Prep101 - free Writing Sample tutoring

[Nadil]

Hi PreMed101,

 

So we decided to change a couple of things. First, I will post all of the prompts in one new thread (this it it), so ALL new prompts will be here every 5 days (July 19, 24, 29, August 3, 8). I will include the words "newest prompt" on the most recent prompt posted (that way you can search for "newest prompt" and easily find the latest one). Secondly, you can now also post essays to ANY of the prompts at any time, just be sure to include which prompt you're replying to in your response.

So if you would like to respond to the prompt #1 you can also do so here. Prompt #1 was:

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

 

Please post all your essays to this prompt, even if you're responding to one of the older prompts. That way everything will be in one place.

 

The current prompt is prompt #2:

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

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 wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people. Discuss what you think determines whether a wealthy politician can or cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

Instructions:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Good luck!

 

Nadil

[PastaInhaler]

Hey Nadil,

 

Thanks for your help and your input. Really appreciated you taking time out to help pre-meds. Thanks man!

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people

 

"You can win some, but you can't win them all," is an old addage that echoes the practical reality of operating within a democratic government. In such a government, politicians are elected into office through a majority vote by all the citizens in which he serves. In order that he retain his post, or is even elected into office in the first place is reflected in his ability to appeal to the interest of as many voters as possible. Perhaps, this task becomes more complicated if a politician is wealthy. The role that wealth plays in this discussion is that the politician's interests may be mixed in with the interests of certain citizens he represents. The politician may want to favour the forwarding of legal policies that would, at least on the financial front, be beneficial to some, the affluent members of society, while ostracizing those who are not affluent, the middleclass citizens and the poor. This notion is illustrated by the politician, Paul Harper of the Progressive Conservative Party of the Canadian government who was elected into office as the Prime Minister of Canada, enjoying the luxurious salary that came with this post. His policies stemmed to allow tax breaks for affluent families and large corporations doing business in Canada as a means to stimulate the economy in Ontario. All the while, the income taxes applied to the middle class and poor remained the same. The middleclass and the poor's interest were certainly not appropriately represented in this case.

 

Even though Harper's tax regime seemed unfair, his entire administration is not entirely unfair. In fact, some aspects of his tax policies and the usage of the governmental income can be beneficial to all the people. Healthcare applies to all citizens of Canada, as it is understood as a right by Canadians. In following this belief, healthcare is freely available to Canadians, in as much as taxes are a mandatory part of Canadian life. The amount of money placed into healthcare services is a percentage based on income, and does not fluctuate drastically from income levels. In this way, a poor citizen can make the same percentage of income contribution as a wealthy citizen. As this percentage is consistent across income levels, it is deemed fair and appealing to all people. Further, all citizens are allowed the same high-level of healthcare in Canada as the next person, and there is minimal dissension about the benefit of such a system.

 

Wealthy politicians working under a democratic government may find themselves with difficulties trying to represent fairly all citizens to which he serves. This task is complicated because he may have a vested interest in financial matters, and ways in which to benefit the wealthy people to which he is a part. Depending on certain subject matters can the wealthy politician not fully represent all citizens fairly and fully. Yet when the subject matter changes, such as to matters of health care where income wanes into a non-issue because the percentage of income collected for healthcare costs from each citizen remains the same, all citizens can be fairly represented even if the politician is wealthy.

[medUBC2016]

This is my first go, thanks for doing this!

 

In modern government the elected politician is bestowed with the task of making decisions for the majority electorate, while keeping in mind their "best interest". In cases where the politicians background may sway them in a certain direction, the politician is not able to offer fair representation to his or her electorate, as the politician may not have been exposed to certain situations that offer him or her an unbiased view. Specifically, a wealthy politician is not able to make decisions regarding financial issues as they have not experienced a situation in which they were without money. Take for example the current financial situation in Greece. Current Prime Minister George Papandreou was born into a particularly wealthy family in the United States. His financial background makes him unfit to decide Greece's future economic plan regardless of its present state, this being reflected in the nation's outcry against the recent tax impositions. Additionally Papandreou's status as a wealthy politician associates him with a certain bias when making decisions regarding finances.

 

Alternatively, former South African President Nelson Mandela, considered one of the great politicians of his age, was more than able to make decisions regarding his nations. This ability was rooted in his source of wealth, as he earned his financial status contrasting Papandreou's inheritance. Due to his tumultuous path to the Presidency, Mandela was able to obtain a broad perspective of the lives of South African's of varying financial status, thus enabling him to consider all his citizens when making national decisions.

 

So what makes a wealthy politician fit to represent his people? The answer to this questions lies simply in the politicians avenue of wealth. In Papandreou's case, his wealth was inherited thus he never obtained a full knowledge of others' financial situations. Juxtaposed with Mandela's financial earning, one can see that the means by which a politician becomes wealthy determine whether or not he is fit to rule a nation and offer representation to its peoples.

[Purplehaze]

Hi Nadil,

 

Thanks in advance for your help Here goes...

 

In order to get elected into an office, politicians present a platform to the electorate stating what they intend to do for the community once elected. Their platform indicates how they plan to represent individuals of the community and how they would bring about necessary changes to better the lives of the people they would like to serve. Once elected however, politicians are fully capable of acting in a manner that does not necessarily represent the people they were elected by. If the issues troubling individuals of the community are the same issues that are bringing prosperity to the wealthy politicians, then a conflict of interest is generated. In such situations, wealthy politicians may not be expected to offer fair representation to all members of the community. Take for instance, politicians who have made investments in oil companies. While these politicians have a responsibility to look into the concerns of environmental groups who are worried about the negative impacts of oil usage on the planet, they also have a vested interest in keeping the oil industry alive as it is a source of income for them.

 

However, there can also be many situations where politicians offer fair representation to all members of a community. Take for instance the AIDS pandemic in Botswana. Botswana is the second highest AIDS affected nation in the world; nearly one-fourth of its population is HIV-positive. A few years earlier, when the pandemic was at its worst, the president of Botswana introduced a national AIDS campaign that provided free anti-retroviral drugs to all individuals affected with the virus. Having one-fourth of its population affected with HIV has had a negative impact on the nation as whole. Part of the reason for this is because the number of healthy individuals who are available to work in crucial sectors such as health and education has decreased as a whole. By recognizing the overall impact the AIDS pandemic was having on the nation, the President of Botswana fairly represented his nation in implementing a nation-wide AIDS campaign to help put an end to the pandemic.

