numero0121407 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Hi Sameer! Thanks for your help, its amazing! Education comes not from books but from practical experience. Education is the process of acquiring knowledge that helps the progress in life. Although in modern society the dichotomy of education divides people into "the educated" and the "uneducated" based on their academic performance and the degrees they achieved in a university classroom, this definition limits the scope of what education can entail. One may argue that practical experience is an equally valuable means of education. This is not only true since our early ancestors learned how to adapt with the environemnt through their daily encounters with it and the lessons they derive from it, but its value became manifest in praising this "knowledge of the ancestors" as a wise legacy that is to be passed on to generations. Interestingly, the universality of the educational value in the practical experience of people transcended the cultural differences. In almost every culture, one can find a personality that is praised for the educational merit of his/her wisdom, not based on the degrees and formal university education with which we gauge the individual worth in our society, but rather by the applicability and value of their teachings. For example, the prophet Mohammed of Arabia is still praised and deeply respected by many people around the world until today, even though by modern standards, he may be labelled as an uneducated unlettered man. The value of his teaching was independent from the fact that his education did not come "from books". However, despite the importance of practical experience as a source of knowledge, it is undeniable that book-based education is essential in many fields. For example, one cannot practice medicine without having acquired the solid foundational understanding and education about the human body. Practical experience in this context is not a valid form of education since it will be inevitably based on guessing and unproven methods. On the other hand, education from books provides information that has been repeatedly studied and examined by scientific research and clinical trials. Without a solid medical background that individual gains from studying possible health outcomes or even risk factors involved with handling an illness a certain way, practical experience cannot generate a solid understanding that one can label as real education in this realm. Education, whether it is based on practical experience or on knowledge from books is really defined based on teh context and the application of the case at hand. Values, wisdom, as well as handy work skills that are acquired from practical experience are equally valuable to similar skills acquired from book-based education. The fact that those skills were not acquired in a formal classroom education, as per modern standards, does not belittle its woth and its value relative to the latter. However,it is essential to realize that in certain fields in life, education from practical experience is not sufficient without solid background and understanding that can be gained from books. -------------------------- Scientific discovery is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its persuite, a threat to human life can be tolerated. Scientific inquiry and progress is fuiled by the desire to discover the universe. However such a desire is not independent from the human context in which it exists, and scientific processes do not function in a vacuum. The ultimate purpose of scientific discovery is to improve the quality of human life, ever since the very primitive inquisitive minds of our hunting and gathering forefathers that seeked ways to improve the quality of their life, until today where science is at its best in finding cures for diseases or improving technologies that not only prolong human life, but also facilitates it. Therefore, scientific progress is not independent of human benefit and is not performed out of mere curiousity. There is no acceptance for many scientific inquiries which may be possible and even interesting, if they are of little benefit to humanity, let alone those that can pose a threat. Science that threatens human life in its own persuite runs the risk of being motivated by destructive goals. For example, large pharmaceutical companies like Byer's which are driven by greed and financial reward twisted the outcomes of their clinical trials for their new drugs in order to get their FDA approval, while exposing patients to the risks and potential harms associated with these drugs and "improving" the drug based on the severe drug reactions that patients suffered. This is purely unethical! However, there are scientific domains in which a risk for human life can be tolerated. Such situations are usually ones in which a threat is possible but not a known direct outcome. Space missions like those of NASA are motivated by the scientific desire to discover what is beyond the earth we live in. However, they inevitably expose the people involved to an unknown risk since they are going into space and trying to expriment with conditions with which they are not familiar. There is a possibility that their life can be threatened if any mistake is made. In a context of this nature, a "potential error" is not an enough reason to halt the scientific progress, but evidently, caution is to be always taken to minimize the risk on human life. How then can we decide when it is that risking human life can be justified in persuite of scientific inquiry? The answer lies in the value of the scentific inquiry as well as the potential risks associated with it. If a scientific discovery requires a progress in which human life is definately threatened and potentially harmed, it is not only unethical to persue, but it is also defying its very purpose of serving the quality of human life. However, it is understandable to have a scientific discovery which requires a progress of which the outcomes are ruled by the probability of negative outcome that rules all events in life are. Science is to be used as a tool to help humanity and improve the quality of life, and without this purpose in mind, the end cannot justify the means because with a human life in question, the means are already an end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PreMeder11 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Thank you! "In politics, the end rarely justifies the means." A common lesson told by those more experienced in life is that “it is not the end result that is important, but it is the journey that you take”. These people are referring to one’s legacy after they have perished. They emphasize that once you are no longer living, people will remember you for the actions you took. However, quite often in politics, politicians are concerned with achieving their or their country’s goals at what seems like any cost. Meeting their objectives or in other words “the end” is frequently accomplished at the cost of innocent deaths or suppression of civilian rights. Despite the importance of the goal, the method used to accomplish it is usually not morally justified. This was the case in World War Two and the treatment of the Japanese Canadians in Canada. The government had adopted the War Measures Act to give officials more power in terms of arrests and detainments. They had claimed that the Japanese Canadians were a threat to Canada’s safety and had them placed in internment camps. Many of the people detained were Canadian born or had lived in Canada most of their lives. Although the country remained free from “Japanese Spies”, this end result definitely does not justify the injustice towards Japanese Canadians. However, in some cases, the ends may justify the means even if the actions taken are immoral. This may be if the repercussions of not reaching the end are greater than the repercussions of the actions themselves. Although it is a controversial topic, many believe that the dropping of the atomic bomb was justified because it ended world war two. Even though it led to many deaths in Japan, many argue it prevented many more deaths that would have occurred if the war had progressed. In politics, the end justifies the means if the consequences of not reaching the end are greater than the consequences of the actions taken. While the steps taken by politicians to achieve their goals may be immoral, they may be necessary. This was the case in World War Two: the US had the ability to stop the war and end millions of potential civilian deaths of all countries even though the use of the atomic bomb would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. However, if the actions taken do not prevent greater consequences, they are not justified. Such was the case with the treatment of the Japanese Canadians during the Second World War. The government issued an apology about fifty years later stating that they were mistreated. There are far too many actions taken in politics without the consequences considered. It is important to analyze whether the action is necessary to achieve a particular goal and whether or not it is morally justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pew peter Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Yo Sameer, Thanks for your help thus far. You make the login name "the stranger" proud. You are the dude. Here is my response to prompt 3: Prompt #3 was "In politics, the end rarely justifies the means." Just as Martin Luther King said, "If everybody lives by 'an eye for an eye' it will leave the whole world blind." If people live through negative actions in order to achieve an anticipated greater good, the long term result will be negative. In politics, when those in charge of the goverment are attempting to reach a better state for the community, the path they choose hardly ever justifies the outcome. The ends can be defined as the anticipated greater good, while the means are defined as the path chosen to reach the ends. An example of this can be seen with the United States involvement in the Middle East. Following 9/11, United States President George W. Bush, decided to call a "War on Terror" with the attempt to rid Iran of "weapons of mass destruction" and to capture tyrant leader "Sudaam Huisan." The ends of this war was to assure the United States that Iran had no nuclear warheads, and to bring democracy to Iran. However, the approach cost thousands of lives, both American and Iranian, through means of gunfire, explosions, and roadside bombs. As can be seen with this example, although the United States feel safer knowing