Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[the stranger]

A typical individual spends 8 hours a day, 5 days a week in the workplace. In this environment, an individual should have the same amount of privacy as in their home and community. Canadian citizen's right to privacy is incresing with the upcoming changes to the national census. This once mandarory questionaire quizzed Canadian citizens on their most intimate personal and finacial information. A new version of the census is in the process of being created to enhance the privacy of individuals. Canadian's now must complete a short mandatory survey, and have the option to disclose personal information to the government. If the government no longer requires individuals to discole information regarding their race, income, and marital status, then an employeer definitly does not have the right to request such personal information. An individuals right to privacy in the workplace should be mirrored by the standard set forth by the governemt, or even more stringent.

 

There are some aspects to an individuals personal endevors that may be of more interest to an employer than the government, especially during the hiring process. A company has the right to know if their employees have a criminal record. Even if this is in violation of privacy, a criminal record is important information for a company to know in order to ensure the safety of their employees. This is especially true if the job being held is one related to a previous offence commited by an individual. A employeer has the right to know if the person they are interviewing for the position of child care worker has a previous history of child abuse.

 

The disclosure of personal information is not something that is usually required by employeers. When hiring individuals, personal attributes that do not relate to the position being held should not be required to be disclosed by the individual. However, the discloure of information regarding criminal records, even though an invasion of privacy, should be required to ensure the safety of employees. Once trust and faith has been put in an employee, ensuring the privacy of their workers should be a top priority. This is evident in the steps the Canadian governement are taking to enhance the privacy of their citizens.

 

Hey dcadieux,

Your essay shows good control of language and addresses the tasks. Your argument as to when privacy should be guaranteed and when it shouldn’t is strong, and I liked your task 2 example as well (although describing a specific example of this situation would have strengthened your task 2).

Your example in task 1 comes up abruptly, so be sure to set up your examples more fully in the future. You can spend a few extra lines introducing the example or explaining the statement further before launching into the example itself. Try also to include a more summative conclusion to tie everything together and leave the reader with a unified last impression.

Score: 5/6

[the stranger]

Education makes everyone equal.

 

Is education the baseline for equality, or are there other factors that determine one's (relative to other humans) equality? Education can be determined, and measured, in classes passed or relative grades. Measuring someone's education is the determining factor when comparing poeple. Regardless of race, gender, or sexual education, the level education is how an indivual is "rated." An example of this is when most universities are accepting or rejecting high school graduates. The admission commity doesn't look at at one's kindness or work ethic, they look at the transcript to see if the applicant has attained credits for certain courses and has achieved a certain grade. As seen with this example, it is the level of education that makes someone equal.

 

Although education does make everyone equal in certain circumstances, this isn't always the case. When being drafted into the NHL, Steven Stamkos had only recently attained his highschool equivalence. Although he was drafted in the same round as many university graduates, Stamkos was selected first overall in the draft. As seen in this example, there were other factors than just education which made Stamkos more favorable than those he was up against.

 

Although determining when education does and doesn't make everyone equal is difficult, a major determinant is when physical attributes are involved. Being accepted into most universities has nothing to do with one's physical attributes, therefore, education is the only thing that matters, and all applicants are rated on their level of education. However, when it comes to professional athletics, such as the NHL, education has a very minor role, and physical characteristics is the main determinant on individuals. In sum, as long as physical characteristics aren't important, education is what makes everyone equal.

 

Pew Peter,

Again your essay is well structured and meets all the requirements. However I would have liked to see a more in-depth analysis of the topic: although it’s true that if physical attributes are considered, education level may take a back seat, this is only true in certain circumstances (i.e. professional sports). Try to be more broad and consider the bigger picture. This prompt was rather vague and a lot of students had trouble with it, so don’t worry too much about. But keep in mind that you should always try to look deeply into the prompt and consider the more abstract side of it (i.e. how education can make people equal socially despite other factors like race, sex, etc.).

Score: 4/6

[the stranger]

I'm not sure if this is too late, but I would appreciate any feedback

 

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

 

 

Our society has been bombarded with new technologies that may be pushing the boundaries when it comes to privacy. With the click of a button, bosses are able to access a wide range of personal information about a prospective employee by simply surveying their ‘facebook’ page. Often, these facebook pages are being surveyed without the employee’s knowledge or consent, diminishing the importance of one’s right to privacy. Should bosses be able to navigate their employee’s private life without their knowledge, or is this breaching the code of privacy in the workplace? In order to allow employees to feel comfortable in their workplace and among their fellow employees, privacy is a topic that cannot be overlooked.

 

However, there are situations in which privacy in the work setting is taken for granted. Employees may begin to feel “too comfortable” at work, and begin to neglect their work duties as a result of keeping up to date on their personal lives. Recently, there has been the continuous debate of whether bosses should be able to access their employee’s work email accounts. In the case of an inefficient employee, the boss may benefit greatly from sifting through the individual’s emails and discovering many online purchases and social networking being done during working hours. “Time is money” and when an employee is refusing to use their paid hours productively it is in the best interest of the boss to take remedial action in order to maintain high efficiency. When employees are slacking on their duties to such an extent that it is impacting the rest of their team, they should be prepared to have their privacy disregarded until they make a drastic change in their behaviour.

 

When discussing where to draw the line when it comes to workplace privacy, there is only one question that must be asked. Is the employee proving to be so inefficient during the work day that it is necessary to investigate further? When the boss can confidently answer “yes” to this question, the employee’s privacy should not be highly respected until they are able to prioritize their job over their daily activities. However, bosses should not be able to rely on facebook as a means of choosing between prospective employees, as this form of media is often a biased representation of the individual and will not share adequate information about their employment capabilities. Current employees who are devoting their attention to their work, should have their privacy respected in such a way that it is indeed continuous with their privacy outside of the workplace.

 

Hi madison007,

I like your writing style and flow. Your essay is unified and well thought out. I would only suggest using specific, concrete examples for task 1 and 2, i.e. a specific incident that demonstrates that employees should have the same right to privacy in and out of the workplace. Otherwise this was well written and structured well.

Score: 4.5-5/6 <- depends on whether the grader believes your examples are specific enough

[the stranger]

"Education makes everyone equal."

 

Knowledge is power, and in our society education is highly valued as a means of ensuring a successful future. Employers will consult a prospective employee’s resume for their educational background and university transcripts and many employers believe that there is a direct correlation between academic success and occupational success. Regardless of age, ethnicity or gender, our society is fortunate enough to be able to receive high quality education at a very limited price. By attending school, each member of society is able to benefit from similar lessons taught by similar instructors, while opening up the door to increased job opportunities.

