Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[snap10]

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies.

 

Describe a specific situation in which progress might simplify more than it complicates.

 

As humans, there is a continuous need for progress; once something has been created there seems to be a need to create something even greater. Technological progress often complicates a situation rather than creating a simpler way of obtaining results. This is true for situations where a current and effective system is in place but technology is used to try and create a faster more efficient way to produce the same results. For example, since the introduction of the internet, it has become more widely prevalent in the world of business. In order for someone to apply to work at almost any company, they no longer need to go into the store, hand in a resume, speak to a manager or arrange a time for an interview. Now, because of the internet, a person only needs to log on to the computer, submit some information about themselves and check their profile to get a response from a manager. Although at first glance this may seem simpler, it only extends the process of acquiring an interview. The person must log on again, hoping to see if there is a response from the company, may have to call and see if the request was submitted, and may even have to go back into the store to inquire only to be told that it's all done online. At the end of the day, nothing has been accomplished. The conventional system that has been used successfully for decades has been replaced by a more technologically advanced system that although may seem to simplify the process of applying for a job, it often results in nothing but wasted time and effort.

 

Although technological progress often complicates a situation, there are times when it allows for a simpler avenue for accomplishing a goal. For example, in the field of medical technology, prior to the use of MRI machines, X-rays, microscopic video cameras and other similar technologies, diagnosing a patient was a difficult task to do. There were often basic tests that could be done, and the rest was up to the doctor to observe only was what visible to the eye. Now, with the availability of greater technology, a doctor is able to see inside a patient and see things that are invisible to the eye. All this information is then used to diagnose a patient, and could not have been accomplished without the use of these machines. In this case, the advancement of technology simplifies the process of diagnosing a patient and also allows for accurate treatment following the diagnosis.

 

The debate of whether progress complicates a situation or simplifies it, is a difficult one to resolve. However, it is dependent on whether or not a system is already in place that is effective in reaching the desired goal. For example, in the case of online resume submissions, there has been a system in place for decades that was effective in making a connection between employers and potential employees. With the advancement of technology in this area, the process of connecting employers and potential employees is difficult, prolonged and uncertain. However, in the field of medical technology, the advancements that have been made are able to help doctors make proper diagnosis of patients, and simplifies the process of doing so accurately. In sum, whether or not progress complicates or simplifies a situation depends on the system that was in place prior to the technological advance.

Laws cannot change social values.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a law might change a social value.

 

In the formation of a society, every group of individuals has their own identity within the society. The implementation of laws cannot change the role that these groups of people hold in a society or how other individuals in the society view these groups. For example, the Arizona immigration law allows for increased investigation in persons who are suspected of being illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were looked down upon, and were always accused of taking up jobs that should be available to proper American citizens. This became a huge issue with the poor economy and the low availability of jobs to the population. Prior to the influence of this law, the view of illegal immigrants or those who were suspected to be illegal immigrants were the same as they were after the law. What the law does do, is allows for further action against them. In this situation, the law was implemented based a current view of a group of people, and if anything only strengthened the view of these people in the society but did not change it.

 

Although in some cases, such as the Arizona immigration law, laws do not change social values, there are some situation in which they can influence the way in which a group of people are judged. For example, with the implementation of the Patriot Act following the September 11th attacks, there was a shift in the judgment of Indian or East Asian looking people. Although this law allowed for greater searching of suspicious people, which was necessary after the attacks, it also formed some stereotypes that may have not been present before. Although people wearing non-American styled clothing, or those who wore turbans or head scarves were often victims or lagging glares or stares, it was not always assumed that they were dangerous persons. However, following the Patriot Act, there was an increase in the assumption that all people who fit a certain stereotype were bombers or terrorists or dangerous people. In this situation, although people wearing turbans and head scarves may have been looked at oddly or stared at, there was not always the assumption that they were suspicious prior to the implementation of the Patriot Act.

