Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[the stranger]

"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.

 

Good to hear from you again kawalac,

I like the development of your essay. Your ultimate resolution is well thought out and you related back to your examples. However your examples could use some work. The first example is specific and relevant, however we always suggest that you use a “positive” example in task 1 as opposed to a “contrary” one, i.e. an example of when objective reporting was successful, rather than a situation in which non-objective reporting was unsuccessful. A positive support example will set up the reader for the refuting example in task 2 more appropriately. Your task 2 example could use some refining. You state that the news reporters did not reveal the specifics of the governments plan to increase security, but did the news reporters even have this information? We can’t know this. This task would have been strengthened by a specific example of a situation in which non-objective reporting was beneficial.

Overall a good essay.

Score: 4.5 - 5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Your first paragraph could use some cleaning up as the first few sentences are a bit choppy – you could do without some of the detail here. Your example for task 1 was very good. Your example for task 2 was also good however, as usual, we suggest using a specific example of a situation (admittedly it would be difficult to think of a specific example that fits your argument here). In task 3 you related your criteria back to your ideas from your other tasks, but you could have mentioned the actual examples you used explicitly.

Score: 4.5-5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Your second example could be improved if you cited an example of a similar nature to example 1: a situation in which equal educations did not bring about social equality. The Mandela example was excellent, but the second example pales in comparison. Your resolution also does not really relate to your other arguments since you state that education can only equalize those in the same society/system, yet Mandela was an internationally recognized political and social figure. Please check the thread for some of the higher scoring essays for this prompt and the approach used in those responses.

Score: 3/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Your ideas here are all right and your task 3 criteria are good, however your examples are weak since they are so general. You must provide clear, specific examples to push your score up. As well, you really have to be careful with mechanical errors – there are too many errors here to give this essay an acceptable score.

Score: 3.5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Your criteria here do not relate directly to your first example since you don’t state that “all peaceful actions were exhausted” in the Vietnam War (which is the criteria that you say would render the action unjustifiable). Remember that your examples must always fit your criteria, since your criteria should be follow from your examples. As well, I feel you have misunderstood the prompt in the meaning of “means” and “ends” (this is evident in your second task where you discuss actions “resulting in justifiable means”, this should be “ends”: the means are the actions, the ends are the outcome of those actions). Be sure to take time to fully understand the prompt before planning and writing the essay.

As well, once again you have to make sure you limit your mechanical errors: spend an extra few minutes proofreading your writing.

Score: 3.5/6

[neoteny]

Hey, appreciate it if you could look over this and give me some pointers.

 

The primary concern of a business should be the safety of its employees.

 

Although there are some companies that focus solely on profit margins and money making, there are still many businesses whose primary concern is the safety of their employees. These businesses go to great lengths to ensure that their employees are not harmed or hurt in carrying out the responsibilities of their jobs. This may be especially important for companies that operate in fields of work with great inherent danger. Having a great concern for employee safety ensures that the company's reputation amongst potential job applicants or candidates is not damaged. For example, many security and night-watch companies equip their guards with state of the art equipment and protection devices, including batons, kevlar vests, etc., to protect them from potential threats that they may face while on duty. For these security companies, this step is a must, as very few people would want to work for a company that does not provide adequate protection in the face of dangerous jobs.

 

On the other hand, there are many companies that do not concern themselves with employee safety (although this may be done for good reason). If the nature of the job means that the employee is less prone to dangerous situations or physical harm, concern for safety may not be very important. For example, compared to security guards or police officers who are heavily equipped to deal with potentially threatening situations, Microsoft employees are given very little protection from potential workplace harm. However, this is well justified, as many Microsoft employees work at desk jobs, and rarely come in contact with situations that may cause them any physical harm. In the case of Microsoft then, safety of its employees is not a primary concern, and would likely rank near the bottom of Microsoft's priorities.

 

In conclusion, it can be argued that the primary concern of a business should be its employees' safety when the nature of the job is inherently dangerous. Otherwise, it is permissible for the employee safety to be considered a less important priority. It would be unthinkable for a security company to offer no protection to its guards, because they deal with burglars and violent criminals that could possibly cause them harm. Thus, employee safety is of a primary concern to these companies. However, as with the case of Microsoft, it would be pointless to waste resources on employee safety, when the nature of their jobs are quite safe to begin with. Thus, it comes down to an issue of perspective regarding the nature of one's job.

[Dr.Henderson]

Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news.

 

The purpose of the news has traditionally been to convey the facts of events that have occurred and leave interpretation open to the viewer or reader, dependent upon the medium relaying the information. This provides objective facts and avoids the news being regarded as biased or sensationalist which provides the audience with a sense of confidence that the information they are receiving is accurate. This is the reason that the news papers that are considered to be the most respectable have a long history of providing objective articles and those with opposite view points on an issue will regard an article on the issue as credible information.

 

Increasingly, though, we see that the media, those who report the news, are a business just like any other. Their customers are those who tune in to watch their television program or those who read their newspapers. In order to attract a larger audience their news stories must be the most interesting, lest they lose audience to another company who provides ‘must see’ news. We see this routinely in the way the news is reported as news programs often begin with high intensity music and leads with stories of serious crime, war, or other events that we will be sure to tune in to see. Still, the media is our primary source of information on the events that occur from scales of locally to globally and we can extract the objective information if we approach it with a degree of scepticism.

 

The major concern with a lack of objectivity in reporting the news occurs when the health and safety of the public are at play. A recent example of this is the H1N1 flu pandemic where the news created a state of panic in many areas by reporting dozens to hundreds of deaths and encouraged people to be vaccinated. In truth, the common flu that appears annually results in tens of thousands of deaths, far more than have been experienced as a result of the H1N1 flu virus. This resulted in a polarization of the news audience: those who very much feared the virus and those who felt that the virus was no threat at all. In reality the virus is serious and requires attention to be paid to it, but the media has failed to objectively present all of the facts and outline the recommended course of action put forth by experts. They have provided truthful information about the virus, but have not compared their facts or figures to viruses that we experience regularly as this would quell viewers fears somewhat and therefore would result in less viewers. In reporting the news the media has much sway over public response and opinion and in order to remain a credible source of information the primary goal in reporting the news should always be objectivity.