 

There are many different levels of education that can be obtained depending on the type of career one is interested in. Those who are interested in design may only require a one year college course in order to apply for a job as an interior designer, whereas those who are choosing to pursue the career of a brain surgeon may be looking at over ten years of extra education. The variety of job opportunities in our society has allowed for numerous education programs that vary in terms of length and subject matter. Although a basic education, such as elementary school, is common among most students, the varying types of higher education options allows for a greater level of distinction.

 

Education helps to evoke a feeling of equality among our society because it is an opportunity that is open to people from all different walks of life. However, it is important to distinguish between those who are attending an elementary institution and those who are pursuing higher studies on a specific subject matter. It is impossible to divide society into educated individuals and noneducational individuals as there are far too many subclasses of education. Only those who have received similar schooling in terms of duration and subject matter, can be classified as equal from an educational standpoint.

 

Please see my responses to several of the other essays from this topic. Just search for “education” in this thread and they should come up. The comments about considering the broader social implications of the prompt apply to your essay as well. This prompt was vague and many students struggled with it so don’t sweat it too much. However also take a look at some of the higher scoring essays for this prompt and notice the broader arguments those students used.

Score: 3.5/6 <- You argue that different education levels give people different status, but this doesn’t answer the question “when does education make people equal” in general. An AAMC grader would most likely consider this inadequate and drop your score.

[the stranger]

Thank you!

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means

 

Political decisions are often subjected to criticisms by dissenting parties. This may be due to ineffective policies that hinder improvement or a negative impact brought about by the process of achieving the desired end. Most often, a political decision is widely accepted by the public when it addresses significant issues confronting the majority. However, when the means by which this end is achieved is equally detrimental, then the public generally disagrees with the proposal. A recent political decision made by the Philippine government is to impose a 12% value-added tax on goods and services in order to generate more government revenue for the improvement of government services. This decision has been largely opposed by the public due to the burden that the means will impose on the people. Despite its favorable end, such as the improvement of government services, the means creates a heavy toll on the citizens of the developing country who are already facing financial burdens. Therefore, political decisions must be able to respond to relevant issues by providing acceptable means towards an end. Otherwise, these political decisions will rarely be effective.

 

However, in times where there is an urgent and compelling issue confronting the public, then a political end might justify using questionable means. This is what happened during the massive typhoon that hit the Philippine capital in October of 2009. A decision was made by government officials that involved having to cause major flooding in the city for this is the only means by which the major dams might be prevented from breaking and causing even bigger problems in the future. By releasing water from the dams, the problems of future widespread water shortage and huge spending on repairs were avoided. In spite of the fact that the means caused minor damages to the city, this decision proved to be effective in providing a solution to a more compelling problem. In a case like this, the political situation was favored and commended by the majority.

 

What determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end lies in the relevance of short-term or long-term issues to the particular society. There are times when a particular group of people would weigh the short-term issues they are confronting as more relevant. Such is the case for the majority who opposed the imposing of added taxes as a means to improve on infrastructure and services in their area. As they are already significantly burdened by financial problems, then they believe that a political decision must address the issue of economic development among citizens first and foremost before they can achieve ends such as improvements in services by the government. On the other hand, when a long-term issue is deemed to hold more relevance for the public, such as the preservation of the major dams that bring water to the citizens, then a detrimental means might be accepted to achieve the ends. In the end, a political decision is evaluated and must be tailored based on the particular issues confronting a society for it to be deemed effective.

 

Very well done. Your arguments were well thought out, you used great examples and your thoughts flowed perfectly from one to the next. I would only suggest cleaning up your task one by limiting the discussion to only supporting/explaining the statement, and not brining in ideas that are more in line with a task 3 paragraph. Try just to talk about what the statement means and support it with an example, without putting down any criteria or caveats (save these for task 3).

Score: 5.5/6

[the stranger]

Thank you so much for reviewing these! It is for sure a challenge to stick within the timelines and forgive me if ther are lots of spelling mistakes...I am still getting used to the no spell check rule lol

 

Education makes everyone equal.

 

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 education does not make everyone equal.

Discuss what you think determines whether or not education makes everyone equal

 

Education has the power to inform, instruct, and inspire. The gift of knowledge is something that can be instilled in the minds of the young and old. It does not matter where you come from, or the colour of your skin, education is the universal gift that anyone in the human race is capable of obtaining. When entering the education system, there are sets of specific guidelines which determine the level of education you recieve. This ensures that you are on a equal learning level with your peers. If a family immigrates to a country such as Canada, the children in the family have the right to enter the education system once citizenship is obtained. If the children are young, they would enter the public school system and become equal in their ability and right to obtain education. As these children grow in both knowledge and age, their status as an equal citizens grows as well.

 

The education system is one which progresses from public school, to seconday school, post secondary education, and graduate studies. As individuals expand their knowledge base by completing each level, they remain on a equal playing field with their peers. This education however, becomes extremely variable as individuals leave educational institutions and enter the working world. In the field of medicine, it takes more than the competion of a university degree and book smarts to become a sucessful doctor. In a particular graduating class, all individuals have an equal education. Deviance from the mold of a medical school occurs due to differance in personality. Two doctors with the same education are capable of diagnosis an ailment such as cancer, yet only the one with compassion and understanding is able to comfort their patient in dealing with the reprocussions of their disease. A pateint should not be viewed as a textbook definition, but as a person. In this sense, an equal education does not produce an equal capability to be a successful doctor.

 

From the time we enter the education system as young children, we are educated at an equal level to those around us. Knowledge is something that as a Canadian citizen, everyone has the right to obtain. It does not matter where you came from or how old you are, in the classroom, you are entitled to an equal oppourtuinty to learn. Textbooks and cirriculums ensure that every individual in the classroom establishes a standard knowledge base that can be applied to their future careers. Once leaving the education system, an equal education does correspond to equality in the workplace. Certain carrers are based not only on education, but personal skills which cannot be taught. Two people with the same education may vary in their ability to excel at their career. Obtaining a licence to practice medicine indicates that you have an equal education as other practicing professionals; posessing the ability to communicate and comfort a patient will set you apart from your peers and ensure your success as a medical doctor.

 

Please see my responses to other essays for this prompt, about considering the broader social aspects of the prompt. Just search for “education” and they should come up. Many students struggled with this prompt as it is very vague and difficult to grasp, so don’t worry too much about this one. Check out some of the higher scoring essays as well to see some other students’ approaches.

