guaranteed certain economic and social benefits such as subsidized health care and education. Since the global economic down turn, the hostility toward Aboriginal peoples from non-Aboriginal populations increased. This hostility is rooted in the misconception that Aboriginal people are a financial burden on the rest of Canadians. A year ago, the hostility amounted to a radio-talk show host spreading one sided propagandist claims about Aboriginal peoples. Shortly after these comments were aired, some listeners called in to caution the public of the danger of such propaganda. One caller reminded listeners that it was these types of comments that facilitated the holocaust of Jewish people during the 20th century. During the 1930-40s, Hitler used the mediums of communication to spread subjective claims against Jewish people in Germany. The masses became brainwashed with these subjective views and endorsed the genocide of millions of Jewish people. To avoid a politically correct Aboriginal holocaust, the caller demanded more balanced, objective arguments to be diffused. By understanding how Hitler used his propaganda machine, therefore, the small community in Northern Ontario was able to steer away from a racially hostile situation in their own community.

 

There are times, however, when society cannot look upon the past to understand how to solve our present dilemmas. In the new millennium, for example, the United states of America successfully completed a mission on planet Mars. Never in the past has the human race landed on another planet where there could potentially be life. Although in the past, a crossing of cultures occurred, these cultures were made up of human being who had common grounds. After the mission succeeded, question of what would the world do if scientist were to encounter life on another planet circulated in the media. Would we form an alliance, colonize them or simply annihilate them? Hypothetical replies, without grounds were given because there are no precedence to base our answer on.

 

The main factor that determines if we can glean from the past to understand today?s dilemmas, is if there is a preceding situation upon which we can base our decisions. In the case of the racial tension in Northern Ontario, history reminded us that propaganda can lead society to loose its humanity. Therefore, we should avoid engaging in subjective debates that distort reality. Rather, citizens should promote objective debates that consider both sides of the coin. In the case of landing on a Mars, however, we cannot decide the course of action that humans will take if we were to encounter extra-terrestial life as humans have never had to face such a situation. Therefore, an understanding of the past can help us avoid yesterday?s mistakes if there actually does exist relevant historical experience.

________

Sexy girls

[blending_in]

Thanks for the feedback Sameer! I definitely have issues with having enough time to proofread which I need to work on.

 

Here are three more I wrote:

 

The primary goal of every business is to maximize profits.

 

Businesses are often seen as ruthless entities that are willing to go to any length to maximize profits. A business may be considered to be any entity that provides a product or service. For many businesses profit is in fact the sole motive that drives the company. This may be seen in the clothing company Gap. In this business clothes are made, and sold for a profit in order to provide the salary for the people who work within the business to live on. The more profit the company makes the more everyone working for the company benefits. Costs are cut where possible: if production is cheaper offshore in Asia it will be done there in order to maximize profits of the business. There is no extraneous factors involved in this business or any other business the sells a product: the same business model may be seen in a coffee company or a steel manufacturer.

 

In contrast, in businesses that provide services the primary goal may no longer be profits. In a business such as a hospital the primary goal focuses be on improvement of the well being of patients. Certainly profits are still important but it is no longer a primary goal. Healthcare providers such a nurses and doctors live comfortably and as a result the individual members of the busienss typically do not seek to maximize their own profits. A doctor can work as much as he would like and it would certainly ensure him or her more profit. However the doctor finds he is satisfied with the amount of profit he makes. Profits are still important but are no longer the number on priority and allow for consdieration of the human contact facet of service industry. Emotions then factor into the equation. A doctor or nurse actually have an emotional investment in hoping their patient gets better. As a result they are more inclined to spend more time to ensure this emotional requirement is satisfied. While this may require more time by the doctor or nurse and minimize profits the doctor proceeds with this anyways. As a result of both the stability of the business and desire for emotional satisfaction the memebers of the hospital and collectively the business of a hospital balance this goal with that of maximizing profits.

