Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[Iluvsoccer]

Hey Sameer,

 

Please evaluate by prompts from AAMC 6 - I write on friday so if you respond before then, that would be great!!

 

1. Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people

In the modern society, wealth is often a key indicator of a person's upbringing, which eventually morphs one's political and social ideals. Therefore, a politician brought up in an affluent atmosphere will have distinctly different attitudes towards many social-economical ideas than a person who is brought up in a poor society. This in effect means that a politician brought up in affluence cannot effectively represent the interests of all the individuals in a society, specificallyl the poor. This gap is most apparent in the case of Rajiv Gandhi, who was mostly brought up and educated abroad and knew little of the ways of Indian life. Upon his return to India, he began campaigning for his office and held many public addresses. At one such address, Mr Gandhi said, "we will grow flour and ensure every Indian has food on his plate". This very statement reflects the lack of knowledge in agriculture, which is rooted in his upbringing in a wealthy family where, unlike the poor farmers who very life depends on the knowledge of growing and selling wheat. This statement strengthened the population's perception of Rajiv Gandhi as an 'wealthy foreigner' who cannot effectively represent the poor Indian population.

However, Mr Gandhi, being aware of this public perception, strove to learn the ways of the Indian society to better educate himself with the needs and wants of the country and eventually headed the country as the Prime Minister. This ability also points to the fact that wealthy politicians can, in certain circumstances offer fair representation of the all the individuals. This can be achieved either, as in the case of Mr. Gandhi, by learning the customs and history of the society and becoming aware of the various needs of the people. Another example of a politician who was able to accomplish this despite being from a wealthy family is Barack Obama. Even though he grew up and was educated in the 'elite' society, he is able to address people with different social interests because of his cultural background. Being a African American whose father was muslim, Obama provides the 'glue' to bring together african americans and muslims to support him. In fact, this very cultural background that he represents is what elected him to Presidency of the United States and also, as critics suggest, will help him eliminate hostility between muslim and western nations.

Therefore, the determining factor for whether a wealthy politician can offer fair representation to all the people in a society is whether the politician either has the ability to understand and address all the individuals' needs, either through education or through one's background. In the case of Mr Gandhi, it was initially difficult for him to understand the demographics and needs of a predominantly poor population of India due to his affluent upbringing. However, after residing in India and learning from his Prime Minister mother Indra Gandhi as well as other political advisors, he was able to educate himself with the needs of the Indian population. In addition, politicians like Barack Obama, who have a very diverse cultural background are able to empathize and provide better representation to the whole population of America and abroad, despite being brought up in a affluent family. If such conditions however, are not met by a wealthy politician, they would be hard pressed in representing the interests of the whole population in a society.

 

 

2. In a free society, laws must be subject to change.

A free society today can be characterized by a democratic government, where all individuals have equal rights and have the ability to express themselves. By this token, it follows that if the interests of the individuals were to change, the societal rules that enable individuals to express their freedom should change as well. An example of this is the legalization of gay marriages. With the advent of social reforms and acceptance came the open expression of homosexuality. These groups, capitalizing on their freedom of expression, campaigned for the changes in the constitution to change the definition of marriage from 'a union between a man and a woman' to a 'union between two people'. This would not only allow homosexuals to partake in marriage but also enable them legal rights such as property inheritance etc. In a democratic society of Canada, the laws were changed to accomodate the needs of the homosexual population despite the opposition from other groups. Therefore, the laws were amended in Canada in order to adapt to the changes in the population's social and legal needs.

However, there are circumstances when the laws cannot be subject to change even in a democratic or free society due to cultural influences that are deep rooted in the society's laws. An example of this are the muslim nations like Pakistan and the muslim societies within India, where women are subject to a number of restrictions based solely on their gender. Women are required to wear the 'hijab' to cover their head and hair and in the stricter nations of the middle east, women are required to wear the 'burka' which covers their entire body except their eyes and hands. At first glance it may seem that the laws are oppressive toward women but the ideology is based on the Islamic religion, which calls for coverage of all body parts for BOTH men and women to avoid sexual desires. Therefore, the laws are incorporated to represent the 'words of Allah' and even after years of rallying by outside agencies and political activists to reduce such oppression, the laws continue to exist in countries like Pakistan and the conservative muslim communities in India.

Therefore, the determining factor for the change in laws in a free society depends on the origin of the laws and the population demographics. In a country like Canada which a multicultural society, laws pertaining to Gay rights were changed to represent the concerns of the homosexual population. Even though religious activists raised opposition, the laws of marriage in Canada do not solely represent the Christian definition as the country is a mix of different cultures. Therefore, due to this varied mix of cultures, the laws were changed to accomodate the homosexual population. However, in the predominantly muslim nations were the laws of 'hijab' are drawn from Islam, challenging these laws would be difficult due to its deep rooted significance to the religion. Hence, even in a democratic society such as India and Pakistan, women are required to adhere to the rules despite its oppressive nature.

[asglover]

Hi Sameer,

 

I write in a few days...I hope it's not too late but could you please review the following essays? Thank you! I really appreciate all your help.