Score: 3.5/6 <- your criteria relate to the fact that different education levels determine careers, but you don’t answer the question “when does education make people equal” in general i.e. despite other factors like race, sex, previous social status, etc. Your essay started off very well however with an interesting opening paragraph. Also try to be more succinct (i.e. paragraph 3 where each sentence seems to bring in a new idea) as this will increase clarity and unity.

[crazyflower]

Thanks again for your critiques!

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means.

 

According to a recent poll in Reader’s Digest magazine, politicians were awarded the dubious honour of being the most distrusted profession in Canada. Echoing the sentiments of many citizens, the magazine claimed that politicians are known by their numerous “broken promises” and underhand dealings. Even when politicians were recognized as achieving their platform goals, the cost to society at large was deemed too large a sacrifice to make.

This sentiment is especially espoused by many Ontario voters, whose distrust of the Conservative party is still strong years after the resignation of embattled premier Mike Harris. Campaigning on a platform of fiscal management - the provincial debt at the time was over 11 billion dollars - Harris' term was characterized by his "Common Sense Revolution". Healthcare, education, and social assistence payments were slashed in an effort to reduce the debt. While the cuts did achieve his goal, Harris was forced to resign due to the severe backlash his spending cuts initiated. Ontario hospitals still face drastic staff shortages while many school boards do not have enough money to cover their expenses as a result of Harris' policies.

Not all political endeavours, though, are looked upon as being unjustified. Politicians are also capable of many self-sacrificing deeds to achieve their goals. One notable example is Sir Robert Peel, Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 19th century. As leader of the Tory party, he was the advocate of all landowners. It was during his tenure that the Corn Laws were passed, largely due to Tory support, which increased grain prices throughout the country at a direct benefit to the rich landowners. At the same time, however, Ireland faced a great famine as the potato crop, the staple of the Irish diet, largely failed. With grain prices set artificially high, the Irish were unable to purchase goods and faced starvation. In direct opposition to his party, and at the expense of his own political career, Sir Robert Peel aligned with the Whig party to repeal the Corn Laws to allow prices to fall lower and give the starving Irish the opportunity to purchase food.

For many disillusioned citizens, politics appears to be a field whose actions often go directly against the aims they wish to achieve. As in the case of Mike Harris, the deficit, although a large problem, appeared insignificant when draconian measures were introduced into other social services. Not seeing a direct benefit of the measures, citizens turned on the premier. On the other hand, Peel's disregard for the very supporters that brought him into power was made acceptable by the immediate effect his measures had on the people. For society, it is not the means with which a politician wishes to undertake his goal, but rather the goals themselves that ultimately decide the legitmacy of a political endeavour. A more direct benefit is likely to ensure a more direct acceptance of the said endeavour.

[the stranger]

Hey... I am writing in a week and I am a little bit nervous about the writing sample. I think I can write and structure things so that they flow... however, the 30 minute deadline freaks me out a little because I usually take lost of time to edit and re-edit. Also, I find difficult to read some of the prompts and think of really relevant examples. Anyway, here goes...

 

Education makes everyone equal.

 

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 education does not make everyone equal.

Discuss what you think determines whether or not education makes everyone equal.

 

 

Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "all men were born equal". There are many truths to this, especially when one considers all humans opportunity to be educated. Education is a tool that allows people to acquire knowledge of the world as mankind knows it. We are all born with the same capacity to learn and the majority of the countries in the world capitalize on this by providing education to all citizens. All Canadian citizens have equal opportunity to attend educational services from kindergarten to grade 12. By the end of grade 12, the majority of people are equal in their educational level even if they feel that they are perceived different because of socioeconomic background, race, sexuality, gender, etc. Education is a unifying experience in that it transcends the boundaries and allows people to all acquire the same knowledge to utilize in everyday life. Education tries to defy a separation between man, as can be evidenced in the case of Brown v. Board of Education in the US in the 1950s in which it was decided that there would be no separate schools for African Americans and that segregation would cease to exist. This is important because education should create equality between people and if a segregation occurs between men, then education is not being used as a useful tool for equality.

 

Although education can be used to create human equality, when considering applying for careers after completing post secondary education, this equality may not curtail. For example, a post secondary graduate that completed a bachelor of business administration applies for the same job that a Yale school of business graduate applies to. As evidenced by many studies, a Halo effect occurs, and automatically the Yale grad, who has the same education as the other grad, receives an interview and a recommendation from the human resource person only because they attended an Ivey league college. The perception of the institution providing an education can outweigh the type of education people are receiving. Therefore, when applying for positions in life where the type of education received is considered, education may not create an equality between people.

 

Clearly there is no fundamental resolution between when education creates equality or when it divides people. However, a pretty good guideline is that education creates equality when human perception is not involved. This is evidenced from considering all people from different backgrounds attending school from kindergarten to grade 12 being perceived as having an equal education, but when higher levels of education are attained, there is a human perception regarding the institution one attends and the level of education one receives. Unfortunately, although many people receive the same kind of education at different institutions, one may have difficulties overcoming the perception that certain post secondary institutions are better than others.

 

Hey ckilburn,

I agree with your comments completely. Your essay was very well written and you show good control of language, it was easy to follow and flowed well, however, your example for task 1 should be a specific situation in which education made people equal rather than a legislation that shows how important equality of education is, and your example for task 2 is rather vague/somewhat hypothetical (although most people would agree with your Ivy League bias idea, studies or not). Increase the specificity of your examples to push your score higher. How to do this? Try to think in terms of broader social implications of the prompt, and try to take examples from history, politics, international affairs, or other recognizable, general areas.

Score: 4.5-5/6 <- depends on whether the grader believes your examples are clear and specific enough

[the stranger]

Hey guys/gals, please don't post any more responses to the "education makes everyone equal" prompt. I've decided its too vague and isn't suited for this kind of practice exercise. Please don't post essays from that prompt any more.

 

Thanks

 

Sameer

[the stranger]

Hi...Thanks for helping out with the writing sample. I have written the following essay for the prompt, and would be glad to have any feedback on it. Thank you.

 

Education makes everyone equal

 

Education refers to the life experiences by which one evolves over a period of time into a mature human being who has a sense of society and knows how to deal with certain critical conditions. Equality here refers to the status of an individual who after attaining education is capable of settling himself in cases listed above. However, the term ‘education’ when used in an overtly restricted manner, as in case of listing degrees an individual owns, it can deviate from this unifying quality and can lead to creation of differences among people with different forms and levels of education.