 

What determines whether a politician can or cannot fairly represent his community? The answer depends on whether the issue at hand is one that can provide personal gains to the politician; such an issue would generate a conflict of interest, swaying the politician to act in his/her own best interests, as opposed to the community's best interests. If however, the issue is of a general concern to the community as a whole and does not provide a conflict of interest, then a politician can be expected to make decisions that fairly represent his community.

[Nadil]

Hey Nadil,

 

Thanks for your help and your input. Really appreciated you taking time out to help pre-meds. Thanks man!

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people

 

"You can win some, but you can't win them all," is an old addage that echoes the practical reality of operating within a democratic government. In such a government, politicians are elected into office through a majority vote by all the citizens in which he serves. In order that he retain his post, or is even elected into office in the first place is reflected in his ability to appeal to the interest of as many voters as possible. Perhaps, this task becomes more complicated if a politician is wealthy. The role that wealth plays in this discussion is that the politician's interests may be mixed in with the interests of certain citizens he represents. The politician may want to favour the forwarding of legal policies that would, at least on the financial front, be beneficial to some, the affluent members of society, while ostracizing those who are not affluent, the middleclass citizens and the poor. This notion is illustrated by the politician, Paul Harper of the Progressive Conservative Party of the Canadian government who was elected into office as the Prime Minister of Canada, enjoying the luxurious salary that came with this post. His policies stemmed to allow tax breaks for affluent families and large corporations doing business in Canada as a means to stimulate the economy in Ontario. All the while, the income taxes applied to the middle class and poor remained the same. The middleclass and the poor's interest were certainly not appropriately represented in this case.

 

Even though Harper's tax regime seemed unfair, his entire administration is not entirely unfair. In fact, some aspects of his tax policies and the usage of the governmental income can be beneficial to all the people. Healthcare applies to all citizens of Canada, as it is understood as a right by Canadians. In following this belief, healthcare is freely available to Canadians, in as much as taxes are a mandatory part of Canadian life. The amount of money placed into healthcare services is a percentage based on income, and does not fluctuate drastically from income levels. In this way, a poor citizen can make the same percentage of income contribution as a wealthy citizen. As this percentage is consistent across income levels, it is deemed fair and appealing to all people. Further, all citizens are allowed the same high-level of healthcare in Canada as the next person, and there is minimal dissension about the benefit of such a system.

 

Wealthy politicians working under a democratic government may find themselves with difficulties trying to represent fairly all citizens to which he serves. This task is complicated because he may have a vested interest in financial matters, and ways in which to benefit the wealthy people to which he is a part. Depending on certain subject matters can the wealthy politician not fully represent all citizens fairly and fully. Yet when the subject matter changes, such as to matters of health care where income wanes into a non-issue because the percentage of income collected for healthcare costs from each citizen remains the same, all citizens can be fairly represented even if the politician is wealthy.

 

Hi PastaInhaler,

Hope this helps:

 

 

The essay has a great introduction as it immediately catches the reader’s attention. Although the argument in the first paragraph is logical, the example to support it is weak. Although Stephen Harper’s salary is higher than the average citizen, the same can be said for salaries of most (if not all) world leaders. The argument could have been made that since all politicians are wealthy (because they have high salaries) they cannot represent all people. However, in your essay you implied that if a politician is wealthy, it is more difficult to represent fairly. Stephen Harper does not actually come from a wealthy background (his dad is an accountant), as compared to John Kerry or George Bush who are from wealthy families. As such, your example doesn’t strongly support your argument. Unfortunately, the example in the second paragraph is also weak. Firstly, it is not advisable to use the same example (i.e. Stephen Harper) for both sides of the argument because it will often lead to a contradiction and will almost always weaken your essay. Secondly, Stephen Harper did not implement the taxing system you are referring to.

The concluding paragraph is unclear. For example, what does “certain subject matters” refer to? After a more critical analysis, there is no clear rule provided for when a wealthy politician can represent the people and when they cannot, since in healthcare taxes income is not a “non-issue” (corporate tax cuts decrease the financial support of large corporations toward healthcare).

Furthermore, there were also a few grammar mistakes noted. As such, although your arguments were in line with the prompt, the essay was weak due to the examples chosen. Suggestions for improvement would include ensuring your examples directly and accurately support your arguments.

Also, on a last note, do not refer to politicians as “he” as it reflects gender bias.

 

Score: 3/6 (Some clarity of thought but distortion of the tasks)

[Nadil]

This is my first go, thanks for doing this!

 

In modern government the elected politician is bestowed with the task of making decisions for the majority electorate, while keeping in mind their "best interest". In cases where the politicians background may sway them in a certain direction, the politician is not able to offer fair representation to his or her electorate, as the politician may not have been exposed to certain situations that offer him or her an unbiased view. Specifically, a wealthy politician is not able to make decisions regarding financial issues as they have not experienced a situation in which they were without money. Take for example the current financial situation in Greece. Current Prime Minister George Papandreou was born into a particularly wealthy family in the United States. His financial background makes him unfit to decide Greece's future economic plan regardless of its present state, this being reflected in the nation's outcry against the recent tax impositions. Additionally Papandreou's status as a wealthy politician associates him with a certain bias when making decisions regarding finances.

 

Alternatively, former South African President Nelson Mandela, considered one of the great politicians of his age, was more than able to make decisions regarding his nations. This ability was rooted in his source of wealth, as he earned his financial status contrasting Papandreou's inheritance. Due to his tumultuous path to the Presidency, Mandela was able to obtain a broad perspective of the lives of South African's of varying financial status, thus enabling him to consider all his citizens when making national decisions.

 

So what makes a wealthy politician fit to represent his people? The answer to this questions lies simply in the politicians avenue of wealth. In Papandreou's case, his wealth was inherited thus he never obtained a full knowledge of others' financial situations. Juxtaposed with Mandela's financial earning, one can see that the means by which a politician becomes wealthy determine whether or not he is fit to rule a nation and offer representation to its peoples.

 

Hello, hope this helps,

 

The arguments presented are very logical and well thought out, such that they clearly address the tasks within the prompt. However, in the first paragraph, although the example is good, it is not described particularly well. Based upon your argument, the Greek prime minister cannot make appropriate decisions because he cannot relate to the particular situation of the citizens (i.e. imposing taxes during a recession), not as you stated regardless of the situation. Be more specific in describing why he is unable to deal with the situation, instead of using vague terms such as “a certain bias”. A clear and more specific example is always stronger than an unclear and vague example. Take the time to clearly outline your examples.

The second paragraph is a bit too brief. Apart from an example, you must also provide an explanation of why (in certain situations), the wealthy politician can provide representation to all people. An example does not substitute for an explanation, you must provide both.