there isn't nuclear warheads in Iran, and Iran has been freed of a tyrant leader, the path chosen to reach this point does not justify the results. Although often in politics, the ends ralely justify the mean, this isn't always the case. An example is the decision Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made to help Canada recover from the recession. In 2008, Harper implemented new tax cuts which saw most notably, a cut of 100 million dollar to research grants in Canada. As a result of these cuts, Canada has recovered faster from the recession than any other developed country in the world. Had Canada not proposed these tax cuts, the country might have seen a much longer, and more draining recession. As can be seen with this example, sometimes the ends do justify the means in politics. Initially it is difficult to determine when, and when not, the ends justify the means in politics; however, a key determinant is whether or not human lives are sacrificed. During the "War on Terror," many lives were unjustifiably lost in order to result in the ends of a tyrant dictator free country of Iran. However, to reach the ends of a recession free country, Canada justifiably (because there was no loss of human life) cut many research dollars. In sum; as the saying goes, "tough times call for tough measures" can only be applied to politics when there is no loss of human life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pew peter Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 When reporting the news of the world, should the reporter merely state the facts, or should they put their own imput into it? Objectivity is defiend as the facts of something, without the feelings of those presenting it. The news, which presents information to the viewers, should only present the information of whats being presented, and not give their feelings or opinion on the topic at hand. An example of this can be seen with ex-CBC reporter Steven Mahon. The 1960's saw one of Canada's most historic criminal cases. Steven Truscott, a boy who was convicted of rape and murder, was being sentenced to hang. However, the case very biased, and Truscott was not given a fair trial, which lead to it being regarded as one of the most controversial cases of all time. CBC reporter Steven Mahon was conducting an interview with Truscott's mother, when he shed a tear while sympathising for her. This resulted in an uproar from viewers and led to the firing of Mahon. Mahon should have merely acted as an interviewer, and not show any emotion, thus contucting the interview objectively. As can be seen with this example, the primary goal of the news should be to report the news objectively. Although the primary goal of the news should be to present the news objectively, this shouldn't always be the case. The recent Hatian earthquake has resulted in thousands of deaths and destroyed even more homes of the Hatian people. When travelling to view the tragedy, The Hour's reporter "George Stombolopolous" witnessed parentless children, stranded mothers, and even viewed deceased men, women, and children scattered along the land. When reflecting upon his journey, he broke down in front of the camera, letting out cries while shedding tears. George presented the news, while showing his emotions (subjectively), without the viewers having any dissapproval of his actions. The results of the Haitian earthquake has caused an absolute catastrophe, and presenting the news objectively, bearing facts and figures, was not what viewers where looking for. Initially it is difficult to determine when, and when not, objectivity should be the primary goal of the news; however, a key determinant is whether or not the topic is controversial or not. The case of Steven Truscott was extremely controversial, with the country split on whether or not he was guilty. For this reason, Steve Mahon should have focused solely on presenting the interview objectively. The results of the Haitian earthquake was seen collectively of a horrific disaster, and for this reason it was fine that George Stombolopolous did not present the news in an objective manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquadon Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Prompt #1: "Employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace." Privacy, or the right to keep certain things secret, is an essential component of trust. People generally work better in environments where they feel trusted and are allowed the freedom to contibrute productively without revealing the means of how a decision was made. As long as an employee finishes the tasks they are assigned they should be allowed to use any method and a reasonable amount of time to accomplish this. Take, for example, two software programmers that are working on a new program. One works without distraction for 8 hours and creates the same end result as thge other, who only worked for four and played a video game for four. If these employees were not guaranteed their right to privacy, the one who played games would likely be penalized for his actions. However, the end result was the same so this would not be a fair result. Perhaps the video games were a key component to the creativity process for the second employee, therefore a lack of privacy in this case could decrease productivity. However, unlike freedom of speech and religion, privacy is not a universal human right. Because employees represent their company there is a certain responsibility that is implicit in their actions. Therefore, the company has an additional role to protect their own interests that does not apply to the employee outside the workplace. Certain errors may result in a damaged reputaion - which may be exponentially more significant for a company than for an individual. For example if the above employee had been looking at "inappropriate online content" instead of playing video games, the company may have suffered legal and publicity damages for accessing illegal content on their servers. Additionally, since the goal of a company is to increase productivity, they also have an interest in knowing the methods their employees use to come to an end result. Perhaps by observing the video game player's success, they would adopt a company policy that allowed creative breaks in the development process. Google and Facebook,two of the most successful sites on the internet have both adopted a similar policy resulting in the creation of "Gmail" and the Newsfeed feature (two key deveopments in the success of their companies). In general, people work better in environments where they are allowed to choose their own means to an end, as long as it results in a successful product. For this reason, companies should approach an "innocent until proven guilty" privacy policy. Employees should be trusted to pursue legal activities that do not affect their productivity without being judged. Certain restrictions, consequences and deadlines should be given so that expectations are clear. If an employee fails to meet a project goal or is caught on a site that compromises the company, then a less lenient privacy policy should be agreed upon until the employee proves themselves again. Through clear communication and trust in their employees, corporations would most likely notice an increase in their overall productivity. Thanks so much Sameer!!!!!! You da' bomb! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hey everyone, I just wanted to apologize to those of you that posted last week that I STILL haven't gotten back to, I've been super busy with my brother's wedding this past week and weekend. Hopefully none of you wrote your MCATs in the mean time, and if so, again my apologies for not getting back to you in time. I'll respond to everyone from last week hopefully by tonight, at latest by tomorrow, so any of you writing this week at least you'll have a bit of feedback before going in. Take care, and keep them coming - I haven't forgotten about you! Sameer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 This is a prompt from a practice MCAT I did. I was hoping you would still take the time to look it over.Thanks so much in advance!!! Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction Use of communication technology has proven to be a slippery slope for many users. Though developed, presumably, to enhance human communication, in many situations its use now replaces actual face-to-face interaction. A recent study published by the Globe and Mail found University-age students to be 70% less empathetic and communicative than their counterparts of only 20 years ago. This seems counterintuitive when considering the amount of time young people spend communicating online via the internet. Social networking sites such as facebook and chat applications such as MSN messenger allow the user to engage in multiple conversations simultaneously. However, conversations take the form of short, superficial "wall-posts" or "tweets" and therefore cannot replace the benefits gleaned from an in-depth, intimate conversation with another human being. Thus, although the quantity of interactions has most certainly increased, it has been at the expense of the quality of these interactions. However, there remain situations in which advancements in technology have provided communication options where previously there were none. In today's globalized world, family members are often split apart for long periods of time as job requirements and educational opportunities take people all over the world. A recent study found a dramatic increase in the use of Skype, a video-chat application, among senior citizens. One can only assume this has allowed older, possibly immobile, skype users to see their children and grandchildren via webcam. It is clear that this is a more intimate alternative to a mere phone conversation between family members-- particularly when there is a newborn baby that must be shown off to adoring grandparents. Thus, it is apparant that there is a time and place for the use of communication technology. When use of communication technology becomes so all-consuming that it replaces face-to-face interaction, it is obvious the quality of human interaction is decreased. However, when the alternative is none or limited communication, the advancement of communication technology has clearly increased the quality of human interaction. Hi seabass, You should have more specific examples to strengthen your arguments. Although your general examples here are relevant and explained well, your essay will be that much better with specific, detailed examples. Also relate your criteria back to your