Prep101 - free Writing Sample tutoring

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello,

 

The arguments within both the first and second paragraph are very well thought out and are presented clearly. Unfortunately, although the examples for each argument were appropriate, they necessitated further detail in order to strongly support the arguments. For the first paragraph, you should choose only one specific example (either beer or jeans) and provide further detail to clearly support the argument, such as: While both “Guess” and “Cherokee” make jeans of arguably equal quality, Guess jeans are priced higher and enjoy greater popularity because of their fashionable image. The same goes for the example in the second paragraph, you need to provide a specific example (i.e. name a medication) and expand on the details.

Your resolution principle was weak and did not exactly address the dichotomy between your two examples. For instance, one can reasonably say that medications are also “material and disposable”, while clothing also has a “specific goal or criteria” to fill (e.g. shorts have a specific goal and criteria to fill in order to be considered shorts). As such, the resolution principle must clearly and specifically address the particular dichotomy that distinguishes your two examples. One example (of many) of a better resolution principle could be whether the product provides an outlet for expression or a means for survival: since clothes are used to express one ’s self, the image they are associated with is more important than their comfort, while the efficacy of medication will determine our survival.

As well, some errors with sentence structure were noted, especially in the first paragraph.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (The resolution principle does not adequately address the 3rd task of the prompt; more specific and better explained examples along with a stronger resolution would bump the score to 5/6)

[Nadil]

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!

 

Hi,

No problem. "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" provides a clearer explanation of your example. It is better to write simply and clearly in order to get your ideas across effectively. However, avoid colloquial terms such as "in modern society". Secondly, providing more specific details would also strengthen the example. For example, while empiric evidence of the deleterious effects of cancer on one's health was mounting, Marlboro's perpetuation of the "cool cowboy" image through its ad's in the 80's and 90's resulted in increasing sales of cigarettes.

 

Nadil

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hey fab,

Hope this helps,

 

 

It is generally not a good idea to begin your essay by simply repeating the prompt almost verbatim, as this does not catch the graders attention.

For both the first and second paragraphs, while your general arguments are logical, they are poorly presented. In the first paragraph stick to just one principle in order to provide a more focused argument. You cannot support all of the different points you mentioned; therefore, instead of mentioning slashing of prices, sleek and sexy image, the public’s view of the product and commercials advertising “cool activities”, just focus on the product’s design, since this is what your example will be about. Furthermore, it is unclear how much of the market the Xbox 360 manages to “steal”, as all 3 gaming systems are pretty competitive. Your example is also not clearly and concisely presented, as there is some repetition and problems with sentence order. In the second paragraph, the problem of repetitiveness continues, which gives the sense that you are just trying to fill space rather than add to your ideas. Furthermore, the ideas expressed are not exactly accurate: it would be better to say that the gamma knife is not designed to look flashy, rather than saying they are “extremely unattractive” or “extremely painful” (they would be painless as there are no pain receptors in the brain). Presenting your examples inaccurately will decrease your score and will not support your argument very well.

The same problems are also seen in the concluding paragraph. While the general resolution principle is logical (i.e. general public vs. private sector) it is very poorly presented, as the reader must struggle to get this message out from the filler sentences. Plan out your ideas for each paragraph clearly in an outline before you begin writing and use this outline to provide structure and focus to your essay.

 

Score: 3/6 (The essay shows some clarity of thought, but lacks focus and complexity. Many mechanical and grammatical errors, problems with the accuracy of examples).

[kawalac]

Hey Nadil. Thanks in advance for helping with the writing samples.. I definitely need all the practice I can get.