 

Score: 4/6 (Adequately addresses all 3 tasks)

[Nadil]

Hi Nadil,

 

Thanks in advance for your help Here goes...

 

In order to get elected into an office, politicians present a platform to the electorate stating what they intend to do for the community once elected. Their platform indicates how they plan to represent individuals of the community and how they would bring about necessary changes to better the lives of the people they would like to serve. Once elected however, politicians are fully capable of acting in a manner that does not necessarily represent the people they were elected by. If the issues troubling individuals of the community are the same issues that are bringing prosperity to the wealthy politicians, then a conflict of interest is generated. In such situations, wealthy politicians may not be expected to offer fair representation to all members of the community. Take for instance, politicians who have made investments in oil companies. While these politicians have a responsibility to look into the concerns of environmental groups who are worried about the negative impacts of oil usage on the planet, they also have a vested interest in keeping the oil industry alive as it is a source of income for them.

 

However, there can also be many situations where politicians offer fair representation to all members of a community. Take for instance the AIDS pandemic in Botswana. Botswana is the second highest AIDS affected nation in the world; nearly one-fourth of its population is HIV-positive. A few years earlier, when the pandemic was at its worst, the president of Botswana introduced a national AIDS campaign that provided free anti-retroviral drugs to all individuals affected with the virus. Having one-fourth of its population affected with HIV has had a negative impact on the nation as whole. Part of the reason for this is because the number of healthy individuals who are available to work in crucial sectors such as health and education has decreased as a whole. By recognizing the overall impact the AIDS pandemic was having on the nation, the President of Botswana fairly represented his nation in implementing a nation-wide AIDS campaign to help put an end to the pandemic.

 

What determines whether a politician can or cannot fairly represent his community? The answer depends on whether the issue at hand is one that can provide personal gains to the politician; such an issue would generate a conflict of interest, swaying the politician to act in his/her own best interests, as opposed to the community's best interests. If however, the issue is of a general concern to the community as a whole and does not provide a conflict of interest, then a politician can be expected to make decisions that fairly represent his community.

 

Hi Purplehaze,

Hope this helps:

 

 

The argument in the first paragraph is logical and in tune with the prompt. It also exemplifies some depth of thought and is clearly presented. Unfortunately, the argument is poorly supported by a vague example. The example could easily have been made stronger by adding some specificity (i.e. which politicians have investments in oil companies?).

The second paragraph does not clearly provide a refuting argument to the prompt. Firstly, the example doesn’t specifically outline when a wealthy politician can provide representation to all people, instead it refers to situations when politicians in general can fairly represent all people. Secondly, it is not clear how the example refers to a situation where all people were fairly represented, since a nationwide AIDS campaign would benefit only those with AIDS (i.e. 25% of the population). The assumption that this AIDS campaign would then indirectly help all people by providing more healthy individuals to work is not a strong example.

The concluding paragraph is clear and the resolution between the two sides of the argument is logical.

The essay exemplifies simplistic language, especially during transitions between paragraphs, which do not provide any type of flow between your ideas. Try to be more creative in your transitions between paragraphs then simply repeating the prompt.

 

Score: 3/6 (Clarity of thought, but distortion of some of the tasks, i.e. Task 2).

[Wookie]

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this service!

 

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

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 wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people. Discuss what you think determines whether a wealthy politician can or cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

Politics can often be a contentious and segregated arena, leaving many different sectors of society unsatisfied with certain laws and policies. As such, politicians are often the accountable parties who are subject to public suspicion and inquiry. Specifically, the motives and motivations of wealthy politicians can create dissension amongst the lower and middle class population. These echelons of society may feel that a wealthy politician can never offer fair representation since they are in a more privileged position and are unable to experience their issues. Frank Hubbard summarized this succinctly by stating that, "we'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate." A germane example of this is the 81st president of Nicaragua, Arnoldo Aleman. President Aleman was born in a third-world country but was raised in a very wealthy family. Prior to his inauguration, he was able to obtain a degree in law, work in the commercial banking industry and expand his investment portfolio. After serving five years in office, officials discovered unequivocal evidence of money laundering and embezzlement in the amount of 100 million dollars. Considering that many Nicaraguans were unable to access basic amenities such as clean sanitation at that time, the tenebrous activities of President Aleman was a quintessential example of how a wealthy politician cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

However, not all politicians share the same profile as Arnoldo Aleman. As Henry Kissinger once stated, "90% of politicians often give the other 10% a bad reputation." Michaelle Jean, the former Governor-General of Canada, is an example of the "other 10 percent." Dr. Jean was a relatively wealthy journalist and broadcaster for Radio-Canada and the Canadian Broadcast Corporation. After she was appointed as Governor-General of Canada, Dr. Jean tenaciously worked to unite Canadians across the country. Her personal coat of arms read: Briser Les Solitudes, which translated into "Breaking down Solitudes." Dr. Jean's goal was to not only unite the Francophones and Anglophones of Canada, but the improve the relations between people of all racial, linguistic, cultural and gender groups throughout the nation. Thus, this can serve as an example of how a wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people.

 

Ultimately, the style of government and the level of public education can determine whether a politician can offer fair representation to all people. In a democratic country such as Canada, most people are educated, the public is cognizant of their rights, the media is transparent and influential, and elections are held to vote for leaders. This puts more pressure on wealthy politicians to be accountable and inclined to represent all people in a fair manner. This is further supported by the presence of an ombudsman. In contrast, in some nations such as Zimbabwe and North Korea, the style of government may resemble a pseudo-democracy or a totalitarian regime. If "knowledge is power," the people are powerless due to the lack of education or the control of information. For example, in North Korea, although the literacy rate is 99 percent, the government controls the flow of information thus suppressing creativity and critical thinking. The general public of Zimbabwe share a similar fate, where the government controls information by intentionally prohibiting any investment towards public education. Therefore only in the presence of an educated public and a nonpartisan and democratic government can wealthy politicians feel any obligation and accountability to provide fair representation to all people.

[shir312]

Hello! Thanks in advance for marking my essay. I decided to respond to prompt number one, since I had yet to write an essay for it.

 

Prompt #1- In business, the image of a product is more important that the product itself

 

 

Businesses that aim to bring in considerable revenue from the sale of a product often spend millions of dollars on marketing and advertising campaigns to build a positive image for the item. This is because the image of a product is the first thing consumers see when introduced to the item, whether through magazine or television advertisements, and as the old saying goes, 'one must always make a good first impression'.