examples clearly by stating how the examples you used fit the criteria in paragraph 3. Otherwise your writing was good, however you might choose to expand some of your thoughts to give a more in depth exploration of the topic. Score: 4.5 - 5/6 (sorry it's late! I was extremely busy with my brother's wedding over the past week and weekend. hope its not too late!) P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Education comes not from books but from practical experienceWrite a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Descirbe a specific situation in which books might educate better than practical experience. Discuss what you think determines when practical experience provides a better education than books do. There are many ways in which individuals can learn. You can go to a classroom and listen to a professor talk about information, you can read a book, you can search the internet, or you could experience it first hand. But which mode of receiving information educates us the best? The statement, “Education comes not from books but from practical experiences,” means that we learn from what we do not what we read. It implies that we take in more by experiencing life first hand than by reading about what someone else wrote about it. We all learn in different ways some methods work better for some than they do for others. Take for example Craig Kielburger, the founder of Free the Children. When Craig was young he read an article in a newspaper about a boy in the middle east who did not have enough water to drink. The article really spoke to Craig and made him want to do something about it. Soon Craig started fundraising to build water wells where they needed it and brought awareness to children’s needs around the world. That one newspaper article gave him enough information for Craig to know that he had to do something to make a change. Craig had not experienced what it had felt like to live without enough water or food to know exactly what that boy was going through, but the article taught him enough about the situation that he knew he had to act on it. In this case what Craig learned from reading proved to be sufficient to teach him what he needed to know. Though of course Craig further educated himself by traveling to countries in need, the first thing that educated him on the situation was a newspaper. What determines when practical experience provides a better education than books do depends on what each individual takes from both reading and experiences. Many people had read the same article that Craig had read, but they did not choose to take as much action as Craig did. This could have been because other people did not really grasp what the article was talking about or they could have considered it as just more bad news of things going on across the world. So in some cases you can have many people reading the same books with a few of them being well educated on the book’s subject matter and others not. The same goes for practical experiences. A group of people can travel to an impoverished country and really learn from the experience and try to do something about it when they return home; others can go on the same trip just for the sake of going on the trip, and not take in the importance of their trip at all. So education can come from both books and practical experiences, which provides a better education all depends on the student. Hi Sameer thanks for critiquing these essays =) Hey ayinnia, You’ve missed one of the requirements for this essay – you didn’t adequately refute the statement and give a clear example of when the statement may not apply. You mentioned something to this effect in task 3, but this is not enough to fulfill the requirement. Also your thoughts seem a bit jumbled in your last paragraph – in the future be sure to plan out your essay well and keep your paragraphs organized and coherent. Try to only say one thing in each of your paragraphs (that is, address one task at a time). Avoid introducing new ideas in your resolution paragraph (task 3) as this can cloud the resolution of your arguments posed in the previous paragraphs rather than unify them. Score: 2/6 (sorry to be so late, i was really busy with my brothers wedding over the past week and weekend. hope you've still got some time before you exam!) P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Thanks for the help! "Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news." Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a news report might justifiably not be completely objective. Discuss what you think determines whether or not objectivity should be the primary goal of news reporting. The goal of any journalist should be to report, as much as possible, the news in such a way that all facts are presented and are unaltered in any way by the journalists or the newspapers own opinions. If this is to occur, it is quite possible that numerous people could be adversely affected. Take for example the case of North Korea. In a country where much of the news is modified by teh government, very few people can et access to the truth. As a result, many North Korean citizens are unaware of international news and the oppurtunities that may exist elsewhere. They are led to believe that every decision made by their leader is correct and that there are no reprcussions to any of their governements decsion. This of course, is false, and the alteration of facts has negatively affected the population. Of course, there do exist exceptions. For example, there exist sitautions where reproting the facts could cause more harm than good. Take the case of the Maryland sniper. During the investigation of thesniper, papers reproted only a small amount of the facts. The reason for this was to prevent copycats from imitating the original crimes as well as to prevent the actual sniper from changing tactics. In this case, the lack of objective reproting prevented a case from becoming to complicated and much more dangerous than it already was. In the end, what should determine when objectivity should be the primary goal of reporting should be whether withholding or altering facts helps rather than harms. In the case of the Maryland sniper, witholding information led to more good than if the news was reported objectively. Whereas in the case of a sensational murder, objective news reports could create undue influence on a jury and cloud their judgement. As a result, objective should only be done when the resulting facts benefit the people. Hi sarup, Overall your arguments are sound and your example for task 2 was specific and clear. I suggest avoiding the use of a “contrary” example in your task 1, that is, you should provide an example of a situation in which the statement is true. This sets up your second example better and makes your arguments more coherent and easy to follow. Two points to consider: - It feels like you ran out of time on this essay: if this is happening often, perhaps you should spend more time planning out your arguments and examples before you begin writing. You may be getting bogged down by trying to come up with arguments on the fly - Spend extra time going back over your essay for mechanical errors (if you can), or simply be more careful as you type. The number of errors in this essay hindered readability and an AAMC grader will dock you points for numerous errors Score: 4/6 (sorry to be so late! super busy the past week and weekend with my bro's wedding. hope its not too late!) P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hi Sameer, Here are a couple of writing samples I did during one of the practice MCATs I wrote. I'm curious to how I would have fared on them. Here is the first prompt "Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to its citizens" My response: The phrase "With great power, comes great responsibility." is taken from a comic book, Spiderman, referring to the dangers of allowing such powers to go unchecked. In the developed world, one of the greatest powers that exist is the government. Because of the dangers that exist when allowing powers to remain idle, it is true that, to an extent, governments have a responsibibility to regulate companies that provide necessary service to citizens. Companies are defined as organizations whose purpose is to make a profit from the sales of products or services. Regulation refers to governmental standards that companies must follow. A necessary service is one in which a large majority of the population can not function without. A recent example of this can be seen in the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill, which continues to leak millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico as this essay is being written. It is the biggest oil spill in all of history. The Obama administration and US government were lambasted because of their slow response to the spill. In this instance, citizens were upset because the government was not doing enough to regulate BP and to fix this disaster. This disaster is particularly important for government intervention because the oil leak has resulted in ecological damage, loss of fishing industries, and a potential to damage the health of peoples living in the area. Although it is quite important for governments to regulate such a company as BP, it is not true that governments must regulate all companies that provide necessary services with such rigor. Recently, the computer company, Apple, released its new cellular phone, iPhone 4. This marvel of the technological world was not without its flaws. Almost immediately after its release date, there were complaints of poor reception and dropped calls when the phone was held in a specific way. This was confirmed by the product review company, consumer reports, as well. However, despite this, there are no outcries to the government to fix this product, nor should there be. Apple provides the necessary service of selling telephones, which everyone uses. However, it is not the governments responsibilty to ensure these phones meet a certain standard. It is however, the government's responsibility to ensure that in BPs provision of oil to citizens, they are not endangering the planet nor the people living in it. The key differences in these examples is that if a service has the potential to endanger citizens, then the government has an obligation to regulate the company providing that service. However, if a service is does not have this potential danger, then governments are free from this obligation. Hello shin, There are a couple points I want to bring up with this essay. Firstly, try to avoid using quotes from “colloquial” sources. Comic