 

A student's academic success depends more on hard work than on intelligence.

All students aspire to be successful academically. A lot of students find creative ways and means to attain academic success. But often times, academic success has been found to depend more on hard work than on intelligence. Let’s take for example a medical student training to become a medical doctor. To become a good medical doctor, one requires a lot of discipline and hard work. The student spends sleepless nights memorizing important information and also practicing how to treat patients. All this constitutes hard work and no matter how intelligent the medical student it, they need to work hard to acquire knowledge and train their minds on how to handle adverse medical situations.

 

However, there are times when a student’s academic success might depend more on intelligence than on hard work. Intelligence can be defined as how brilliant/skillful a person is in a particular area. An example of this is a student training to be a chef. Like the student in med school the student chef also works hard and learns all they can about cooking but their success mostly depends on being intelligent enough to utilize their creative skills to produce a great meal. In most cases, students have limited time and resources and they need to come up with creative solutions. Their academic success is not necessarily based on how much they know about cooking but usually how they can use their skill intelligently to produce the best final product.

 

A student’s academic success will depend mostly on hard work if their course of study is a rigorous one that usually requires a lot of memorization and analysis of situations. As in the case of medical students, students have to be very disciplined and their success is largely based on how hard they work and practice. However, in courses where students are more focused on developing a skill, as in the case of a student chef, their academic success is mostly based on intelligence and creativity. As such, hard work is not the major determinant of their success. But rather using their intelligence or skills to develop.

 

Punishment without rehabilitation is unjust.

There is a story in the New Testament of the Bible where a lady was caught in adultery. Jesus urged anyone who was without sin to throw the first stone. No one was able to throw a stone. All human beings have the tendancy to be evil. However some have committed crimes more serious than others and they must be punished be law. This punishment is very necessary to ensure peace and order in our societies. However, it is extremely important that people that are punished are also rehabilitated. ReWhen a person is punished without being rehabilitated they are not being treated justly. People in prison, for example should be rehabilitated to ensure that they can fit right back into society when they are released. When prisoners are not well rehabilitated they end up committing other crimes and are brought back to prison. This becomes a burden on the state. Just because a person has committed a crime does not mean that they should forever be treated as criminals. By investing significantly into good rehabilitation programs, the vicious cycle of prisoners committing crimes upon release will be broken and prisoners will be able to live peacefully and contribute to their societies.

 

However, there are times when it is not necessary to offer rehabilitation to a person who is being punished. Some prisoners may have been declared mentally unstable and they may have been admitted to a mental institution. In this case, the prisoner may require medication to help them get better rather than then being rehabilitated. They will not need rehabilitation as they may never be released into society. Also a prisoner who may have committed murder may be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment. As such, they will be never released and do not require rehabilitation since they will not be going back into the society. An example of this is the man who hacked another passenger on the greyhound bus. This man was declared mentally unstable and will never be released in to society. As a result, he will need medication to treat him psychologically. Rehab is not really necessary.

 

Punishment with rehabilitation is necessary when the person undergoing punishment will be released back into society someday. Rehab is extremely important since it teaches the individual how to leave peacefully and be well incorporated into society. However, in cases where the person being punished is mentally unstable or serving a life sentence and will not be released into society, rehab may not be necessary. Rather the person should be treated with medication to help them regain a healthy mental state.

[beanbeans]

Prompt: In Democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

Explain what it means, describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen and discuss what determines whether the successful politician resemble the ordinary citizen.

 

The phrase, “in democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen” refers to a politicians’ ability to relate to the vast majority of the citizens of whom he represents. This politician not only exceeds in his ability to create a striving environment that is in favour of the citizens’ best interest in regards to their health, infrastructure, socio-economic, and recreational needs, but, this politician himself comes from the same neighbourhood and was brought up with the same struggles and disadvantages of the majority of people he represents. This is a politician who wants change for his region for the same reasons as the people. The politician’s personal background and history thus, allows for a sense of true understanding and empathy for what the members of his legislation require. It allows that the peoples’ representative knows exactly what they need and why their interests should be fought for, on a personal level. Indeed, what makes a politician successful with the citizens he works to represent is his natural ability to have his own personal understanding and interests that resemble the needs of the individuals as well.

On the other hand, there are instances where a successful politician in democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen. A specific situation is one in which the entire community is segregated into two groups, both of which has a strong, passionate hatred against the other, as was the case of the Hutus and the Tutsies in Rwanada during the Rwandan Genocide. The two groups were full of vengeance and wanted revenge on the other. There was a vast history of turmoil because the groups shared the same geographic region. Each and every individual in the region was somehow affected by the other group and no one had an unbiased opinion towards a member of the opposite side. In such a situation, the only successful politican in the area would have to be one who who did not have any personal connection or any bias for one group over the other in order to bring forth change to the area.