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hi decadieux,

It seems your arguments are logical but your second task (and thus your criteria in task 3) is distorted: you state that objectivity is not important when updating/informing citizens in times of national unity. But I would argue that this is the most crucial time for the media to be objective. Would it be appropriate for the media to subjectively decide at its own discretion what information they will release to the public in times of international crises, based on what they feel the public should know and what they shouldn’t? It would be tough to convince a reasonable grader that this would be beneficial to society at large.

Score: 3/6

[the stranger]

Hi, I just thought of posting this to see where I am at. I would really appreciate some feedback as its difficult to gauge certain things. Last time I did well on everything except WS, so I'd really like to meet my WS goals. Thanks.

 

In business, competition is superior to cooperation.

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

 

WWE owner, Vince McMahon, once called competition, “The driving force of success in business.” Many agree with him, even going as far as labeling competition as a more successful method for making profit than cooperation. Competition breeds profit because it forces companies, who are at odd with each other, to drive for a higher standard of service and product. In turn, consumerism is enhanced because of the appeal of higher quality. On the other hand, in cooperation, usually, profit is shared among companies. For example, in the 1980s, Microsoft and Apples, two related computer software companies, competed against each other and eventually became among the most profitable in the world. Therefore, competition usually is the best method of increasing profit as it forces companies to function at a more efficient and higher level.

 

However, sometimes, cooperation may be a better way of making profit than competition. For instance, unlike Microsoft and Apples, in the 1990s, Tim Horton’s and Wendy’s decided to cooperate with each other. Although they are both fast-food companies and appeal to the same demographics, they sell different products. Because of this difference, consumers are not forced to choose between their products. As a result, Wendy’s and Tim Horton were able to share restaurant space and sell their products together, in a more efficient way. Within a few years, both companies made more profit than before the agreement. Therefore, Tim Horton’s and Wendy’s were able to take advantage of the fact that they did not sell the same product and cooperate.

 

The factor that determines when competition is more profitable than cooperation is if the two or more companies involved are selling the same product. Usually, as in the case of Microsoft and Apple who sell the same product, cooperation is not feasible as they would be forced to split profit. On the contrary, in cases where two companies are not selling the same product or service, as with Wendy’s and Tim Horton’s, cooperation allows companies to function at a more efficient level. Thus, the difference between the two business philosophies is that competition breeds higher standard and consumerism and cooperation breeds higher efficiency. Both are useful but they can only be applied in different situations.

 

Hey ssd,

This was a great essay. You were successful on pretty much every front: Interesting opening, clear and specific examples for both tasks, and a thoughtful resolution principle. Your essay was unified and well structured all the way through. All you need to do is tighten up your sentence structure and proofread for errors and you’ll be set. Well done.

Score: 5.5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hi simmonsoff,

Your essay has some interesting arguments however you don’t adequately address the tasks. You are asked to provide a situation in which it would be justifiable to present a subjective view in a news report. Although you talk about a situation in which this does occur (i.e. when networks are looking to make a profit), you haven’t shown that this is justified (in fact you argue the opposite). As well, you are asked to offer criteria that determines when objectivity should be the primary goal. You’ve only provided an outline of when the objective and subjective approach are used (i.e. Fox News vs. BBC). You must follow the instructions and address the tasks in order to receive an acceptable score. Take a look at the higher scoring essays from the forum to get a better idea of the WS expectations.

Score: 3/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

You can spend less time describing your examples – you should assume that the grader will be able to fill in the minute details. Spend more time explaining the relevance of your examples instead. Your example for task 2 is rather unclear, as your description of the events becomes convoluted. Stick to examples that relate directly to your arguments, and fit with your eventual criteria. This will lend unity to your essay and ensure coherence of thought. Your treatment of task 1 was inadequate as you haven’t supported the statement that in politics the ends often do not justify the means (paragraph 1 serves as your task 2, but paragraph 2 is unclear and does not adequately address task 1). Again you must ensure that you follow the instructions and address the three tasks clearly and concisely.

Score: 3/6

[snap10]

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

 

Describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen.

In a democracy, the success of a politician is determined by what they stand for and the change they can make for the population. A successful politician is able to think like the citizens over which they have influence and provide the population of what it needs. When a politician is able to provide for their population, they will have continued support from their people and will be able to win their votes in the future and continue their service. For example, the Governor of Arizona passed an immigration law which allows a greater freedom for police officers to stop and search anyone who they believe may be illegal immigrants. This is in response to an increase in illegal immigrants in Arizona, but also to protect the jobs and careers of the American citizens residing in the area. By doing this, the Governor is gaining respect from the citizens of Arizona because they believe they are being protected. The Governor in this case was able to think about what an average citizen would be experiencing and the problems they may encounter in their every day lives as a result of the illegal immigration situation.

 

Although, the passing of the Arizona immigration law is an example of when a successful politician thinks like an ordinary citizen, there are times when a successful politician does not resemble the ordinary citizen. For example, in the distribution of additional funds to the wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama is not thinking of what the population directly wants or needs. Although the funds may be necessary, there is a decline in the support for the wars overseas by both the American population and members of the American government. In this case, President Obama is not thinking about what an ordinary citizen of America may need but is continuing funding for a previous involvement of the country. Although, in this situation the President's thinking is not like an ordinary citizen, he has been able to provide for the country in other ways such as implementing the Health Law which extends Medicaid and is providing for milliions of people who were previously not available which can influence the support he receives. There are many people who will continue to support him in the future and in increasing or keeping his supportors for the work he is currently doing for America, and so in this respect he is a successful politician.