 

 

Wealthy Politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people

 

In life, it is difficult to relate to people if you have never actually been in the same position as them. The same can be said about a politician who has inherited his wealth. This politician cannot truly represent all the people of the nation because he has never actually experienced what it is like to be a member of the working class. In order to fully represent the needs of all the people, a politician should have suffered from the same day to day problems that the people experience, such as not having enough money to pay the phone bill because taxes are too high, or not having the money to receive adequate health care. A recent President of the United States, George W. Bush, was born into wealth. His father was a former President of the United States. It is reasonble to assume that George Bush did not have to worry about having the money necessary to receive adequate health care. Because of this, Bush downplayed the need for funding of public health care and instead spent money on improving the military. If Bush himself had grown up without adequate health care, it is likely he wouldn't have taken the issue so lightly. Instead, he would have recognized the need for better health care funding. Because Bush can only identify with one class- the upper class- he is unable to relate to the needs of the people. For this reason, he cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

However, there are certain instances where a wealthy politician has accumulated his wealth on his own, rather than having inherited it. In this case, the politician knows what it is like to be a member of the working class, and he knows the struggles of the people in that class. Furthermore, because the politician has become wealthy, he also knows what it is like to belong to the upper class and can relate to the needs of those people as well. By having knowledge of both the upper and lower-middle class, the politician is able to balance the needs of both individuals. As a result, when fighting for reforms in policy, the politician is able to representation all of the people of the nation, rather than just a minor subset. President Barack Obama provides an example of how a wealthy politician can offer fair representation to all the people. President Obama was born into a working class family, but he was able to accumulate wealth throughout his life. Because President Obama was a member of both the working class and the upper class, he is able to relate to both groups of individuals and is aware of each groups particular needs. Therefore, a wealthy politician can offer fair representation to all people.

 

To put it briefly, wealthy politicians can offer fair representation to all the people when they personally have obtained their wealth, rather than having inherited it. A politician who has inherited his wealth won't have an idea of the struggle that the average person has to go through in order to succeed. This makes it difficult for that politican to relate to all members of society. Without being able to relate to all individuals, the politician cannot offer fair representation because he will likely favor his own class, the upper class. However, politicians who begin their lives as average to below average citizens in terms of family income will be able to understand the struggles of the working class. If these politicians are then able to accumulate wealth as they age, then they will also have an idea of what life is like as a member of the upper class. Politicians who have built their own empires will be able to represent both the working and the upper class because they themselves were member of both classes at one point in their lives. Therefore, how the politician has become wealthy can determine whether or not he can offer fair representation to all the people.

[kawalac]

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

In today’s society, people, especially teenagers, are obsessed with how they are perceived by the public. Many teenagers are willing to purchase products based solely on their visual appeal, rather than on their quality. This is especially true if the product is to be used in view of the public, rather than in the privacy of their own homes. The Apple company is known for producing very appealing products that are not as functionally useful as other products on the market. For instance, Google has produced an “Android” cellular phone which has been praised by companies such as J.D Power and Associates, who provide rankings based on a products quality. However, the Android phone is consistently outsold by Apple’s “I-Phone” which doesn’t receive such generous reviews. The reason for this is that Apple’s I-phone is judged to be more visually appealing by the consumers. As such, the consumers are more likely to buy a better looking product if that product is to be used in public. In this case, the image of the product is more important than the actual product’s quality.

 

However, if the product is to be used in the confines of one’s own home, consumers become less concerned with the image of the product and are more concerned with the product’s quality. For instance, when purchasing desktop computers, consumers are more concerned with the specifics of the computer such as its processing speed and storage space. In this case, the visual appeal of the product comes second to the quality of the product because only a few people are likely to actually see the product. This is why Apple does not dominate the desktop computer market. Although Apple produces more visually appealing computers, they are frequently judged as lesser quality by third-party companies. When the products are to be used at home, people are more likely to purchase higher quality products as the visual appeal of the product becomes less important.

 

Ultimately, who sees the product while it is being used determines whether or not the image of a product is more important than the product itself. If an item is to be used in public, then consumers are likely to place a greater interest on the image of a product. Conversely, if a product is to be used at home away from the public, then the quality of the product is more important than the image of the product, and consumers are likely to choose quality over visual appeal.