In a free society, a popular politican is one who understands what the people want, why they want it and has vowed to make it a common goal with the people to do everything he can to ensure that their needs are met and that the benefit because of his position. Whether the politican was brought up in the same region as the people he represents or not can be overlooked by his actions. By making it an obligation to meet the people, learn about their struggles, and understand what the majority wants of him and why, and, most importantly works hard to make these changes a reality, he becomes a better politican, one who is favoured by his people and one who is likely to be re-elected in future years.

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer,

 

I write in two weeks so all comments are appreciated!

 

Citizens who enjoy a country’s benefits during peacetime have a responsibility to support their nation in times of war.

Describe a specific situation in which citizens might justifiably not support their nation in time of war. Discuss what you think determines whether or not citizens should support their nation in time of war.

 

The government is instituted to ensure the well being of its citizens. It acts to maintain the country's economic and social stability and safety. Sometimes, fighting a war with another country is necessary to achieve those ends. Since the citizens are the beneficiaries of government's attempts at economic, social and political peace and stability, they have a responsibility to help the government attain those goals when the government calls upon them. This often means supporting the government in a time of war, whether it be through fighting or working to produce supplies needed for the war.

 

However, a civil war, where the citizens hold an uprising against the government, is a prime example of when citizens need not support their government during a war. Civil wars are often preceded by social unrest and great economic disparity. The government fails to adequately address, or even furthers, this inequality among the classes of citizens, and consequently large numbers of citizens revolt. During the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century, for example, the middle class grouped together and overthrew the aristocracy and the monarchy. This war was necessary to improve the living conditions of the working class and by not fighting against the government in a time of war, the oppression of these masses of people would have continued. Since the government was unable to ensure the well being of its citizens, the public had good reason to not support their government during the revolution.

 

Whether or not citizens should support their nation in a time of war depends on the purpose of the war. If the purpose of the war is to help the government maintain the economic or social stability of the country so it can continue to provide for the well being of its citizens, the public has a responsibility to support their nation in war. Conversely, if the purpose of the war is for the citizens to acquire their own well being since the government is not providing them with that, then they do not have to support the government and can instead go against it.

 

 

In business, competition is superior to cooperation.

Describe a specific situation in which cooperation might be superior to competition. Discuss what you think determines when competition is superior to cooperation in business and when it s inferior.

 

From the perspective of a consumer, competition between companies trying to sell a similar product is preferable to cooperation, as the price for the product will decrease. Purchasers look to be economical by buying goods at the lowest price available. Consequently, businesses in a competitive market must try to keep their prices lower than their competitors in order to attract customers and be a viable and profitable business. For instance, for several years, cottage goers in Parry Sound only had the option of buying their groceries at the A&P near the highway. A few years ago, however, No Frills, another large grocery chain, opened a store in the same mall as the A&P. This created competition between the two stores. As No Frills was establishing itself and trying to gain the consumer market, it chose to sell almost all of its products for slightly less than A&P. This pleased the cottage goers as they could spend less on groceries of comparable quality, so they started shopping more often at No Frills. The competition between businesses was advantageous for customers because of the lower price of goods, but negatively affected A&P as they lost their market share, making that franchise no longer profitable and forcing its close.

 

Although competition is economically superior to cooperation for a consumer, as explained above, from the viewpoint of a business, cooperation may be economically favourable to competition. In Canada, for example, there are only three main cell phone network providers: Rogers, Telus and Bell. Although they compete for the market share through their advertising campaigns, the cost of using a cell phone remains very high regardless of which company one uses. These companies have come to an agreement that the cost of a voice and data plan remains at or above $65 each month. As a result of this high minimum price, the three companies are able to increase their profits because there are no companies that offer a better price to entice consumers and thus forcing the other companies to also lower their prices. Consequently, cooperation is economically superior in this instance to competition.

 

Whether or not competition in business is superior to cooperation depends on whether a minimum price for a good has been set. If there is no minimum price, then for a consumer competition in business is superior to cooperation as the price will fall. If there is a set minimum price that is high, then cooperation is superior for the businesses to generate a profit.

 

Thank you!

 

Your overall argument was effective here – you highlighted the dichotomy present in the prompt and distinguished the two sides well. Your second task was addressed well since you provided a concrete, specific example of a time when the nation’s citizens were justified in not supporting their nation. However, your first task falls short because you don’t provide a specific example to support your argument. Remember to always include strong examples for both task 1 and task 2, and relate your criteria in task 3 back to your examples from the other tasks. This will unify your essay and strengthen your arguments.

Score: 4.5/6

 

Your first task was addressed well with a good example and strong relevance to your argument. You could have made this example stronger by being a bit more general - the local example of Parry Sound is ok, but you could have made it more applicable by simply stating that No Frills and A&P are in competition in the grocery market at large. Your second task and eventual resolution lack some depth since you only consider one specific situation – when there is a fixed price for a good. Your criteria should be applicable to many situations in order to be strong. Your second task also lacks evidence – can you say with certainty that cell phone companies have agreed upon a fixed price with each other? That would be in fact illegal and there are no real grounds to make that statement. Make sure you stick with facts and examples of situations that can be backed up with strong evidence.