 

The debate of whether a successful politician in a democracy resembles the ordinary citizen is a difficult one to resolve. However, whether or not the politician thinks like an ordinary citizen depends on the scale of the action and how it will influence the population. In the case of the Arizona immigration law, the law is applicable to people within the state and is implemented to protect the jobs of American citizens, this move by the Governor increases support and thus the success as a politician. In the case of the increase funding for the wars overseas, President Obama must make decisions for an entire country which increases the scale of his actions, and does not have the opportunity to think about what an ordinary citizen might choose in such a situation, his success as a politician however rests on other positive actions that he is able to produce for the country.

 

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

 

Describe a specific situation in which advancements in technology have not reduced the quality of human interaction.

 

 

It was said that people used telephones because they are scared of being together, but too afraid of being apart. As technology becomes increasingly advanced, interactions between people have been reduced to a few moments throughout the day or a few words exchanged over a computer or a phone. The technological advances that are used everyday provide opportunities for people to communicate without having to leave their chairs, rooms, offices or houses and in doing so reduce the opportunities for human interaction. For example, there are systems that are put in place that allow people to do their groceries online. Essentially, an entire store where anything is available to the user is at their finger tips. In this case, the "shopper" does not have to go to the store, talk to any of the employees, or bump into their neighbos and have a conversation in one of the aisles, there is no need to speak to a cashier or thank someone for holding open the door on the way out. Human interaction has been reduced to thanking a delivery boy for bringing the groceries from the store to the door. Therefore, a situation where a service can be provided online reduces the quality of human interaction.

 

Although, online grocery stores have reduced the opportunity for human interaction, there are some technological advancements that further the quality of human interaction. For example, the use of the program Skype allows people all over the world to communicate at no charge to the user. This allows for both visual and oral interactions between people who would never have been able to communicate otherwise, whether it be because of cost concerns or because they did not have the opportunity to find each other. This program allows users to search for names, countries and email addresses of people who have signed up for the account and let them "call" each other, providing a visual and oral interface in which they can communicate. In this case, the use of communication technology does not reduce the quality of human interaction because it provides an opportunity for increased communication of people around the world.

 

The debate of whether advancements in communication technology reduce the quality of human interaction is a difficult one to resolve. However, it depends on whether the human interaction in question existed in the first place. For example, in the case of the online grocery store, prior to this option, a person had to leave the house, go to the store and interact with the people they may have encountered along the way. Following the opportunity to do groceries online, many encounters with other humans have been lost because a person would not have to leave the house in order to get what they needed. In the case of the communication program Skype, encounters are made over the internet that could have perhaps not been possible prior to the use of the program. For people who are unable to afford to phone or find people who live in foreign countries, the use of this program allows people to talk and communicate to others whom they may have not been able to interact with before. In sum, whether or not communication technology reduces the quality of human interaction depends on whether or not there were opportunities for human interaction prior to the advancement of technology.

[KaelaShaw]

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.

 

Although most people will have at some point in their life told a lie, the statement that 'one should always tell the truth' is claiming that under any circumstance, one should only say what is true. Therefore, the truth must be considered as what an individual thinks is factual, based on their personal knowledge. Under the context of this statement, this would prevent any accidental misinformation, leaving one to always tell the truth.

 

However, while many would argue that being open and honest is always the best policy, there may be some instances where covering the truth is necessary. During war, it is common for soldiers to be captured and held by the enemy in order to torture the prisoner and gain inside information. In these situations, if a soldier was to tell the truth, and reveal the location of his fellow soldiers, or sensitive information that could harm his country, it would be in the best interest of his people for him to lie. Through telling a lie he would be fulfilling his duty as a soldier and serving and protecting his country and fellow men.

 

While serious situations such as these may require a lie to be told, one should only compromise telling the truth under certain circumstances. A lie can be justified if it is, in the individual's opinion, in the best interest of others. Telling a lie should never be for personal gain, but in order to protect others from harm or prevent wrong doings, not telling the truth may be the best option. It is also important that what is considered the truth or a lie always be seen in the perspective of the individual providing the information. One can only ever provide a truth or non-truth based on their own knowledge, and their own perception of what is helpful to others or only self-benefiting.

[jflear]

> The rich have a responsibility to help the poor.

>

> Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks.

> Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a

> specific situation in which the rich might not have a responsibility

> to help the poor. Discuss what you think determines whether or not

> the rich have a responsibility to help the poor.

>

>

> Naturally, in any society, there exists a division between the

> various classes, caused by inequitable distribution of income and

> opportunity. This variability in present in developed nations such

> as Canada and the United States, as well as developing nations such

> as Ghana and Guatemala. The more affluent members of society tend to

> have very little trouble acquiring the basic necessities of life,

> such as shelter and food, while the poorer members may spend every

> cent they have covering only the basics. Because this gap exists, it

> is often necessary for the rich to assist in providing the less

> fortunate population with the means of attaining some of the

> essentials of a quality life. Taxing income is a means of taking

> proportionally equally from both the rich and the poor in society in

> order to fund the government to maintain upkeep of the country,

> including infrastructure development, and running government

> programs such as welfare and public healthcare. On the other hand,

> by taxing goods and services a government can take a more

> progressive approach from garnering larger proportions from the more

> affluent population, who tend to have a greater disposable income to

> spend on non-essentials. In Ontario, the recently implemented HST

> tax has made changes including reducing taxes on basic items such as

> groceries, while increasing the tax on luxury goods and services

> such as cosmetics and salons. This change helps to take more money

> from the rich, in order to put into programs which will help the

> whole of society.

>

> In certain cases, it cannot be expected from the rich to simply give

> to the poorer members of society. In Canada, in order to receive

> unemployment payments, it is necessary to prove that the individual

> seeking assistance has justifiable reasoning, and is actively

> searching for work. This helps to ensure that money from tax-payers,

> which is derived for the majority from the wealthier portion of

> society, is preferentially given to poorer people who have shown

> that they are actively looking to contribute to their society, and

> to help themselves to finance their own lives.

>

> In order for any society to run smoothly, it is important that the

> basic rights and necessities of it's citizens of well looked after.

> One way to help achieve this, and to help close the gap between

> classes in society, is to take from the rich and give to the poor.

> This helps all members of society, rich and poor, by decreasing

> crime rates, and achieving overall satisfaction with government.