[fab]

This was a very difficult prompt for me. I am not very informed when it comes to politics. I hope that my examples are ok and that they are accurate. I ran out of time again so hopefully there is not too many mistakes.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

"Let them eat cake", the words spoken by the wealthy princess Maria Antoinette in the late 1700's was the pinnacle of the french monarch that lead to the french revolution. Fair representation to all people, is the ability by the politician to take into consideration all the different social classes of a nation before making decisions which may affect one or more of these different classes. Wealthy politicians that are born and raised into wealth, and take power once they come of age usually have struggles with dealing with most of the classes but the ruling elite. This problem arises due to the lack of exposure that the politician has during his/her life to anything but power and wealth. The story of Maria Antoinette is a prime example of this kind of politician. Maria grew up in a wealthy family and was the heiress to the throne of France during the late 1700's. Her complete ignorance of the suffering of the non ruling class is argued to have ultimately lead to the french revolution. Maria lived in wealth while the people of France were starving and being taxed heavily for money they did not have. When asked what to do about the poverty situation all she responded was to "let them eat cake", her ignorance of the mass poverty that was destroying the nation lead to her believing that it was some how the people who decided not to eat. This example allows for clarity as to why many wealthy politicians do not offer fair representation for all people. It is impossible for poverished people to just eat cake like it just grows on trees.

 

Nelson Mandela will go down in history as one of the great men to have been an exception to this general trend. Nelson Mandela was inprisoned for over 30 years because of his radical view, which was treated as treason by the current leaders of the time. It was the actions of Mandela that lead to the uniting of a nation. Nelson Mandela was born into wealth as he was the son of a chief of one of the tribes in South Africa. The difference between Mandela and other politicians was that, he did not make decisions based on what would benefit him or the ruling elite of South Africa, Mandela made decisions based on the affects it would have on each class of the society. He refused to make decisions that would make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Mandela put the importance of his country ahead of his own well being, he did not care about personal gain just that everyone was treated fairly. In this sense by taking into consideration the needs of every social class rather than specific ones that would benefit him he was a fair representative to all people of South Africa.

 

Nelson Mandela and Maria Antoinette represent the complete opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to fair representation of all people. Maria Antoinette cared more about remaining rich while Nelson Mandela cared more for the unifying of his nation. The main difference between these two icons, and between wealthy politicians that do and do not represent the population fairly comes down to the politician. If the politician seeks personal gain then the politician will not be a fair representation of the population, however if the politician has the good of the nation in mind over personal gain then that person will better offer fair representation of all people.

[123coco]

I really tried to implement your previous comments on this prompt. I think I could have gotten to the main point a little faster. Thank you in advance.

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

In a democratic order, the people elect an individual from their ranks to protect and advocate for their needs. In other words, the life experiences of the elected official allows him to relate to his constituents and to place their concerns before everything else. In the United-States of America, the masses are made up of the working and middle class. Although distinct by socio-economic status, these two classes have common worries. For example, both classes are concerned with ensuring their children have access to a good education and health care. A politician from the elite, however, knows that his privilege position in life guarantees that his children will be admitted into the best schools and the best hospital care money can buy. A wealthy politician, therefore, may not have the same concerns as the masses. In 2004, for example, President Bush used his veto power to annex a bill that proposed to extend health care coverage to all minors in the U.S. This bill would have ensured that irrespective of a family?s economic means, all children would have access to adequate hospital care. Bush, however, veto the bill because he believed that the government should not interfere with the free market of health care and that parents should be given the freedom to buy health insurance for their children. Critics, were baffled that the President could have denied such a positive bill. Some critics even went to the lengths of saying that President Bush veto the bill because he comes from a wealthy family that never had to worry about the affordability of health care . Not all wealthy politician, however, lack consciousness of the economic struggles of their constituents.

 

Senator Ted Kennedy, comes a wealthy family line. His grand-father made his fortune through real estate, alcohol and the banking industry. At the time of his death, his estate was estimated to be worth anywhere between $12-45 million dollars. Even though Ted grew up in a privilege circle, he was committed to ensuring that all of his constituents had access to health care in Boston. When Ted?s son was a young boy, he was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer that could not be treated .A scientist, however, included Ted?s son and a dozen other young children with the same diagnosis into an experimental trial for a treatment. Fortunately, the new treatment was proving to be effective, however, insurance companies of the families decided that the treatment was experimental and refused to continue covering the cost. The families, pleaded with their insurers to continue the coverage as this was the only way in which their children could survive. Due to his wealth, Ted?s son was the only one who was able to continue treatment. This experience, defined Ted?s career in politics. After this even t, he committed himself to the fight that would eventually lead to affordable health coverage for all Bostonians. Although wealthy, Ted?s experience allowed him to relate his constituents and advocate for their needs.