 

In a world that is often materialistic we find that many businesses seek to maximize profit, what determines whether a business will make its number one priority the maximization of profit is dependent on whether the business entails any emotional investment and whether stability of the job allows that this emotional investment be balanced with profit. In the case of Apple, there is no emotional investment entailed in the creation and selling of its product. Thus the priority for the business is to maximize profits. In contrast in a hospital, the members of the business have an emotional investment in helping patients at the expense of their patients. Because of the stability of the business, the hospital may sacrifice some profits for the fulfilment in patients getting better.

 

 

A politician's lifestyle should reflect his or her political views

 

Politicians are often labelled as hypocrites if their lifestyle, the life away they have away from politics,is at odds with their own political views. This is entirely justified. Hypothetically how could a president possibly mandate that CEO's have restricted pay, if he was in fact doubling his own salary? In order to for his political views to be sincere a politician should be prepared to embrace the change mandated by his political view. If CEO's are having restricted pay then the politician should also believe in the restriction of his own pay. Another example may be seen in Canada's Green Party candidate Elizabeth May. Her policy focuses on the living with the smallest carbon footprint possible. She advocates recycling, composting, using energy efficient lightbulbs and uses of renewable energy sources such as solar power. Therefore it should follow that if she is to sincerely believe in her own political views that she should be following it in her own lifestyle. In order to be a convincing candidate it would be expected that she does in fact install energy efficient lightbulbs in her own home and that she makes efforts at reducing her own carbon footprint. A politician who cannot follow their own political views would be unappealing.

 

In contrast, sometimes a politician's political views may be inapplicable to a politician's own personal life. In this case the politician's lifestyle will certainly not reflect his political views because it doesn't apply. Many issues that politicians face are not relevant to the politician themself. They simply approach the issue in an objective manner to develop their own political view. For example currently President Obama currently faces issues regarding the approval of Stem Cell Research and the timely ending of the Iraq War. While he may have political views on whether he approves of the issue he cannot express this in his personal lifestyle. Obama does not dabble with stem cell resesarch and therefore cannot reflect his political view on stem cell research in his lifestyle. The same may be said of the Iraq war: Obama may approve of ending the war in Iraq soon but he cannot express this view in his lifestyle: he has never been in the military and simply does not have a mode in which he would express this political view. One might argue that perhaps Obama could put a bumper sticker on his car supporting the approval of the end of the war in Iraq. However this would be labelled a extremists and would not actually reflect his views but would portrary them in an overzealous fashion.

 

In the end politicians have political views on a wide range of issues. Though we sometimes seek for evidence of a politician's integrity in finding their lifestyle consistent with their political views this cannot always be the case. What determine whether a politician's lifestyle should reflect his political views is dependent on whether the political view in contention is in fact relevant to the politician's lifestyle. In the case of Elizabeth May her advocacy for environmental friendliness is very relevant to her own life and should be reflected her own lifestyle. In contrast for many issues that face President Barack Obama such as stem cell research and the ending of the war in Iraq, these are issues that do not personally pertain to him and therefore one cannot expect to see it reflected in President Obama's own lifestyle.

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer's weaknesses

 

People often attempt to blame their purchase of an expensive good on succumbing to their weakness. A consumer's weakness may be described as the desires possessed by the consumer that are beyond what the consumer actually requires. These desires may not have utility that justifies the purchase, but the weakness of the consumer nevertheless pushes him to buy it. These desires may be shaped by popular culture and it is for this reason that products are advertised heavily in order to appeal to a consumer's weaknesses. For example a man may associate buying a Ferrari with membership in the upper class and buy it, despite an extravagent price that does not appear to justify the product he receives. For Ferrari it is therefore advantageous to maintain an image of elusiveness and association with the upper class in order to capitalize on the image percieved by consumers. Another remarkable example is seen in the company Apple. They have released several generation of Ipods and Iphones within a span of only 5 years. Each new version of the Ipod comes with minimal new benefits. It seems absurd to spend several hundred dollars for an improved camera on your phone. Yet people flock to upgrade their Ipods and Iphones with each new release. The reason behind this lies in Apple clever capitalizing on it's consumer's weakness for new technology. Their advertisements depicting the benefits of the new version and their association with popular culture have benefitted their business: their stock has risen over 900%. Their success may be attributed to their ability to exploit customer's weakness for new technology and the desire for the product influenced by pop culture.

