Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[the stranger]

Education makes everyone equal (Prompt #2)

 

Every year, millions of our tax dollars are spent on education. There is such a large emphasis on the importance of education as it is believed to give everyone and equal chance of success. One area of education that makes everyone equal are certification programs for certain skills. An example of this is a standard first aid course. In order to pass the course you must demonstrate that you have learned how do treat various minor injuries. Everyone who passes this course can do this and is therefore equal in the area of first aid. You can do it or you can’t, there is no grey area. It is clear that skill certification programs produce people of equal standing in that specific area.

 

On a more general scale, all education doesn’t necessarily make everyone equal. This is exemplified in the secondary school education systems. Throughout high school, every student responds differently to the teachers, pursues different interests, and works at a different pace. Upon graduation, everyone in the class is different. Some are moving on to university, others are learning a trade, and some may not know exactly where they are going. This is because the teacher presents the material in one way and every student interoperates it in his or her own way. General education does not produce equal graduates.

 

Although the goal of education is to give everyone an equal chance, it doesn’t always accomplish this. Education makes everyone equal if it is for a very specific skill, but if it is general education it produces a wide variety of people. Everyone who successfully completes a first aid course knows the material and is equally useful in an accident. On the contrary any given high school graduate could be doing something completely different from the next. Education is very important, but doesn’t always make everyone equal.

 

Here you’ve shown an understanding of the topic by talking about different types of education and how they may or may not equalize their recipients. However once again, a deeper examination of the broader implications of this prompt (i.e. how education has the power to bring equality to people on a social level, in general) would yield a higher score, as well as providing more specific examples. Check out some of the other responses and my comments for this prompt for some other approaches, noting the higher scoring essays especially.

Score: 4/6

[the stranger]

Hi again! I'm SO glad you are willing to critique other posts - this is my weakest area so I'm glad I'm getting lots of feedback! This is one from one of the full practice MCATs I've done:

 

 

One should always tell the truth.

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 one should not tell the truth. Discuss what you think determines whether or not one should tell the truth.

 

"Honesty is the best policy" is a well known proverb. Being truthful is a well-esteemed quality to posses, those who are honest are often the most repected. Telling the truth often depicts you as a brave, moral, trustworthy person which, as a whole, lead to a better image and possibly more success in society. As such, it is usually best to always tell the truth. Even if it means putting oneself in a negative light, it is usually best for all involved if the truth of a situation is known. For example, in court cases, perpetrators are often given a lighter sentance if they plead guilty right off the bat as opposed to being proven guilty after consistantly asserting otherwise. This act can be seen as brave and can show that the perpetrator is aware of his wrong doings and is willing to accept the consequences. Honesty is rewarded in many situations such as this.

 

However the truth can be used for malice. It is often the tactic of an army to take prisoners of war and torture them to get information on enemy troops. Some prisoners cave to this torture and release information that gives the enemy an advantage resulting in the deaths of many. However, some prisoners are able to resist and, even if it leads to their own death, do not disclose important information or give false information. They essentially protect their country by being dishonest or not revealing the truth.

 

Honesty is the best policy depending on the situation in which it is being requested. When all involved and society would benefit from the truth it is important that it is disclosed. It can even benefit someone who is at fault if they are shown to be honest such as in some criminal trials. However, when the truth is being used for wrong, such as to perpetuate a war, it is best to not disclose the truth. People can be protected from harm by lying, therefore, in such cases, dishonesty is the best policy.

 

Hey 7vrb,

Your essays are well written and show some depth of thought; however you need to provide more specific examples in order to unlock higher scores. Drawing from general examples and the hypothetical will limit you to 4.5 at best, and you want to push that consistently up to a 5 or higher. Try to spend more time planning and think of stronger examples to really illustrate your arguments.

Score : 4.5/6

[the stranger]

Here's another one: again thank you SO much!

 

Politicians should never compromise their principles

 

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 politician should compromise. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a politician should compromise.

 

In a democracy, politicians are elected because their political principles concur with the principles held by the majority of the people they are going to represent. A politician’s principles can be political or personal. Political principles are ideas such as the political regime they support, be it Conservative, Liberal, Democrat or Republican, and their beleifs for healthcare or environmental policies. Personal principles might be their affiliation with a certain religion, or something else that does not involve government. A politician should not compromise their principles for which they were elected. Their job is to represent the principles of the majority and therefore they cannot compromise those principles without compromising that representation. President George W. Bush began the war on terrorism against Iraq because of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City. Although this war would result in the deaths of many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, he refused to compromise the American principle of anti-terrorism by letting terrorism go unpunished.

 

Although politicians must support and represent the principles of their people, they should not let their personal principles get in the way of this representation. Dalton McGuinty, the premiere of Ontario, legalized same-sex marriages in 2005, despite the fact that it went against his personal beleifs. As a member of the Catholic Church, McGuinty was opposed to same-sex marriage, however he compromised his principles in order to give fair representation to the people of Ontario.

 

Politicians must find a balance between upholding their political principles and personal principles. It is important that politicians uphold the principles of the country or area they are representing in order to give a strong message, as when Bush decided to uphold the American principle of anti-terrorism despite the repercusions on American soldiers. However when it comes to a politicians personal principles, it is important that they do not get in the way of representing the majority. Dalton McGuinty allowing same-sex marriages in Ontario is an example of this. A politician should not compromise their principles when those principles are integral to a country's beliefs, however a politician should set aside his principles if they are of a personal nature and do not represent the principles of the people he or she represents.

 

This was better. Specific examples, more concrete reasoning, and a thoughtful exploration of the topic. The only suggestion I would make is to go back and read your sentences to check for clarity: some of your sentence structure was less than optimal. As well try to avoid using examples that deal with controversial topics. This is a general rule of thumb that we suggest to every student. It worked out well for you here but always be cautious.

Score: 5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Good to hear from you again crazyflower. Excellent essay. I would only say that you should be sure to explain the significance of your example (i.e. #2), even if it may say seem self evident. You should always have at least a sentence or two that ties the example to its relevance. As well, your criteria are good but should be clearly stated so that there is no question as to your reasoning. Overall a great piece of writing.

Score: 5.5/6 <- very close to being the first 6/6 on this thread 

[seabass]

This is a prompt from a practice MCAT I did. I was hoping you would still take the time to look it over.

Thanks so much in advance!!!