 

For advertisers, a good first impression from a unique and positive product image leads to maximum sales despite the truth about the product itself. A classic example of this is the image sales for cigarettes from tobacco companies worldwide. In the early 20th century before full disclosure about the health risks of the product were mandatory,smoking was marketed as a 'cool' thing to do. Engaging in the act of smoking cigarettes instantly made one more desirable or attractive, despite the life-threatening affects of tobacco on one's health. Even in modern society, a number of individuals smoke heavily due to this persistent image despite new campaigns that actively educate society about the detrimental effects of smoking. It is clear that when considering tobacco and smoking campaigns, not only was the image very important for the success of the product, but highly successful as well.

 

However, that isn't to say that a product's image is the sole variable in determining the success of its sales. Numerous advertisements for medications attempt to market their product with a positive image, but are forced to disclose all possible health side effects alongside the benefits. Products like Alesse, a birth control pill, need to disclose information about possible effects on blood pressure, hormone levels, intestinal functions, etc

to avoid legal action against them from potential consumers if anything wrong happened upon consumption of the product. While a good image is important to advertise these products, in modern society the product itself is much more important, especially since it provides consumers with potentially dangerous alterations to their health that the company is forced to advertise.

 

Therefore, the image of a product is important when attempting to advertise products that may potentially harm the consumers. As is the case with smoking cigarettes, a 'cool' image of the product persists in modern society because of brilliant marketing campaigns from the early 20th century despite its obvious health defects. However, modern medications that affect a consumer's health have to deal with the reality that their product will be more important than the image itself because of stricter laws forcing companies full disclosure about any possible side effects that may occur.

[viper]

Thanks for your input, it is greatly appreciated!

 

Prompt 1 - In business, the image of a product is more important that the product itself

 

Business is essentially a competition driven by innovation; consumers crave new and unique products and are willing to spend large amounts of money to get them. Additionally, innovation is tied to image. New and exciting products usually have intriguing designs and trendy exteriors which appeal to the human eye. One needs to look no further than the history of human’s obsession with shiny metallic jewelry or colourful gem stones to illustrate this point. It is human nature for most individuals to seek attention from others, and there is no better way to receive this spotlight than to stand out. This is where image excels in business. Take the example of the “Nissan Cube” sports utility vehicle. There is undoubtedly no other vehicle on the market that looks like it, and for good reason. The large, boxed shape of the vehicle gives it poor aerodynamics resulting in poor gas mileage, an unwanted attribute of any vehicle owner. However, the appeal of the car lies not in its functionality, but in it’s appearance. It’s extremely unique design makes it different from all other automobiles, and this results in attention being drawn on it whenever it drives by. Nissan utilized this concept in marketing, leading to a major increase in sales, and proving that image overrides functionality.

 

The goal in business is to achieve a profit, and this cannot be accomplished if customers do not buy a product. When a product is of poor quality, it quickly becomes publicized on the market, resulting in buyers being hesitant to purchase the product. This can easily damage the reputation of the company, and drastically hurt sales of other goods the business produces. To regain the respect of consumers, often manufacturers are often forced to recall products that are defective, problematic and of poor quality. This is a costly process and is counterproductive in regards to the goals of business. An example of this is Apple’s iPhone4. Although the phone is arguably the most attractive, sleek and innovative phone currently on the market, it does not serve it’s function. The phone has been noted to have a defective antenna, resulting in the inability to make phone calls at times. This is a prime example in which a company placed image ahead of functionality. Consequently, Apple will likely be forced to recall all the phones if it wants to regain its former reputation. This will cost billions of dollars and be a major setback to the company’s profits. This example proves that product image is not always the most significant factor in successful business.

 

A business needs to consider balance in order to successfully profit in selling a good. There is no doubt that image is critical in attracting buyers and driving sales, however the product must be able to properly function and meet the needs of consumers in order to be successful. If one element is sacrified for another, the ability to excel in a corporate sense is diminished. The correct formula of trendiness and design in corporation with desired function is required for sales of a product to thrive.

[jrandhawa]

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

One cannot successfully represent another without truly understanding them first. In most cases, politicians who have a lot of money cannot properly empathize with poor people. Many wealthy politicians simply have no basis for understanding the many adversities faced by the monetarily disadvantaged masses. For example, former US president George Bush grew up in a rather wealthy family and never really experience poverty firsthand. Therefore, he was unable to understand the problems faced by the impoverished people of the United States. As such, he could not offer a fair representation to all of the people as evidenced in his political policies.

 

However, in some cases a wealthy politician may understand the central issues of the poor; allowing him/her to accurately represent the people. Unlike Bush, current US president Barack Obama did not grow up in a highly advantaged environment. Obama’s childhood experiences have given him a better understanding of poverty. Although he may be wealthy, he still retains an understanding of the issues faced by the poor and can therefore fairly represent the masses. This is evidenced by his current popularity worldwide.

 

Previous experiences determine whether or not a wealthy politician can fairly represent all people. This is because understanding, which leads to proper representation, comes through experience. If a politician has experienced poverty or knows someone close to them who is struggling with it they will more accurately represent all the people. However, if a politician has been wealthy all their life and have no idea what is like to be poor they cannot possibly represent those that are disadvantaged. Overall, diverse experiences determine whether or not a politician can fairly represent the diverse masses.

[hailey_medschool]

Prompt 2

 

The familiar idiom Winston Churchill once said “When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed to be right and wise”, the phase could explain the actions of politicians. Politicians controlling an area are often so lost in their own world they cannot portray the needs of the people. The population of a geographic area is so large that everyone’s issues cannot be portrayed through the politicians.

 

On the other hand there are times where the political government and the people had a uniform act on a decision. In cases such as the Battle of Troy all of the Trojans wanted the invaders to leave. There was a uniform decision of all the people, which was portrayed through the actions of General Hector. There are times in which everyone listens to his or her natural instincts. During that time, politicians and the people’s decisions go hand in hand.

 

When are there politicians acting in accordance to their own plan and not the peoples? It is important to know that people often act in their own interests and choose the decisions that would be best for them. When there comes a time that there is an issue that would be in the best interests for the politicians and the people there will be a uniform representation. It is the majority of time that politicians act in accordance to their own plans and can not represent all the people. Politicians act to serve the best interests for themselves, so depending on the situation the politicians can or can not represent all the people.

[Nadil]

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this service!