 

On the flip side, some businesses will have a steady business iregardless of whether they prey upon consumer's weakness. This can be seen at your local supermarket, where business will remain steady iregardless of the business strategy of the supermarket. In compared with the luxury goods aforementioned, a supermarket sells food which is necessary for every person's survival. People will always need food and supermarket's need not advertise to appeal to a consumer's weakness in order to attract customers. For this reason it is a rarity to see a supermarket advertise their company on television. The necessities of the consumer make the consumer's weakness a neglible aspect to captlize on.

 

What determines whether or not a business takes advantage of a consumer's weakness is rooted in the type of good that is being sold. If the good is a luxury good in that is not essential to the consumer and it only purchased due to the consumer's desires, a business will find it profitable to take advantage of the consumer's weakness as seen in Ferrari and Apple products. However if the product being sold by a business is a necessity that will be purchased irespective of the consumer's weakness such as food in a supermarket, success will come without the exploitation of consumers.

[asglover]

Hi Sameer,

 

thanks for reviewing my essays! I really appreciate it! I will be sure to incorporate all your advise when I practice some more prompts. Thanks once again

[Iluvsoccer]

Your resolution is a little unclear here. What exactly are “simple” and “non-issues”? You have to explain any terms you introduce in your essay. This weakens your argument because one is thus unable to apply your criteria to many situations. Be clear and simple in your resolution by extrapolating from your arguments in task 1 and 2 to provide broad criteria that can be applied to many situations. Also, your task 2 is somewhat weak since the news agency, in reporting the effects of previous spills and hypothesizing on the effects of the current spill would still be reporting objectively since they are basing their hypothesis on facts, not opinions. Also, there were several word choice and phrasing errors present here. Make sure you go back over your essay to proofread for mechanical errors when you finish writing.

Score: 3.5-4/6

 

Thanks for evaluating Sameer - I did struggle with this topic a bit - I will try to incorporate your suggestions - have a good one

[123coco]

thank you in advance sameer

 

A politician?s lifestyle should reflect his or her political views

 

A politician is an individual who is elected by the masses to lead a nation in the right direction. A politician, like any other person, however, holds his own personal beliefs. At times, these personal beliefs may transcend into his political policies. As history demonstrates, many politicians have successfully lead their nation in the path of progress by allowing their personal beliefs to pervade their political policies. An example of a leader who did just that is Nelson Mendela. After being imprisoned for 27 years for the role that he played in the protest against the oppressive rule of apartheid, upon his release, Mendala became the first African president of South Africa. Mendela, always preached on racial unity and tolerance for differences, and indeed, upon being elected he created a cabinet that was inclusive of all the diverse races that constitute the fabric of South African society. Outside of the public?s eyes, Mendela developed sincere friendships with individual from various different races such as Bill Clinton and the Dalilama.By converging his political views and his personal views, Mendela was able to create a stronger, more united South Africa.

 

There are times, however, when a leader?s personal views can be harmful for a nation?s progress. In such a context, it is best for a leader?s personal views to not transcend his political policies. For example, President Lincoln, came to leadership at a time when the United-States was on the brink of division over the case of slavery. Lincoln himself, did not personally like Blacks and even believed that Blacks should never be placed in positions of power in America. Yet, Lincoln recognized that if he allowed his personal bias for Blacks to transcend his policies, the South and the North would divorce one another. Being the remarkable leader that he was, Lincoln moved to abolish the oppressive condition of Blacks in favour to create a united America.

 

A politician?s personal beliefs, therefore, should reflect his political policies only when the two are complementary and are deemed to be what is best for the nation. Mendela?s personal beliefs and political policies on racial unity were parallel to one another, and were conducive to lead South Africa in the direction of peace and prosperity. On the other hand, Lincoln?s personal bias toward Black slaves and his decision to abolish slavery were inherently conflicted with one another. Yet, Lincoln decided to put aside his bias and make a monumental decision that enabled America to become united. Lincoln knew that ?united we stand and divided we fall?.