 

For instance, when meeting two different individuals, one being the owner of a corporation with an MBA degree while the another a clerk with a college diploma, people behave differently towards the two. They give more respect and thought to what the corporate owner says, than to the clerk who could very well be a very worldly wise person but is not considered so as he does not own a degree. Same was the case with Timothy, a private small business owner who did not have a degree in field but through life experiences in different areas was equally as aware of the functionings of a corporation as a corporate owner. When wanting to work in one such corporation no one would give a thought to what he had to present simply owning to the fact that he does not have a business degree. Although, through his persuasion skills, he managed to gain a position in a company much later than a business school graduate would have and is now a owns successful business corporation himself.

 

Therefore, education when used in a very limited sense revolving around the degrees a person owns, and not based on what he/she has learnt as part of his life experiences and is capable of learning thereafter, causes discrimination and unjust decisions, rather than being a unifying force.

 

Check out my responses to some of the other essays from this prompt regarding the broader social implications inherent in the prompt. You have talked about how different education levels can garner different amounts of respect, but not about what determines whether education can make people equal in general despite other factors that might serve to cause inequality. Your criteria are ok but are narrow, i.e. what about situations in which education AND life experience are taken into account? Can education equalise people in these situations despite other factors that differ between them? Your essay hasn’t answered that question or others like it.

Also try to work on overall clarity and unity by being more concise. At the same time, you should expand in certain areas for example in your discussion of task 3, you should explain your criteria further and relate them back to your examples. Flesh out your explanations further. Lastly, you should avoid using personal/hypothetical examples (i.e. your task 2, the grader has no idea who Timothy is, an thus cannot fully appreciate the example about him).

Score: 3.5/6

[the stranger]


In politics, the end rarely justifies the means.



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 political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end
justifies the means for accomplishing that end.

 

Politicians are under an extreme amount of pressure to produce results, and may resort to unconventional methods in order to achieve their goals. Methods that are unethical or have negative longterm consequences should not be used to achieve short-term goals. When Omar Torrijos was elected president of Panama in the 1980's, it was under the pretense that he would implement large-scale industrialization projects that would develop Panama's economy and allow Panama to remain competitive in changing global markets. This was part of Torrijos' overall goal of gaining autonomy, both politically and economically, from the United States. However, Torrijos quickly ran out of domestic funds to support these projects and secretly turned to private US investors for money. In doing so, he managed to achieve wide-spread industrialization but was forced to adhere to strict guidelines that benefited investors' interests. Thus, although his goal was economic development, the method of using American investors to fund his projects undermined the country's ultimate goal of independence.

However, sometimes the desired result is so essential for the good of a country's citizens that it must be achieved by any means possible. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, safety was of the utmost concern for President George W. Bush. In order to ensure the safety of his citizens, he enacted the "Patriot Act" which gave law enforcement officials the authority to carry out random searches of suspicious individuals; infringing on civilians' privacy rights. In this case the goal of safety was deemed so important, that it had to be achieved by any method possible.

Thus, it is the neccesity and urgency of the political goal that determines whether any means necessary can be used. When the goal at hand is small in comparison to other goals, methodology must be chosen carefully to ensure there are no negative consequences. However, when the desired result is absolutely essential for the safety of the population, than the end truly does justify the means.

 

Seabass,

Well done. There’s really not much I can say here other than to slow down a bit. Things felt rushed. If you’re having trouble with time, try to spend time planning out your ideas and examples before writing, if you aren’t already doing so. If you’re not running out of time but are simply being very concise, consider setting up your examples more fully, and explaining them more. It seems you’ve put thought into your arguments, but make sure you’re showing that to the grader by giving them enough words. This is hard advice to give when most of the time I suggest increasing conciseness, but if you read through your essay again you may also find that it develops and ends very quickly. Spending a bit more time explaining and relating your examples and arguments will slow it down a bit. Also try to relate your criteria back to your examples in task 3.

Score: 5.5/6

[anto12e]

Hi!

 

This was my first ever attempt at a mcat prompt, its not one of the one you specified but i hope that's fine. Realized half way in that I may have misinterpreted the prompt but just had to keep going! Thanks!!

 

 

 

New technologies often hide problems that are only revealed later.

 

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

 

Technological advances, whether it is the development of a new technology or an innovation of an existing one, are often beneficial to society. Some of their beneficial influence includes improved efficency of communications, through the use of internet and satellites, and they have provided a means to solve problems that were unconquerable in the past, such as moelling complex math theories. However with new technologies, presents future problems that are associated with it that are only revealed later on and may not be obvious at first. This is because as society becomes accustomed to the new technology, different applications and opportunities for a technology's use changes. Whether a new technology brings along hidden problems that are onl revaled later depends only society's interpretation of it's future praticallity and potential. For example, when DNA cloning techniques were first introduced, scientists praised of its ability to improve lab efficiency. Scientists were able to clone cells at will without having to through the labrorious procedures involved in isolating the particular cell. As society became accustomed to the new technology, a different interpretation of the uses of DNA cloning was revealed. Scienstists realized that DNA cloning have bigger applications in the world, in particular cloning living organism. This realization led to the creation of Dolly, a cloned sheep. With her creation, brough problems that were only revealed after her creation. When DNA cloning was first introduced it was praised upon, but this new technology only hid its' problematic potential of cloning organisms. This problem created ethical concerns over who had the rights to create life and what new problems would be revealed with its' application.

 

However, not all technologies will follow the path of DNA cloning. Many new technologies created do not serve a purpose beyond what it was intended for and many do not have any future praticallity or potential that hide problems that are only revealed later. Cellphones, for one, have only increased society's effiency and have solved problems rather than reveal future problems. Cell phones today are more than just a device that allows vocal communications to another person. They have provided instantenous access to the internet to allow the user to informed of the world as it happens, picture taking and music storage capabilities. Clearly these innovative features are not seen to have any other uses other than what they were intended for, to increase effiency for the user. Cell phones continual to amaze the world with its'integrated features that have yet to hide later problems.

 

What determines whether new technologies hide problems that are only revealed later on depend on its future praticallity and potential uses. Technologies that can be be interpreted in many ways run the risk of creating hidden problems. Such technologies reveal its benefits as uncontestant. A new technology that that has been created without a purpose beyond what it was intended for are safe to outweigh its benefits over potential problems, if any.

[kawalac]

"Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news."

 

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 news report might justifiably not be completely objective. Discuss what you think determines whether or not objectivity should be the primary goal of

news reporting.