 

The debate of whether or not laws change social values is a difficult one to resolve. However, it depends on whether the law was based on a view that was already present prior to the law's implementation. In the example of the Arizona immigration law, it is based on the view that the illegal immigrants are intruding on the American citizens and their right to resources and jobs and was put in place to help change the situation. In contrast, the Patriot Act influences the view of people who may look unfamiliar to the general American population and stereotypes them as suspicious and dangerous. Although they may have stuck out prior to the implementation of this law, the Patriot Act allows for the assumption that these people are dangerous and should be treated differently. In sum, whether or not a law can change social values depends on what the law is based on; present views of a group of people or an event that necessitates the implementation of a law.

[numero0121407]

Hi Sameer,

 

I am writing my test tomorrow

It would be great if I could get any feedback! I know its almost too late but I would really appreciate it anyways!

 

Thanks!

[the stranger]

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

 

Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Hey medguy5367,

Overall you hit the major points and addressed the tasks. My concern however is that your essay is somewhat vague in its treatment of each task. Your task 1 is slightly convoluted because you bring up several points but you don’t explain them all fully. Try to limit your discussion to one major point per paragraph to keep things clear. As well, your examples are rather general – use more specific examples to make your arguments stronger. Lastly, your resolution principle is very vague – what are “big areas” and “small areas”? You should avoid making these kinds of categorical statements without explaining them.

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

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer,

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

 

Hi brendo,

Your essay is well structured and well written, however your second task and resolution principle are not in keeping with the prompt. You state that some services do not need to be regulated, however you are asked to provide an example of a necessary service that does not need to be regulated by the government, and criteria that determine when necessary services should or shouldn’t be regulated. Make sure you fully address the prompt to avoid losing marks unnecessarily.

Score: 3.5/6

 

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

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hello neoteny,

Overall your essay is good, you hit all the major points and address the tasks well. Your resolution is also adequate. However you should provide specific examples of situations that exemplify each task rather than general examples. This will increase your 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

[the stranger]

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.

 

Dr.Henderson,

Unfortunately you haven’t adequately fulfilled the tasks here. You talk about objectivity in the news and mention some circumstances in which news reporting isn’t completely objective, but you haven’t offered clear determining factors that dictate when news reporting should be objective and when it can be justifiably subjective. You must ensure that you address the tasks and follow the instructions given with each prompt. The example you used at the end was good, specific and relevant, but you need to provide an example for task 1 as well.

Score: 3/6

 

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

[the stranger]

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.

 

 

Hello again snap10,

This was a successful essay since you address the tasks, give clear specific examples, and your resolution principle is well thought out. However you should more clearly state your defining criteria – “the scale of action” is a little too vague. Also try to be a little more concise when you are describing your examples. Spend more time explaining the significance of your examples and how they relate to your arguments.

Score: 5/6

[the stranger]

 

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.

 

Your essay was good as well, but your examples were less specific. Remember that you always want to try and use examples of situations that have actually occurred that are recognizable to the grader. This will yield the maximum points for your essay. Otherwise your essay was structured well and your resolution principle was good.

Score: 4.5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hi KaelaShaw,

Your essay is good overall, well structured and addresses the three tasks. Your resolution principle was also well thought out. However you will need to provide more specific examples of actual situations in order to receive higher marks. As well, avoid bringing up secondary points in your resolution paragraph (you talk about the context under which a lie is told, but that is a new idea being brought up at the end of the essay; avoid this) as this can cloud your argument and hinders unity.

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

[the stranger]

> 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.

 

(jflear) Your arguments and reasoning are sound, and I think your writing style is effective. Your examples are also strong, although your task 2 would benefit from a specific example of a situation. Still your general example worked there. Your task 3 ideas were also good however you should always clearly state your criteria. Don't leave it up to the grader because if they don't make the connection you will lose marks. Always restate the resolution principle in task three, and relate back to your specific examples. Lastly, make sure you go back over to look for mechanical errors to clean it up a bit.

Also try not to bring in too many ideas into each paragraph (your first paragraph was bogged down by details of the example. Instead spend more time explaining the examples' significance, and try to stick to a into sentence, example set up, example, example significance, concluson sentence approach).