________

MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

[Iluvsoccer]

Hey Sameer - I write in a week eek!! Please evaluate as soon as possible You rock!!!

 

 

Prompt 1: Governments have the responsibility to regulate businesses that provide services to its citizens.

Applying regulations to a functioning of business means outlining stringent guidelines by which the business should abide by. if the business is found to be in violation of these regulations, the services that the business provides can no longer be offered to its citizens. This form of government role is inherent to the government's responsibility of its citizens to ensure public safety. A prime example of this is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations on all pharmaceutical industries. Current regulations require all pharmaceutical companies to , abide by the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) during the manufacturing of the raw materials and finished drug products. Also, the companies are required to extensively test the stability and potency of the drugs they are manufacturing through a third party laboratory before the drug can be assessed for usage by the public. The regulations are controlled and hard to meet but they ensure that the drugs meet the quality control standards which ultimately ensures public health. Therefore, by strictly regulating pharmaceutical companies, the FDA ensures that the public be not subjugated to any possible adverse drug effects that may be resultant from poor regulation of the manufacturing practices.

Even though regulation of businesses is an essential role of government to ensure public safety, there are circumstances when this is not the case. For example, the government is not required to apply any regulations to the numerous businesses that offer service on palm reading, card reading, astrological readers etc. The businesses are only required to get business permits for their place of business practise and are allowed to provide services without any stringent guidelines. The reason behind such 'lax' attitude is solely due to the fact that these services do not pose any 'harm' on its citizens. Moreover, the citizens using these services do so at their own risk and choice. Therefore, in such areas of business where no potential harm is foreseen, the government is not responsible for regulating such businesses.

Overall, the determing factor for government regulation of businesses that provide services to its citizens are the risks associated with such services. In the case of the pharmaceutical companies, the citizens can be exposed to a whole range of adverse drug effects on physical and mental health if the manufacturing of such drugs is not strictly regulated. If the FDA does not impose periodic audits of the pharmaceutical facility and require extensive testing and stability testing of the drug, then the quality of drugs being produced will decline. This decline will in turn pose significant risk on public health and safety. On the other hand, businesses that provide astrology and palm reading and other consultations, do not pose any threat to the public that needs to be averted. In addition, the citizens who chose to use such services do so with choice and knowing that such services are not 'government approved' in terms of their safety. Therefore, such businesses do not need to be regulated by the government.

 

Prompt 2: Only those politicians who have learned the art of compromise can achieve their political goals.

Compromise is often quoted to be the 'mantra' for any successful relationship. If we consider a politician to be in a committed relationship to his/her people, then it is logical to consider compromise to be an essential virtue of a successful politician. The ability to compromise ensures that a politician secures his/her political goals while giving something up to the other party, thereby ensuring gratification on 'both sides'. A prime example of politicians who used this strategy to attain their goals were Mahatma Gandhi and Jawarharlal Nehru from India. In August 1947, after years of fighting for the independence of India from the British rule, the country finally broke free from the British 'shackles' under the guidance of Gandhi and Nehru, only to face another internal conflict. The muslim population demanded a seperate nation from the predominant hindu population of India and threatened to withdraw support of the independence treaty between Britain and India and even impose a war if their demands were not met. Facing another war and posing more risk on Indian lives did not seem viable to Gandhi and Nehru, who decided to compromise and divide the country into India and Pakistan. Therefore, by compromising on the demands of the opposing party, Nehru and Gandhi met their goal of providing India with full independence from the British on August 15, 1947.

However, even though compromise is an important virtue of a successful politician, it can also be perceived as a weakness and can prevent one from meeting one's political goals. Therefore, there are circumstances when compromising on one's ideals is not an option to ensure he/she is perceived as someone who is determined and not easily assailed by opponent's pressure. A prime example of this is President Barack Obama and his stand on the Universal Healthcare plan. Even though his bill on universal healthcare has been criticized by many Americans and Republicans alike, he has refused to compromise on his position and strives to implement some sort of universal healthcare plan for the American public. His determination shows that his ideals are set and cannot be wavered through political pressure or criticism. This very virture of Obama has brought him to into the limelight where he is perceived as one of the most powerful and influential individuals in the world. This very virtue and perception will also allow him to meet his political goals without compromising on his ideals.