 

A wealthy politician, therefore, can offer fair representation to the masses only when he goes through a life experience that reduces him to the level of commoners. Such a dramatic event will force him to realize that not everyone has the opportunity to purchase basic services. Furthermore, this experience will make him realize that the government has a responsibility to close the gap of inequality and to secure the welfare of all its peoples. Bush has always had a financial security blanket that protected him from experiencing the daily struggle of the masses. Ted, on the other hand, has been faced with a situation that made him empathetic toward the needs of the masses. Therefore, the life experiences of a politician determines if he can provide fair representation to the people.

________

Vaporizer Affiliate Program

[kawalac]

Hey Nadil. Sorry for bombarding you with essays. It's just that my test is in a week and I definitely need to work on writing these essays. I had trouble with this prompt in particular. I think I may have distorted the prompt statement.

 

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.

 

 

Currently, many countries are struggling economically due to weakness in the global economy. When some countries suffer due lack of funds, other countries will be negatively affected. This is because countries depend on the exchanging of goods with other countries in order to earn revenue. If other countries don’t have the funds to purchase goods, then other countries will struggle to earn profits. Because of this, foreign aid should be directed to help struggling countries. The delivery of aid should be contingent on whether or not the receiving country will use the aid to help themselves. In order words, the aid should only be given if the country receiving it is not run by a corrupt political party that will mishandle the funds. Currently, the country of Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy. Other countries such as France and England recognize the importance of keeping Greece from declaring bankruptcy, as they engage in frequent trade with Greece. Because Greece has no recent history of corruption, foreign aid should be provided in order to resurrect the economy of Greece so trading can continue.

 

However, certain instances arise where foreign aid should not be directed to countries, even if they help themselves. If a nation is suffering from problems of its own due to lack of resources, then that nation should not direct foreign aid to other countries, regardless of how the receiving nation will use the funds. For instance, although the United States would benefit from a stronger global economy, they themselves have issues with health care, homelessness, and a trillion dollar deficit. Therefore, it would be unwise for the United States to provide foreign aid to other countries. Doing so may lead to the United States having a fate similar to that of Greece.

 

Ultimately, a nation’s current economic standing determines whether or not a nation’s foreign aid should be directed to help other countries. If a nation is in good economic standing, then it should look to send foreign aid in order to help other countries who are making attempts to help themselves. A healthy global economy is dependent on countries that are capable of trading with other countries in order to generate revenue. Providing aid to other countries will help facilitate the growth of a strong global economy. However, if a nation is struggling, then that nation should look to help itself first rather than looking to help others.

[fab]

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

 

Outside help can only go so far if the country does not help itself. Foreign aid is the allocation of resources, may that be: money, materials, food, medical supplies or people to a nation that is in need, perhaps after a natural disaster or war. These foreign aid programs are used to help nations that are in need of help. However it is believed that resources should be made available to only those nations that can help themselves. This way the money does not go to waste, and the nation can rebulid itself to become more stable and return to it's own self sufficient ways. Countries that help themselves are countries that have the drive to return to normal life, so that they can move forward on their own rather than be supported by another nation. Western Europe post world war II was in complete disarray, entire cities were demolished by the war and the nations of Western Europe faced a monstrous task to rebuild to pre war society. The United States prepared a foreign aid package that was to help Western Europe rebuild after the war. Money, material and people were sent to Western Europe and the construction began. This example fortifies how a nation uses it's foreign aid program to help a nation that can help itself. These nations had the drive to return to normal and move forward and it was accelerated by the foreign aid program of the United States.