Otherwise this was good.

Score: 4.5-5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hey sarup,

Your essay presents good arguments however I felt it was a little shallow overall. You should spend more time discussing the significance of your examples, how they relate to your arguments, and why they are relevant. One short line after each example is usually not enough to give the grader the sense that you know what you’re talking about. Try to expand on your thoughts to show an in-depth understanding of the topic. Watch your mechanical errors – they were starting to pile up in this essay. Be careful with sentence structure as well, as some of your sentences were a bit convoluted and hard to follow. Be sure to spend a couple of minutes going back and reading through your essay for these style points.

Score: 4-4.5/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hi diu12345,

Your essay is well structured and I really like your resolution principle – distinguishing between rights and privileges is a great way to resolve this prompt. However there are a couple things I’d like to bring up:

- Avoid using very categorical statements in task 1 (i.e. “Political achievements, therefore, cannot be justified by wrongful means”) because you will only have to refute your own strong statement a few sentences later when you address task 2. Better to stick with more neutral language in task 1

- Be careful with word choice – there are a few instances where the words you used do not have the intended meaning

Score: 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

[the stranger]

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.

 

 

Hey dcadieux,

You should avoid using a very colloquial tone – try to keep things more refined so that you don’t lose the grader’s attention or garner negative points for being too casual. Also make sure you don’t make sweeping statements that may not be completely accurate (i.e. “the United States is largely African American”). Also avoid introducing new ideas in your resolution paragraph – state your criteria, relate them back to your examples, and close with a summative statement. Try not to bring up any new arguments in your resolution as this will hinder unity and coherency.

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

[the stranger]

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.

 

See my comments above about colloquialisms. Also, make sure you clearly state your resolution criteria. If the grader can’t figure out what you’re trying to say they will consider that task inadequate. You should always clearly re state your criteria, and relate them back to your examples. Further, your examples would be strengthened if they were more specific.

Score: 3.5-4/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

 

Hey Something42,

Your arguments are sound but I feel your examples are not in line with your arguments. Your first example talks about “profit” in terms of benefit for the consumer and for the environment. However, the prompt is asking you to comment on profit in terms of money profit for a company based on selling their product. The companies that provide green roofing services probably don’t have their first priority as profit because they are obviously concerned about the environment, and would likely take a small hit in profits if it would mean helping the environment for whatever reason. As well your second example doesn’t seem to work either because in fact it would be in BP’s best interests from a profit standpoint that they spend money on protective mechanisms against spills, since clearly a spill will result in lost profits. So the view that the spill was a result of a lack of protective mechanisms, which was in turn a result of BP’s priority of profit maximization, is hard to defend. In the context of your other arguments then, your resolution principle does not hold up, since you haven’t shown that the pursuit of profits was beneficial or detrimental in either case. Make sure your arguments and examples are well planned and well thought out before writing to avoid this situation in future essays.

Score: 3.5/6

 

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

[the stranger]

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.

 

Make sure you use specific examples of actual situations to back up your arguments. Hypothetical situations will only yield you midrange scores. As well, make sure your resolution principle relates directly to the examples you used (here, your resolution talks about management in engineering firms and fluid dynamics, but your examples talk about co-op work placements and medical school courses). This will lend unity and coherency to your essay to push your score higher.

Score: 4/6

[the stranger]

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.

 

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

 

Hi floweriepot, hope this reaches you in time to review before tomorrow.

Your essay is well structured and you do address the tasks however you have to be sure to include specific examples for both task 1 and 2 (task 1 was better, task 2 needs to be more specific). Also, you don’t seem to offer a well thought out resolution principle. Simply stating that it depends on the field isn’t enough – you have to offer some sort of insight as to when the prompt would be true and when it might not be. Make sure you fully address the prompt and all three tasks for full marks.

Score: 3.5-4/6 <- depends on whether the grader deems your criteria in task 3 acceptable

[the stranger]

 

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!