books are a type of literature but not necessarily a source you would want to base an argument off of. You had the right idea about defining one of the terms in the prompt, but I think you would have been better to define the term “necessary services” rather than “company”. Define terms that are vague and have contextual meaning in the prompt, not terms whose definitions are almost completely universal. Your arguments seem to have some basis however without a definition of necessary services, it is hard to convince the reader that either BP or Apple provide “necessary services” as such (i.e. one could argue that neither petroleum products nor consumer electronics are “necessary”, and in fact they are not “services” at all). Remember that a poorly defined basis for an argument only leads to a weak argument. Also, you should spend more time explaining the significance of your examples; one short sentence explaining relevance is not enough. Score: 3.5/6 (my apologies for the lateness, ive been really busy with my brothers wedding the past week and weekend. Hope its not too late!) P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Here is the second prompt I encountered during the test. (I found this one considerably harder) "Only those politicians who have learned the art of compromise can achieve their political goals" Here's my response: It is true, that politicians who have learned the art of compromise can achieve their political goals. Politicians are people in or running for government office positions and compromise is the notion of giving up on certain values, which are upheld by the politician. Although viewed as being extremely liberal or even socialist, especially for an American, one of Barack Obama's stances in his run for presidency was that he would not retreat from Afghanistan. Although Obama prefered peace, and would rather not have any American troops fighting or defending, he compromised on this position and said if he were to become president, the American presence in Afghanistan would stay. With this compromise, he was successful in gaining the majority votes in the US and became the president of the United States of America. However, this is not always the case. For example, despite many objections Conservative leader and Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, lowered taxes for wealthier Canadians as well as decreasing funding to health care and educational programs. Despite this, Harper has been successful in avoiding proroguing and remaining Canadian Prime minister. Stephen Harper has not compromised his position. The main differences in what politicians should compromise and don't need to compromise to find political success lies in the scope of their actions. If their actions involve other countries or are international in nature, as in Obama's decision to stay in Afghanistan, then they need to consider not only their own country but how other countries will be affected as well. This, often, requires compromise. However, when the actions are merely affect those within their nation, then politicians no longer need to worry about compromise as much, since they have already gained political power within that nation. ----------------------------------------- Thanks so much for taking the time to look at so many people's essays. You're really doing a great service here. I feel this essay was the opposite of the last in a way. Here your examples were strong, relevant, and specific. However your resolution argument left something to be desired. You state that only decisions that affect other countries require compromise but I think you can agree that this view is very narrow. Although technically not an invalid argument, you would be well to try and come up with broader criteria for your resolution to be more convincing. Also be sure to go back over your essays to look for sentence structure issues. Sometimes your sentences can be slightly convoluted /difficult to follow. Clean this up to increase readability. Score: 3.5-4/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 "Education makes everyone equal." Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which education does not make everyone equal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not education makes everyone equal. It is often said that knowledge is the key to the future. Education, whether it be based on information or values gained through experience, puts everyone on an even playing field. From the view of education based on informational value, every student leaves school with the same knowledge as their peers. The goal of the teachers in these settings are to provide the students with the basics of all subjects to help them further their education. For example, currently in progress in the United States is an attempt to unify the curriculum in all the States across the country. This is trying to be implemented for both elementary and secondary schools, and a reward is being granted to the states that comply or agree to follow the curriculum. This includes, the textbooks that will be used, programs that are being implemented and the basic knowledge that each student should leave their grade level with. In this case, the education that is being provided to the students is the same as that being provided to their peers. Therefore, in a situation where the knowledge being provided is the same, as well as the same opportunities are presented to each individual, education makes every individual equal. Although, a unified curriculum across a country for elementary and secondary schools provides an equal chance for all students to have access to information, there are times when education does not make every equal. As the level of education increases from secondary to post-secondary and further, there is much more than simply information that can be extracted from the education provided. In post-secondary school, there are many expectations to gain values as well as information from the education provided. In these cases, it is no longer the responsibility of the teacher or instructor to provide all levels of education to a student. In this case, the individual needs to take more out of the education than what the instructor may provide. This causes a difference between the education that some individuals might obtain over others. In such a situation, education does not make everyone equal. This is demonstrated in the field of business, where the career opportunities are currently very low in the United States and many students out of college and Universities are having trouble finding careers. In these instances, values that can have been learned or taken from post-secondary or extra-curricular activities can provide an advantage to those who possess them over those who have simply taken informational education from their schooling. In sum, for individuals in higher conditions of education, more can be taken from the learning environment provided than just knowledge. The debate of whether education makes everyone equal or not is a difficult one to resolve. However, it is dependent on the level of the education a person is attaining as well as the type of education this person takes away from their schooling. In the example of elementary and secondary schooling, the goal is to standardize the curriculum to allow all students to have a fair and equal chance of further education. In comparison, once in post-secondary education, there is less emphasis on individuals learning information from their instructors and more emphasis on the values that they can take from an independent form of education. In sum, whether or not education makes everyone equal is dependent upon the level of education of the individual as well as the teaching environment in which they are learning. Please see my responses to other essays for this prompt regarding taking a broader look at the social implications of the statement. Take a look at the higher scoring essays to see other students approaches to this prompt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Thanks Sameer, here is my response for prompt #4. Glenn Beck, a popular fox news icon, once told viewers that Barack Obama a racist. The questions I would ask in response are: Should these concentrated right wing beliefs be considered news? Is Mr. Beck doing justice to his role as a newscaster. The consensus amongst most would say that in contrast to Glenn Beck's style, a reporters goal in presenting the news is to be as objective and unbiased as possible. For the most part, this would be true. But there are some instances, such as the presentation of a new news item, in which the goal of the reporter is not to be unbiased, but instead to grab attention. For example, if a new discovery in science is first being reported, the public shouldn't be bored by the fact that the research is in preliminary stages, they should be exited by the discovery. However once that idea has caught on, and is part of normal public conversation, the need for objectivity sets in. Once the the attention of the public has been gained, the public will be best informed when they get the news in an unbiased fashion and form opinions on their own. btw, can I get marked on other prompts or just the latest one? Thanks Hello akv, You need to expand on your thoughts in order to be successful overall. An essay this short can not have enough argument development to demonstrate depth of thought and insight into the topic. You have to write enough to give the grader a thorough understanding of what you are arguing. Your second argument needs to be clearer – it is hard to follow what you mean here. Make sure you plan out your arguments and examples before you start writing in order to keep everything coherent. You also have to state your criteria in task 3 clearly in order to fulfill the requirement for this task. Score: 2/6 (Sorry to be so late getting back , ive been super busy with my brothers wedding. hope its not too late!) P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 In politics, the end rarely justifies the means. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end. The result of actions that deny people their rights often are not necessary to attain the desired political goal. In some situations, while trying to protect the rights of one group of people, the rights of others can be violated. For example, in France, they are currently in the process of passing a law banning the use of head scarves for religious purposes. If the law is passed, it can result in fines and imprisonment of the individual in question of breaking the law. In this case, the French government is attempting to protect the French culture by preventing other religious backgrounds from expressing their beliefs in public. However, for the women who must wear head scarves in accordance to their religion and beliefs, this is a violation of their right to have their own beliefs and express them. This is a situation in which the rights of the women are being violated to keep a nation’s culture. The French government is trying to control a situation which can often cannot be controlled but is simply a result of a country’s evolution and the people that are living there. The result of a unified culture in France does not justify the violation of a person’s right to express their beliefs and dress as they please. Although, in the case of the ban on head scarves in France is an example of when the result of an action does not justify the action itself, there are times when questionable means can be used to accomplish a goal. For example, during the French Revolution, the French population were denied basic rights by the King, while other countries in Europe had followed the wave of the Enlightenment. At the time, the people of France were undermined, worked until they could not anymore, and had to answer to Lord’s who owned them. Under the pressure of such oppression, they decided to take over the throne, and killed many people in the process of doing so. They killed noblemen in their sleep, took the King, held him prisoner and eventually killed him and his wife, Marie Antoinette, as well. In this case, extreme measures were used, however, the end result was a necessary step for France in the direction of freedom of the people. In sum, the actions of the French people were justified by the fact that they were deeply oppressed and had no other options but to revolt in order to attain freedom from the oppression. The debate of whether the end justifies the means in politics is a difficult one to resolve. However, it is dependent on whether the situation is one that can be changed and whether there are other options, that may be less questionable, available to arrive at the same objective. In the example of the ban on head scarves, the French government is violating a right that is being given to all other citizens of the country, in order to keep the French culture intact. Not only are they segregating one group of people, they are using questionable measures to control the culture of a country, which often cannot be controlled. In comparison, in the example of the French Revolution, the people of France did not have any other option but to revolt in order to gain their freedom from the King and the oppression that was forced upon them by the King’s noblemen and Lords. In sum, whether or not questionable means can be used to attain a political goal, comes down to whether there are other options that can be taken to make a change and whether the situation can actually be controlled. Hey snap10, Overall your essay is successful – you’ve addressed the three tasks, stated clear and specific examples, and your resolution principle is well thought out. Your second example could be clearer however ; try not to spend too much time describing the details of the example, and more time explaining its significance. Also, you should pay close attention to sentence structure – some of your sentences are difficult to follow, which hinders readability. Score: 4.5-5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 "Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news." News should be reported with a high degree of accuracy in order to engage public attention about national crisis, breakthroughs and advancements. For any news reporting agents, the primary goal is to report the news without any attempt distortion of the news and all news should be closely examined before rendering the news accurate. News should provide an equal consideration of both sides/parties without judging any parties based on previous knowledge or personal biases. An example of distorted news based on subjectivity happened when the CNN continuously reported China as a dictator who wanted only the land Tibet but did not offer equal rights and freedom to the Tibetan citizens. CNN based its story solely on the rebellions of Tibet and western society’s unfair judgements toward communist China. CNN news lacked the truth in which most Tibetans are very poor and depends financially on China. Therefore, in order to include every aspect of the story accurately, news reporting agents should be objective and not base on assumptions. On the other hand, news reporting for sporting events such as the World Cup and the Olympics are justified to not be completely objective. Every nation’s patriotism is broadcasted through supporting various sporting competitions, and subjectivity is tolerable in which each and every country’s news reporting favour its own teams. For example, during the Vancouver Olympics, Korean skaters were disqualified after crossing the finish line first, granting Chinese team a gold medal. News reporting in Korea accused the judges to be unfair and discriminating against the Korean team without any hard evidence. As a result, subjective news reporting in terms of national spirit should be justified. In conclusion, news reporting regarding national and international news should be objective and involve less biased judgements towards a specific party. The primary goal of news reporting is provide accurate information to the general public without putting too much bias and judgement into the news itself. However, if news happens exemplify national spirit and patriotism, then some degrees of subjectivity is tolerable as every nation aims to be better than the others through competitions such as the Olympic Games and the World Cup. Hi jab4eva, Your essay overall is successful but your eventual argument may be a little shallow. Is national pride the only situation in which news can ever be justified when not completely objective? There may be other situations as well. A more all-encompassing resolution would yield a higher score. Score: 4.5-5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hi Sameer! Thanks in advance for all your help. I've been practicing WS and saving my work, so I'll post three here. It'd be awesome to get feedback on any or all of them! Take care, -Joe Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news The media plays a unique and important role in society. The word "media" means a material or substance through which two entities transfer something. In the case of news media, the media is the go-between for events that happen in real life, and the informing of the public of those events. The underlying principle of good media is a high degree of similarity between the circumstances of an actual event itself and the circumstances as they are presented to the public. This quality is termed objectivity. The achievment of objectivity is overall goal in news media, objectivity represents the ability of the media to fulfill it's role, which is to accuratley inform the general public. There are many venues of news media, and as the internet continues to gain popularity, it is no secret that the future for print media such as newspapers looks grim. With the advent of online news sources, which deliver up-to-the-minute news for free, sales of daily newspapers have steadily declined. As a result today's newspapers must often, to some degree, sacrifice objectivity in order to remain in buisness. Take for example, the Canadian national newspaper, The National Post. In the face of drastic declines in newspaper subscriptions and sales, The Post was on the brink of bankrupcy in early 2010. In order to stay afloat, The Post partnered with corporate sponsor UPS. UPS gave The Post a massive amount of advertising revenue, but it return, The Post published a number of news 'stories' that were nothing more than thinly-veiled advertisments for UPS, such pieces which discussed the advancements in UPS's carrier fleet. These stories were printed explicitly as news, yet were of limited objectivity, as the both impetus and content for the story came from a relationship with a corporate sponsor. Though such a relationship may be seen as unsavory, The Post was justified in partenering with UPS, as the newspaper was likely to stop its circulation if drastic financial measures were not taken. Although objectivity is both the purpose and the primary goal of a news medium, if the medium dies, so too does objectivity. Thus, a relative and temporary decrease in a medium's objectivity, though non-dieal, is justifiable if it is the only means by which a medium is allowed to remain in buisiness. The Post was justified in printing less-objective articles about UPS because by doing so, it allowed itself to continue printing objective stories about newsworthy issues. The communicative ability of a news medium is influenced not just by the quality of its own reporting, but also by economic pressures which determine the degree of dissemination of its message. As such, a utilitarian view, one which aims to produce the greatest amount of objective reporting, may be more realistically applicable than a view which aims to produce either wholly-objective media or no media at all. Hey Joe, Overall your arguments are sound and your resolution is well thought out. Your second example is excellent – specific, relevant, and interesting (I didn’t know that about the National Post!). However, you should be sure to include a strong example in your task one as well. This will yield a higher score. Score: 4.5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 In business, the image of a product is more important than the product itself. Starbucks, perhaps the most expansive and economically-dominant player in the coffee chain market, built its empire on an image. As exemplified by popular culture and encouraged by Starbucks’ marketing department, the typical Starbucks coffee drinker is sophisticated and possesses a refined, individualized preference for their morning coffee. Such an image has elevated the green-and-white Starbucks coffee cup as a status symbol, and has elevated Starbucks itself into stratospheric corporate success. Yet, despite what is implied by Starbucks’ image, leading coffee critics have all but unanimously declared the quality of Starbucks’ coffee to be mediocre at best. Specific criticicisms point to the idea that a cup Starbucks’s coffee is of a grade that is too low to justify its price, which can reach almost $5. Starbucks is purported to have paid relatively little attention to these critics, to the point that in the last 10 years, they have