 

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

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 wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people. Discuss what you think determines whether a wealthy politician can or cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

Politics can often be a contentious and segregated arena, leaving many different sectors of society unsatisfied with certain laws and policies. As such, politicians are often the accountable parties who are subject to public suspicion and inquiry. Specifically, the motives and motivations of wealthy politicians can create dissension amongst the lower and middle class population. These echelons of society may feel that a wealthy politician can never offer fair representation since they are in a more privileged position and are unable to experience their issues. Frank Hubbard summarized this succinctly by stating that, "we'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate." A germane example of this is the 81st president of Nicaragua, Arnoldo Aleman. President Aleman was born in a third-world country but was raised in a very wealthy family. Prior to his inauguration, he was able to obtain a degree in law, work in the commercial banking industry and expand his investment portfolio. After serving five years in office, officials discovered unequivocal evidence of money laundering and embezzlement in the amount of 100 million dollars. Considering that many Nicaraguans were unable to access basic amenities such as clean sanitation at that time, the tenebrous activities of President Aleman was a quintessential example of how a wealthy politician cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

However, not all politicians share the same profile as Arnoldo Aleman. As Henry Kissinger once stated, "90% of politicians often give the other 10% a bad reputation." Michaelle Jean, the former Governor-General of Canada, is an example of the "other 10 percent." Dr. Jean was a relatively wealthy journalist and broadcaster for Radio-Canada and the Canadian Broadcast Corporation. After she was appointed as Governor-General of Canada, Dr. Jean tenaciously worked to unite Canadians across the country. Her personal coat of arms read: Briser Les Solitudes, which translated into "Breaking down Solitudes." Dr. Jean's goal was to not only unite the Francophones and Anglophones of Canada, but the improve the relations between people of all racial, linguistic, cultural and gender groups throughout the nation. Thus, this can serve as an example of how a wealthy politician might offer fair representation to all the people.

 

Ultimately, the style of government and the level of public education can determine whether a politician can offer fair representation to all people. In a democratic country such as Canada, most people are educated, the public is cognizant of their rights, the media is transparent and influential, and elections are held to vote for leaders. This puts more pressure on wealthy politicians to be accountable and inclined to represent all people in a fair manner. This is further supported by the presence of an ombudsman. In contrast, in some nations such as Zimbabwe and North Korea, the style of government may resemble a pseudo-democracy or a totalitarian regime. If "knowledge is power," the people are powerless due to the lack of education or the control of information. For example, in North Korea, although the literacy rate is 99 percent, the government controls the flow of information thus suppressing creativity and critical thinking. The general public of Zimbabwe share a similar fate, where the government controls information by intentionally prohibiting any investment towards public education. Therefore only in the presence of an educated public and a nonpartisan and democratic government can wealthy politicians feel any obligation and accountability to provide fair representation to all people.

 

Hello, hope this helps:

 

The argument presented in the first paragraph is well presented and logical, however, is not directly supported by the example provided. A politician who steals and is involved in illegal activities benefiting only himself cannot offer fair representation to all citizens of a country, not just the poor. A better example to support your argument would be a situation where a wealthy politician favors the wealthy disfavors the poor through his policies.

The transition to the second paragraph is skillfully done. Furthermore, the example provided in the second paragraph is presented provides specificity and a clear counter situation to the prompt. Lastly, although the concluding paragraph provides a reasonable resolution between the two arguments, the extra examples provided take away from a strong closure to the essay. Do not include more examples in your concluding paragraph, as this leaves the reader pondering additional points rather than thinking about the points made in the body of the essay. Instead, focus on creating a clear resolution and closing down the arguments presented in your first two paragraphs. The essay exemplifies a strong writing style with few grammar and spelling mistakes.

 

Score: 4/6 (With a stronger example in your first paragraph and a cleaner concluding paragraph I feel this essay would be closer to 5/6)

[Nadil]

Hello! Thanks in advance for marking my essay. I decided to respond to prompt number one, since I had yet to write an essay for it.

 

Prompt #1- In business, the image of a product is more important that the product itself

 

 

Businesses that aim to bring in considerable revenue from the sale of a product often spend millions of dollars on marketing and advertising campaigns to build a positive image for the item. This is because the image of a product is the first thing consumers see when introduced to the item, whether through magazine or television advertisements, and as the old saying goes, 'one must always make a good first impression'.

 

For advertisers, a good first impression from a unique and positive product image leads to maximum sales despite the truth about the product itself. A classic example of this is the image sales for cigarettes from tobacco companies worldwide. In the early 20th century before full disclosure about the health risks of the product were mandatory,smoking was marketed as a 'cool' thing to do. Engaging in the act of smoking cigarettes instantly made one more desirable or attractive, despite the life-threatening affects of tobacco on one's health. Even in modern society, a number of individuals smoke heavily due to this persistent image despite new campaigns that actively educate society about the detrimental effects of smoking. It is clear that when considering tobacco and smoking campaigns, not only was the image very important for the success of the product, but highly successful as well.

 

However, that isn't to say that a product's image is the sole variable in determining the success of its sales. Numerous advertisements for medications attempt to market their product with a positive image, but are forced to disclose all possible health side effects alongside the benefits. Products like Alesse, a birth control pill, need to disclose information about possible effects on blood pressure, hormone levels, intestinal functions, etc

to avoid legal action against them from potential consumers if anything wrong happened upon consumption of the product. While a good image is important to advertise these products, in modern society the product itself is much more important, especially since it provides consumers with potentially dangerous alterations to their health that the company is forced to advertise.

 

Therefore, the image of a product is important when attempting to advertise products that may potentially harm the consumers. As is the case with smoking cigarettes, a 'cool' image of the product persists in modern society because of brilliant marketing campaigns from the early 20th century despite its obvious health defects. However, modern medications that affect a consumer's health have to deal with the reality that their product will be more important than the image itself because of stricter laws forcing companies full disclosure about any possible side effects that may occur.

 

Hi,

I hope this helps:

 

Although the explanation of the prompt is adequate, the example provided in the first paragraph is unspecific (i.e. “a number of individuals smoke heavily”) and, therefore, weak. The concluding paragraph is also repetitive. Indeed, the language used throughout the essay is often simplistic and colloquial (e.g. “if something wrong happened”).

Most importantly, there is no clear resolution provided between your two points. Cigarettes, which are harmful to users, are still advertised with a cool image (in the United States and most other countries) and warning labels. However, medications, which can be harmful to certain users, are also advertised with warning labels of possible negative side effects. As such, there is no clear resolution established outlining when the image of a product is more important and when the qualities of a product is more important, since in both examples the qualities of a product are in their advertisement campaigns. Suggestions for improvement would include planning your examples more carefully such that a clear resolution can be provided between the two.

 

Score: 2.5/6 (Distortion with one or more of the tasks, problems with coherence, numerous errors in mechanics)

[Nadil]

Thanks for your input, it is greatly appreciated!