Score: 3.5-4/6 <- some graders may not drop your score below 4 for the lack of depth in task 3, but some would. Better to err on the side of caution

[darknebula]

Hi Sameer, I would be grateful for any feedback you can provide me on this prompt. Thanks!

 

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

 

Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life.

_______________________________________________________________

 

Scientific curiosity defines a scientist. Without the raging quest to know what lies beyond the known, a scientist can not be complete. It i s this very desire to explore the realm of the unknown that drives scientific investigation. An action without motivation is meaningless and the same applies to scientific discovery. The desire of discovery has taken man to the moon, to space, to the hidden underground secrets of the earth, to the deepest oceans. But just as there is, or at least should be, a limit to everything, there is a limit to the frontiers of science. If scientific discovery must cross beyond this limit, its importance becomes questionable. This limit brings with it, the threat to human life - be it to the scientist or to the community as a whole. Many would perhaps agree that the development of nuclear weapons was certainly not worth the sheer threat it has brought to the very existance of mankind. Sure it may have added a treasure of information to a physicist's knowledge bank but the risk of a nuclear war the world faces now is certainly not worth it.

 

But to make it a strict criterion that that every single scientific discovery must not be accompanied by a threat to human life would be a little unrealistic. There are situations where taking a risk is inevitable for the greater good of mankind and in such situations, a threat to human life can certainly be worth it. If there was ever another deadly viral outbreak that threatened to wipe mankind off the face of the planet, it would be very logical to accept the risk to human volunteers who would be willing to undergo tests for a potential cure. Similarly, astronauts may tolerate a threat to their life by going out in the space to discover if there is a comet lurking out there that may hit the earth and cause another mass extinction.

 

One then wonders when is the pursuit of scientific discovery more important than an accompanying risk to human life. The answer is apparently obvious. If the outcome of the scientific discovery will benefit humanity as a whole and outweigh the threat to human life, then it is definitely important to pursue it. If however its outcome threatens human life even further, its pursuit is very questionable. In the case of development of nuclear weapons, humanity certainly did not benefit but instead faces an even greater threat. So by any standards, that discovery was surely not beneficial so it should not have been pursued. But if attempts of discovering a new cure to a deadly disease even at the cost of threat to the lives of a few individuals will save millions others from it, then this discovery will certainly be of importance.

__________________

.

[antithesis]

I'd be grateful for any feedback!

Thanks so much!

 

Education makes everyone equal.

 

Education has the ability to open doors and provide people with many more opportunities, than if they were not educated. Education gives people an equal opportunity, when for example applying for a job. In this day and age, it is nearly impossible to get a high level job if one is not educated. An employer is much more likely to choose someone with an education than not. Many people immigrate to Canada and the United States, uneducated, in search of a better life. When they first arrive they most likely only qualify for low paying, entry level positions. Once they acquire an education though, the opportunities become endless, and they can now compete at the same level as other educated people.

 

However, there will always be other factors that come into play when determining if education really makes people equal. For example, no matter how highly educated someone is, they may be denied a job due to race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. In these instances, no amount of education can compensate for this. As well, there are many different levels of education one can achieve. Someone with only a high school diploma as opposed to someone with a university degree cannot be put on the same level. In this case, these two people are both educated, but to a different extent. They will not be considered equal when applying for a job. The person with a post secondary education will have a better chance since they have more education.

 

This is not to say, that just because one acquires a high level of education opportunities will come knocking at their door. An education is only the first step. One must actively put their education to use, and seek out employers to find jobs and work hard to make something out of what they have learned in school. Hard work and motivation are extremely important in determining if education produces equality. If someone who is denied an opportunity due to their race as discussed earlier, works very hard and finally finds an employer who will give them a chance, they have caused their education to make them equal. Therefore, whether education makes people equal or not depends on many factors, including hard work and motivation, uncontrollable factors such as, race, gender, etc., as well as the level of education received.

[shin]

Hi Sameer,

 

I wrote these during a practice test. I found them quite difficult and was rushing to finish them up. Please let me know how i did.

 

thanks so much

 

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

 

The Primary goal of every business should be to maximize profits.

 

The economic basis of society relies on the success of businesses, where a business may be defined as an organization that provides products or services in exchange for monetary compensation. If there is an economic collapse, as was seen during the great depression of the '30s, then society as a whole suffers. Therefore, it is in the interest of citizens of the society that businesses, in general, are successful and are able to maintain a stable economy. One way for businesses to remain successful is to maximize profits. In doing so businesses are able to expand and further contribute to the economy. With this primary goal lacking, businesses may find themselves bankrupt and becoming a hinderance on the economy. For example, Apple computer corporation has worked fervently to compete with Microsoft computers since the early 80s. The main motivation for Apple computers to do so was to maximaize profits, please shareholders, and expand their corporation. With this goal in mind, Apple now has sold the most smart phones in the world and has caught up with Microsoft in sales of its operating system. Due to this, there has been a boost in the economy with an increase in employment within Apple itself but also within companies competing against Apple. On a whole, Apple's goal of maximizing profits boosts the economy and is a boon to society.