invested in increasingly lower-quality coffee beans while funneling money into their marketing department. That this strategy has been successful points to the fact that a company’s image, and not it’s product, may sometimes be the most important factor for the business to focus on. This is, of course, not a concrete rule in the world of business; a number of companies are able to reap huge dividends selling a product to which they have not gone to any measurable lengths to build a corporate image around. Take, for example, the case of Bombardier’s Large Engines (LE) division. The LE division invented a new type of valve for use in large interal combustion engines, such as those found in commercial and military aircraft. The new valve, which was heavily patented in 2003, provided dramatic increases in fuel efficiency and engine life. As such, airlines and militaries from around the world bought the new valve in tremendous quantities, all with zero advertising of the valve from Bombardier. In this situation, Bombardier made no attempt to market itself as a pioneering company that had created a revolutionary product, which was, in fact, the truth. Instead of focusing on its image, Bombardier relied on the fact that it had made a quality product, and the aviation companies could not hand their money over fast enough. Starbucks, no matter how much it improves its coffee, would be ill-advised to take Bombardier’s approach, as it would be extremely unsuccessful when carrier over to the highly-competitive coffee sector. In markets such as coffee, where individual differences between products may be unnoticeable to the average consumer, success of a product hinges on the creation of a powerful image by a competent marketing team. In the case of Bombardier, a company that made a highly unique, patented product, such a team is completely unnecessary because consumers do not need to be specially convinced to buy the product. Thus, in buisiness, the balance between a focus on either a product or its image is dictated by the relative competitition of the market sector in which that product resides. Wow, great essay! But make sure you go back over for mechanical errors. Score: 5.5/6 (really close to a 6) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Music has the power to entertain but seldom to educate There may be any number of factors behind an artist’s decision to record a song or to release a record. As an artistic medium, music has unquestionable social power. Indeed, people often choose to define or describe certain periods of their lives based on what music they were listening to at the time. But, to a degree uncommon among other artistic mediums, music is also a commercial product. Even in today’s age of prolific music piracy, the recording industry is still a multi-billion dollar industry. As such, artists may choose to release songs or records based on their anticipated social impact, economic impact, or both. When songs are created to have a significant economic impact – that is, when they are created to sell well—they are often guilty of putting entertainment value above all else. Take for example, the incredible financial success of hip hop artist L’il Wayne. Wayne is a multi-platinum star in the hip hop world, and his songs are known worldwide. A consistent criticism of Wayne’s music, however, is that it is stripped to all but the most basic musical elements. Wayne’s music is said to have juvelinle and predictable lyricism that lacks any sort of overall message. However, the driving, syncopated beats characteristic of Wayne’s music have made his songs popular among many famous nightclub DJs, which has inevitably lead to the popularization of Wayne’s music among the masses. Thus, Wayne illustrates a case in which a musical artist has been wildly successful in doing little more than entertaining his audience with his music. Thankfully, it is possible for music to go beyond the sole purpose of providing entertainment and instead provide a valuable social message as well. Take, for example the discography of Kenyan-Canadian rapper Shad. Shad is a critically-acclaimed hip hop artist who enjoys a reputation as a revolutionary within the underground Canadian hip hop scene. Although many of Shad’s songs possess a healthy degree of musicality, the most intriguing qualities of most Shad songs are the incredible lyricisim they present. Shad is able to write incredibly coherent rhyme structures about complex topics, such as theology, racism and even genocide. Beyond simply stating his opinon about these topics, Shad instead provides a highly instructional, even educational discussion about each. It is notable, however, that despite his lyrical abilities, Shad does not enjoy commercial success even remotely close to that of L’il Wayne’s; this is most easily explained by the fact that his fast and witty lyricism is often unable to be encased within a danceable beat. As such, Shad’s music is rarely if ever played by prolific nightclub DJs, and so is not as readily disseminated among the masses. It is clear then, that music, in and of itself, has the inherent powers to both entertain and educate. However, an artist’s own musical efforts are undoubtedly defined by the direction the artist wishes to take. If, as in the case of L’il Wayne, the artist yearns primarily for commercial success, then educational value will be abandoned in the name of entertainment value. If, however, the artist wishes to go a more socially-responsible route, he may find himself to have made thought-provoking, educational music that is deemed less entertaining by a general audience. Another great essay Joe. However here you may have chosen to broaden your criteria a little more; simply saying that it is completely up to the artists chosen direction for their music might be a little narrow, because one might still be able to learn much from commercially popular music, even if education wasn’t the original intention of that music. Using broader, more encompassing criteria will make your essay that much more convincing and your score even higher. Score: 5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hi Sameer! Thanks in advance for all your help. Could you help me critique my essay if you have a chance? It is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it. Describe a specific situation in which it might be better to change the law than to tolerate minor defects in it. Discuss what you think determines when it is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it and when it is better to change it. The law was created to provide a means for everyone to have equal rights and to punish those that dared to challenge the law. It was created many years ago and has undergone many revisions by some of the most intelligent people ever born. Is it perfect? Of course not! A law that encompasses so many different concepts, cases and factors can never be perfect. There are bound to be many defects here and there. Minor defects would include such things as loopholes within the law that could potentially be abused by a criminal. In the course of this essay, I will demonstrate that as long as these minor defects are not misused, no changes need to be made in the law to correct them. A lot of these minor defects that can be found within the law are actually deliberately placed there in order to allow for flexibility when tackling obscure cases that require "out of the box" thinking and ruling. Judges are sometimes forced to use these deliberately placed minor defects to their advantage in order to make a better ruling on a case. For example, during the second Mongolian dynasty, the emperor had created a law stating that every family could only have a maximum of one child and any additional children would be confiscated and sent into the military. There was a particular case where a couple had a pair of twins and according to the newly stated law, one of them would have been taken by the military. The judge for this case was Judge Bao. Feeling that it was wrong to separate either one of the twins from their family, he did everything he could to help the family. In the end, he was able to find a loophole or minor defect in the law. As long as one of the twins was adopted by another family that didn't already have children, neither of the twins would be forced into the army. In this example, Judge Bao clearly found a minor defect in the law, but he chose to tolerate it instead of changing it. In fact, he even used it to his advantage in order to help the twins. If Judge Bao had decided to modify the law and fix the minor defect then who knows what would have become of the poor child sent to the military. Similar to how a battery has both a positive and a negative side, there are many minor defects within our law that are deliberate and also many that are not deliberate. Our society is too complex and our law is bound to have minor defects that the creators did not intend upon. Even today, many minor revisions are being made to our law in order to fix these minor defects and to cover the loopholes present. During the Ching dynasty in China, there originally was a law stating that those getting prosecuted could become a witness against other criminals and all charges would be dropped against them. However, this quickly started to become misused and many criminals started framing innocent citizens for crimes they didn't commit in order to have all their charges dropped. Many judges at that time were afraid to modify the law and released these criminals without any punishment. After many years and countless innocent citizens being framed, this defect was brought to the emperor's attention and he immediately eliminated the rule. He was furious that it had taken so long for someone to report these incidents to him. If any of the judges had tried to correct the defect in the law, then many lives could have been saved and a lot of criminals would not have been released without punishment. This clearly shows an example where it would have been better to not tolerate a law that had a defect. So what determines whether a minor defect in the law should be tolerated or not? Clearly, minor defects that are being misused by individuals to sidestep the law should not be tolerated. The example from the Ching dynasty shows us how many individuals abused a defect in the law and used it to get released without punishment. However, minor defects that are not being misused can be tolerated because they represent no harm to our society and can even help judges in some cases. Judge Bao is a great example demonstrating this. Hello chuntingche, Overall your