 

Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction

 

Use of communication technology has proven to be a slippery slope for many users. Though developed, presumably, to enhance human communication, in many situations its use now replaces actual face-to-face interaction. A recent study published by the Globe and Mail found University-age students to be 70% less empathetic and communicative than their counterparts of only 20 years ago. This seems counterintuitive when considering the amount of time young people spend communicating online via the internet. Social networking sites such as facebook and chat applications such as MSN messenger allow the user to engage in multiple conversations simultaneously. However, conversations take the form of short, superficial "wall-posts" or "tweets" and therefore cannot replace the benefits gleaned from an in-depth, intimate conversation with another human being. Thus, although the quantity of interactions has most certainly increased, it has been at the expense of the quality of these interactions.

 

However, there remain situations in which advancements in technology have provided communication options where previously there were none. In today's globalized world, family members are often split apart for long periods of time as job requirements and educational opportunities take people all over the world. A recent study found a dramatic increase in the use of Skype, a video-chat application, among senior citizens. One can only assume this has allowed older, possibly immobile, skype users to see their children and grandchildren via webcam. It is clear that this is a more intimate alternative to a mere phone conversation between family members-- particularly when there is a newborn baby that must be shown off to adoring grandparents.

 

Thus, it is apparant that there is a time and place for the use of communication technology. When use of communication technology becomes so all-consuming that it replaces face-to-face interaction, it is obvious the quality of human interaction is decreased. However, when the alternative is none or limited communication, the advancement of communication technology has clearly increased the quality of human interaction.

[ayinniya]

Education comes not from books but from practical experience

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

 

There are many ways in which individuals can learn. You can go to a classroom and listen to a professor talk about information, you can read a book, you can search the internet, or you could experience it first hand. But which mode of receiving information educates us the best? The statement, “Education comes not from books but from practical experiences,” means that we learn from what we do not what we read. It implies that we take in more by experiencing life first hand than by reading about what someone else wrote about it. We all learn in different ways some methods work better for some than they do for others.

Take for example Craig Kielburger, the founder of Free the Children. When Craig was young he read an article in a newspaper about a boy in the middle east who did not have enough water to drink. The article really spoke to Craig and made him want to do something about it. Soon Craig started fundraising to build water wells where they needed it and brought awareness to children’s needs around the world. That one newspaper article gave him enough information for Craig to know that he had to do something to make a change. Craig had not experienced what it had felt like to live without enough water or food to know exactly what that boy was going through, but the article taught him enough about the situation that he knew he had to act on it. In this case what Craig learned from reading proved to be sufficient to teach him what he needed to know. Though of course Craig further educated himself by traveling to countries in need, the first thing that educated him on the situation was a newspaper.

What determines when practical experience provides a better education than books do depends on what each individual takes from both reading and experiences. Many people had read the same article that Craig had read, but they did not choose to take as much action as Craig did. This could have been because other people did not really grasp what the article was talking about or they could have considered it as just more bad news of things going on across the world. So in some cases you can have many people reading the same books with a few of them being well educated on the book’s subject matter and others not. The same goes for practical experiences. A group of people can travel to an impoverished country and really learn from the experience and try to do something about it when they return home; others can go on the same trip just for the sake of going on the trip, and not take in the importance of their trip at all. So education can come from both books and practical experiences, which provides a better education all depends on the student.

 

 

Hi Sameer thanks for critiquing these essays =)

[sarup]

Thanks for the help!

 

"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.

 

 

The goal of any journalist should be to report, as much as possible, the news in such a way that all facts are

presented and are unaltered in any way by the journalists or the newspapers own opinions. If this is to occur, it

is quite possible that numerous people could be adversely affected. Take for example the case of North Korea. In a

country where much of the news is modified by teh government, very few people can et access to the truth. As a result,

many North Korean citizens are unaware of international news and the oppurtunities that may exist elsewhere. They

are led to believe that every decision made by their leader is correct and that there are no reprcussions to any of

their governements decsion. This of course, is false, and the alteration of facts has negatively affected the

population.

 

Of course, there do exist exceptions. For example, there exist sitautions where reproting the facts could cause

more harm than good. Take the case of the Maryland sniper. During the investigation of thesniper, papers reproted

only a small amount of the facts. The reason for this was to prevent copycats from imitating the original crimes as

well as to prevent the actual sniper from changing tactics. In this case, the lack of objective reproting prevented

a case from becoming to complicated and much more dangerous than it already was.

 

In the end, what should determine when objectivity should be the primary goal of reporting should be whether

withholding or altering facts helps rather than harms. In the case of the Maryland sniper, witholding information

led to more good than if the news was reported objectively. Whereas in the case of a sensational murder,

objective news reports could create undue influence on a jury and cloud their judgement. As a result, objective

should only be done when the resulting facts benefit the people.

[shin]

Hi Sameer,

 

Here are a couple of writing samples I did during one of the practice MCATs I wrote. I'm curious to how I would have fared on them.

 

Here is the first prompt

 

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

 

My response:

 

The phrase "With great power, comes great responsibility." is taken from a comic book, Spiderman, referring to the dangers of allowing such powers to go unchecked. In the developed world, one of the greatest powers that exist is the government. Because of the dangers that exist when allowing powers to remain idle, it is true that, to an extent, governments have a responsibibility to regulate companies that provide necessary service to citizens. Companies are defined as organizations whose purpose is to make a profit from the sales of products or services. Regulation refers to governmental standards that companies must follow. A necessary service is one in which a large majority of the population can not function without. A recent example of this can be seen in the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill, which continues to leak millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico as this essay is being written. It is the biggest oil spill in all of history. The Obama administration and US government were lambasted because of their slow response to the spill. In this instance, citizens were upset because the government was not doing enough to regulate BP and to fix this disaster. This disaster is particularly important for government intervention because the oil leak has resulted in ecological damage, loss of fishing industries, and a potential to damage the health of peoples living in the area.

 

Although it is quite important for governments to regulate such a company as BP, it is not true that governments must regulate all companies that provide necessary services with such rigor. Recently, the computer company, Apple, released its new cellular phone, iPhone 4. This marvel of the technological world was not without its flaws. Almost immediately after its release date, there were complaints of poor reception and dropped calls when the phone was held in a specific way. This was confirmed by the product review company, consumer reports, as well. However, despite this, there are no outcries to the government to fix this product, nor should there be.