 

Prompt 1 - In business, the image of a product is more important that the product itself

 

Business is essentially a competition driven by innovation; consumers crave new and unique products and are willing to spend large amounts of money to get them. Additionally, innovation is tied to image. New and exciting products usually have intriguing designs and trendy exteriors which appeal to the human eye. One needs to look no further than the history of human’s obsession with shiny metallic jewelry or colourful gem stones to illustrate this point. It is human nature for most individuals to seek attention from others, and there is no better way to receive this spotlight than to stand out. This is where image excels in business. Take the example of the “Nissan Cube” sports utility vehicle. There is undoubtedly no other vehicle on the market that looks like it, and for good reason. The large, boxed shape of the vehicle gives it poor aerodynamics resulting in poor gas mileage, an unwanted attribute of any vehicle owner. However, the appeal of the car lies not in its functionality, but in it’s appearance. It’s extremely unique design makes it different from all other automobiles, and this results in attention being drawn on it whenever it drives by. Nissan utilized this concept in marketing, leading to a major increase in sales, and proving that image overrides functionality.

 

The goal in business is to achieve a profit, and this cannot be accomplished if customers do not buy a product. When a product is of poor quality, it quickly becomes publicized on the market, resulting in buyers being hesitant to purchase the product. This can easily damage the reputation of the company, and drastically hurt sales of other goods the business produces. To regain the respect of consumers, often manufacturers are often forced to recall products that are defective, problematic and of poor quality. This is a costly process and is counterproductive in regards to the goals of business. An example of this is Apple’s iPhone4. Although the phone is arguably the most attractive, sleek and innovative phone currently on the market, it does not serve it’s function. The phone has been noted to have a defective antenna, resulting in the inability to make phone calls at times. This is a prime example in which a company placed image ahead of functionality. Consequently, Apple will likely be forced to recall all the phones if it wants to regain its former reputation. This will cost billions of dollars and be a major setback to the company’s profits. This example proves that product image is not always the most significant factor in successful business.

 

A business needs to consider balance in order to successfully profit in selling a good. There is no doubt that image is critical in attracting buyers and driving sales, however the product must be able to properly function and meet the needs of consumers in order to be successful. If one element is sacrified for another, the ability to excel in a corporate sense is diminished. The correct formula of trendiness and design in corporation with desired function is required for sales of a product to thrive.

 

Hello, hope this helps:

 

The argument in the first paragraph is logical and illustrates some depth of thought. The example provided also strongly illustrates the argument and is well articulated.

Although the reasoning provided in the second paragraph also adequately addresses the second task of the prompt by providing a situation in which the qualities of a product are more important than the image of the product (i.e. if a product is defective), a sense of contradiction arises when comparing your two examples. The Nissan Cube is an example of a car with decreased functionality (i.e. decreased fuel efficiency) but a good visual image, therefore leading to success. However, the iPhone is also a product with decreased functionality (since functionality is not completely compromised but only decreased at times) and a strong visual image, therefore not leading to success? Although the nuance exists that the iPhone is more impaired in functionality then the Nissan Cube, better example would make this distinction more obvious (i.e. a product with completely compromised functionality)

Furthermore, the resolution in the concluding paragraph does not address specifically when the image of a product is more important and when the qualities of a product are more important. As such, the third task of the prompt is not adequately satisfied.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (Logical arguments, but some distortion of one or more of the tasks)

[Nadil]

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

One cannot successfully represent another without truly understanding them first. In most cases, politicians who have a lot of money cannot properly empathize with poor people. Many wealthy politicians simply have no basis for understanding the many adversities faced by the monetarily disadvantaged masses. For example, former US president George Bush grew up in a rather wealthy family and never really experience poverty firsthand. Therefore, he was unable to understand the problems faced by the impoverished people of the United States. As such, he could not offer a fair representation to all of the people as evidenced in his political policies.

 

However, in some cases a wealthy politician may understand the central issues of the poor; allowing him/her to accurately represent the people. Unlike Bush, current US president Barack Obama did not grow up in a highly advantaged environment. Obama’s childhood experiences have given him a better understanding of poverty. Although he may be wealthy, he still retains an understanding of the issues faced by the poor and can therefore fairly represent the masses. This is evidenced by his current popularity worldwide.

 

Previous experiences determine whether or not a wealthy politician can fairly represent all people. This is because understanding, which leads to proper representation, comes through experience. If a politician has experienced poverty or knows someone close to them who is struggling with it they will more accurately represent all the people. However, if a politician has been wealthy all their life and have no idea what is like to be poor they cannot possibly represent those that are disadvantaged. Overall, diverse experiences determine whether or not a politician can fairly represent the diverse masses.

 

Hello,

 

 

The reasoning behind your argument in the first paragraph is logical and clearly explained. However, the example provided to substantiate this reasoning is very unspecific and weak. To strengthen this example, you must provide specific detail of how George Bush was unable to understand the problems of the poor (e.g giving tax breaks to large corporations).

The same problem persists in the second example. You must provide specific detail as to ¬how Barack Obama has fairly represented the people (e.g. ensuring all people have access to health insurance regardless of income).

Finally, although the resolution provided in your concluding paragraph is logically sound, it suffers from somewhat simplistic language. Take the time to present your ideas in a more elegant manner in order to increase clarity and exemplify stronger writing style.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (Some clarity of thought and development of ideas but examples are very simplistic and do not adequately substantiate arguments)

[Nadil]

Prompt 2

 

The familiar idiom Winston Churchill once said “When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed to be right and wise”, the phase could explain the actions of politicians. Politicians controlling an area are often so lost in their own world they cannot portray the needs of the people. The population of a geographic area is so large that everyone’s issues cannot be portrayed through the politicians.

 

On the other hand there are times where the political government and the people had a uniform act on a decision. In cases such as the Battle of Troy all of the Trojans wanted the invaders to leave. There was a uniform decision of all the people, which was portrayed through the actions of General Hector. There are times in which everyone listens to his or her natural instincts. During that time, politicians and the people’s decisions go hand in hand.

 

When are there politicians acting in accordance to their own plan and not the peoples? It is important to know that people often act in their own interests and choose the decisions that would be best for them. When there comes a time that there is an issue that would be in the best interests for the politicians and the people there will be a uniform representation. It is the majority of time that politicians act in accordance to their own plans and can not represent all the people. Politicians act to serve the best interests for themselves, so depending on the situation the politicians can or can not represent all the people.

 

Hi,

 

Although an interesting introductory statement is provided, the argument in the first paragraph is not adequately developed in order to ensure that the reader gets a clear understanding of the reasoning. Furthermore, no example is provided to substantiate the argument. There is also no indication of how a wealthy politician cannot fairly represent all people. Thus the argument does not address the first task of the prompt.