 

A nation may be helped by foreign aid programs even if the nation does not help itself, if the nation is under occupation, or has a very poor leader then the nation may be unable to help itself. These nations will recieve aid packages to stop the possibility of further human suffering. Eastern Europe especially Germany after world war II, is a great example of a nation that was unable to help itself due to heavy restrictions by the occupying Soviet forces. Eastern Germany did not recieve the same kind of aid that Western Europe obtained because the Soviets would not allow it. Instead of money and people, the people of Eastern Germany were brought food and materials by air drop only as the Berlin Wall seperated the east from the west. The foreign aid packages here were directed to try and stop the human suffering that was taking place in East Germany.

 

Foreign aid is used to help nations in need, however some believe it is better spent on nations that can help themselves and some believe it is for nations that cannot help them selves. The determining factor is that if a nation can help themselves then the package is only a short period expense as the country will be up and running soon, and the resources will not be going to waste. However if the country is not able to help themselves then resources should be directed towards them only to stop further suffering of human lives.

[7vrb]

Hi Nadil, thanks so much for your help.

So I read this prompt and was really confused by the wording and so my essay doesn't really make sense. I took the prompt as meaning " a nation should help those countries that can help them in return" - I was kind of panicked so I realized after I wrote it that that isn't what it is asking... I'm sending it in anyway to see if my structure is good-ish even if the tasks are all wrong. Thanks!

 

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.

 

Nations that have the ability and means to offer aid have a moral responsibility to help nations that are less fortunate or struggling. However, it is also the responsibility of a nation to maintain its own economy and quality of life for its citizens. A nation can benefit by offering foreign aid to those nations that can reciprocate in the long run. For example, Canadians aided the Americans in response to the attacks in New York City on 9/11. Canadian troups fought alongside American troops in the War against Terror in Iraq. This not only benefitted the Americans by having more soldiers on their side, but helped the Canadians as well by maintaining their alliance with the United States. By doing so, the Canadians secured the help of Americans in return for their help if such a situations ever arose.

 

Although it is important that a nation have its own best interests and interests of its citizens at heart, a nation should not refuse aid to another country if the people of that country are in dire need of help, if it is a life or death situation. Even if the nation in need has no way of repaying the aid given to them, they should receive aid regardless. In early 2010, the nation of Haiti experienced a massively devastating earth quake. Not only did the earth quake itself take the lives of thousands of civilians, it destroyed homes, buildings, the entire capitol city of Port au Prince. The Haitian government and economy were unable to provide the means to give medical care, clear the rubble, and provide for the needs of all the displaced citizens. Foreign aid from around the globe came to the aid of the Haitian citizens and government even though the Haitian infrastructure was completely destroyed and the country would likely never be able to help those who assisted in return.

 

Ideally, a nation's foreign aid should help both the country receiving the aid and the country giving it, in the long run. An example of this is Canadian troops supporting the Americans in the Iraq war. Although some Canadian soldiers didn't make it home, Canada's loyalty to the United states will be noted and the US will be loyal in turn if Canada is ever in need of assistance. However it is not always possible that both nations benefit. Sometimes a crisis so big arises that a country is completely devastated and has nothing that can be offered in terms of reciprocity. In times such as this, when the lives of many hang on any aid that can be given, it is important that able countries do what they can to help, even if they will receive nothing in return.

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hi Anna8,

Hope this helps,

 

 

The essay does exemplify a strong control of language. Furthermore, the explanation of the prompt is well developed and clearly presented. However, since the example is hypothetical, it is very weak and therefore, does not support your argument very well.

The second paragraph also provides a good explanation of why the prompt can sometimes not be true (i.e. when leaders are chosen during democratic elections) and a concrete example. Nonetheless, the example could have been developed a little further, specifically providing details about why this politician is considered to provide fair representation to all the people.

Finally, the resolution principle provided in the concluding paragraph is also quite weak, as it does not resolve the dichotomy within your two arguments/examples. The first argument discusses the lack of experience of wealthy politicians with the problems of the poor. The second argument discusses a democratically elected politician. However, the resolution principle addresses the integrity and sincerity of the politician as the defining principle, which does not really tie in with either of the two arguments.