 

Apple provides the necessary service of selling telephones, which everyone uses. However, it is not the governments responsibilty to ensure these phones meet a certain standard. It is however, the government's responsibility to ensure that in BPs provision of oil to citizens, they are not endangering the planet nor the people living in it. The key differences in these examples is that if a service has the potential to endanger citizens, then the government has an obligation to regulate the company providing that service. However, if a service is does not have this potential danger, then governments are free from this obligation.

 

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

 

Here is the second prompt I encountered during the test. (I found this one considerably harder)

 

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

 

Here's my response:

 

It is true, that politicians who have learned the art of compromise can achieve their political goals. Politicians are people in or running for government office positions and compromise is the notion of giving up on certain values, which are upheld by the politician. Although viewed as being extremely liberal or even socialist, especially for an American, one of Barack Obama's stances in his run for presidency was that he would not retreat from Afghanistan. Although Obama prefered peace, and would rather not have any American troops fighting or defending, he compromised on this position and said if he were to become president, the American presence in Afghanistan would stay. With this compromise, he was successful in gaining the majority votes in the US and became the president of the United States of America.

 

However, this is not always the case. For example, despite many objections Conservative leader and Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, lowered taxes for wealthier Canadians as well as decreasing funding to health care and educational programs. Despite this, Harper has been successful in avoiding proroguing and remaining Canadian Prime minister. Stephen Harper has not compromised his position.

 

The main differences in what politicians should compromise and don't need to compromise to find political success lies in the scope of their actions. If their actions involve other countries or are international in nature, as in Obama's decision to stay in Afghanistan, then they need to consider not only their own country but how other countries will be affected as well. This, often, requires compromise. However, when the actions are merely affect those within their nation, then politicians no longer need to worry about compromise as much, since they have already gained political power within that nation.

 

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

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to look at so many people's essays. You're really doing a great service here.

[snap10]

"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.

 

It is often said that knowledge is the key to the future. Education, whether it be based on information or values gained through experience, puts everyone on an even playing field. From the view of education based on informational value, every student leaves school with the same knowledge as their peers. The goal of the teachers in these settings are to provide the students with the basics of all subjects to help them further their education. For example, currently in progress in the United States is an attempt to unify the curriculum in all the States across the country. This is trying to be implemented for both elementary and secondary schools, and a reward is being granted to the states that comply or agree to follow the curriculum. This includes, the textbooks that will be used, programs that are being implemented and the basic knowledge that each student should leave their grade level with. In this case, the education that is being provided to the students is the same as that being provided to their peers. Therefore, in a situation where the knowledge being provided is the same, as well as the same opportunities are presented to each individual, education makes every individual equal.

 

Although, a unified curriculum across a country for elementary and secondary schools provides an equal chance for all students to have access to information, there are times when education does not make every equal. As the level of education increases from secondary to post-secondary and further, there is much more than simply information that can be extracted from the education provided. In post-secondary school, there are many expectations to gain values as well as information from the education provided. In these cases, it is no longer the responsibility of the teacher or instructor to provide all levels of education to a student. In this case, the individual needs to take more out of the education than what the instructor may provide. This causes a difference between the education that some individuals might obtain over others. In such a situation, education does not make everyone equal. This is demonstrated in the field of business, where the career opportunities are currently very low in the United States and many students out of college and Universities are having trouble finding careers. In these instances, values that can have been learned or taken from post-secondary or extra-curricular activities can provide an advantage to those who possess them over those who have simply taken informational education from their schooling. In sum, for individuals in higher conditions of education, more can be taken from the learning environment provided than just knowledge.

 

The debate of whether education makes everyone equal or not is a difficult one to resolve. However, it is dependent on the level of the education a person is attaining as well as the type of education this person takes away from their schooling. In the example of elementary and secondary schooling, the goal is to standardize the curriculum to allow all students to have a fair and equal chance of further education. In comparison, once in post-secondary education, there is less emphasis on individuals learning information from their instructors and more emphasis on the values that they can take from an independent form of education. In sum, whether or not education makes everyone equal is dependent upon the level of education of the individual as well as the teaching environment in which they are learning.

[akv]

Thanks Sameer, here is my response for prompt #4.

 

 

Glenn Beck, a popular fox news icon, once told viewers that Barack Obama a racist. The questions I would ask in response are: Should these concentrated right wing beliefs be considered news? Is Mr. Beck doing justice to his role as a newscaster. The consensus amongst most would say that in contrast to Glenn Beck's style, a reporters goal in presenting the news is to be as objective and unbiased as possible.

 

For the most part, this would be true. But there are some instances, such as the presentation of a new news item, in which the goal of the reporter is not to be unbiased, but instead to grab attention. For example, if a new discovery in science is first being reported, the public shouldn't be bored by the fact that the research is in preliminary stages, they should be exited by the discovery. However once that idea has caught on, and is part of normal public conversation, the need for objectivity sets in. Once the the attention of the public has been gained, the public will be best informed when they get the news in an unbiased fashion and form opinions on their own.

 

btw, can I get marked on other prompts or just the latest one?

 

Thanks

[snap10]

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.

 

The result of actions that deny people their rights often are not necessary to attain the desired political goal. In some situations, while trying to protect the rights of one group of people, the rights of others can be violated. For example, in France, they are currently in the process of passing a law banning the use of head scarves for religious purposes. If the law is passed, it can result in fines and imprisonment of the individual in question of breaking the law. In this case, the French government is attempting to protect the French culture by preventing other religious backgrounds from expressing their beliefs in public. However, for the women who must wear head scarves in accordance to their religion and beliefs, this is a violation of their right to have their own beliefs and express them. This is a situation in which the rights of the women are being violated to keep a nation’s culture. The French government is trying to control a situation which can often cannot be controlled but is simply a result of a country’s evolution and the people that are living there. The result of a unified culture in France does not justify the violation of a person’s right to express their beliefs and dress as they please.

 

Although, in the case of the ban on head scarves in France is an example of when the result of an action does not justify the action itself, there are times when questionable means can be used to accomplish a goal. For example, during the French Revolution, the French population were denied basic rights by the King, while other countries in Europe had followed the wave of the Enlightenment. At the time, the people of France were undermined, worked until they could not anymore, and had to answer to Lord’s who owned them. Under the pressure of such oppression, they decided to take over the throne, and killed many people in the process of doing so. They killed noblemen in their sleep, took the King, held him prisoner and eventually killed him and his wife, Marie Antoinette, as well. In this case, extreme measures were used, however, the end result was a necessary step for France in the direction of freedom of the people. In sum, the actions of the French people were justified by the fact that they were deeply oppressed and had no other options but to revolt in order to attain freedom from the oppression.