Overall, the determing factor for a politician to use the art of compromise in order to meet one's goals is dependent on the 'profit' of such compromise. In the case of India, Gandhi and Nehru perceived the profit of attaining Independence and preventing further bloodshed outweighed the cost of dividing the country into India and Pakistan. This ensured that both Hindu and Muslim parties were satisfied and gave India the sovereignity it desired. On the other hand, Barack Obama refuses to compromise on his universal healthcare agenda to make the point that his ideals are intact and will not be shattered through political pressure or public criticism. His perception of providing Americans with the benefits of a universal healthcare plan outweighs the potential harm it may bring to his public image and possible effects on his re-election in next four years. He stands by his ideals without compromise to meet his political goals.

[080310]

Hi Sameer, I'm writing in in 6 days

Thanks for all the help

 

Education comes not from books but from practical experience

 

Education is essential in the transfer of knowledge from one generation to another. Knowledge is not only important for living by the values of one's society but it is also used to further our understanding of the world. Many would argue that only through practical experience can an individual truly learn. For example, many trade jobs require practical experience. Even more, white collar professions such as medicine require ample practical experience. A large part of medical education requires medical students to partake in the actual caregiving process. For example, in a 2009 Harvard study it was found that patients often judge a doctor's competence in providing care though bedside manners. However bedside manners are not learned from a medical textbook, instead they are acquired by doctors through experience working with patients. It requires a sense of understanding and compassion that goes beyond the classroom. In order to be truly educated, practical experience is essential.

 

Today we are often faced with the problem of how we should educate our children. Even though it would be beneficial to teach children from a variety of methods, the educational board is faced with limitations in resources. A child only has a limited amount of time spent in school and there are only so many resources such as teaching staff that can be allocated. Most of elementary school education comes from books instead of practical experiences. Subjects such as history and math offer limited opportunity for young children to gain practical experience. In 2009, due to the economic recession a Toronto District School Board elementary and middle school, Birch Cliff Public School, faced a $10 000 Budget Cut. School officials opted to cancel educational school trips despite the reduced exposure of practical experience in the real world. The school reported that it is more important to provide students with an adequate academic background that would be essential for their success in later schooling.

 

In order to determine whether education comes from books or practical experience it is important to consider the level of education. Higher level education often requires practical experience. In the case of a medical student they are being trained to apply a highly specialized area of expertise. However elementary and middle school children are only learning general information and often do not need practical experience. Even though practical experience might help their learning it is not essential to elementary education itself. However in both situations both practical experience and the knowledge gained from books are important. However practical experience is more important in higher educational levels.

 

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

 

Scientific progress is often necessary in the advancement of society. However the pursuit of science can often have negative impacts to the environment, politics, and the welfare of other creatures. The public would most likely allow the continuation of the scientific process despite these disadvantages because it is often believed that the benefits to humans will out weigh the costs. But there has been many instances in which human lives has been sacrificed or risked for the sake of science. However most people would not allow for this to occur arguing that it is not up to us to decide which life should be sacrificed to benefit another life. Nearly all countries have laws that prohibit scientific experimentation that would impose a treat to human life. However there were darker times in history where human life was threatened for the sake of scientific progress. During the Nazi occupation of a large part of Europe, concentration camps were set up to systematically murder millions of Jewish people. Doctors within these camps conducted experiments on these so called "disposable humans." Experiments included the effects of toxic chemicals on the development of the foetus. These experiments conducted by the Nazis are now considered atrocious and unethical acts that should have never been permitted.

 

However there are instances in which it is publically acceptable to conduct research that may threaten a human life. For example clinical studies in humans are necessary to develop certain drugs and medication. After enough testing in other species, in order for a drug to be approved safe for consumption the FDA requires that these drugs are tested for a period of time on human subjects. These subjects are informed of potential risks to their health and are often compensated for participating in the trial. These tests are needed in order to develop safe life saving pharmaceuticals. For example the new HIV medication, Endure was tested on human subjects for 5 years before it was available in the market. This improved medication would allow an HIV infected patient to live a longer and healthier life then otherwise possible without the drug. Sometimes the risks for human life can be tolerated for the purpose of scientific discovery.