 

Your second example could be a bit more specific, perhaps mentioning an actual NASA mission and an actual experiment that posed a threat to the astronauts lives (there are many examples of these). The comment I want to make here is to be careful about sentence structure – your last paragraph has several instances where poor sentence structure hinders readability. This clouds your task 3 and in fact if a grader is unable to decipher what you’re trying to say, they are much more likely to simply dock you points rather than try to figure out what your criteria were. Always err on the side of simplicity and conciseness, rather than verbosity. Try not to bring up too many new ideas in your task 3 as well as this only adds to the problem of unity at the end of your essay.

Score: 4/6

[anna8]

This prompt is from a practice test, my MCAT is in a few days so any help in my writing would be appreciated! Thank you for your time!

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses

 

 

One of the primary philosophies that businesses go by is to maximize profit through minimal costs. Hence, as profit is derived from product or service sales to consumers, businesses employ various strategies including marketing tactics in order to increase their sales. Marketing tactics often work by understanding the needs and wants of their consumers and using this knowledge to their advantage by tailoring their marketing strategies to these desires. Knowing that consumers are prone to succumb to marketing strategies that particularly appeal to them is critical to the success of a business. The tobacco industry giant Marlboro works by this rationale. Cigarettes are not a primary need yet they derive their success largely from enticing advertisements showcasing the image that smoking portrays. As men are statistically inclined to smoking more than women, Marlboro advertisements frequently portray an individual who smokes as being macho and appealing. That is, they take advantage of the fact that the majority of men, their primary consumers, desire a very strong and masculine appeal. Hence, the success of Marlboro as a tobacco business can be attributed to their use of this weakness among their consumers.

 

However, it is not always the case that businesses simply rely on using their consumers' weaknesses to their advantage. Some businesses, especially those who are involved in producing primary necessities, need not rely on marketing strategies to continue enjoying their success in the industry. Fuel companies, such as Shell, do not need a detailed understanding of the needs and wants of their consumers in order for them to have an increase in fuel sales. At present, there are very limited advertisements by Shell in mass media. This implies that they are not tapping into consumer's desires for fuel as a source of profits. Yet, they have been in the industry for decades now and continue to expand to various countries. Therefore, the success of Shell as a business is not brought about by taking advantage of their consumer's weaknesses.

 

All in all, what determines whether or not businesses take advantage of consumers' weaknesses in order to succeed is the nature of the business itself - whether the service or product they offer is considered to be a primary necessity in society. Cigarettes, as shown in the case of Marlboro, are not basic goods and therefore the company needs to exert extra effort in increasing product sales. This amounts to them needing to have a firm understanding of their consumers and using this knowledge into their benefit precisely by releasing advertisements that appeal to their consumers' weaknesses. On the other hand, when the business is involved in selling basic goods such as fuel, then inevitably consumers will patronize their products whether or not they position their business strategies into tapping consumer's weaknesses. Hence, these types of businesses continue to be successful by virtue of society's need for what they offer.

[Slimy]

Thank you so much for doing this!

 

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

 

The fitness of a business organization in a market is often measured by its ability to make profits. A business which cannot produce profit is "unfit" in the ever-competitive market and has no choice but to shut down eventually. Therefore, profit maximization must be the goal of every business organization. Dr. D. Drummond, a former chief economist of TD Canada Trust, once noted, "A business which does not aim to maximize profits can only perish." His saying was transparently illustrated by the fate of Samsung Motors. Samsung Group, one of the largest conglomerates in Asia, embarked on automobile productions in 1999. Since its beginning, Samsung Motors mainly concentrated on increasing its sales share in the automobile market, rather than maximizing its profits. The company had sold its automobiles at a significantly lower price than its competitors, resulting in very low profit margin per sale. Even before its first birthday, Samsung Motors had piled huge deficits for the its parent company, Samsung Group. In 2000, Samsung Group's owner, Lee Kun-hee decided to forfeit his endeavor in automobile industry and sell Samsung Motors to its French competitor, Renault. It is clearly exemplified, through the brief life of Samsung Motors, that the primary goal of a business should be to its maximize profits.