arguments are sound and your examples were very specific (are you an eastern history major?). However I would suggest using a more sophisticated, less colloquial tone (especially evident at the outset of your essay) to appeal to the AAMC graders (they are usually looking for less colloquial style). Avoid using “I”, or any personal statements or phrases. Keep a more formal, objective tone. Also try not to get bogged down with details in the description of your examples, and spend more time explaining their significance to your arguments. Score: 4.5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 I've been studying for the MCAT for 3 years, but I just started practicing writing a month ago, so go easy. Please let me know wht you would grade this. I think its my best ever, even though it's a bit short. In politics, the end rarely justifies the means In politics, the end rarely justifies the means. What a profound statement this is, as it will be throughout the future. Politics is the practice or profession of practicing political affairs, and that is offen done with an ends in mind. However, the means to get their is often corrupt. While some people think that it's biased to say that politics are littered with corruption, I can say with confidence that it isn't. If the means of Barack Obama becoming president entailed murder on a mass scale, would that justify his presidency? Absolutely not. But this is not always the case, and sometimes the end does in fact justify the means in politics. If the end is something that is for the better of the nation, then the means are trivial. For example, if the ends equals saving the country from nuclear warfare, than any means are neccessary, even if it means tons of soldiers getting slaughtered in war. This is a tried and true notion in politics and sceince. The promot states the the ends "rarely" justify the means, thus this is not true always, as I have demonstrated. It is true that the ends usually never justifies the means in politicians. But just like everything, even the most brutal things, there is a grey area. While politicians shouldn't use this as an excuse to do whatever they wants, if the means mean public and national safety, then any means are justified. Think of this: if the end were saving your family's life, and the means was killing someone else, would you do it? The point is, everything is subjective, especially in politics, so it depends on the situation. thanks in advance! scheduled to write the MCAT next Thurs! Hey YorkMan, I think you need to spend more time planning your essay out. Your writing seems a little bit rushed, and it looks like you are thinking of things to say as your write. Try to plan out your arguments and examples, and take a more structured approach to the essay. Stick to presenting an argument, presenting an example, explaining the example format for tasks 1 and 2, and simplify your task 3 by clearly stating your criteria, then relating them back to your examples, and finishing with a closing statement. Try not to use overly colloquial phrases like “tons of” and “if ... would you do it?”. Avoid personalising the essay in any way – try to remain objective and use a more formal tone (don’t use “I” ). Don’t restate the prompt word for word in the opening because this is not interesting to the grader, they already know what the prompt is. Also be sure to include a specific example for task 1 as well, rather than just explaining the statement. Score: 4/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hey Sameer, Thanks a lot for your critique on my last essay, it really helped, I tried to apply everything to this next essay with really trying to emphasize on answering the question. If you could let me know how I did that would be awesome. Thanks a bunch Sameer. Prompt: Advancements in technology have reduced the quality of human interaction. The progression of communication technology can be viewed to negatively impact the quality in which we interact with one another. The high quality interaction that comes with physically meeting someone and making eye contact is often replaced by telephone conversations. Using the phone once and awhile does no harm but when people begin to use it as a replacement to actually meeting someone, there can be a significant impact in the quality of human interaction that person experiences. When used in this way, technology distances people from one another and starts to shape a more anti-social society. However, communications technology can also be used for good. Facebook is a prime example of a way communication technology enhances the quality of human interaction. The events feature on Facebook allows one to organize an event for any given number of people and send out invitations with the click of a button. The ease in which large or small social events can be organized makes for more frequent and more popular events. Without Facebook organizing a weekend barbeque for around twenty people would take a good week of phone calls back and forth, thus detering people from undertaking such a task. But now with Facebook, setting up a twenty person barbeque can be done quickly and easily and thus more people are now planning and organizing events. Thus the quality of human interaction has been improved because with Facebook people can meet in large groups on a more regular basis and without the added stress that accompanies event organizing the traditional way. Through its event organizing applicaitons facebook can bring people together instead of distancing them as done by other forms of communication technology. Communications technology reduces the quality of human interaction when it is used in a way that distances people instead of bringing them together. When instead of going out to meet someone in person, people sit at home on the telephone or on msn, communication technology reduces the quality of human interaction. In this way, technology distances people from eachother and they miss out on the high quality interactions of physicaly meeting someone. However the telephone and facebook can also be used to bring people together. In this case one can go on facebook and set up an event quickly an easily that ultimately ends up in people coming together and interacting more frequently. In conclusion, communication technology reduces the quality of human interaction when it replaces more personal means such as physicaly meeting, however it serves to improve the quality of interaction when it is used as a means to bring people together. Hey ahhDumb, Remember to use specific examples for task 1 and 2 – actual situations that have occurred, rather than general situations that might occur. Also your resolution principle was good but your paragraph was a little bit convoluted. Try not to get bogged down in explaining your criteria – state them clearly, and relate them back to your examples, that will be enough for the grader to understand why they are true. Score: 4.5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Go ahead, be as mean as possible! Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies The 20th century witnessed huge advances in science and technology. This progress has continued at a rapid pace into the 21st century. While most readily point ways in which technology has made human lives easier, or medical advances have increased our quality of life, progress has not occured without its complications. This begs the question, is progress really making our lives easier? Recently, great advances in biotechnologies and medicine have made stem cell research a frequent feature in national headlines. Few would question the potential positive applications of further advances in stem cell research. This research has the potential to cure congenital diseases, cancer, and maybe even help regrow lost limbs or bones. However, all of this progress has divided the nation over the moral issues surrounding stem cell research. Those opposed to stem cell research and potential medical therapies involving stem cells accuse researchers of playing God, and argue that using the fruits of stem cell research to treat human ailments is morally reprehensible. The scientific progress that has been made is undeniable, but it has raised serious ethical issues that now divide a nation. There are many cases, however, where progress has just simply made things easier. The automation of several different manufacturing and industrial processes, for example, has eliminated some backbreaking and unsafe practices that used to be the norm in industry. The port city of Hamburg is a shining example of progress in automation. Instead of manually unloading container ships and sorting containers around the docks, the entire process is now done by robotic cranes and trucks. Workers are still required to oversee the computers controlling the robots and trucks, and to maintain the equipment, however they are no longer forced to work in direct contact with heavy, dangerous machinery, and dock workers deaths from falling containers are now a thing of the past. Why have advances in automation not been as complicated as advances in other fields, such as the biotech industry? The answer appears to depend on morality. Whenever moral issues surround a new discovery, or new innovation, conflict and disagreement will almost certainly arise. Stem cell research raises obvious ethical questions surrounding the origin of the stem cells, and potential genetic modifications of fetuses. The automation at the Hamburg docks however, does not raise any moral concerns. Some resident may have been concerned that jobs would be lost as a result of the automation, but the new system has in fact created as many jobs as it eliminated! Gb35, Great essay overall. You hit all the major points, offered good clear examples, and wrapped it all up with a thoughtful resolution and summary. I would only suggest ending with something better, your last sentence was good but a little colloquial. Score: 5.5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shin Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hey everyone, I just wanted to apologize to those of you that posted last week that I STILL haven't gotten back to, I've been super busy with my brother's wedding this past week and weekend. Hopefully none of you wrote your MCATs in the mean time, and if so, again my apologies for not getting back to you in time. I'll respond to everyone from last week hopefully by tonight, at latest by tomorrow, so any of you writing this week at least you'll have a bit of feedback before going in. Take care, and keep them coming - I haven't forgotten about you! Sameer