 

The determining factor for the tolerance of harm to human life is "informed consent." In other words a subject must be aware of the potential risks to their life and must have the choice to discontinue the treatment at anytime of the experiment. In the case of the holocaust subject they were neither informed of the risks to their health nor had any choice in partaking of the experiment. They were forced to risk their life. However the HIV medication test subject for Endure were fully aware of potential risks and were given the choice to stop their participation in the experiment at anytime. In order for a human life to be risked for the sake of scientific progress the subjects must be aware of the risks and have a choice in the participation of the experiment.

[Robio]

Hi-- Thanks so much for this thread!!

 

Consider the following statement:

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

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which computers might not alienate people from one another. Discuss what you think determines whether or not computers alienate people from one another.

Enter your response in the space below.

 

The increasing availability and use of computers has started to drive its users away from human interaction. Some reasons for this are the convenience of its use and addictiveness of some of its programs but more importantly, it diverts the user's time away from social interaction. While human interaction requires an individual to go outside the comfort of home, the use of computers provides entertainment with minimal movement. This is evident in the case of the computer game "World of Warcraft". This highly addictive game has turned many teenagers away from social interaction by providing entertainment and false sense of accomplishment. Recent studies have shown that these teenagers tend to spend upwards of ten hours playing the game leading to parents complaining that they never leave the house. Many teenagers even play these video games during breaks and lunch times at school, limiting what little human interaction they have.

However, there are also cases when the use of computers does not decrease social interaction; in fact, some computer programs facilitate it. One example of this is the recent development and popularity of Facebook. By allowing its users to stay in touch with family and friends living in distant locations, it allows more convenient social interactions that may not have been possible before. Moreover, due to its addictiveness, Facebook can also divert teenagers’ time away from other activities, as many can be seen logging on during class times with disregard to what is being learned. Nonetheless, this time is utilized to enhance social interaction as teenagers often use Facebook to meet with each other and socialize.

Therefore, we cannot state that the use of computers always leads to decreased social interaction. This will only be true when the program being used is strictly for entertainment purposes as in the case of World of Warcraft. Furthermore, the entertainment value and the addictiveness of the program may decide just how much time is diverted away from social interaction. Conversely, computers might not inhibit social interaction if the program being used is for communication purposes as exemplified by Facebook. Such programs in fact have the ability to enhance social interaction, in some cases to the point where time may be diverted away from other activities.

[emma3]

Hi Sameer,

 

I am not sure if I missed the WS scoring but I am going to post mine just in case I didn't. I appreciate it so much.. can hardly believe when I saw free marking is out there...

 

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

 

 

Democratic societies exist on the basis that every person of voting age has the right to choose who they want to represent them politically. They make this choice based on an agreement or understanding of political ideologies between the politician and the person. In our society today, there is a large population sector with varying opinions pertaining to decisions for what is "best" for the country. Politicians face the challenging obstacle of trying to meet the needs of voters; this ensures that they will be chosen for positions of power within the government.

Often, they make decisions in order to comply with the demands of voters instead of what is best for the country. Often these decisions are regarding taxes or goods supplied to the citizens. For example, Gordon Campbell and the British Columbia provincial government removed the toll on the coquihalla highway. The coquihalla is a long highway through the rugged mountains that experiences harsh winter conditions. It is difficult to maintain during winter months. The removal of the toll was very popular amongst the residents in British Columbia; however, critics might argue that the toll was an effective way to cover the costs of the highway's maintenance.

In light of this, there are situations that exist where a politician makes an unpopular decision for the good of the country. The same liberal government that removed the coquihalla toll has also implemented a new tax known as harmonized sales tax. This tax combines the previously separate PST and GST into one tax. The result for consumers is that necessary items that were previously only charged GST, now have HST on them. Therefore, items such as clothing, eating out, vehicle purchases etc. face higher taxes. The government faced strong opposition from the people; protests and petitions containing signatures from every region of the province were brought forward to the government. However, the government went ahead and implemented this tax. Their research showed that by combining the two taxes operating costs and tax collection costs to the governments would substantially decrease.