Furthermore, it is never a good idea to declare the prompt as a “non-issue”. The purpose of the Writing Sample is to provide a balanced representation of both sides of the argument (i.e. when the prompt is an issue and when it is not). As such, to dismiss the prompt as a non-issue does not indicate a balanced argument, since you are clearly picking one side (i.e. the refuting argument). This will greatly decrease your score.

 

Score: 3/6

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hi JasonK,

 

 

The explanation of the prompt is well thought through and the idea behind the example is accurate (i.e. portraying a favorable image behind their food to gain a competitive advantage), although I don’t think Domino’s is the best example. Perhaps McDonalds or Subway would have been easier examples to work with?

The second argument is well developed and provides a unique approach to refuting the prompt, making the essay more interesting to the reader. Your example is also explained clearly and strengthens your argument.

The resolution principle provided in the concluding paragraph is logical; however the concluding paragraph should aim at providing a resolution between the two examples in the body of the essay. Therefore, once you provide the resolution principle, you should simply outline how these apply to the examples you have already discussed. You should not provide any additional examples in the concluding paragraph as these further details do not provide a clean conclusion and take away from body of the essay.

There were also some problems with sentence structure, as some of the sentences were awkward (especially the introductory and transition sentences).

 

Score 4.5/6 (Clarity of thought, major ideas well developed with some complexity, some problems with sentence structure, problems in concluding paragraph).

[Nadil]

Hey Nadil. Thanks in advance for helping with the writing samples.. I definitely need all the practice I can get.

 

 

Wealthy Politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people

 

In life, it is difficult to relate to people if you have never actually been in the same position as them. The same can be said about a politician who has inherited his wealth. This politician cannot truly represent all the people of the nation because he has never actually experienced what it is like to be a member of the working class. In order to fully represent the needs of all the people, a politician should have suffered from the same day to day problems that the people experience, such as not having enough money to pay the phone bill because taxes are too high, or not having the money to receive adequate health care. A recent President of the United States, George W. Bush, was born into wealth. His father was a former President of the United States. It is reasonble to assume that George Bush did not have to worry about having the money necessary to receive adequate health care. Because of this, Bush downplayed the need for funding of public health care and instead spent money on improving the military. If Bush himself had grown up without adequate health care, it is likely he wouldn't have taken the issue so lightly. Instead, he would have recognized the need for better health care funding. Because Bush can only identify with one class- the upper class- he is unable to relate to the needs of the people. For this reason, he cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

However, there are certain instances where a wealthy politician has accumulated his wealth on his own, rather than having inherited it. In this case, the politician knows what it is like to be a member of the working class, and he knows the struggles of the people in that class. Furthermore, because the politician has become wealthy, he also knows what it is like to belong to the upper class and can relate to the needs of those people as well. By having knowledge of both the upper and lower-middle class, the politician is able to balance the needs of both individuals. As a result, when fighting for reforms in policy, the politician is able to representation all of the people of the nation, rather than just a minor subset. President Barack Obama provides an example of how a wealthy politician can offer fair representation to all the people. President Obama was born into a working class family, but he was able to accumulate wealth throughout his life. Because President Obama was a member of both the working class and the upper class, he is able to relate to both groups of individuals and is aware of each groups particular needs. Therefore, a wealthy politician can offer fair representation to all people.

 

To put it briefly, wealthy politicians can offer fair representation to all the people when they personally have obtained their wealth, rather than having inherited it. A politician who has inherited his wealth won't have an idea of the struggle that the average person has to go through in order to succeed. This makes it difficult for that politican to relate to all members of society. Without being able to relate to all individuals, the politician cannot offer fair representation because he will likely favor his own class, the upper class. However, politicians who begin their lives as average to below average citizens in terms of family income will be able to understand the struggles of the working class. If these politicians are then able to accumulate wealth as they age, then they will also have an idea of what life is like as a member of the upper class. Politicians who have built their own empires will be able to represent both the working and the upper class because they themselves were member of both classes at one point in their lives. Therefore, how the politician has become wealthy can determine whether or not he can offer fair representation to all the people.