 

A famous reporter one stated "the goal of journalism is to report the news, not produce it". In other words, the main goal of journalism should be to report the news as it is and not alter it in any way. If a news station frequently reports biased versions of the news, then the trust between the citizens and the news station will be lost. For example, during the 1990's, Japan was admist an economic crisis, and by 1991 the Japanese economy was on the verge of collapse. However, the news stations were prohibited by the government from reporting this to the people in order to prevent Japan from seeming weak. When the economy did collapse, many Japanese citizens lost everything they had as banks and other companies went into bankruptcy. This peroid of time in Japan was famously termed "The Lost Decade". This economic collapse could have been prevented if the citizens of Japan were able to react accordingly to the decline in banks and companies. Until recently, the citizens of Japan have been weary of the truth behind the information they receive from their news stations. Undoubtedly, if the news were presented objectively this catastrophe could have been avoided.

 

However, in certain circumstances a news report should not be completely objective. This is true when releasing the entire story can possibly result in harm to the nation. For instance, after the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Bush administration decided to step up security at airports and border crossings. The news reported that the government was taking steps in ensuring the protection of the people. but they did not reveal what exact steps were being taken. Releasing this information would have allowed terrorists to plan for the new advancements in security. Ultimately, this would have put the people of the nation at harm from future terrorist attacks. Because the news report did not relase all of the information, the report was not completely objective. However, this was necessary as being completing objective can sometimes cause harm to the public if sensitive information is revealed.

 

Ultimately, the safety of the nation must be taken into account when determining whether or not objectivity should be the primary goal of news reporting. If being objective and releasing all the pertinent information to the public can possibly cause harm to the public, then a news report should not be completely objective. For instaince, a news report should not release information pertaining to methods being employed at foiling terrorist attacks. If released, this information can possibly lead to harm being done to the public. On the other hand, if being completely objective in reporting the news will not lead to public harm, then the news report should be objective. Failing to report news objectively without a good reason for doing so can lead to mistrust between the people of a nation and the government. We are reminded of this by remnants of the "Lost Decade" in Japan. Therefore, news reports should always be objective unless doing so can possibly cause harm to the public.

[kawalac]

A just legal system is one that will risk freeing a guilty person before convicting an innocent one

 

When the constitution of the United States was devised in the 1800s, the founding fathers agreed to provide the citizens of the United States with freedom. This freedom was guarenteed in many facets of life. One of those guarentees was the right to a fair trial. In order for a trial to be considered "fair", a defendant must be given ample opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, the prosecution must prove beyond all doubt that the accused is in fact guilty of the charges being laid against him or her. This places the burden upon the prosecution in order to assure that the accused is in fact guilty. At times there may be insufficient evidence and a guilty person may be set free due to this technicality. However, it is better to allow a guilty man freedom than to take away the freedom of an innocent man. Because the constitution guarentees citizens freedom, this is how a just legal system should work, even though guilty people are undoubtedly set free. For instance, during the 1990s, a famous trial took place where O.J Simpson was accused of murdering his wife. Although most of the evidence was in favor of the prosecution, Simpson was acquitted of all charges once it was found out that police had tampered with the evidence at the scene of the crime. Because of this, the other evidence presented in court was nullified as its viability was put into question. Therefore, although Simpson may have been guilty, it would have been unjust to convict him of the crime knowing that the evidence had been tampered with and that he was not receiving a free trial.

 

However, when the nature of the crime is not very serious, then a just legal system can be one that risks punishing an innocent person in favor of catching more criminals. For instance, in small claims court, there is less of a "burden of proof" placed upon the plaintiff in terms of providing evidence. Rather than being forced to provide overwhelming evidence, as is the case with a murder, the plaintiff is only required to prove that it is likely that the defendant committed some type of wrong. This slight alternation in the legal system was originally put into place in order to prevent people from getting away with small crimes or thefts. Obviously, obtaining overwhelming evidence can be very difficult. If small claims court did not function this way, then criminals could use this "burden of proof" clause to their advantage. Committing a small theft or damaging someones property would be easy to get away with because the plaintiff would need to provide overwhelming proof. However, reducing the amount of proof required makes recovering damages much easier from a plaintiff's point of view. Therefore, although some innocent people will be found guilty, the result of conviction is not life altering.

 

Ultimately, it is the nature of the crime committed that determines whether or not a legal system is justified in taking the risk of freeing a guilty person. For instance, serious crimes such as murder should require a greater burden of proof because if a person is convicted of the crime, they will likely spend the rest of their life in jail. Although some guilty people will be set free, this is necessary in order to assure that an innocent person will retain his or her freedom. On the other hand, if the crime is small and can be settled in small claims court, then the court should reduce the burden of proof required for conviction. This will prevent guilty people from being set free, but will also lead to more innocent people being found guilty. However, the result of the conviction is usually not serious. The benefit of having this system in place outweighs the negative effect it may have on the few unlucky innocent people who are found guilty.

[shir312]

Heyo, I know I have some difficulty pulling off my examples but relating them back to the prompt, but hopefully I succeeded this time. Thanks for taking the effort to read this!

 

Education makes everyone equal

 

Education is a right that has been fought for for centuries. Defined as the information attained on various subjects such as language or science, it was originally deemed worthy for individuals of the highest ranks in society, such as royalty or upper class merchants. Then came the time where women fought for the right to have an equal education to that of men. Education is so fervently fought for because it is believed that through education, individuals can bring themselves out of the socioeconomic class they were born into and create a new one of their own through a new career or lifestyle that renders them equal to all others with an education as well. Countless individuals in history have proven this theory correct, with one of the most noted ones being Nelson Mandela. Being born into a family of farmers, it was through his education and passion for change that he was able to become a fervent advocate for equality in South Africa. He became educated in the ways of politics and finally was elected as the president of South Africa, eventually successfully eliminating the devastating apartheid that was enforced in the nation that placed black individuals inferior to South Africa's white inhabitants. Had Nelson Mandela not received this education, he has been known to state that he would not have been able to accomplish all that he has done so far, and would likely still remain a farmer like his parents.

 

However, there are other situations where education does not play a role in equalizing individuals. On a global scale, certain nations have different educational systems that teach their students various subjects at differing rates. While the quality of this education may be similar, it is the rate of learning that sets the students of one nation apart from another. An example of this is seen through direct comparisons between China's and Canada's educational systems. In the early 21st century, a study was done allowing an exchange of students entering second and third year in university between the two countries. It was seen that the students from China who arrived in Canada had far more knowledge than their peers from Canada, and were subsequently bumped up a year. Alternatively, students from Canada who were sent on exchange to China were bumped down a year to allow for a more appropriate education. Therefore we can see that on a global scale, students are not equalized by their education due to the different methods each country used to educate their students.