The argument and example provided in the second example also do not adequately address the second task of the prompt. Although the example provides a situation where a politician represented all people in his decisions, there again is no explicit indication that “General Hector” was wealthy.

The concluding paragraph is plagued with repetition, preventing a clear resolution from being established. Although the idea that politicians will only act to represent all people if their own interests match those of the whole population is somewhat logical, it does not stem from the two arguments presented in the essay, and as such, it is not a resolution in the stricter sense of the word.

In conclusion, none of the arguments specifically address the topic of the prompt: fair representation of wealthy politicians.

 

Score: 1/6 (Lack of understanding of writing sample)

[Wookie]

Hello, hope this helps:

 

The argument presented in the first paragraph is well presented and logical, however, is not directly supported by the example provided. A politician who steals and is involved in illegal activities benefiting only himself cannot offer fair representation to all citizens of a country, not just the poor. A better example to support your argument would be a situation where a wealthy politician favors the wealthy disfavors the poor through his policies.

The transition to the second paragraph is skillfully done. Furthermore, the example provided in the second paragraph is presented provides specificity and a clear counter situation to the prompt. Lastly, although the concluding paragraph provides a reasonable resolution between the two arguments, the extra examples provided take away from a strong closure to the essay. Do not include more examples in your concluding paragraph, as this leaves the reader pondering additional points rather than thinking about the points made in the body of the essay. Instead, focus on creating a clear resolution and closing down the arguments presented in your first two paragraphs. The essay exemplifies a strong writing style with few grammar and spelling mistakes.

 

Score: 4/6 (With a stronger example in your first paragraph and a cleaner concluding paragraph I feel this essay would be closer to 5/6)

 

Be clear, succinct and have a strong conclusion.

Thank you for taking the time to critique my essay!

 

I wanted to inquire about how I could add depth to the essay. Even if I had a clear example and a concise conclusion I could only obtain a 5/6.

Is "depth" the missing component that separates a 5 from a 6? Given that grammar, spelling, strong examples and a clear conclusion is in place?

 

Thank for your response.

 

Wookie

[7vrb]

Thank you for your help!

 

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

 

Businesses commonly use an image to market their product to the masses. An image may be as simple as a cuddly bear on a fabric softner bottle, or esthetically pleasing packaging and colouring. Or, that image may be a lifestyle and pray upon the innate human need for acceptance and esteem. Many companies in fact are not selling a product but a way of life. This tactic is commonly used for material goods such as cars, beer, and clothing; the message being "if you use this product, you will be cool". For example when Budweiser beer and Guess Jeans show gorgeous, thin models using the product, surrounded by gorgeous muscular men this appeals to public because they want that image to represent them. The product itself may be extremely similar to many other products, and this is why it is not the product itself that matters, but the image that it portrays. It is the image the product promises that gets consumers to buy it over another, basically identical product.

 

Although material products are often superfluous and don't offer much in the way of uniqueness, other products, such as medications are needed to perform a very specific job. Drug companies, for example, are not trying to sell an image for antidepressants or hypertension medication. All that matters for these products is that they work. In this business, drug companies need to focus on refining their product so that it offers the most effective results with the least amount of side effects. No one will buy a certain type of hypertension medication, and no doctors will perscribe it if it does not fit these criteria. For these cases, it is the product itself that is the most important, not the image of the product.

 

Businesses vary in their marketing tactics depending on the type of product they are trying to sell. As such, the image of the product varies in importance compared to the actual product itself. When the product is of a material, disposible nature and must be distinguished from many other, similar products, such as in the case of beer or clothing brands, it is most important for the business to develop an image that is appealing and desirable to the public. In this case, the image of the product is more important that the product itself. When the product has a specific goal and criteria to fulfill, such as medicines, the product is more important than the image, because at the end of the day, consumers will not buy the product if it does not fulfill its specific goals and criteria.

[shir312]

Hi,

I hope this helps:

 

Although the explanation of the prompt is adequate, the example provided in the first paragraph is unspecific (i.e. “a number of individuals smoke heavily”) and, therefore, weak. The concluding paragraph is also repetitive. Indeed, the language used throughout the essay is often simplistic and colloquial (e.g. “if something wrong happened”).

Most importantly, there is no clear resolution provided between your two points. Cigarettes, which are harmful to users, are still advertised with a cool image (in the United States and most other countries) and warning labels. However, medications, which can be harmful to certain users, are also advertised with warning labels of possible negative side effects. As such, there is no clear resolution established outlining when the image of a product is more important and when the qualities of a product is more important, since in both examples the qualities of a product are in their advertisement campaigns. Suggestions for improvement would include planning your examples more carefully such that a clear resolution can be provided between the two.

 

Score: 2.5/6 (Distortion with one or more of the tasks, problems with coherence, numerous errors in mechanics)

 

 

Thanks for critiquing my essay! I just had a question on how I could improve for next time. I was wondering how I could make my first example more specific or clarify the idea behind it, which was that despite known side effects of smoking, due to its highly successful marketing campaigns from the early 19th century, it is still popular in modern society. I was attempting to provide an example (albeit unsuccessfully, I suppose ) of how the idea was more important than the product. That being said, was my second example adequately explained?

 

Thanks again!

[fab]

Hey Thanks so much for the help.

I ran out of time on this essay so there will probably be a lot of mistakes. Thanks for the help.

 

 

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

 

Marketing and the image of a product in the present day running of businesses seems to have surpassed the importance of the product itself. The slashing of prices or the introduction of more sleek and sexy products have taken centre stage of business. The force behind this seems to be the publics view of products on the market. The general public tends to be more attracted to the sleek designs and and multiple colours of the product and the means of it's marketing. Commercials showing what the public percieves as "cool activities" catch the buyers eye. Microsoft's X-Box 360 is a prime example of this type of business. The X-Box 360 with all of it's problems, with over heating, and lack of gaming power compared to other sytems in the same category such as the PS3 and the Wii, still manages to outsell these other consoles worldwide. Microsoft's response to all these problems is the introduction of a new marketting program and a new thinner sexier sytem that grabs the eyes of the public consumer. The product itself is at best below average with it's sub-par graphics and hardware problems but yet manages to steal the market.

 

The consumer is more attracted to the medias' perception of what looks good and what is a good product. However this trend does not apply to all consumer products. There are areas of business that rely more on the product and the performance of the product than the image. This can be related to the business of medical technology where the product is more important than the image of the product. Such machines such as gamma knife are products that help in promoting health care. Such machines such as the gamma knife may be extremely unattractive and have a bad image for causing extreme discomfort. However this machine removes tumors and is important to the health and well-being of the patients that use them. In this case the product itslef is more important than the image because machines like the gamma knife holds people's lives in their proper production and performance therefore the image of this product comes second to the actual performance of the product.