 

However, it is not always true that every business should focus primarily on maximizing profits. In some cases when businesses focus primarily on maximizing profits, damage is done to society. For instance private health clinics and private hospitals are businesses that, if primarily focused on maximizing profits, would damage society. If focused on maximizing profits, it would be in the best interest of these health clinics to ensure that the general health of the overall population was low enough to keep a steady in-flow of patients through their doors, thus increasing the amount of money made. This would entail hospitals and clinics not providing the best services to improve health but service, which is merely adequate enough to make money and profit. If hospitals become too proficient at healing people, they would have less patients and less profit. Thus, in keeping the overall population health low, there would be a decrease in the population that was fit enough to work. There would be a decline in the economy and this would be a hinderence on society.

 

In conclusion, it should be the primary goal of some businesses to maximize profits, whereas in other businesses the primary goal should not be to maximize profits but to provide the best possible service. The distinction between businesses that should only focus on maximizing profits and businesses that should focus on the service they provide is the focus of the well being of the clients. If the products or services directly impact the health or well being of the client (and contributing member of society), then it should be the primary goal of that business to ensure the health and well being of that clie. This is true for hospitals. However, if the business provides a product or service that doesn't directly impact the health of the client, then they should focus on maximizing profits.

 

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

 

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

 

Politicians have great influence on the decision making and policies of the government. For this reason, it is important that politicians believe in the policies they claim to promote. If a politician does not believe in policies they claim to promote, then it is likely they will not actually support such policies. It is impossible to read the minds of politicians to discover what they truly do and do not believe in. However, it is possible to gleam from their lifestyle what is important in their lives. From that, one is able to infer, what politicians actually believe in, and what they don't. For instance Al Gore is the former vice president and a politician who fervently fought for environmental policy changes during his tenure. Even now that he is no longer a politician, Gore advocates environmental action supports 'green' policies. However, if his lifestyle choices were such that he makes no effort to reduce his carbon foot print and is extremely wasteful, then his message would be significanly devalued. Furthermore, it would call into question how fervently he actually did battle for environmental policies when he was in office. Thus, in this instance a politicians lifestyle should reflect his or her political view.

 

However, it is not always the case that a politician's lifestyle should reflect their political views. For instance, recently current president, Barack Obama, showed support of building a mosque 30 miles near the site of ground zero (where the twin towers of New York were infamously attacked and destroyed by terrorists). There have been great emotion and opposition to the building of a muslim mosque, near the area of where an attack by a separate, distinctly radical, muslim group occured. Obama recognizes the emotions involved, yet supports the erection of the mosque due to religious freedom. However, Obama is a Christian and not a muslim and yet his support for the mosque is not devalued. Furthermore, if Obama had been athiest, his support for the erection of the mosque would not be devalued. Thus in this instance a politician's lifestyle does not necessarily need to reflect his political view.

 

In conclusion, there are some instances where a politicians political view should coincide with their lifestyle in order to give that politician more substance and integrity. However, in some instances a politician's lifetyle is irrelevant in regards to his or her political views. In the first instance the political view and lifestyle (environmental proactivity) is a communal policy that everyone is requested to adhere to. In the second instance, Obama was supporting the individual choice of people to choose their own religion. When politicians are supporting a communal value like democracy, freedom and climate change (which affects everyone), then their lifestyle choices affect their political weight. However, when politicians support individual choices like gay marriage, abortion issues, and religious choices, their lifestyle choices don't necessarily need to reflect these choices.

[mcatbuster]

Thank you for all the work, Sameer!

 

Receiving a political endorsement can be as harmful as it is helpful.

 

Describe a specific situation in which receiving a political endorsement might not be harmful. Discuss what you think determines when political endorsements are harmful and when they are helpful.

 

 

A famous polician once said: "While some political endorsements can help you win elections, some can actually make you lose." A political endorsement is necessary to run for any government office. This is the case because it is financially difficult for any politician to run for a government position without money from large companies. Supports from wealth businessmen can help politicians hire the best campaign advisers and win elections. Although a political endorsement could be helpful to politicians, it can also be harmful. For instance, with the endorsements received from large companies, Mr. Bush was able to run a successful presidential election. However, because of money that Mr. Bush received from companies, he was often critized for approving policies that only help large businesses.

 

On the other hand, there are situations where a political endorsement might not be harmful but helpful. For instance, Mr. Obmma received more endorsements from ordinary Americans than from large businesses. Since Mr. Obmma received much of his endorsements from the ordinary Americans, he was able to demonstrate that the American people love Mr. Obmma`s policies more than his opponent.

 

In conclusion, who endorses a politician would distinguish the two circumstances. In the first example, the political endorsement can be harmful if large businesses endorse politicians because politicians may need to return the favor once they get elected. Conversely, if the political endorsements are from ordinary citizens, then the politician has no favor to return to large companies and the politicians can also show that they are more popular among the voters than their opponents.

[theblackmamba]

The power of the press depends on the literacy of its readers.

Describe a specific situation in which the power of the press might not depend on the literacy of its readers. Discuss what you think determines when the power of the press is dependent on the literacy of its readers.