 

It is often difficult to determine when education makes individuals equal. However, the criterion that can often be used is that equality is produced when comparing the education of individuals of the same nation, but not when comparing those of separate nations. We can see that as was the case of Nelson Mandela's academic career, his education allowed him to not only be equal to his white peers, but also rise above them to promote equality amongst everyone in his country. Alternatively, in the study done comparing the education of students in China and Canada, we can see that education did not promote equality between the two groups of people, as the group from China was far more knowledgeable than their peers from Canada.

[7vrb]

Hello again! I'm posting some essays with other prompts from the practice tests I've been doing because my MCAT is on thursday!!

Thank you for your help!

 

 

 

Education comes not from books but from practical experience

 

 

Education in North America has attempted to get students more and more involved in their education. Instead of passively absorbing information from books, becoming involved stimulates the brain and encourages retention. Studies have shown that people tend to retain much more of the information aquired from doing something than the information aquired from reading. Therefore, education is usually much more affective when it comes from practical experience, rather than simply reading about a subject. An example of this is the study of anatomy. Although anatomy text books are quite detailed, it is difficult to grasp the layout of the body without seeing it for oneself. For this reason, university anatomy departments often have labs in which students dissect cadavers or are able to meticulously explore pre-dissected cadavers. This information is more easily understood and retained when students have a part in their own education through this type of practical experience.

 

Although for many subjects, practical experience is the best way to learn, there are other subjects that are too abstract or theoretical to teach through experience alone. Complex physics is an example of such a subject. Quantum mechanics, although widely recognized and accepted, is theoretical. It is based on complex mathmatics along with physical phenomena. A student cannot learn quantum mechanics by experience because the phenomena it describes is subatomic. The theory itself cannot be demonstrated through practical terms, it must be taught through math and physics equations. Such a subject, therefore, cannot readily be learned without the use of books.

 

Education must be a blend of both experience and involvment as well as the knowledge obtained from books. The question of the best means to educate depends on the subject matter being taught. Practical, skills based knowledge is best learned through personal experience while abstract, theoretical subjects require the lessons in books. For example, the practical study of anatomy is best done by hands on dissection of specimens while the complex theory of quantum mechanics requires understanding of mathmatical formulas from textbooks and cannot be readily experience in order to learn.

[7vrb]

This is another prompt from a practice test!

Again, thank you SO much!

 

 

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

 

The scientific community is bound by rules of ethics. Before an experiment or study is to proceed, it must be approved so that no threat to human life exists. Scientific progress has made many discoveries that have benefitted humans as a whole, however no discovery, even if it were to benefit many, can justify violating human rights to life. During World War II a doctor in the Auschwitz Nazi concentration camp was known as the "Angel of Death" due to his morbid scientific experiments performed on the prisoners. The doctor has a facination with twins and his experimentations resulted in the deaths of hundreds of pairs of twins throughout his time at the camp. After the war, the doctor was wanted as a war criminal due his numerous human rights violations.

 

Although it is essential that scientific discovery protects human rights, many studies have resulted in the deaths of participants. Subjects must consent to the risks of the study prior to participation. Many studies dealing with new medications can have unknown repercussions due to interactions with the drug that could not have been forseen. An example of the is the development of a serotinin agonist drug to help with appetite suppression. Because obesity is becoming an epidemic in North America this drug had high hopes. Unfortunately, a few participants died due to a dramatic decrease in blood pressure that was not predicted. Although the deaths are a tragedy, is has moved the development of the drug one step further. All new trials for medications have a slight risk of death because many reactions are unpredictable. However, if it were the case that no new medications were able to be tested for fear of this risk, there would be few fully developed medications available for use today.

 

Scientific discovery must find a balance between the ability to actually produce medicines using human trial while still coveting human life. What is essential in the determination of when the threat to life is tolerable is the elective participation of the subjects. If subjects are aware of the risks and voluntarily participate than the threat is tolerable. In such a case as the serotinin agonist experiment, participants made their own decision on whether to risk their lives. However, in any case that participants are forced into an experiment or not informed of the risks, such as in the Auschwitz concentration camp, this is absolutely a violation of human rights and cannot be tolerated.

[yeti187]

Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to help us out.

 

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

 

It is universally agreed that safety and well being of human beings is important value for human civilization. Throughout history people have struggled to achieve basic level saftey and security. AS a result one must expect a nations government to uphold values of safety and security in order to protects it citizens. Consider for example the road building industry. Private companies are hired by the government to build roads and highways. Such construction are an integral part of modern life. As a result one must expect severe regulation and oversight from the government in order to insure a safe roadways. If say a Highway construction company builds a road that collapases under heavy traffic the human and economical damages would be enormous. Logically one can conclude that the government must regulate all necessary industries in order to protect its citizens.

 

Despite all of this, there are cases where government intervention can cause nothing but harm to it people. The downside of government meddling in private industries is that government is unaware of the complexity of an industry. For example, the telecommunications industry in now a integral part of modern life. The telecommunications industry is growing at a very large past. In fact many expert cannot begin to imagine the innovations that can come in the future. In such a situation, if government tries to regulate an industry it will harm by limiting it innovative capabilities.

 

So when should government regulate an industry? To answer this question one must look a two important criteria. One is the degree danger an industry has on the people. As in the case of road construction, lack of governmental oversight results in loss of life and signifcant damage to other industries. Another important criterion is the level complexity that an industry. As in the case of telecommunications, the industry is evolving at such a fast rate that any regulation would harm and limits its growth.

[yeti187]

Another prompt. Thanks again.

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means

In a representative democracy, politicians lead a nation by the virtue of their constituency. As a result, one would expect campaign promises to be of utmost importance to politicians and the voters. In order to prove themselves politicians must try to achieve their political goals. Because of this, many political actions violate moral and ethical principles for the sake political victory. A brief look at history reveals that many politicians have committed criminal acts for the just and noble causes. For example, the United State engaged in war with vietnam to restore peace. However, the Vietnam war resulted in tremendous death and destruction and a defeat for the United States.

 

Despite of this, there are many cases instances where political action results in justifiable means. Consider the american civil rights movement which was achieved by various acts of civil disobedience. Normally, civil disobedience causes chaos and it is not an socially ethical action. However, in this case civil disobedience resulted in justifiable means such as equality. Not all political action are immoral, in fact some political actions by there very nature are ethical.