 

The debate of whether the end justifies the means in politics is a difficult one to resolve. However, it is dependent on whether the situation is one that can be changed and whether there are other options, that may be less questionable, available to arrive at the same objective. In the example of the ban on head scarves, the French government is violating a right that is being given to all other citizens of the country, in order to keep the French culture intact. Not only are they segregating one group of people, they are using questionable measures to control the culture of a country, which often cannot be controlled. In comparison, in the example of the French Revolution, the people of France did not have any other option but to revolt in order to gain their freedom from the King and the oppression that was forced upon them by the King’s noblemen and Lords. In sum, whether or not questionable means can be used to attain a political goal, comes down to whether there are other options that can be taken to make a change and whether the situation can actually be controlled.

[jab4eva]

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

 

News should be reported with a high degree of accuracy in order to engage public attention about national crisis, breakthroughs and advancements. For any news reporting agents, the primary goal is to report the news without any attempt distortion of the news and all news should be closely examined before rendering the news accurate. News should provide an equal consideration of both sides/parties without judging any parties based on previous knowledge or personal biases. An example of distorted news based on subjectivity happened when the CNN continuously reported China as a dictator who wanted only the land Tibet but did not offer equal rights and freedom to the Tibetan citizens. CNN based its story solely on the rebellions of Tibet and western society’s unfair judgements toward communist China. CNN news lacked the truth in which most Tibetans are very poor and depends financially on China. Therefore, in order to include every aspect of the story accurately, news reporting agents should be objective and not base on assumptions.

 

On the other hand, news reporting for sporting events such as the World Cup and the Olympics are justified to not be completely objective. Every nation’s patriotism is broadcasted through supporting various sporting competitions, and subjectivity is tolerable in which each and every country’s news reporting favour its own teams. For example, during the Vancouver Olympics, Korean skaters were disqualified after crossing the finish line first, granting Chinese team a gold medal. News reporting in Korea accused the judges to be unfair and discriminating against the Korean team without any hard evidence. As a result, subjective news reporting in terms of national spirit should be justified.

 

In conclusion, news reporting regarding national and international news should be objective and involve less biased judgements towards a specific party. The primary goal of news reporting is provide accurate information to the general public without putting too much bias and judgement into the news itself. However, if news happens exemplify national spirit and patriotism, then some degrees of subjectivity is tolerable as every nation aims to be better than the others through competitions such as the Olympic Games and the World Cup.

[thirty6ix]

Hi Sameer! Thanks in advance for all your help. I've been practicing WS and saving my work, so I'll post three here. It'd be awesome to get feedback on any or all of them!

 

Take care,

 

-Joe

 

Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news

 

The media plays a unique and important role in society. The word "media" means a material or substance through which two entities transfer something. In the case of news media, the media is the go-between for events that happen in real life, and the informing of the public of those events. The underlying principle of good media is a high degree of similarity between the circumstances of an actual event itself and the circumstances as they are presented to the public. This quality is termed objectivity. The achievment of objectivity is overall goal in news media, objectivity represents the ability of the media to fulfill it's role, which is to accuratley inform the general public.

 

There are many venues of news media, and as the internet continues to gain popularity, it is no secret that the future for print media such as newspapers looks grim. With the advent of online news sources, which deliver up-to-the-minute news for free, sales of daily newspapers have steadily declined. As a result today's newspapers must often, to some degree, sacrifice objectivity in order to remain in buisness. Take for example, the Canadian national newspaper, The National Post. In the face of drastic declines in newspaper subscriptions and sales, The Post was on the brink of bankrupcy in early 2010. In order to stay afloat, The Post partnered with corporate sponsor UPS. UPS gave The Post a massive amount of advertising revenue, but it return, The Post published a number of news 'stories' that were nothing more than thinly-veiled advertisments for UPS, such pieces which discussed the advancements in UPS's carrier fleet. These stories were printed explicitly as news, yet were of limited objectivity, as the both impetus and content for the story came from a relationship with a corporate sponsor. Though such a relationship may be seen as unsavory, The Post was justified in partenering with UPS, as the newspaper was likely to stop its circulation if drastic financial measures were not taken.

 

Although objectivity is both the purpose and the primary goal of a news medium, if the medium dies, so too does objectivity. Thus, a relative and temporary decrease in a medium's objectivity, though non-dieal, is justifiable if it is the only means by which a medium is allowed to remain in buisiness. The Post was justified in printing less-objective articles about UPS because by doing so, it allowed itself to continue printing objective stories about newsworthy issues. The communicative ability of a news medium is influenced not just by the quality of its own reporting, but also by economic pressures which determine the degree of dissemination of its message. As such, a utilitarian view, one which aims to produce the greatest amount of objective reporting, may be more realistically applicable than a view which aims to produce either wholly-objective media or no media at all.

 

In business, the image of a product is more important than the product itself.

Starbucks, perhaps the most expansive and economically-dominant player in the coffee chain market, built its empire on an image. As exemplified by popular culture and encouraged by Starbucks’ marketing department, the typical Starbucks coffee drinker is sophisticated and possesses a refined, individualized preference for their morning coffee. Such an image has elevated the green-and-white Starbucks coffee cup as a status symbol, and has elevated Starbucks itself into stratospheric corporate success. Yet, despite what is implied by Starbucks’ image, leading coffee critics have all but unanimously declared the quality of Starbucks’ coffee to be mediocre at best. Specific criticicisms point to the idea that a cup Starbucks’s coffee is of a grade that is too low to justify its price, which can reach almost $5. Starbucks is purported to have paid relatively little attention to these critics, to the point that in the last 10 years, they have invested in increasingly lower-quality coffee beans while funneling money into their marketing department. That this strategy has been successful points to the fact that a company’s image, and not it’s product, may sometimes be the most important factor for the business to focus on.

 

This is, of course, not a concrete rule in the world of business; a number of companies are able to reap huge dividends selling a product to which they have not gone to any measurable lengths to build a corporate image around. Take, for example, the case of Bombardier’s Large Engines (LE) division. The LE division invented a new type of valve for use in large interal combustion engines, such as those found in commercial and military aircraft. The new valve, which was heavily patented in 2003, provided dramatic increases in fuel efficiency and engine life. As such, airlines and militaries from around the world bought the new valve in tremendous quantities, all with zero advertising of the valve from Bombardier. In this situation, Bombardier made no attempt to market itself as a pioneering company that had created a revolutionary product, which was, in fact, the truth. Instead of focusing on its image, Bombardier relied on the fact that it had made a quality product, and the aviation companies could not hand their money over fast enough.