 

However, certain organizations should not aim to maximize their profits. Non-profit business organizations (NPO), such as Doctors Without Borders, are a very different breed of business organizations than companies like Samsung Motors. A NPO's fitness is not measured by its profits, but its ability to aid people in need. Initially, Doctors Without Borders was established by a group of French doctors who were alerted by the deprivation of medical products and services in developing nations. Currently, the organization provides, in addition to medical services, sanitized water and food, medicinal drugs, and health education in developing countries, without charge. Its primary objective should be to provide its free good and services to as many people as possible in the less fortunate part of the world. A profit-centered goal in a NPO, such as Doctors Without Borders, is unmatched with its benevolent functions. Clearly, for certain businesses, profit maximization should not be its primary goal.

 

Whether or not the primary goal of a business should be to maximize profit depends on the nature of the business. If the business an industrial organization which competes with companies which produce similar goods and services, its primary objective should to be maximize its profits. As in the example of Samsung Motors, a primary objective other than profit maximization would eventually result in failure of the organization. However, some businesses center their production of goods and services around benevolence. NPOs, such as Doctors Without Borders, distribute their free goods and services. Therefore, these business organizations cannot and must not aim to maximize their profits. Clearly, profit maximization is the key in survival for many businesses, but not for every business. Although, in the world of business, profit remains the most prominent examination of a company's fitness, however, not all company's fitness can be measured by the amount of profits.

[Forever21]

Thank you so much for reading this over. This is my first essay I have written so any feedback would be appreciated! Thanks.

 

Environment concerns should outweigh economic concerns in society’s decision making.

 

Describe a specific situation in which environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority.

 

When Canadians are asked an open-ended list of top factors the country is facing today, the economy is always near the top of the list while environmental concerns seldom break the top five issues mentioned. For most people, economic concerns are a top-mind concern and therefore carry more political weight. The economy is found to largely control countless decisions at all scales, from the individual level right up to the federal level. Though, usually pushed to the way side, environmental concerns are considered by many to be of equal concern if not outweigh those of the economy. The old saying, you don’t know what you have until it’s gone is quite applicable. Most will argue that the long lasting effects on the environment are detrimental and irreversible. For instance, the government of Canada has recently ceased their development within the boreal forests in order to protect the survival of the woodland caribou. Recently, the caribou have become a politically important topic since much of their land has been destroyed due to the pressures of mining, logging and oil developments in the surrounding areas.

Though economics would rather see development and the industry importance prevail, Environment Canada decided to hold off development to allow for the population of caribou to grow and further expand. Clearly particular countries are concerned for the diversity loss within the environment that has increased over the years and place this above the rising profit concerns in today’s recent economic downturns.

 

Though some will argue that environmental concerns are above all else, it is just as easy to find individuals as well as groups willing to put economic concerns above those of the environmental type. The economy is a basis for driving our country’s wealth as well as our standing within the global community, its influence in decisions cannot be overlooked. This is evident through many government decisions such as cutting down parts of the rain forest in Brazil to head way for the wood cutting industry and farm lands. Though concerns were raised over ecosystem disruption and diversity and speciation loss, the choice was ultimately made to further maximize profit. The creation of these additional farming lands brought considerable money into Brazil, allowing them to create more jobs for their population and the logging industry allowed them to become international traders exporting their goods with United States and Europe. Brazil ultimately was able to further their economical situation as well as status within the world. Evidently, in this case, environmental concerns should not be its primary goal since this would defeat the country's main goal, profit maximization.