 

In order to understand determines a justifiable political action, one must consider all the paths that lead to goal. In politics, an action can be classified as justifiable and moral if all the peaceful means have been exhausted. As in the case of war, if peaceful negotiations are not engaged, then a war is by no means justifiable. Politicians must commit an action if and only if all the peaceful means of achieving that goal has been executed.

[dcadieux]

Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news

 

As we drive to work in the morning, we listen to 60 second news updates; when we come home, we turn on the television to be greeted by our favourite newscaser. Everywhere there is media, there are headlines that inform us on the latest and most exciting events in the world. It has been well documented that the media has a tremendous influence on the public. This is evident in the sucess of fast food comercials to increase buisness, and the ability of automobile companies to increase sales by placing an attractive women next to their vehicle. In the case of reporting the news, objectivity should be the primary concern so that the opinions and believes of the target population are not influenced by the content. In the case of a political election, newcasers must be extremely cautions not to show favouritism or dislike to any particular candidate. If a lead anchor for the presidential election was racist and did not want Barack Obama to become the next American president, this individual must refrain from revealing their personal beliefs when reporting the details of the election. Even the tone and body language of reporters must remain neutral becasue the audience is a moldable population accustom to agreeing with the information presented to them.

There are instances however, when the opinion of a radio personality, newpaper writer, or television anchor is one that is felt by the entire population they are reporting to. In the case of the 9/11 terrorist attack, the entire United States what struck with horror and disbelieve that their country was under attack. In these monumental moments in history, the primary goal of reporting the news should be to inform the public on the situation that are unfolding before them. There is no argument that the USA was under terroist attack and therefore; there is no reason for the news to be objective. It would be an insult to American citizens for the media to represent the terrorists side of the story.

Everyday, the worlds populations are surrounded by media and daily news. This influential power is capable of changing the views, likes, dilikes, and desires of those who consume it. When reporting the news on topics that are open to debate, reporters must be as objective as possible. This ensures that the opinions of the listeners are not being swayed by the views of a particular individual or company. Sometimes however, events may occur which produce the same emotion is everyone in a population. In the case of terrorism, such as 9/11 in the USA, the primary concern of the news should be to update and inform citizens. There is no debate that a tragedy has occured. Any newscaster, even though a very influential individual, should be encouraged to reveal the same hurtful and pained emotions felt by every citizen in the country.

[simmonsoff]

The way the consumer receives news about the world has been changed forever. As a result of the internet and satellites, news is accessible to mostly everyone at any time in the day. This has lead to competition between news organizations for viewers and readers. Consequently, objectivity is not the main concern for most new organizations anymore as the number of viewers or readers has usurped the position of most important concern. No organization seems to demonstrate this fact as much well as Fox News. The network claims to deliver unbiased news on all of its news programs. However, at supper time, the time of day that most people watch television to get the news, the Fox News network does not air news programs but opinion-based programming. The reason that this is done is to drive the ratings up. Both Bill O’Reiley and Glenn Beck are powerful personalities that know how to put on a “good” show. However, both of these men are very biased and only show their opinion. Due to this, the viewers of their programs get the news about world events only from the opinion of these very bias and at time manipulative men. Fox News does not worry though because the company profits are kept very high.

BBC is the polar opposite of Fox News. It has a wide reach across the world, while Fox News mainly serves the United States; the BBC also has an esteemed reputation for reporting all of the facts about a story, not just one side. The BBC has been around for a very long time and has had time to build up a following. This has resulted in BBC to be able to focus on delivering the news in a traditional sense, with an anchor speaking formally to the audience and not by pointing out secret messages on chalkboards, and keep objectivity as its primary goal whole reporting the news.

The 24 hour news cycle is easily the worst symptom of the latest technological revolution. Before the 1990s it was only possible to access the news at a regularly scheduled time. With the invention of the internet and satellite television, people can now get the news at any moment. But for all of these organizations to make money and be sustainable they need to make money. In order to make money, many news organizations play on our primal emotions , mainly fear. As a result, a lot of news that is delivered is very sensationalized and not overly thorough. Because of this quick delivery of sexed up news many important events and issues are not given proper exposure to the general public. Ironically, if one wants to hear about many different issues they are forced to turn the Comedy Network. This network is the home of Jon Stewart who makes a living off pointing out the many flaws of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. Stewart also delivers the news about the days events from another perspective that these organizations do not. However, it is important to remain vigilante and realize that in today’s world where news organizations are not driven by a desire to learn the truth, but by the need to make money, the viewer must take the time to watch many different news coverages in order to get the total story.

[simmonsoff]

Politicians are faced with many tough decisions. These decisions can lead to the use of questionable methods in working towards the desired goal. In times of civil unrest, the end result does justify the means used to gain the desired result. This theory was exemplified in 1970 by the government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. The FLQ, Front de Liberation de Quebec, was a group that was dedicated to gaining Quebec independence from Canada. Throughout the 1960s the FLQ was responsible for many bombings targetting the Canadian government and Anglophones living in the Montreal area. At the beginning of October 1970, the FLQ kidnapped an English diplomat and a Quebec politician in an attempt to blackmail the Canadian government. Trudeau responded by implementing the War Measures Act. This was the first time that this Act was used outside of a war. The implementation of the War Measures Act allowed the government to arrest anyone that they suspected of committing a crime and holding them for as long as they deemed necessary; it also gave the military powers over civil affairs that it would not normally have. By implementing the War Measures Act, Trudeau gave the RCMP enough power to finally arrest and demolish the FLQ. Also, the Act allowed for the military to be deployed in Montreal and Ottawa. This show of force by the government- that would not have been possible otherwise- helped calm down the Canadian public during this unique crisis. Indeed this unique relic of the World Wars helped the Canadian government deal with a tough crisis, through unique means.

During the Vietnam War, the United States had a very hard time finding enough soliders to serve in the Military. Like their Canadian cousins, the US government decided to turn to methods used in previous wars to solve the crisis. In this case, the US government reimplemented the draft to ensure there were enough soldiers in the military. This policy backfired and resulted in a great deal of civil unrest. There was many protests against the draft on College campuses and in major cities across the United States. Also, this policy lead to a significant proportion of recruits to become addicted to drugs once they reached South East Asia. Many soldiers turned to the herion and marijuana to help calm their nerves, as these drugs were easily accessible overseas. With little support back home and soldiers who were scared for their lives and under the influence of drugs, the U.S was unable to win the Vietnam War; even though the military was able to recruit enough men to serve. Thus the draft demonstrated that having enough men was not sufficent. The military needed more than numbers to fill their ranks but the draft could only supply numbers.