 

Starbucks, no matter how much it improves its coffee, would be ill-advised to take Bombardier’s approach, as it would be extremely unsuccessful when carrier over to the highly-competitive coffee sector. In markets such as coffee, where individual differences between products may be unnoticeable to the average consumer, success of a product hinges on the creation of a powerful image by a competent marketing team. In the case of Bombardier, a company that made a highly unique, patented product, such a team is completely unnecessary because consumers do not need to be specially convinced to buy the product. Thus, in buisiness, the balance between a focus on either a product or its image is dictated by the relative competitition of the market sector in which that product resides.

 

 

Music has the power to entertain but seldom to educate

There may be any number of factors behind an artist’s decision to record a song or to release a record. As an artistic medium, music has unquestionable social power. Indeed, people often choose to define or describe certain periods of their lives based on what music they were listening to at the time. But, to a degree uncommon among other artistic mediums, music is also a commercial product. Even in today’s age of prolific music piracy, the recording industry is still a multi-billion dollar industry. As such, artists may choose to release songs or records based on their anticipated social impact, economic impact, or both.

 

When songs are created to have a significant economic impact – that is, when they are created to sell well—they are often guilty of putting entertainment value above all else. Take for example, the incredible financial success of hip hop artist L’il Wayne. Wayne is a multi-platinum star in the hip hop world, and his songs are known worldwide. A consistent criticism of Wayne’s music, however, is that it is stripped to all but the most basic musical elements. Wayne’s music is said to have juvelinle and predictable lyricism that lacks any sort of overall message. However, the driving, syncopated beats characteristic of Wayne’s music have made his songs popular among many famous nightclub DJs, which has inevitably lead to the popularization of Wayne’s music among the masses. Thus, Wayne illustrates a case in which a musical artist has been wildly successful in doing little more than entertaining his audience with his music.

 

Thankfully, it is possible for music to go beyond the sole purpose of providing entertainment and instead provide a valuable social message as well. Take, for example the discography of Kenyan-Canadian rapper Shad. Shad is a critically-acclaimed hip hop artist who enjoys a reputation as a revolutionary within the underground Canadian hip hop scene. Although many of Shad’s songs possess a healthy degree of musicality, the most intriguing qualities of most Shad songs are the incredible lyricisim they present. Shad is able to write incredibly coherent rhyme structures about complex topics, such as theology, racism and even genocide. Beyond simply stating his opinon about these topics, Shad instead provides a highly instructional, even educational discussion about each. It is notable, however, that despite his lyrical abilities, Shad does not enjoy commercial success even remotely close to that of L’il Wayne’s; this is most easily explained by the fact that his fast and witty lyricism is often unable to be encased within a danceable beat. As such, Shad’s music is rarely if ever played by prolific nightclub DJs, and so is not as readily disseminated among the masses.

 

It is clear then, that music, in and of itself, has the inherent powers to both entertain and educate. However, an artist’s own musical efforts are undoubtedly defined by the direction the artist wishes to take. If, as in the case of L’il Wayne, the artist yearns primarily for commercial success, then educational value will be abandoned in the name of entertainment value. If, however, the artist wishes to go a more socially-responsible route, he may find himself to have made thought-provoking, educational music that is deemed less entertaining by a general audience.

[chuntingche]

Hi Sameer! Thanks in advance for all your help. Could you help me critique my essay if you have a chance?

 

It is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better to change the law than to tolerate minor defects in it. Discuss what you think determines when it is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it and when it is better to change it.

 

The law was created to provide a means for everyone to have equal rights and to punish those that dared to challenge the law. It was created many years ago and has undergone many revisions by some of the most intelligent people ever born. Is it perfect? Of course not! A law that encompasses so many different concepts, cases and factors can never be perfect. There are bound to be many defects here and there. Minor defects would include such things as loopholes within the law that could potentially be abused by a criminal. In the course of this essay, I will demonstrate that as long as these minor defects are not misused, no changes need to be made in the law to correct them.

 

A lot of these minor defects that can be found within the law are actually deliberately placed there in order to allow for flexibility when tackling obscure cases that require "out of the box" thinking and ruling. Judges are sometimes forced to use these deliberately placed minor defects to their advantage in order to make a better ruling on a case. For example, during the second Mongolian dynasty, the emperor had created a law stating that every family could only have a maximum of one child and any additional children would be confiscated and sent into the military. There was a particular case where a couple had a pair of twins and according to the newly stated law, one of them would have been taken by the military. The judge for this case was Judge Bao. Feeling that it was wrong to separate either one of the twins from their family, he did everything he could to help the family. In the end, he was able to find a loophole or minor defect in the law. As long as one of the twins was adopted by another family that didn't already have children, neither of the twins would be forced into the army. In this example, Judge Bao clearly found a minor defect in the law, but he chose to tolerate it instead of changing it. In fact, he even used it to his advantage in order to help the twins. If Judge Bao had decided to modify the law and fix the minor defect then who knows what would have become of the poor child sent to the military.

 

Similar to how a battery has both a positive and a negative side, there are many minor defects within our law that are deliberate and also many that are not deliberate. Our society is too complex and our law is bound to have minor defects that the creators did not intend upon. Even today, many minor revisions are being made to our law in order to fix these minor defects and to cover the loopholes present. During the Ching dynasty in China, there originally was a law stating that those getting prosecuted could become a witness against other criminals and all charges would be dropped against them. However, this quickly started to become misused and many criminals started framing innocent citizens for crimes they didn't commit in order to have all their charges dropped. Many judges at that time were afraid to modify the law and released these criminals without any punishment. After many years and countless innocent citizens being framed, this defect was brought to the emperor's attention and he immediately eliminated the rule. He was furious that it had taken so long for someone to report these incidents to him. If any of the judges had tried to correct the defect in the law, then many lives could have been saved and a lot of criminals would not have been released without punishment. This clearly shows an example where it would have been better to not tolerate a law that had a defect.