> However, although it is often necessary for the rich to help the

> poor, it is not the responsibility of the wealthier members of

> society to support those who are not working to help themselves. If

> the poor are not actively working to achieve independence and self-

> reliance, simply offering financial assistance will not help to fix

> the problem, and issues related to the income gap will continue to

> exist.

[sarup]

Hi Sameer,

 

This is from a practice test. I would really appreciate the feedback! Thanks for doing this

 

In a country that fosters freedom of speech, the expression of ideas should never be censored.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means.

Describe a specific situation in which the expression of an idea should be censored, even in free society. Discuss

what you think determines whether an idea should be permitted expression.

 

Voltaire once remarked along the lines of, "While I don't agree with what you have said, I will defend to the death your right to say it".

In any country where free speech is valued, there should exist very little control over the censorship of ideas. Free

speech is a powerful tool, that can, as John Mills expressed, "can push logic to the limits, and aid in the quest for

truth". Take for example, congress. There exists very few limits on the ideas seantors can propose, however radical

that idea may be. For example, the Barack Obama health plan was considred a radical idea. Although there existed

many people did not like the idea, there was no neagative response to the fact Obama was allowed to express such

a radical idea. This freedom allows, for frank exchanges of ideas, and has led to the formation of new laws, the death of

outdated laws, and revisions to old laws.

 

However, there should exist times where ideas should be censored. Specifically, they should be banned when the

ideas expressed are directed to harm other members of the society. Take for example, the Westboro Baptist church.

The members of this church continuosly express ideas that are derogatory and harmful to a certain sect of people.

Some of their ideas have led to violence. In this case, freedom of speech should be carefully monitered.

 

What eventually should determine whether ideas are censored or not should be whether the ideas are directed to harm

or to create hate in any group of society. In this case, those ideas should be carefully censored. While it is okay

to propose radical ideas, if those radical ideas are desgined to harm other individuals, then they should be censored.

[diu12345]

Hi Sameer,

 

A little bit late to the game, I hope you do not mind marking this prompt again. Thank you very much for your help.

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means.

 

Through the lens of history, we often see politicians facing multitude of difficult decisions, whether they were to base their decision on their personal beliefs or the appeal to their citizens. Nevertheless, as leaders of their nations, they must defend and justify their actions and decisions. A common conception is that although great leaders produce results, they must take into account of the ethical implications of the process or path in order to yield such results. Take the case of the elimination of the Ontario Academic Credit—a change in the education curriculum which turned a five year high school program into a four year program. Ontario premier Mike Harris finalized this initiative because he felt the need to cut budgets from the Ontario educational budget in order to finance the tax cuts he promised. Although the tax cuts was appealing to upper-income groups, the means of achieving such goals was unjustified because high school dropout rates soared 20% in the preceding years. As a result, the premier was harshly criticized for his actions. Political achievements, therefore, cannot be justified by wrongful means.

 

On the other hand, there are certain situations in which politicians may be excused for their methods in order to achieve their political goals. For example, William Wilberforce ended transatlantic slave trade by manipulating the democratic system. At the time, few considered slave trade an immoral act. By proposing a bill to ban slave trade at a time when all the opponents were out of the country, the bill was passed. Although some may consider Wilberforce’s manipulation of the system to be unethical, he is continuously viewed as a hero because he fought for human rights: the ban of transatlantic slave trade was a major milestone to racial equality. Henceforth, there may be times in politics when the end can justify the means.

 

Nevertheless, there are some elements of truth that in politics, the end cannot compensate for immoral means. When politicians fight for the privileges of their citizens, they must take an ethical approach. Otherwise, their action is unjustified and subjected to criticism: Premier Harris’ budget cut on education was unacceptable even though it allowed tax cuts. Unlike privileges, leaders are praised for their success if they defend the rights of their citizens even if their means are unethical. In the case of Wilberforce, he fought for the basic human right of freedom and was praised even though he took advantage of the flaws of the democratic system. Thus, in politics, the end justifies the means if it promotes individuals’ rights rather than privileges.

[kia_driver]

"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

 

From a newsanchor to a news columnist, the purpose of their jobs is to inform the people that take in the information. The direct purpose of a reporter is to be unbiased, informative, and objective. The reporter's job is to talk about an event with a limited amount of time frame or space, and at the same time restrict themselves from personal thoughts or emotion while telling the story. When such news agencies like ABC News or The National Post, they remain objective in telling the people about the events that occur. For example, the war on terrorism is a media hungry story that reflect on the lives of the people living in and serving the war. The news reporters being American or Canadian will tell not just the side of their own, but the otherside. In 2007 the American and participating coalition forces attacked an elementary school assuming that it was garrisoned by terrorists and supporting threats, with no real proof. In the end, dozens of children died in a heat of unfair battle, and unbiased reporters engaged in the topic of military misconduct.

 

When reporters fail to be objective, it is because they have their own personal agenda such as bias and discrimination. An example is Fox Rochester, whom many of the newscasters are infamous for being biased in reporting, as such they will always cover one side of the story and cause misrepresentation. Note the fact that they will side with the American military when it comes to reporting the news, as such in a military based scenario, they reported that the US military liberated the people of Afghanistan and that the citizens are satisfied with their company, the local Al-Jazeera indiates otherwise. Citizens have lost everything due to the US military occupation, their homes, family, and freedom.

 

The factors that make media the powerhouse of information makes it a powerful tool to convince and decieve the people. The objective of the news should never be biased when it is to inform the people about the daily occurences and tell a story that can take two sides. When news is non-objective it is set with the reporters personal goal to convince the people who read or watch their media and get them on one side only and that defeats the purpose of the news.

[dcadieux]

Hi Sameer, these are two passages that I did when writting a sample MCAT. If you could mark these it would be awesome!