 

Although governmental decisions within Canada do seem to be preferring a direction that may protect the environment, with focus on the diversity and habitat loss, there is no denying that on a world scale, other less developed countries system preferential weigh economic concerns over that of environmental. Every decision made at the governmental level is weighed against all the possible outcomes. For a completely developed country, economic concerns are always going to be part of the top concerns but so too are the environmental concerns. Being from a good economic standpoint, these countries are able to put more focus on developing their environmental concerns usually found further down on priorities. In comparison, those countries fighting to improve their economic status more heavily on their economic concerns. The overall decision between economics and environmental concerns are therefore based on the country’s economic stand status.

[the stranger]

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.

 

----------

 

 

=)

 

Good to hear from you again ayinniya,

Remember that you need to include an example for task 1 in order to make it very clear to the grader that you’ve understood what the prompt means. As well, you should avoid restating the prompt in its exact words, and spend a little more time explaining what you think the statement means (you only had 1 sentence). Your second example was all right however you would need to define “progress” in order to make it clear how prohibition was an example of progress. Your resolution principle seemed to have some good insight however your sentence structure was a bit convoluted – aim for clarity and conciseness.

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

[the stranger]

 

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.

 

=)

 

 

This essay suffers from similar issues as your last one. You must provide an example in task 1 to really make your argument/explanation of the prompt hit home. As well your second example needs to be more specific in order to be truly convincing (you are right that probably many people who previously held a negative view of same sex marriage have changed their opinion, but you need to provide a specific example of this happening – simply stating that it may be true is not enough). Finally, your resolution is ok but your criteria don’t relate back to your examples – if you had a more specific example for task 2 that showed a person contemplating the law and then changing their view of same sex marriage, this would be much more convincing).

Score: 4/6

[MoMed]

Hi Sameer, thanks a lot for doing this, it's really generous of you. I've actually been lurking this forum for a while and made an account just to get some feedback on my essays. Anyways, here's my prompt:

 

Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

 

If one is to succeed in the modern world, it is crucial that he/she receives adequate training through education. There are multiple forms of education that serve to prepare individuals in various circumstances. When one is learning from practical experience, he/she directly engages in activities related to their prospective careers, while when gaining an education from "books," he/she is said to gain a theoretical understanding of a topic or concept without carrying out any of the activities or tasks pertaining to what they are learning. In order to effectively educate someone, that is to ensure they are able to succeed in the work force by performing their required tasks efficiently, it is essential that that person gains practical experience in that area. Only with practical experience will that individual be able to successfully enter the work-force with a working knowledge of what is expected of them. For instance, upon entering college in pursuit of becoming a nurse, one is expected to gain practical experience in the health care field. Without this experience, that individual is unlikely to be able to efficiently work in that setting without practice in the activities a nurse is expected to complete. Tasks such as measuring blood pressure, heart rates, changing catheters would seem overly difficult without any practical experience.

 

However, in some instances the role of education is not to prepare someone to enter the work-force, but rather to offer society a standard of knowledge shared by the population. The population on a whole is expected to have completed high school, and to that effect society maintains a minimal standard of education. In most cases however, courses in high school seldom offer practical experience to the students. For instance, a chemistry class in high school might offer the student a basic understanding of some chemistry principles through learning from "books". The fact that no practical experience is given to that student does not hinder his/her education, as the primary goal of the high school is to simply provide the students with knowledge pertaining to chemistry, and not to prepare the student for a career in chemistry.

 

How does one determine when education is most beneficial from books, or from practical experience? The primary goals of the educational institution needs to be taken into considering when deciding whether or not practical experience is more beneficial than books. If the educational institution serves to ready the students for entering the work force, then education through practical experience will be most beneficial to that student. As can be seen with the nurse, who would benefit most from actually training to carry out the tasks he/she will likely have to do in his/her job. In other cases, where the goal of the educational institution is to provide a body of knowledge to its students with no intention in training them to carry out tasks that would be found in their prospective jobs, providing education through practical experience would not yield more benefits than providing one through experience.

[the stranger]

Hey everyone, I just wanted to clarify that myself and the other Prep101 instructor do get paid for grading your essays. Of course it's free for all of you but we do get compensated for our time.

 

Hope that doesn't change anything for any of you.

 

Happy writing!

 

Sameer