 

So what determines whether a minor defect in the law should be tolerated or not? Clearly, minor defects that are being misused by individuals to sidestep the law should not be tolerated. The example from the Ching dynasty shows us how many individuals abused a defect in the law and used it to get released without punishment. However, minor defects that are not being misused can be tolerated because they represent no harm to our society and can even help judges in some cases. Judge Bao is a great example demonstrating this.

[YorkMan]

I've been studying for the MCAT for 3 years, but I just started practicing writing a month ago, so go easy. Please let me know wht you would grade this. I think its my best ever, even though it's a bit short.

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means. What a profound statement this is, as it will be throughout the future. Politics is the practice or profession of practicing political affairs, and that is offen done with an ends in mind. However, the means to get their is often corrupt. While some people think that it's biased to say that politics are littered with corruption, I can say with confidence that it isn't. If the means of Barack Obama becoming president entailed murder on a mass scale, would that justify his presidency? Absolutely not.

 

But this is not always the case, and sometimes the end does in fact justify the means in politics. If the end is something that is for the better of the nation, then the means are trivial. For example, if the ends equals saving the country from nuclear warfare, than any means are neccessary, even if it means tons of soldiers getting slaughtered in war. This is a tried and true notion in politics and sceince. The promot states the the ends "rarely" justify the means, thus this is not true always, as I have demonstrated.

 

It is true that the ends usually never justifies the means in politicians. But just like everything, even the most brutal things, there is a grey area. While politicians shouldn't use this as an excuse to do whatever they wants, if the means mean public and national safety, then any means are justified. Think of this: if the end were saving your family's life, and the means was killing someone else, would you do it? The point is, everything is subjective, especially in politics, so it depends on the situation.

 

 

thanks in advance!

 

scheduled to write the MCAT next Thurs!

[Ahhdumb]

Hey Sameer,

 

Thanks a lot for your critique on my last essay, it really helped, I tried to apply everything to this next essay with really trying to emphasize on answering the question. If you could let me know how I did that would be awesome.

 

Thanks a bunch Sameer.

 

Prompt: Advancements in technology have reduced the quality of human interaction.

 

The progression of communication technology can be viewed to negatively impact the quality in which we interact with one another. The high quality interaction that comes with physically meeting someone and making eye contact is often replaced by telephone conversations. Using the phone once and awhile does no harm but when people begin to use it as a replacement to actually meeting someone, there can be a significant impact in the quality of human interaction that person experiences. When used in this way, technology distances people from one another and starts to shape a more anti-social society. However, communications technology can also be used for good.

 

Facebook is a prime example of a way communication technology enhances the quality of human interaction. The events feature on Facebook allows one to organize an event for any given number of people and send out invitations with the click of a button. The ease in which large or small social events can be organized makes for more frequent and more popular events. Without Facebook organizing a weekend barbeque for around twenty people would take a good week of phone calls back and forth, thus detering people from undertaking such a task. But now with Facebook, setting up a twenty person barbeque can be done quickly and easily and thus more people are now planning and organizing events. Thus the quality of human interaction has been improved because with Facebook people can meet in large groups on a more regular basis and without the added stress that accompanies event organizing the traditional way. Through its event organizing applicaitons facebook can bring people together instead of distancing them as done by other forms of communication technology.

 

Communications technology reduces the quality of human interaction when it is used in a way that distances people instead of bringing them together. When instead of going out to meet someone in person, people sit at home on the telephone or on msn, communication technology reduces the quality of human interaction. In this way, technology distances people from eachother and they miss out on the high quality interactions of physicaly meeting someone. However the telephone and facebook can also be used to bring people together. In this case one can go on facebook and set up an event quickly an easily that ultimately ends up in people coming together and interacting more frequently. In conclusion, communication technology reduces the quality of human interaction when it replaces more personal means such as physicaly meeting, however it serves to improve the quality of interaction when it is used as a means to bring people together.

[gb35]

Go ahead, be as mean as possible!

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

The 20th century witnessed huge advances in science and technology. This progress has continued at a rapid pace into the 21st century. While most readily point ways in which technology has made human lives easier, or medical advances have increased our quality of life, progress has not occured without its complications. This begs the question, is progress really making our lives easier?

 

Recently, great advances in biotechnologies and medicine have made stem cell research a frequent feature in national headlines. Few would question the potential positive applications of further advances in stem cell research. This research has the potential to cure congenital diseases, cancer, and maybe even help regrow lost limbs or bones. However, all of this progress has divided the nation over the moral issues surrounding stem cell research. Those opposed to stem cell research and potential medical therapies involving stem cells accuse researchers of playing God, and argue that using the fruits of stem cell research to treat human ailments is morally reprehensible. The scientific progress that has been made is undeniable, but it has raised serious ethical issues that now divide a nation.

 

There are many cases, however, where progress has just simply made things easier. The automation of several different manufacturing and industrial processes, for example, has eliminated some backbreaking and unsafe practices that used to be the norm in industry. The port city of Hamburg is a shining example of progress in automation. Instead of manually unloading container ships and sorting containers around the docks, the entire process is now done by robotic cranes and trucks. Workers are still required to oversee the computers controlling the robots and trucks, and to maintain the equipment, however they are no longer forced to work in direct contact with heavy, dangerous machinery, and dock workers deaths from falling containers are now a thing of the past.

 

Why have advances in automation not been as complicated as advances in other fields, such as the biotech industry? The answer appears to depend on morality. Whenever moral issues surround a new discovery, or new innovation, conflict and disagreement will almost certainly arise. Stem cell research raises obvious ethical questions surrounding the origin of the stem cells, and potential genetic modifications of fetuses. The automation at the Hamburg docks however, does not raise any moral concerns. Some resident may have been concerned that jobs would be lost as a result of the automation, but the new system has in fact created as many jobs as it eliminated!

[medUBC2016]

Hey Sameer,

 

I just went over a couple of practice tests and am hoping you could mark my essays, thanks!

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.

 

"Progress for the sake of progress" is often discouraged in our society today as there tends to be no justifiable reason for the advancement. When considering progress with respect to simplifying other tasks one must also consider whether or not the progress makes the task more complicated. The above statement brings this into perspective as often by upgrading something, or bringing about progression, one further complicates something that was relatively simple to begin with. In this day and age technology has become prevalent in every aspect of our lives however with this technology comes a certain level of complexity. As companies "one-up" other companies, for example in cell phone production, the devices become more advanced. Although this progression is meant to simplify our lives by integrating such items as email and social networking, it also causes said devices to become more complex. This can be seen when going to purchase a cellular device, one must now customize data, texting and incoming and outgoing minutes whereas when purchasing some of the first cellular devices it was simply a matter of purchasing the phone and using the combined minutes.