 

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

 

A democratic government is one which is characterized as representing the voice of the people. Instead of being dictated by one individual, a democracy is based on a vote where every citizen has an equal oppourtunity to stand for their opinion. Politicians whom are running for a position in government rely on the citizens they represent to elect them into power. In order to be sucessful, a politician should not express their own personal opinions, but proclaim to the public the views and values they will represent once elected. The more an individual citizen can relate to the appearach, intelligence, and opinions of a candidate, the more apt they are to vote for the politician. Barack Obama's success in the most recent presidential election is a prime example of the benefits of representing ordinary citizens. Never before has there been a black US president, yet the population in the United States is largely African American. In voting for Obama, members of the black community would feel confident that their opinions and concerns would be well represented in parliment. Obama would have dealt with the same trials and tribulations growing up in a society plauged by disrimination; he resembles the ordinary African American citizen who has struggled for years to gain their freedom and ensure their voice was heard. Obama is successful becasue of his background; he understands the wants and desires of ordinary citizen and is able to represent them in government.

Not all candidates are able to represent the general public as well as Barack Obama. It may occur that unique members of society decide to enter the political battlefield and as a result of their previous success, are victorious. Having a well established name that is already recognized by the public is very adventageous when becoming a politician. Once elected, these individuals are able to bring unique ideas and concerns to the table which are not always pondered by the general public. This is evident in the success of the Terminator, Arnold Swartzenhaggar, to leave the big screen and enter the role of governer for the state of California. There is no doubt that Arnold is not a typical citizen; his apprearance, income, and fame set him apart from the general public. Even with his impressive following, Arnold has proven himself to be just as successful in fighting robots to save the world, as fighing issues like the BP oil spill to save the ocean's wildlife.

When a politician is running for office, having a gernal appearance and history that resembles the public you are representing is very beneficial. Any life experiences you share with citizens provides insights into the types of issues that are plaguing the members of society on a general basis. If you have lived through times of discrimination, you will be motivated as a politician to provide equal oppourtunities for all citizens, regardless of gender or race. On the other hand, sometimes extraordiniary individuals are equally successful at becoming politicans. These individuals must be able to put their fame behind them, an think like an ordinary citizen. Their success in other aspects of life, whether it be film or television, may provide them with new ideas to benefit society.

 

Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction

 

OMG; LOL; TTYL; WTF? As the days progress, the number of abbrevations and quotations used for communication are growing exponentially. This enables one to communicate faster, and more efficiently with others in their social network. Text messaging, instant messaging, and the increasinly popular social networking site Facebook are revoltionizing the way we interact with other human beings. From the beginning of time, methods of communication have been advancing. From telegrams to e-mail and everything in between, there has always been a constant strive to make communication more rapid and efficient. In the process however, as the speed of communication increased, the amount of face to face contact and quality of human interaction have decreased. In the most recent years, communication devices such as the Blackberry and iPhone have taken the level of human interaction to a bare minimum. In the case of buisness endevours, meetings and face to face contact are frequently being replaced by quick e-mails and instant messages which are delivered immediatly to the hand of the recipient. A boss has no reason to call a meeting with their associates when they are capable of reaching every employee in a matter of seconds through e-mail. Even if a meeting were to take place to achieve face to face contact, it would not be without the constant disturbance of ringing and vibrating phones which are attached to the hip of every individual in the room. This distaction takes away from the quality of time and attention that is given to the other individuals present.

E-mail and text messaging may have shortened and decreased the quality of communication that individuals share with each other locally, however, the introduction of live streaming over the internet has enhanced interactions for those separated by long distances. Webcams and technological advancements such as Skype allow for individuals to have full, face to face conversations with each other. This type of interaction has mainly been used in large corperations for conferencing calls, yet now it is available for the general public. When thinking about soliders who are fighting for their country overseas, this type of communication can be heartwarming and motivting. Live internet streaming and voice technology allows for a solider to interact with his family at home. Instead of reading about a child's first step, the use of this technology allows the soilder to actually experience it. Innovating website such as Skype are attempting to reintroduce the power and importance of having face to face discussions and human contact.

Communication has experienced several advancements in history and although they provide increased efficiency, many inventions decrease the amound of human interaction experienced. Text and instant messaging have become the new extreme where there is no conversation involved, on short, abbreviated sentances. It has decreased the quality to the bare minimum in attempts of complying with the rapid lifestyle of so many citizens. Buisness employees make use of technologies such as e-mail to reach a massive population quickly, while eliminating any face to face contact. While employees may be squeaking by without personal contact, other individuals are seeking this luxury. Parents with children away at school or wives with husbands fighting in war are able to see each other face to face thanks to live internet streaming and voice communication technology. The new availablity of this technology has made communication possible for the general populaiton and actually enhanced the quality of their long distance interactions. Even though a text message says "I love you," it means so much more when you witness the words coming out of the mouth of the one you love.

[Something42]

Hi Sameer, thanks for doing this! I really appreciate it. Here are two of my practice essays:

 

The primary goal of every business should be to maximize profit.

 

The word "profit" brings to mind very different images to different people. For some it is associated with industrious entrepreneurialism, while to others it epitomizes corporate greed. However, generally speaking, one can find that businesses tend to primarily work towards the goal of maximizing profits and minimizing expenditures, resulting in the benefit of all. Take the modern trend towards green roofing, for example. The concept describes the placement of vegetation on the roofs of buildings in order to minimize heating and cooling costs, while also providing environmental benefits such as purifying the air and reducing urban water runoff. This can be described as a win-win scenario, where the business that implements the concept gains in reduced expenditures, and the environment benefits with cleaner air and water. Thus, the implementation of green roofing maximizes profits for the benefit of all.

 

However, sometimes the goal of increasing profits for one business does not align with the good of others. One needs to look no further than the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to see that massive environmental and social damage can result from the blind pursuit of profit. The exposure of the coastal ecosystems and populated areas to oil and oil dispersants is causing severe damage to the livelihoods of locals as well as the integrity of the environment. Had the oil company BP put in the necessary money to ensure that the oil rig could not rupture, all of this could have been prevented.

 

It is clear that the pursuit of profit in can lead to the benefit of all in some cases, but not in others. The goal of maximizing profits, it seems, can only be seen as a primary goal once the safety of other individuals and the environment can be met. By that principle, green roofing has found a successful business model, whereas BP has failed to the detriment of all.