 

 

The statement means that journalists can only live up to their full potential when the readers of their work are well versed in literature. For example, Marty Gervais of The Windsor Star provides a daily column regarding the popular economic and political issues present in the Windsor-Essex area. Because his column is directed at the well educated member of society and provides no pictures or figures to represent his arguments, how his article is received by the public solely depends on the literacy of the readers of his column. An illiterate or poorly educated individual would gather little from his writings because they simply would not be able to understand the column.

 

Conversely, other members of the press can convey their messages to illiterate or poorly educated readers. For example, The Enquirer is a magazine that gives the reader an inside look at Hollywood's biggest and brightest stars. The messages about these stars are conveyed with numerous photographs and simply written articles or sometimes basic catch phrases to guide the readers attention. Even the illiterate individual can gather a vast amount of the story by simply flipping through the magazine and looking at the pictures alone, and one who can follow the simple writings can get as much out of the magazine as an english scholar could. One of the best selling Enquirer magazines every year follows the Emmy awards and showcases "what the stars were wearing" at this event. A person does not need to be literate to identify that the press is showing the reader how specific celebrities dressed at the Emmy's, and thus the message is appropriately conveyed to readers of all levels.

 

The validity of the statement depends on whether or not the member of the press can get his or her point across without the use of complex writings. A columnist would have a difficult time conveying his or her message about the impact of current economic and political issues to an illiterate member of society. Naturally, the articles would contain complex sentences and political jargon that can only be understood by those with great literacy skills. Although these topics could be enhanced via the use of tables and figures, it would still take a well educated individual to be able to fully understand these images, and the use of these assets alone would likely not suffice in relaying the columnists ideas. On the other hand, tabloid magazines can often get their messages across simply with the use of pictures and short sentences. Because they do not rely on complex writings to discuss popular events in show business, a person of any literacy level can take something from their articles.

[the stranger]

Hey PreMed101,

 

This FREE MCAT Writing sample feedback corner, brought to you by Prep101, will be ending on Sept 7 (next Tuesday). I will get through as many essays as possible this weekend before the close date, and I will hopefully catch some of you whose tests are coming up soon. Feel free to post over the weekend, but I can't guarantee I'll be able to get to every single one, sorry about that.

 

Thanks for all the great responses and I really hope this has been a help to all of you. If you would like to leave feedback of any kind please feel free to post to this thread or the Prep101 feedback thread in the forum.

 

Also if anyone would like to share their WS score with me (anonymously of course) through a quick private message when you get your score, that would be great. I'd really like to know if I was able to help improve your scores with this whole exercise.

 

Take care and good luck,

 

Sameer

[shin]

Hi Sameer,

 

Hopefully you're able to get to marking these two prompts. I write on Sept 11, and i'll let you know how my WS score is when I find out. I'm sure all your comments have been very useful thus far.

 

Thanks so much

 

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

 

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

 

As a society, it is necessary to make communal choices that lead to the benefit of the people making up these societies and nations. Because of this, it is necessary to approach problems of the present with wisdom and understanding to prevent rash or unwanted consequences. Problems of the present are defined as key issues which threaten or may threaten society. In order to appreach these problems wih understanding and wisdom, it is often beneficial to understand how problems of the past were solved. It is even benefifcial to understand how problems of the past were exacerbated. For example, during the cold war, capitalist America had maintained a stance of non-direct confrontation with the communist Soviet Union, even though the US clearly opposed communism as a way of living. However, this did not prevent the US from interfering with other communist countries. Most famously (or infamously), the US opposed North Vietnam in its communist take over of the whole of Vietnam. This blemish in US history is much regarded as a failure and the whole of Vietnam was not prevented from communist rule. Now Vietnam exists with a red stain imprinted in its history by American troops. Keeping this failure into consideration, the US now, wisely, approaches decisions of foreign combat with more humility and caution. For instance, although North Korea has been communist and remains a world threat, the US has not initiated overthrowing the communist government. This has prevented casualties by both sides, and a complete over ruling of the Korean penninsula by communism (as South Korea remains democratic and capitalist).

 

However, it is not always the case where an understanding of the past is necessary for the problems of the present. Unlike the problem of communist North Korea, the problem of climate change and the receding of the ice caps has no historical analog (like Vietnam). In attempting to solve the problem of climate change, new ways of thinking need to be adopted and possibly, new technologies need to be created. Society has not encountered climate change in the past, so an understanding of the past would be useless in solving climate change. Instead of looking to the past, society needs to look to the future.

 

In conclusion, in some instances it is beneficial to understand the past when solving problems in the present. This is true for problems in foreign policy, where historical relations and past experiences have taught the nation about potential consequences and outcomes. However, for problems involving situation never encountered in the past, like climate change, it is not beneficial to look to the past. For these types of problems it is necessary to focus on the present and future. Thus, when historical analogs to present problems then it is beneficial to gain understanding from these histories. However, when such historical analogs do not exist, understanding the past is irrelevent.