 

Alternatively, in some instances progression for the sake of progression simplifies far more than it complicates. This is demonstrated in push-button ignition in modern vehicles. Upwards of 50 years ago one had to turn a crank at the front of the vehicle in order to start it however with the advancement of technology today, one must simply press a button to start the ignition. This exemplifies the progression to a simpler technology while limiting complication. Furthermore it opens the door for further advances meant to simplify driving such as fingerprint access leading to the elimination of keys and buttons altogether while maintaining a measure of security.

 

To sum, "progress for the sake of progress" complicates situations that were already fully functional such as the cell phone, and simplifies situations that were formerly quite complicated, such as the "wind-up ignition". Where progress is not necessary, the advancement causes complication, such as when a technology company seeks to streamline a cell phone meant only for vocal communication, into a device that has hundreds of separate functions. Necessary progress simplifies a task that may have been tiresome or difficult in the past.

 

Laws cannot change social values.

 

The laws of a society are often meant to discourage atypical behaviour and to further encourage favourable behaviour. The meritocracy that imposes such laws claims to have the citizen's best interest in mind yet sometimes certain circumstances call for a suspension of the citizen's best interest. The statement "Laws cannot change social values" implies that any law imposed by a government should not concern or inhibit those fundamental rights that a person holds to enact various social customs. Such a law is exemplified in most developed governments' Constitutions. In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Freedom of Speech is outlined as a right that all citizens have to be free from restrictions in what they choose to say. This freedom is embedded in a nations history as it is the basis for many social gatherings protesting certain government initiatives. An example of this was the Vietnam War to which a large group of Americans were opposed. Freedom of Speech allowed those Americans to voice their opposition thereby solidifying their social values.

 

However, in some situations a government may feel it necessary to impose a temporary law that conflicts with those social values and freedoms that citizens cherish. Such an instance occurred during Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's incumbent term. During this time multiple government officials were kidnapped as part of an anti-government movement. In order to track down the kidnapped officials, Trudeau enacted the War Measures Act that essentially gave the Police the right to arrest people at random for suspicious activity regardless of whether or not there was evidence to suspect them. In this situation it was necessary to change the social value to freedom temporarily so that action could immediately be taken against the anti-government groups.

 

Thus in certain situations it may be necessary to change the laws that govern social values of a society if said changes are only temporary and are nascent from a need to secure others, such as in Trudeau's imposition of the War Measures Act. On a general, long-term level however those laws that protect a citizen's social values should be permanent as they allow for a separation between criminals and those simply exercising their fundamental rights and freedoms. Therefore to sum, if the law is temporarily changed in order to control a potentially violent situation, the social values of a citizen can be ignored however the law should not be changed permanently for no apparent or necessary reason.

[7vrb]

Hello again! This is from a practice test I did today. My MCAT is thursday so I hope you can reply by then and I hope I'm doing well!

Thank you!

 

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

 

To achieve an acceptable quality of life, citizens must have access to services that provide them with certain necessities. What is necessary for a person to successfully participate in society are the basic human needs such as food, shelter, water and safety. Having these needs met is a basic human right. It is a governments responsibility to regulate companies that provide these sevices so that all citizens are given access and the services are of acceptable quality. For example, in Canada, the healthcare system is universal and is regulated by the governement. This means that all citizens have access to healthcare and will receive care of the same quality no matter where they go. This regulation is important because even those that cannot afford healthcare are still able to get the same quality care at the same hospitals as someone with a good income, and are not required to receive poor quality care simply on the basis of their monetary means.

 

Although it is important that many services that provide basic needs to citizens are well regulated, some companies do not require this regulation. Some companies, although providing something that can be deemed a necessity, may take their product beyond the scope of what is necessary to provide. An example of this is clothing. Clothing is a necessity because, without it, it is impossible to participate in a public society, in fact it is illegal. However, the fashion industry is worth billions of dollars and consists of designers and stores that sell clothes that are of much greater quality and much higher worth than is necessary to meet any one citizens basic need. A shirt from a thrift store or clothing bank for the poor does the same job as an extremely expensive designer shirt from Gucci. For this reason, the government does not have a responsibility to regulate the companies of fashion designers because they are providing much more than is necessary.

 

The participation of government in the regulation of companies that provide necessary services to citizens is not easily determined. The most important factor in determining the amount of government participation necessary is how the quality of the service changes the acceptibility of the service provided. All citizens should be able to receive the same healthcare of a good quality, therefore the government should regulate the healthcare provided to its citizens as occurs in Canada. However, clothing can be of one quality or another and the same basic need is met: the person is acceptably covered. Therefore a governement has no responsibility to regulate specific clothing designers such as Gucci because they are offering more than what is immediately necessary.

[medguy5367]

Could you please mark this? It would be MUCH, MUCH appreciated to get some feedback! Thank you in advance

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

 

The word progress inevitably conjures up cliched images in the mind of the reader: once-barbaric tribes becoming civilized, Man landing on the moon, or a scientist inventing a cure to a deadly disease. More simply, progress may be defined as making successive developments in a given area of work, whether it is scientific, sociological, or political. Once the needs of food and shelter are met, the idea of progress becomes the driving force of human civilization. Yet often times the results of progress do not seem to have benefitted us in any notable way. A sociological study found that the amount of time a housewife spends cleaning the house has not changed between the nineteenth and the twentieth century. Perhaps this is because the birth of new situations goes hand in hand with progress. Consider genetic engineering: when this area of science was in its infancy, the people were hopeful that we would one day have cures and remedies for diseases considered uncurable. In some respects, genetic science delivered. Certainly, the diagnosis of disease was made much simpler once progress in the area of genetics was made. However, countless complications have also arisen due to progress in this area. Genetic privacy, genetic engineering, and human cloning have all become controversial, highly complex issues. Thus, although progress does simplify, it also creates new, more complex situations as well.

 

Nonetheless, the onset of further complications with progress is not a rule set in stone. There have certainly been instances where progress has simplified more without creating further complications. One specific situation is the invention of the pen. Before the invention of the pen, people used feathers dipped in ink to write. However, the pen simplified this process greatly. By using a pen, the writer does not have to constantly dip his nib into a jar of ink. Additionally, separate stores of ink do not have to be carried around along with the writer if he might have to write while he is away from his desk. The progress in the development of the pen thus greatly simplified the writing process for the entire world. Without progress in this area, there would still be several complications present whenever someone decided to sit down and write a letter to a friend.