 

Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

 

Would you trust a police officer who learned how to handle a gun exclusively from a book? How about a president who has never worked a day in office as a governor?

Clearly, there is more to education than studying from a textbook; indeed, few would argue that practical experience is a vital component of learning an occupation.

There are certain elements of a job that lend themselves to being taught 'on the job.' Take the University of Waterloo's engineering program for instance. In order

to graduate, a number of co-op work terms are required to be completed. And the reason for this becomes quite clear once these students graduate - compared to

graduates of comparable programs from other universities, engineers from QQ are the quickest to get hired and have the highest wages six months after graduation.

Employers seek out students from the QQ engineering program for their already impressive work experience.

 

Although there are components of a job that can only be learned from working 'in the field' so to speak, there are certainly some aspects of knowledge and

understanding that require the standard procedure of learning from a textbook. For instance, medical schools in North America require students to have taken a

specific set of prerequisite courses in biology, physical sciences, and the like in order to apply. The concepts taught in these courses simply cannot be 'picked

up' from a clerkship or residency. They required focused, directed attention in a quiet environment for the complicated ideas to truly be understood.

 

As it appears, certain elements of learning require on-the-job training, while other elements are more appropriate for being learned from quiet study. The

underlying principle for whether a concept should be learned from a book or from practical experience seems to be how theoretical a concept is. The understanding of

the managerial structure of an engineering firm is very practical in nature, and should be learned in the workplace, whereas ideas such as fluid dynamics sare far

more theoretical and belong in a textbook.

[ayinniya]

Hi Sameer, Thanks again for helping out.

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.

 

Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which progress might simplify more than it complicates. Discuss what you think determines whether progress complicates or simplifies.

 

Countries around the world are always trying to move themselves forward in all aspects of life. Countries try to get ahead in technology, civil rights, and try to improve the lives of all their citizens. To do this countries always try to make progress in all their industries so they can make improvements. But do all improvements make life better or simpler? The statement, “Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies,” means that just as much as progress can improve, and make things simpilier, it can also complicate them.

 

Take for example Prohibition in America. At the time it was thought that alcohol did no good to humanity and should be illegal. The decision was made to make life simpiler, if their was no alcohol to consume then people would not be able to get intoxicated which could lead to a decrease in violence, attacks and improper behaviour. The solution seemed like a good one and did look like it would improve the way of life. But what had not been taken into consideration when prohibition was decided upon was the black market, and the selling of alcohol under the table. Prohibition shut down pubs and liquor stores but was faulty in the sense that it could not stop the black market of the selling of alcohol. So even though it was assumed that prohibition would decrease alcohol consumption levels, it just brought on a more complicated result. With the black market alcohol could not be regulated at all, and so people could consume even more alcohol if they wanted. Without alcohol being sold out in the open there was no way of knowing how much alchol people were buying and if they were consuming too much.

 

What determines if progress simplifies or complicates depends on how well the method of progress is thought out and handled. In the example of prohibition the results seemed good so the plan was put through prematurely without thinking of all possible outcomes. This turned what could have been progress into something more complicated. But if more time was put into prohibition and all possibilities were though out, then prohibtion might have made things simplier. So progress can simplify if it is carefully thought out and all possible outcomes are considered before its applications. Or progess can complicate if decisions are rash and all outcomes are not carefully considered. Whether progress is successful or not lies on those who decide if those progressive actions should be taken.

 

----------

 

Laws cannot change social values.

 

Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a law might change a social value. Discuss what you think determines when laws can change social values and when they cannot.

 

All throughout school, teachers tell you to try to understand the concepts that they teach you and not to memorize them. They tell you that if you really understand a concept then you are more likely to be able to apply to any question that may come up on a test. But if you memorize a concept you may know the concept but won’t be able to apply it or really understand why it exists. This same idea exists for laws. The statement, “laws cannot change social values,” means that making a law will not change people’s perspective or the way they think. People may still follow a law, but may not really feel that the law is necessary.

 

There are times when a law might change a social value. Take for example when same sex marriage became legalized in Canada. Before that time homosexual relationships were not widely accepted. Many people would hide their sexuality in order in fit in with society or just to be accepted by their peers. People thought homosexual relationships were unnatural and defied the constitution of marriage. Now that same sex marriage is legal you do see a change in social attitudes about same sex relationships. Now you see political parties and public figures say they support same sex marriages. These public figures have a large influence on many people and can help make social change. More people are open about their sexuality, and more and more people are becoming accepting of homosexuals. The law helped people change their viewpoints and made people more respectful of other people’s choices.

 

What determines if a law will change social values is if, just like a concept in class, the law is understood or if it memorized. Some people will hear about a law like the legalization of same sex marriage and just know it exists. They don’t really put anymore thought into the law and just blindly accepts the law. Others will try to understand the law. These people will look at why couples in same sex relationships would want to get married, and what that means to them. These people would find out why so many people fought for this law, and how it changed the lives of so many people. It is these individuals who really understand a law that may change their social values because of it. So what determines if laws can change social values is if it is understood or memorized. If a law is commited to memory, nothing much will come out it in terms of social change, but if people understand a law and really know why the law was made than it can create a change in social values.

 

=)

[brendo]

Hi Sameer,

 

Here are two essays from my aamc practice, even if you could just give me quick feedback that would be wicked!

 

 

Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

 

As we grow and develop throughout our lives, knowledge and education are quintessential in becoming a mature and informed citizen who can contribute to society. However, despite our current schooling systems reliance upon them, knowledge cannot be acquired from books and from reading historical articles, rather, the best knowledge results from practical and personal experience. Texts and words limit the possibilities of education, as there is no opportunity for the expansion of an idea, but rather the capacity of what is taught is limited to what is written on the page, and these ideas remain static for decades at a time. By learning through practical experience, an individual can gain a much greater understanding of a concept. For example, an individual attempting to train and enter the profession of welding is required to spend time apprenticing and practicing their skills on trial products. This pre-professional practical experience allows for trial-and-error of the student, and allows them to make mistakes but then correct them before being introduced into the workforce. If this same aspiring welder had attempted to learn all of his technical skills through reading a manual or instruction guide, he may still acquire considerable knowledge about welding theory, but he will have no personal context of how to apply these skills. As a result, when he first enters the workforce, the welder will be unfamiliar with the actual processes and is likely to make serious mistakes on a customer’s property. In addition, by actively practicing a skill set, the welder is able to obtain the most up-to-date knowledge about techniques, rather than information in a textbook, which may be outdated.