 

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

 

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

 

Politicians have large influence on policy making and thus have heavy influence on the direction of the country. This has direct implication for the growth and development of the nation in which the politian serves. However, in order to remain a central figure in policy making, politicians need to stay in office. In order to do so, politicians need to please voters enough to continually be voted into office. It is often for this reason that politicians often base their decisions to please voters instead of what is best for the country. An example of this in the past decade is president George W. Bush, who was popular amongst the majority of voters (and still remains somewhat popular today). Bush's policy included lowering taxes for the country as a whole, which pleased voters. However, as a consequence of this, social programs, like education, lost funding. Prior to such education cuts, American undergraduates were ranked 1st in the world in terms of skill set and intelligence. However, after funding cuts, the legacy Bush's administration left is that currently undergraduates are ranked 12th in the world, under the same ranking scheme. The effects of Bush's tax cuts and cuts to education was never experienced by Bush because the education of the students was a longer process than was the term of his office. Thus, politicians do base their decisions on pleasing voters rather than doing what's best for the country.

 

However, this is not always the case. For instance, the current Obama administration, which is not as popular amongst many voters, is maintaining tax levels (rather than cutting taxes), as well increasing spending on infrastructure. This increase in spending on infrastructure acts as an economic stimulus to aid citizens affected by the recession. As well, the infrastructure will remain after Obama's legacy and serve the nation for generations to come. In this instance, Obama has actually displeased voters and has been accused of being a socialist by many. Yet, Obama has made these decisions in order to do what's best for the country rather than to please voters.

 

In conclusion, politicians have based their decisions on pleasing voters rather than doing what's best for the country, as exemplified by the previous Bush administration. Conversely, politicians have based their decisions on doing what's best for the country rather than primarily pleasing voters. In both instances the politicians need to please voters enough to remain in office. However, in the instance of serving the country first, politicians need the support of majority of voters before making such decisions. In the instance of the Obama administration, enough damage was done by the Bush administration that the Obama administration gained support from enough voters that they no longer needed to focus on pleasing all the voters to gain support. In the instance of the Bush administration this was not so and the administration needed to base their decisions on pleasing as many voters as possible to gain support. Thus, politicians who need to gain support need to base their decisions on pleasing voters before doing what's best for the country. However, politicians who have already gained support may base their decisions on what's best for the country rather than pleasing the voters.

[lmcl]

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

 

The adage or phrase, "History repeats itself" is commonly quoted in the media and in daily life to describe the interesting reoccurence of past events in the present day. The quote is a reminder to all that the study of history is vital to understanding present and future events. In the 1920s, the world suffered a terrible financial crisis know as the "Great Depression". Stock markets crashed and many individuals lost their money, jobs, and property. Sadly, many of the individuals felt they had lost their livelihood and committed suicide. To solve this devastating crisis, governments developed ways to combat the loss of money and jobs by stimulating job creation by the implementation of many infrastructure projects. Today, in times of economic downturn, the governments use the old methods of job development and stimulation to help prevent unemployment from becoming rampant. Therefore, learning from past economic crises has helped in solving the economic problems of the present.

 

While learning and understanding history helps to find solutions similar events in the present, this method is not effective if the problems of the present were never encountered in the past. The advent of new technologies and electronic devices in the 20th century is something that was non-existent and unimagined in past centuries. Banking and the economy are now largely based on electronic systems. People's economic information are not stored in paper files, but on large networks of computers. As a result, security issues surrounding banking now pose as problem as hackers attempt to access people's account information in search of people's bank account PIN numbers and financial information. As electronic banking and finances are a recent invention, knowledge of history will not help in helping to make technologies more secure.

 

Knowledge of history will only be of use to solving present problems if they were previously encountered in past years. Problems like that of financial crises reoccur regularly throughout history, to some extent, which allows knowledge of past crises and their solutions to be applied to current problems. However, with new technologies being invented in the present, new problems will result as well. Yet, because these technologies are very recent inventions, there are no records of the past to look at to help solve any problems that occur.

 

 

 

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

 

The jobs security of politicians in democracies is dependent on the voters who have elected the politicians to their positions. However, politicians often face dilemmas in making important decisions because they have the obligation to ensure their voters are happy, but they also have the obligation of ensuring that they make decisions according to what is best for the country. To keep their jobs and increase their popularity in the general population, politicians often make decisions that are favourable to their voters, even when the consequences of the decision may not be what is best for the politician's country. Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper, early in his first term as Prime Minister, lowered the national taxes by 1%. Harper's action greatly increased his popularity among Canada's population, but his decision was not what was best for Canada as lowering taxes gave the country's government less annual income from taxpayers. With Canada in debt, this decision may have been made solely to please the voters, without thinking about what would be better for the country's financial situation.

 

Politicians, while being obliged to keep their voters happy, must nonetheless sometimes make decisions based on what will be good for the country. In making these decisions, the politician must follow through with his decision even though his voters may be displeased or angry with him. One such situation recently occurred in the United States. US President Barack Obama, against pressure from much of the American population and voting base, decided to pass a health bill that would ensure health care for almost all of the American population. The bill displeased many people, because it would mean a noticeable decrease in their level of health care. However, due to the high amount of annual debt incurred by American health care system, Obama realized that the system would made most of his voters happy would eventually lead the country into serious economic problems. Therefore, politicians must sometimes make unpopular decisions at the expense of their voter's desires, if what is best for the country is more important.