Sameer, You're doing an amazing job. I hope no one is faulting you for taking a bit longer to read through the essays. Thanks again for doing this. Here is another essay i wrote. Please feel free to get to it when you have time. Thanks so much. "The best education teaches students to question authority" Our society has become dependent on learning from those who have already learned. It is no longer possible for individuals to discover, on their own, in isolation as much knowledge as they could with some sort of formal education. Education refers to a passing down of knowledge, specifically in a formal environment such as schooling or on the job training. With so much knowledge out there, it is important for educators to understand the best and most effective ways of teaching students. In some instances, education is best used to teach students to question authority, where authority is established ideas or people. This questioning of authority teaches students how to think critically and to learn what is being taught as well as explore their own ideas. This type of free thought is crucial, not only for passing down of ideas to students, but for students to develop new ideas so that new ideas may eventually be passed down to another generation of students. This type of education is especially important in Universities, where students are learning to think on their own. For example, the students who protested authority at Tianamen Square on that fateful day in communist China questioned authority. Although many of them paid the ultimate price, they taught their nation a new way of thinking. After that day, the government understands their people better and more and more freedoms have been granted. The government is embarrassed and would rather forget that tragic episode in their history. However, Chinese people still remember and the government approaches situations and the liberties they grant the people of China with a much greater respect due to that incident. The main reason why such an important event occured in China, was because the students at Tianamen Square learned to question authority. However, it is not always the case that teaching students to question authority is the best way to educate. In many trades, and specific jobs there are optimal ways of performing duties that need not be changed or improved upon. This is especially true of students who are new to their respective trades and have not yet learned the proper techniques in performing their jobs. For example, framing a house as a carpenter does not require much artistry. Instead, it requires the carpenter to follow brueprints and saftey protocol, thus ensuring the house follows saftey codes and the carpenter keeps him or herself safe while building the house. In a recent event in downtown Vancouver, a demolition company violated several safety codes while demolition a derilict building. In doing so a large construction vehicle knocked over the side of the building into traffic in the downtown core. Luckily, no citizens were harmed, but had proper protocol been followed and had the authority of the proper procedures not been questioned, such dangers would have been avoided altogether. It would have served the foreman of that demolitions project well to learn to follow and not question authority. In conclusion, it was shown that there are instances when it is in the best interest of both society and the students to learn to question authority but also instances when it is best for students to learn to follow preexisting protocols and authority. Students, especially those in the university setting, who need to learn critical thinking and to develop new thoughts are served best when taught to question authority. However, students who are being trained in specific trades that require no artistry or development of new thoughts or techniques are served best when taught not to question authority. This criteria not only serves the students well but also helps to keep society as a whole from harms way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Hey Sameer, I just went over a couple of practice tests and am hoping you could mark my essays, thanks! Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies. "Progress for the sake of progress" is often discouraged in our society today as there tends to be no justifiable reason for the advancement. When considering progress with respect to simplifying other tasks one must also consider whether or not the progress makes the task more complicated. The above statement brings this into perspective as often by upgrading something, or bringing about progression, one further complicates something that was relatively simple to begin with. In this day and age technology has become prevalent in every aspect of our lives however with this technology comes a certain level of complexity. As companies "one-up" other companies, for example in cell phone production, the devices become more advanced. Although this progression is meant to simplify our lives by integrating such items as email and social networking, it also causes said devices to become more complex. This can be seen when going to purchase a cellular device, one must now customize data, texting and incoming and outgoing minutes whereas when purchasing some of the first cellular devices it was simply a matter of purchasing the phone and using the combined minutes. Alternatively, in some instances progression for the sake of progression simplifies far more than it complicates. This is demonstrated in push-button ignition in modern vehicles. Upwards of 50 years ago one had to turn a crank at the front of the vehicle in order to start it however with the advancement of technology today, one must simply press a button to start the ignition. This exemplifies the progression to a simpler technology while limiting complication. Furthermore it opens the door for further advances meant to simplify driving such as fingerprint access leading to the elimination of keys and buttons altogether while maintaining a measure of security. To sum, "progress for the sake of progress" complicates situations that were already fully functional such as the cell phone, and simplifies situations that were formerly quite complicated, such as the "wind-up ignition". Where progress is not necessary, the advancement causes complication, such as when a technology company seeks to streamline a cell phone meant only for vocal communication, into a device that has hundreds of separate functions. Necessary progress simplifies a task that may have been tiresome or difficult in the past. Hello medUBC2016, Overall your essay is well structured but you need to include specific examples. General descriptions of hypothetical situations will limit your score. Your arguments are ok but your resolution is a bit narrow. You state that progress complicates only when something is currently simple and “fully functional”, but one might argue that if something can be improved upon, perhaps it is not “fully” functional, and the complicated upgrade of the technology actually makes it more effective. Try to be more broad in your resolution to make your arguments more convincing. Score: 4/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Laws cannot change social values. The laws of a society are often meant to discourage atypical behaviour and to further encourage favourable behaviour. The meritocracy that imposes such laws claims to have the citizen's best interest in mind yet sometimes certain circumstances call for a suspension of the citizen's best interest. The statement "Laws cannot change social values" implies that any law imposed by a government should not concern or inhibit those fundamental rights that a person holds to enact various social customs. Such a law is exemplified in most developed governments' Constitutions. In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Freedom of Speech is outlined as a right that all citizens have to be free from restrictions in what they choose to say. This freedom is embedded in a nations history as it is the basis for many social gatherings protesting certain government initiatives. An example of this was the Vietnam War to which a large group of Americans were opposed. Freedom of Speech allowed those Americans to voice their opposition thereby solidifying their social values. However, in some situations a government may feel it necessary to impose a temporary law that conflicts with those social values and freedoms that citizens cherish. Such an instance occurred during Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's incumbent term. During this time multiple government officials were kidnapped as part of an anti-government movement. In order to track down the kidnapped officials, Trudeau enacted the War Measures Act that essentially gave the Police the right to arrest people at random for suspicious activity regardless of whether or not there was evidence to suspect them. In this situation it was necessary to change the social value to freedom temporarily so that action could immediately be taken against the anti-government groups. Thus in certain situations it may be necessary to change the laws that govern social values of a society if said changes are only temporary and are nascent from a need to secure others, such as in Trudeau's imposition of the War Measures Act. On a general, long-term level however those laws that protect a citizen's social values should be permanent as they allow for a separation between criminals and those simply exercising their fundamental rights and freedoms. Therefore to sum, if the law is temporarily changed in order to control a potentially violent situation, the social values of a citizen can be ignored however the law should not be changed permanently for no apparent or necessary reason. Your example for task 1, although specific, is not explained fully enough. You should spend less time setting up your example and more time explaining its significance. In fact, your first task is a bit unclear because of the lack of explanation of this example. Your second example is better, however I don’t feel that it addresses the prompt – you provide an example of a law that contradicts widely held social values, but you’ve been asked to provide an example of a law that changed social values. Law changes during times of crisis don’t really change peoples values, though they contradict those values. This discrepancy causes your task 3 to lose some credence as well. Make sure you fully address the prompt so that you don’t lose marks unnecessarily. Score: 3.5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.