The decisions faced by politicians are not for the faint at heart. However, these strong willed people must realize that they are responsible for upholding the ideals of the entire nation. In the free and democratic nations of the world, it is imperative that the government does not abandon the morals of the nation to achieve a certain goal. However, at times it is necessary for the government and the nation as a whole to turn a blind-eye to certain fundamental rights. As demonstrated by Trudeau and all of Canada during the FLQ crisis it may be necessary to respond to aggressive, unprecedented tactics in a similar manner. But at the same time, it is of upmost importance that this does not become the norm. If the government is having difficulty hiring people for a certain job they cannot force its citizens to do it against their own free will. Only in times of severe crisis will the ends justify the means and even then, the government must make sure that this power is not abused and is abolished the second it is not required.

[Danielle123]

Hi Sameer,

Thanks for grading my essay! This is my first attempt so I am hoping it is not too awful.

 

Prompt: Education makes everyone equal.

 

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 education does not make everyone equal.

Discuss what you think determines whether or not education makes everyone equal.

 

Instructions:

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

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

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

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

 

Education makes everyone eaual in a develpoed society. Where a developed soceity can be defined as the ability to receive an education non discrimentory of your ethnicity, gender or relgion. Furthermore, for education to be a true equator, one much be able to put their education to use once in the workforce. For example Maud Menton was the first Candaian women to receive a graduate degree in the sciences in the early 1900's, which resulted in a well known discovery in enzyme kinetics. Her famous discovery was a serious of experiments resulting in the Michaleous-Menton equation which is still used today to calculate many properties of enzymes. Thus the reader can see that when all citizens are permitted to be educated great discoveries can be obtained.

 

On the other hand, education is nearly rendered useless when one cannot use the education they have obtained because of societal restrictions. An example of where societal retrictions have imposed upon education is Aung San Suu Kyi. Aung San Suu Kyi is a well educated women who resides in Burma. Kyi actually won the Burmenese election for presidency in 1990, but has been denied her position for 20 years because of the current Burma government the Junta. The Junta are a military dictaroship that have put Kyi under house arrest for 20 years in fear of Kyi using her education and knowledge to bring fourth a democracy in Burma. Thus Kyi's education has been unable bring equality to Burma because of societal restrictions.

 

The determining factor in whether or not education makes everyone equal is the soceity one resides in. For the society one resides in determines the usefullness of your education once in the workforce. For example, Menten was able to live up to her education because the society she lived in was accepting of her contributions to society. On the other hand, Kyi has not been able to fullfill the full potential of her education because of the societal restrictions of the junta. In conclusion, education is a powerfull tool in a society that allows you to carry out all that you have learned.

[the stranger]

Hey Sameer! Sorry this is really late... I just got on top of things now!

 

 

"In politics, the end rarely justifies the means."

 

 

Parents always tell you that there are two things that you should never speak about in the company of people you do not know – politics and religion. Politics can be an upsetting subject to some, as there are many different viewpoints one can take. This being said, many people would agree on the above statement. This statement shows a mistrust of political action, and says that while the end may be indisputably positive, the means through which a goal is achieved may not be justifiable. For example, take the war on terrorism in the United States. Over the past couple years there have been stories of torture and inhumane methods, both from the opposition and the U.S.A itself. Most memorably, there were reports that came out of Abu Gharib, which prooved that torture and inhumane acts were being used to obtain information from detainees. Undoubtedly, the means of obtaining this information was wrong.

 

However, exceptions occur when political action uses peaceful methods to solve problems. Take, for example, the BP oil spill that occurred just months ago. President Obama has been taking a hard line against BP Oil, demanding that there be compensation for the communities affected, aid in cleaning the environments near destruction, and quick action on stopping the oil spill itself. While the wheel has been slow in turning, the spill has been stopped, motions to clean environments and save animals are well under way, and communities are being assessed for the level of reimbursement they need. Notably, President Obama and those that work for him have been using words and legal action to elicit this response.

 

Therefore, the end result of a political action does not justify the means when illegal actions are taking place. In the case of Abu Gharib, illegal and inhumane treatment of prisoners may have given the information the soldiers were looking for, but it was unjustifiable as it broke international and national laws. However, as shown in the case of the BP oil spill, while many stories occur in which scandals and horrific events occur, political means can be achieved through humane and lawful action.

 

Hi Kalie,

 

Great essay overall. I like how you draw in the reader’s attention with a unique first sentence, and keep that attention by being succinct yet thorough. There’s not much I can say in terms of constructive criticism, except that you could spend a couple extra minutes going back over your essay to tighten up your sentence structure and word choice in some places. There are a couple instances where a more sophisticated tone could work better for overall effect.

Score: 5.5/6

[the stranger]

Employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace. (prompt #1)

 

Millions of people across the country get up every Monday morning and head to work. Some of these people have large comfortable offices, where others work on assembly lines with hundreds of other people. At work some people have the same privacy they do at home; their own space, quiet, and the ability to do what they want with it. Others are forced to share their workspace and have very little privacy. In professions based on individual work, it is important for the employees to have the same privacy they do a home. An example of this would be an accounting firm. The accountants here have individual work to do, and will be the most efficient if there are little distractions. This is why most accountants have their own, private workspace.

 

Privacy is nice, but it doesn’t always promote the most efficient work. Jobs where people are constantly working together require less privacy and more interaction. An example of this would be a McDonalds or other fast food restaurant. If all the employees were separated it would take too long for a single order to be assembled. Each employee has a specific job (make the hamburgers, fries, drinks, or take orders), and if they were all separated then they couldn’t work together effectively. Although privacy provides less distraction, in some professions it is not effective.

 

Everyone wishes that they could have privacy at work, but this isn’t always the most efficient way to run a business. The employees should have the same privacy they do at home if the job requires individual work. If the job is more inclined to teamwork, then privacy is not justifiable. Could you imagine working as an accountant in a room of 20? Or working at a McDonalds where the fries, hamburgers, and drinks were all made in separate rooms? The importance of privacy in the work place is dependant on the nature of the profession.

 

Hey wes.90,

Interesting take on this prompt. You’re the first person that has written about physical privacy at work, rather than the issues of employee monitoring by employers, etc. Your examples are a bit general; more specific examples would strengthen your arguments. Not much else to say except that the best scores are usually attained by providing a deeper, more thoughtful exploration of the topic (looking at some of the broader issues, or more profound implications). These types of essays are usually looked highly upon by AAMC graders. Still a well written essay that hits all the major points.

Score: 4.5/6