 

The two situations that have been described are contradictory to each other. Does progress complicate, or does it have the potential to simplify? The factor that determines this is the size of the specific area where progress is taking place. The area of progress can be large, such as the science and application of genetics, or it can be small, such as the development of a better writing instrument. In small areas, progress will generally simplify. This is because the end goal is seen clearly in mind (to create an ink-dispensing pen) and this is what progress strives for. However, in large areas, progress will often complicate things. This is because when progress occurs in large areas, it is difficult or impossible to take into account how the major developments will affect other related aspects.

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hey Danielle, sorry I must have missed amongst all the responses! As you can see I’m a bit behind as it is . Anyway hope this helps.

Your essay was successful overall however I feel your example for task 2 could have been better. You say that Kyi was unable to use her education to bring equality to the people of Burma, however it may have been more clear if you had stated that Kyi’s education was unable to make her equal in the eyes of her peers and the Burmese society since she was discriminated against. Otherwise your essay hit the major points: you addressed the tasks, had a good resolution principle, used specific examples and related back to your examples in task 3. Well done.

Score: 5/6

[brendo]

Hi Sameer,

 

Could you please take a look over this essay of mine quickly? It's not one of your prompts, I hope that's not a problem.

 

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

 

 

In our daily lives as citizens and members of society, there are many basic services that we depend upon. Services and utilities that are supplied to our houses such as heat, water or electricity are essential for ordinary life, and as a result, it is the government’s responsibility to regulate and monitor the activities of the companies that provide these services to the public, assuming they are not crown corporations. This action of regulation is necessary because if the companies operated unsupervised, there would be no governing entity to enact discipline if the companies were acting in an unlawful or unethical manner. For example, if a private electricity company, such as the Ontario-based Ontario Power Generation, was unregulated, they would be able to charge any price for their service that they desire, even if it was absurdly high. If this electricity market exists as a monopoly, by charging a high price the company in question forces consumers to pay the high fees, as they have no other option. Many low–income households would likely be unable to afford the service, and therefore would be forced to live without electricity. If we apply this same situation to other services such as heating or water, many families would be forced to live without household heat or water, and as a result, suffer a decrease in their standard of living. Consequently, as the accessibility to these services by all individuals is vital to maintaining a high standard of living in a country, the government must regulate the actions and prices of the service providers, simply to protect their citizens and avoid a decline in living standards for the country they govern.

However, this being said, there are also many services in our world today that go unregulated and do not have need to be governmentally regulated. For example, services such as household internet or cable television are all provided to the public by privately owned, unregulated companies, such as the Canadian company, Rogers Corporation. The difference is that these services are not essential to maintaining an adequate standard of living. If an individual were forced to go without cable television or internet because they could not afford Rogers’ prices, there would be social disadvantages but no impact on public health or personal safety. As a result, the government has no moral responsibility to regulate these services.

When comparing the two different scenarios, we can see that the fundamental difference between the two, and therefore the main factor in determining whether or not a government is responsible for regulation, is the type of service provided and whether or not the service has an impact on a country’s standard of living. If the service does, then the government has a moral responsibility to protect their citizens and regulate the accessibility of the service. However, if the service has no impact on standard of living and is merely a perk, then the government has no responsibility or obligation to regulate the service provider.

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hey 7vrb, sorry I didn't get to these earlier, hopefully you get a chance to see this feedback before your exam tomorrow.

 

Your arguments here are sound however your examples need to be more specific. Both of your examples are rather general, although they are relevant. Incorporating specific examples of situations that support and refute the prompt will help you obtain the highest scores.

Score: 4.5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Your ideas are clear and presented well, and both of your examples are specific. However, an exploration of the ethical or moral implications of this topic would have been appropriate as well (i.e. discussing whether even the subject’s consent can justify a life threatening or morally debateable scientific inquiry). This was a successful essay overall.

Score: 5/6

[the stranger]

Hello again! This is from a practice test I did today. My MCAT is thursday so I hope you can reply by then and I hope I'm doing well!

Thank you!

 

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

 

To achieve an acceptable quality of life, citizens must have access to services that provide them with certain necessities. What is necessary for a person to successfully participate in society are the basic human needs such as food, shelter, water and safety. Having these needs met is a basic human right. It is a governments responsibility to regulate companies that provide these sevices so that all citizens are given access and the services are of acceptable quality. For example, in Canada, the healthcare system is universal and is regulated by the governement. This means that all citizens have access to healthcare and will receive care of the same quality no matter where they go. This regulation is important because even those that cannot afford healthcare are still able to get the same quality care at the same hospitals as someone with a good income, and are not required to receive poor quality care simply on the basis of their monetary means.

 

Although it is important that many services that provide basic needs to citizens are well regulated, some companies do not require this regulation. Some companies, although providing something that can be deemed a necessity, may take their product beyond the scope of what is necessary to provide. An example of this is clothing. Clothing is a necessity because, without it, it is impossible to participate in a public society, in fact it is illegal. However, the fashion industry is worth billions of dollars and consists of designers and stores that sell clothes that are of much greater quality and much higher worth than is necessary to meet any one citizens basic need. A shirt from a thrift store or clothing bank for the poor does the same job as an extremely expensive designer shirt from Gucci. For this reason, the government does not have a responsibility to regulate the companies of fashion designers because they are providing much more than is necessary.

 

The participation of government in the regulation of companies that provide necessary services to citizens is not easily determined. The most important factor in determining the amount of government participation necessary is how the quality of the service changes the acceptibility of the service provided. All citizens should be able to receive the same healthcare of a good quality, therefore the government should regulate the healthcare provided to its citizens as occurs in Canada. However, clothing can be of one quality or another and the same basic need is met: the person is acceptably covered. Therefore a governement has no responsibility to regulate specific clothing designers such as Gucci because they are offering more than what is immediately necessary.

 

Your essay is well written however your second task is a little off base: you’re talking about regulation of companies that produce goods (clothes) but the prompt is asking about companies that provide necessary services. Make sure you read the prompt and fully understand it before planning and writing your essay. You don’t want your essay to be scored as inadequately fulfilling the prompts simply because you didn’t pay attention to the prompt.

Score: 3.5/6