The principles involved in determining whether political decisions should be made to please voters or serve the nation are circumstance-dependent. Governments are sometimes required to please voters simply by removing tolls, or building new infrastructures. Political decisions made under the context of voter popularity are a reality and can be necessary in order to maintain positive morale. In regards to larger political issues such as involvement in wars, international relations, and strategic resource management within the country, it is important to have a leader who will always act with the best interest of the country in mind. Even if this action is unpopular at the time, in the end what the people need is to live in a successful country.

[premed89]

Hi everyone

 

I've only written a few essays so far and I'm finding that I have plenty of time to finish but my ideas are either not developed enough, or my examples aren't specific enough... Here is the writing prompt I worked with:

 

Consider this statement:

Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which books might educate students better than practical experience. Discuss what you think determines when practical experience provides a better education than books do.

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

 

 

All indiviuals learn through different methods, some live by certain methods while others are unsure and give different methods a chance. Education is a prime example of this, being that there are different approaches to learning material whether it be reading a book or maybe even from practical experience. A lot of times practical experience can be a better educational tool than reading a book. When we say this, we mean that actually performing a certain task or observing something being done, you will retain more information than simply reading it out of a book. Take for example, watching a surgery being performed. If you are standing by and a surgeon is telling you exactly what needs to be done, and your are seeing all of the steps directly in front of you, this experience will probably be more memorable, educational and understandable than reading all of the same information out of a book.

 

On the other hand, sometimes books may be a better educational tool than practical experience. Certain ideas and concepts may be too difficult to portray in a practical way and need to be taught by book. Different subject areas may define the best education that can be given. Science is learned extraordinarily well under practical circumstances while something like teaching history would have a higher inclination to use a book. Also, books are always around to be read whereas there may not always be an opportunity to get practical experience when topics need to be learned.

 

Both educational methods presented above have benefits but in the end it may be practical experience that can overule education from a book. Learning is about taking bits of imformation and expanding your view to see the big picture behind all the small things. Even material that may be very confusing or abstract, it could most likely be portrayed practically in some sort of way. This is where the two educational methods meet. Using books to learn certain things can always be portrayed practically in some way or another regardless of what it is. There is no limit as careful formation of practical experiences can teach the most confusing topics out there, relating the experience back to the material at hand.

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

 

I really have no idea where I stand when it comes to the scoring of the WS, so if anyone knows approximately where I would fall could you please give me an idea? Also, feel free to tear my essay apart and really let me know how you feel about it lol... I don't mind, as it will be a learning experience...

[mcatbuster]

Thank you for doing this for us Sameer.

 

Employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace.

 

Describe a specific situation in which an employee should not have the same right to privacy in the workplace as outside it. Discuss what you think determines whether or not employees should have the same right to privacy inside the workplace as they do outside it.

 

One famous politician once said: "The right to privacy is what we have as a Canadian citizen. But sometimes this right is violated at times where we are least suspected.” Under the Bill of Rights, every Canadian has the right to privacy, and unless a written or verbal consent is given, no one can access personal information, such as the bank account or medical history, of an individual. Often times, this right to privacy is strictly enforced in the workplace. For instance, personal information of any Canadian hospital employees is kept confidential.

 

Yet, there are situations where an employee does not have the same right of privacy in the workplace as outside it. For instance, U.S. government can access personal information of individuals working for government agencies dealing with national security. In this case, U.S. government can, at any time, go through personal files of their agency employees to screen out those who might be a threat to national security. This is necessary because sometimes safety of the majority is more important than the right to privacy of the few.

 

In conclusion, an institution where an individual works distinguishes the two circumstances. In the first example, when the person is working at an institution that does not deal with politically and nationally sensitive material, the privacy of an employee must be respected. Conversely, in the second example, the right to privacy does not have to be strictly enforced in the workplace when the person works at an institution that deals with material concerning national security and safety of the others.