This being said, there are many times when it is impossible to learn from practical experience, and it is in these scenarios when we must rely on textbooks for knowledge, as they are our only resource. A prime example is the study of historical events which have occurred in the distant past. For these events, there is no way to recreate or to personally experience the events, for they have already occurred. When attempting to gain knowledge about a past event in history, we must then turn to textbooks and accurate descriptions to provide us with a complete set of knowledge. These situations exemplify the importance of accurate historical documentation, as if future generations are to learn about the current affairs from the present, their only source of information will be the books and texts that we leave behind.

The fundamental factors for deciding whether or not knowledge about a topic is best acquired from practical experience or books is both the type of knowledge, and also whether or not the topic in question is most relevant to the present or the past. If a topic is current or the knowledge itself requires a hands-on application, students can receive the highest caliber of education through practical and personal experience. However, if a topic is purely historical and it is impossible to relive or experience the desired knowledge, then we must turn to textbooks, as even though they are not preferred, they are our sole source of knowledge for past events.

 

 

 

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.

 

Throughout the course of human history, medical breakthroughs have been essential in the survival of our species and the increasing ability for humans to maintain optimal health. Like most types of scientific breakthrough, medical advances must be made through research and clinical trials to determine the effects of a medical treatment, both intended and adverse. While the success and sole goal of the scientific community is to discover new ideas, there are ethical regulations required to ensure that researchers remain within moral bounds when conducting a research study. Most importantly, it is fundamental that researchers do not sacrifice human health and safety in order to make new discoveries. There is simply no way to justify intentionally harming current lives in order to possibly save one in the future, as this rational is entirely flawed. During the Holocaust, many Nazi doctors conducted human experimentation such as studies on twins and on how humans responded to extreme environmental manipulation. While these studies contributed to large advance in the fields of human anatomy and physiology, the pain and torture that was forced upon unwilling test subjects is horrifying. These types of sacrifices made ‘in the name of science’ simply cannot be tolerated, as while some knowledge gained, an even larger amount of morality is lost.

This being said, there are some occasions and scientific studies where human life is threatened or ended and medical knowledge is gained while still maintaining morality. For example, when new pharmacological drugs and medications are being developed and researched, it is required for them to all go through a stage of clinical trials. Patients are volunteers who are informed of the risks and know going in that taking the medication could have adverse health effects. In these trials, it is not uncommon for a patient to be harmed or even die; however, the main difference from the Nazi’s experiments is that the patients in the controlled study are informed of the risks and willingly take the drug. There is no forceful action and nothing is imposed upon an unwilling test subject. The patients who may unfortunately perish from a medication’s clinical trials are still able to offer astounding information to researchers, who can then learn about previously unknown adverse effects of the medications, but no patients were intentionally or forcefully harmed in the process.

The fundamental factor for deciding whether or not human death is acceptable in a scientific study is whether or not informed consent was offered to the patients, and whether or not the patient willingly undertook the test knowing the risks. If these criteria are met, then even though human death is unfortunate, it still remains morally justified and can contribute to scientific breakthroughs. However, if patients are not informed and hazardous treatments are forcefully imposed, then morality is compromised, and the nature of the study should not be tolerated.

[answerjl]

Hi Sameer,

 

this is from a practice test, thanks for the help.

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses.

Explain what you think this statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a business succeeds without taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. Discuss what you think determines whether or not businesses take advantage of consumers' weakness in order to succeed.

 

It is often said that the world of business is an unforgiving one driven by the goal of profits. A business' success is its ability to survive and make profits. Consumers' weaknesses refer to a tendency to believe advertisements and a desire for the latest products.Often, companies are able to continually profit and thrive by using marketing ploys to attract consumers. Companies use methods to use the fallibility of consumers to sell the product. Businesses usually only require that consumers are convinced that they have to buy the product through marketing. For example, Apple inc has used several television commercials to promote its Mac desktop computer.

These advertisements convinced consumers that the Mac computers were more user-friendly and innovative than PC computers. Once consumers believed this, they began to purchase Apple products and the company profited greatly. Apple inc established itself and profited by taking advantage of consumers' belief in advertising.

 

Although, businesses often succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses, this is not the case with every business. A company can

be profitable and survive without using marketing ploys or latest trends. For instance, Loblaws grocery stores has expanded all across Canada and have developped a good reputation for quality food. Loblaws provides its products to consumers without using overt television advertisements. Instead,

the company has been successful by offering quality food to consumers. It does not take advantage of consumers' weaknesses to be profitable Evidently, a business can profit without utilizing the weaknesses of consumers.

 

It is not initially clear in which cases a business succeeds by taking advantage of consumers. Whether or not success requires playing on consumers' weaknesses is dependent on whether the business provides consumers with a want or a basic need. Apple provides technological

devices that are not a basic need, but are desired luxury items. In this case, Apple is successful by using marketing to take advantage of consumer weaknesses. On the contrary, Loblaws provides food which is a basic need for life. It has been successful without the use of over the top marketing as consumers will continue to purchase food. The role of the business in providing basic needs or wants determines whether or not success is obtained by taking advantage of the weaknesses on consumers.

[theblackmamba]

I just started practicing the writing sample this week. Any feedback would be appreciated.

 

Prompt #1

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

workplace."