 

A politician seeking to decide whether to please his voters or do what is good for the country at the expense of his voters' happiness, must take all of the factors into consideration and determine how detrimental his decision will be to the country. If the decision he makes will prevent the country from becoming seriously economically, socially, or politically unhealthy, then he must do what is good for the country as Obama did with the health bill. However, if he feels that the effects to the country are not very severe, then the politician make decisions that please the voters as Harper did with lowering taxes.

[sarup]

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

 

 

Laws cannot change social values.

 

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

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

 

Social values encompasses the ethical and moral views of an individual. Often times, these values are instilled and firmlay rooted in the individual by their family and community when they are young. As a result, this makes it hard for any law sanctioned by the government to change an idividuals social values. For example, in the 1930's, the US government intiated a period of prohibition, stopping the public from having access to alcoholic drinks. Many individuals felt that it was not morally irresponsible to enjoy a beer or other alcoholic bevarage. As a result, many people obtained their drinks illegally from gangsters and bootleggers. Seeing the futility, the government evnetually overturned the prohibition law.

 

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

 

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

[lmcl]

Hey Sameer,

 

Thanks again man!

 

 

Education comes not from books, but from practical experience.

 

 

Education, the achievement of a certain level of knowledge or expertise about a certain subject, can be obtained through different ways. It is often the case that one can learn much more about a subject through practical or first-hand experience than through reading about the subject in a book. For instance, in order to learn unfamiliar medical procedures, budding physicians are subjected to the "See one, Do one, Teach one" method of learning. That is, doctors learn new procedures by first observing, then doing, and, thirdly, by teaching others. No perusing or studying of books is used in this acquisition of education, because the act of performing the procedure involves the use of motor skills that one could not practise with the utilization of the passive reading of a textbook. All of the aforementioned actions involve the use of practical experience, which is important to the acquisition of education.

 

There are times, however, when practical experience may be less beneficial for acquiring expertise or knowledge in a certain subject. In learning about the history of ancient civilizations, it is certainly more beneficial to use books in order to acquire expertise on a subject. The wealth of information that can be learned from studying a book about the Ancient Egyptians would be far more beneficial than travelling to the Great Pyramids of Giza to gaze at the vast pyramids. Reading a book would allow you to learn about Egyptian culture, religion, politics, etc., while practical experience would provide far less. For education that requires learning about the past, it is much more beneficial to acquire education from books.

 

In attempting to ascertain whether it is better to obtain education from books or practical experience, one must choose the one that allows for a greater accumulation of expertise on the subject. For doctors, who must perform medical procedures daily, it is more beneficial to learn by practical experience. However, for learning about history or other subjects, books are more beneficial.

 

 

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.

 

In the pursuit of scientific research, one must always consider the use of discoveries to harm human life. Scientific experiments and discoveries that deliberately harm humans violate both the dignity of humans and their right to be free from harm by others. It is precisely the violation of these rights that made the Nazi concentration camp experiments intolerable. During World War II, the Nazis performed experiments on prisoners in concentrations camps like Auschwitz. Many of the experiments were designed to discover how humans react to pain and suffering. As a result, the human prisoners were subjected to torture and cruel experimentation. Despite the knowledge gained from these experiments, this pursuit of scientific discovery involving the violation of human rights and deliberate harm to humans makes it intolerable.

 

Despite the horrible experiments that took place in the Nazi concentration camps, there are circumstances even in present society that tolerate danger to human life in order to make new discoveries. One pertinent example is the use of clinical research to find cures for some resistant forms of cancer that cannot be treated with the regular treatments. Patients who have these forms of cancer have tried all other medicines without success and will not survive without a new drug to help them. Doctors and researchers studying these forms of cancer lead clinical trials where patients are subjected to new drugs that may or may not have any efficacy against the cancers. The patients, who will not survive without a new drug, subject themselves to the possibility that the new drugs may not work or may even be detrimental to them. Thus, a threat to human life is tolerated in this case because the aim is ultimately to save these patient's lives.

 

In determining whether scientific discovery is more important than the danger to human life, one must remember that the aim of scientific discovery, whenever possible, should be to help and promote human life, rather than to deliberately harm it. Therefore, the Nazi concentration camp experiments should not be tolerated, because in their pursuit of scientific inquiry, the Nazis deliberately harmed and killed humans. On the contrary, for clinical research hoping to discover a new cure for incurable forms of some cancers, the threat to human life from experimental drugs can be tolerated, because the ultimate aim of the scientific research is to save human life and not threaten it.

[the stranger]

Hey everyone, unfortunately I won't be able to get to any more essays before the Tuesday close date. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. I wish you all the best of luck on your MCATs. For those of you whose essays I was able to mark, please feel free to leave feedback on this thread with any comments or concerns.

 

Thanks again everyone, and all the best!

 

Take care,

 

Sameer