 

The business of today is run with the expectations of making money, and what makes more money is what can ultimately get the consumer to the store to buy this product. Marketing of the product has become more important in the daily dealings of business for most areas of such as the consumer sector of business, in this sector consumers buy products as they see fit for their own personal use. Electronics fall into this category and electronics such as the X-Box 360 sell huge quantities due the attractive marketing tactics which proceed to sell the image of the product rather than the product of itself because the general consumer is more attracted to the way the product is portrayed in commercials rather than real life. The deciding factor in wether the image is more important or the product itself falls to the consumer. If the product is made for the gerneral public then image takes precedence however if the product is for the private sector or for other uses, then the product itslef is more important because these areas are more attracted to performance and in the case of medical devices such as the gamma knife the well being of it's users.

[anna8]

Here's my essay, thanks Nadil!

 

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

 

One of the primary purposes of politicians in government is to serve the greater public through various means, such as through the implementation of equitable laws or the provision of education and health services. Hence, it is believed that the best people who can do this job are those who are well-versed in the experiences of the common people in society. They are the ones who know, often from first-hand experience, the issues that face the majority of the people and can thus enact a remedy towards these. Therefore, wealthy politicians, by virtue of their socio-economic status, cannot seem to fit this description of a politician who can offer fair representation to all the people. Wealthy politicians are those who are considered to be in the top 10 to 15 percent of the population in terms of their socio-economic status. Given their affluent stature, they often do not share the same experiences that the majority of the people in that society have. Hence, they are not able to identify the people's needs and come up with a solution for their problems. For instance, a farming community is burdened by the heavy taxes imposed on the lands they till, brought about by the fact that the land is not their property. A wealthy landlord will not be an effective politician in terms of fairly representing the people of that community since he does not personally know the magnitude of the common people's plight and might be protecting his own interests in the process. Thus, he will not be able to enact relevant policies, such as land reform, that can ease the burdens of the community.

 

However, it must be kept in mind that the electoral system is set up with the aim of giving members of society the opportunity to put into office the politicians they believe will give them fair representation. Hence, by virtue of the trust and power bequeathed to them by the public, wealthy politicians can offer fair representation to these people. Since they were elected into office by the very people whom they will serve, wealthy politicians are therefore believed to know what the people want and can find ways to address these needs. The recently held Philippine national elections showcases how wealthy politicians can offer fair representation to all the people. The newly elected Philippine president, Benigno Aquino III, won by a landslide in spite of the fact that he comes from a very wealthy landed family. Considering that a vast number of Filipinos are living below the poverty line, Aquino is still known as the champion of the poor as he is able to identify what the people need and can subsequently deliver on his promises.

 

In conclusion, what determines whether a wealthy politician can or cannot offer fair representation to all the people boils down to the integrity and sincerity in service of the particular politician. The main role of politicians is to provide genuine service to the public and promote the common good. Hence, whether or not the politician sits in the upper decile of the socio-economic ladder is a non-issue. What counts more is the politician's track record in addressing the issues of society and providing for the necessities of the public.

[Jasonk]

This is my first attempt at doing the WS section. Hopefully it's not too bad but I found I was under time so I edited the essay but perhaps I should have beefed it up instead?

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

 

In a world where there are thousands of companies trying to get your money in any field possible, it becomes important to the consumer more so the image of what they are buying rather than the product itself. This seems to come about due to the lack of essentiality of the product. Take fast food for example where the market for business quite literally has thousands of competitors on a local basis. In this case the image becomes quite essential to attract more consumers. For example take the company Dominoes Pizza and their advertising to the public that their pizza's are healthy but also that the company is trying to be translucent to the public. They are showing the the consumers that they have nothing to hide and that is an attractive image to everyone because a highly valued trait is translucency or honesty. They will then have an advantage over other fast food pizza stores in the local area simply due to the fact that the business has the image of being honest.

 

Then when is the case that the image of a business is not as important as the product? This comes about when the product is essential to the every day life of the consumer. A clear cut example is the gasoline company Shell. This company has been extracting oil from the African state of Nigeria for years. They have brought suffering to the local people, devastated the local environment and been accused of providing mercenaries with money to carry out malicious acts on behalf of the company. This information has been made quite public through television news, printed news and on the internet. It would be thought that all of this, which has been proven in a court of law, would be enough to detract and repel Canadians from buying gas. It creates an extremely negative image toward the Shell company, but nonetheless people still buy gas from Shell. Why is this? It seems that essentials that are required for every day life garner weighing the product with more importance than the image.

 

It would appear that what makes the image of a product more important than the product, is in fact the products essentiality in every day life. Shoes are for example not considered essential to live. We have a vast selection of shoe makers but which consistently have the highest sales? That would be Nike and Adidas and this can be attributed to the image created by the companies of quality and style for a reasonable price. People looking for an essential product like food at a grocery store will not take the image of the store into account. Most people will look simply for where they can get the cheapest product. An example is the cheap prices of a Nofrills company as compared to a high end food store like Highland farms. The average person will go to which ever store has the best pricing not to the one that has a better image. Thus essentiality is key to the lack of importance of a products image.

[Nadil]

Be clear, succinct and have a strong conclusion.

Thank you for taking the time to critique my essay!

 

I wanted to inquire about how I could add depth to the essay. Even if I had a clear example and a concise conclusion I could only obtain a 5/6.

Is "depth" the missing component that separates a 5 from a 6? Given that grammar, spelling, strong examples and a clear conclusion is in place?

 

Thank for your response.

 

Wookie

 

Hi,

A number of factors go into bumping an essay from a 5 to a 6. Depth of thought is definitely one of them, meaning that your explanation of the prompt must be very well thought through, presenting well developed complex ideas. Generally. the interpretation of the prompt is also more unique and creative in a 6/6 essay. Your examples should also show greater specific details and be explained thoroughly.

[Nadil]

Hello everyone,

 

Thank you for posting your essays. I still have a few essays to respond to for the previous two prompts, however, here is the 3rd prompt. Remember, that you can choose to respond to any of these 3 prompts. Good luck!

 

 

A nation's foreign aid should be directed to help those countries that help themselves.

 

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 nation's foreign aid might justifiably not be directed to help those countries that help themselves. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a nation's foreign aid should be directed to help those countries that help themselves.

 

Instructions:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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