 

I think the statement means that employees are entitled to the basic right to privacy in their personal matters. All individuals are granted the right to a certain level of privacy in society. As an employee of a business, this standard of privacy must not be violated; just because an employer has given the person a job does not justify them in exposing their private personal matters. For example, in the late 1990's in Toronto, Ontario, an employee at the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) was fired from their job on the grounds of inappropriate behavior in the workplace. It was later found that the manager of this branch of RBC had done some deep investigating of this employees personal history via information found in the banks databases, along with numerous calls to family members and friends of the former employee from a blocked telephone number. The manager found out that the employee had been involved in some commercial drug use and trafficking earlier during her teenage years, which was the main reason that the employee was fired. The courts ruled that the employer infringed upon the privacy of her employee, lost her position as manager of the RBC branch, and the fired employee was given a multi-million dollar settlement. Thus, the legal system supports the notion that employees have a right to privacy just as they would outside of the workplace, because the manager invaded her employees privacy in the workplace and was punished accordingly.

 

However, in certain circumstances, employees should not be entitled to the same level of privacy as they would get outside the workplace. For example, members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are able to access in-depth information about nearly every citizen and business in the United States. In addition, they are granted a high level of power in order to exploit the information that they have access to in order to secure criminals and threats to society. Because these employees are granted a depth and breadth of information about citizens that place them in powerful positions, the privacy of these employees is significantly lessened. The government must be able to keep track of the FBI employees and their personal matters to ensure the security of the nation. If an FBI agent were to use the information databases and power for evil, he or she could cause serious damage to the citizens of the United States. Therefore, the government is justified in regulating the privacy of its FBI employees.

 

The relevance of the statement is based on whether or not the employees are privy to private information that would threaten the security of the members of society. If an employee is only able to access general information about the customers of a business, as with the bank teller, then the employee deserves the same level of privacy that they would have outside of the workplace. If the employee has access to private information, and the use of this information could threaten a society's security, then their privacy must be regulated as a safety precaution.

[lysozyme]

Hi Sameer,

I'm writing in a couple of days-- any comments are appreciated. Many thanks in advance

 

Political ideas are applicable only to the age that produces them.

Describe a specific situation in which a political idea might not be applicable only to the age that produces it. Discuss what you think determines when political ideas are applicable only to the age that produces them and when they are not.

 

History provides us with a perspective to assess political ideas. It can be said that political ideas, formulated in laws, policies and articulated by politicians, are pertinent only to the era in which they were applied. That is to say that political ideas are inherently dated to the period during which they were in effect. This is the case of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, a time when the Nazi political ideas of racial purity and Aryan superiority were birthed. Party leaders led the promise of German domination of Europe that preyed on the feelings of Post WWI German citizens. Having suffered great losses and humiliation during this war, German people felt victimized by the rest of Europe and wanted to believe in the possibility of their country's greatness redeemed. Furthermore, with soaring inflation, the economy was the weakest it had ever been, leaving citizens exceptionally desperate. The political of the National Socialist Party became credible specifically under the circumstances that World War I had left Germany.

 

However, political ideas may be applied to another age than the one they were produced in. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt implemented his 'New Deal' in order to restore the American economy. The three principles of this policy were relief, recovery and reform; relief of the extreme poor, recovery of jobs and confidence and reform of economic principles. These exact ideas were implemented by Barack Obama eighty years later when the American economy took a nosedive under similar circumstances. Both depressions were attributed to excessive use of credit such that banks became unstable. The political idea of government economic intervention was applicable after it was first implemented.

 

Determining then, whether political ideas are applicable to the age in which it was produced depends on the circumstances which formed the political ideas. If the circumstances form anew, as it did in the American economy when consumers were buying excessively on credit once again, political ideas can be reapplied. If the circumstances are specific to an era, as it were with the extreme situation Germany was faced with after World War One, then the political ideas will be dated to that period only. In any case, citizens put faith in political ideas with the promise of recovery and restoration. Therefore, political ideas are limited in their use when their scope is developed out of uncharacteristically extreme circumstances.

[medschoolhopeful10]

Here is another attempt at an essay, thanks again Sameer!!

 

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 objectivity should not be the primary goal in reporting the news. Discuss what you think determines whether or not objectivity should be the primary goal.

 

---------

 

When people want to find out what is happening in the world, from occurences in their own community to the larger international community, many turn to watching televised news broadcasts. Because the news reported reaches such a wide audience, not only the content but the method by which the news is reported is of great importance to viewers. Objectivity should usually be of primary importance for a news reporter. Objectivity refers to presenting all points of view relating to a specific news story without interjecting personal feelings or prejudices. Presenting all points of view relating to a news story without bias gives viewers all the facts needed in order to make informed decisions regarding societal concerns. For instance, when the inhabitants of the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, needed to make the decision on whether or not the city should host the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, the story was covered from all angles by the media, from how much the games would cost taxpayers to how much the tourism industry could profit from the worldwide exposure the city would receive. By being clearly informed of all of the pros and cons of hosting an event as large as the Olympics, the citizens of Vancouver were able to make their own informed choices on whether or not they supported hosting the Olympics Winter Games.

 

Although objectivity is of great importance when reporting the news, it may not always be of primary concern. Consider, for example, the catastrophic earthquake that occured in Haiti in January of 2010. Of primary importance when reporting such a news story should be gathering all the facts in an accurate manner, and not so much being objective about the facts gathered. In this case reporters should be primarily concerned about reporting accurate details about the event as soon as it occured, such a the extent of injuries and the damage caused, in order for people to be accurately informed about the event.

 

Determining whether the primary goal of reporting a news story should be objectivity is an important matter. The determining factor should be whether the story involves a matter upon which the public needs to make a decision. As a news agency is often the primary source from which the public obtains the information necessary to make informed choices about societal concerns, such as the decision to host the Olympic Games, the primary goal when reporting such a story should be to clearly present all view points relating to the story without interjecting personal feelings or prejudices to allow society to make their own choice. If the news involves a specific event where facts need to be reported, such as following the 2010 Haiti Earthquake, then the primary goal in reporting should be to ensure all the facts presented are accurate. Therefore, in determining whether objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news the reporter needs to consider whether the story may affect the public's choice on a matter.