 

Hi Kawalak,

 

The arguments presented in the essay exemplify depth of thought and are very well presented. The example provided in the first paragraph is relevant to the argument and is explained with enough detail to strengthen the argument being made.

For the second example, further detail is required in order for the example to fully substantiate the argument. Specifically, you must provide details as to how President Obama fairly represented all people (one instance can be implementing the beginnings of universal healthcare).

Finally, the concluding paragraph clearly defines the resolution principle, which is logical and stems from the examples. Nonetheless, the conclusion seems slightly drawn out as there is a sense of needless repetition. You do not need to restate all of your arguments in the concluding paragraph. Instead, briefly describing how your resolution principle relates to your examples and providing one concluding sentence is sufficient.

 

Score: 5/6

[Nadil]

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

In today’s society, people, especially teenagers, are obsessed with how they are perceived by the public. Many teenagers are willing to purchase products based solely on their visual appeal, rather than on their quality. This is especially true if the product is to be used in view of the public, rather than in the privacy of their own homes. The Apple company is known for producing very appealing products that are not as functionally useful as other products on the market. For instance, Google has produced an “Android” cellular phone which has been praised by companies such as J.D Power and Associates, who provide rankings based on a products quality. However, the Android phone is consistently outsold by Apple’s “I-Phone” which doesn’t receive such generous reviews. The reason for this is that Apple’s I-phone is judged to be more visually appealing by the consumers. As such, the consumers are more likely to buy a better looking product if that product is to be used in public. In this case, the image of the product is more important than the actual product’s quality.

 

However, if the product is to be used in the confines of one’s own home, consumers become less concerned with the image of the product and are more concerned with the product’s quality. For instance, when purchasing desktop computers, consumers are more concerned with the specifics of the computer such as its processing speed and storage space. In this case, the visual appeal of the product comes second to the quality of the product because only a few people are likely to actually see the product. This is why Apple does not dominate the desktop computer market. Although Apple produces more visually appealing computers, they are frequently judged as lesser quality by third-party companies. When the products are to be used at home, people are more likely to purchase higher quality products as the visual appeal of the product becomes less important.

 

Ultimately, who sees the product while it is being used determines whether or not the image of a product is more important than the product itself. If an item is to be used in public, then consumers are likely to place a greater interest on the image of a product. Conversely, if a product is to be used at home away from the public, then the quality of the product is more important than the image of the product, and consumers are likely to choose quality over visual appeal.

 

Hello again,

 

As with your previous essay, the arguments in the current essay are clearly presented and exemplify depth of thought. When you compare your two examples, you can see that while the example in the first paragraph provides enough detail to substantiate your argument, the example presented in the second paragraph lacks this level of detail. There is a level of objectivity that is missing in the second example. Therefore, just like you did in the first example, you need to provide more detail as to the basis of your claims (i.e. who states that Apple computers are not as powerful or that Apple is not leading in sales of desktops). These details would greatly strengthen your example.

The concluding paragraph is better than in the first essay, although now you have the opposite problem. A couple of sentences tying your resolution principle to your examples would provide a better conclusion.

 

Score: 4.5/6 (Treatment of the three tasks is adequate, some problems with specificity in examples and quality of concluding paragraph)

[jab4eva]

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

 

When a disaster strikes, the quickest aid is the nation itself. Fast national donations and military recruitments will help save the lives of many. Only after the nation itself has tried to help its own people first can international aids be directed upon; foreign aid will not be possible if the nation itself is unwilling to cooperate with external aids. For example, in May 2008, a rural city in Sichuan, China was hit by an earthquake of 8.0 in magnitude. National aid was immediately implemented through donations and soldiers were recruited to save lives. Every Chinese at that time was concerned with the situation in Sichuan and many volunteered themselves to help the needy people. Few days later, when the news reached the government Japan, the Japanese government has agreed to send hundreds of elite soldier to save more lives. This is an example where foreign aid is directed only when national aid is implemented first; foreign aid is only directed to help the nation that will help itself, not as an obligation.

 

However, if a country’s means of helping themselves involve violence and massacres, foreign aid should not be directed. During Rwanda genocide, the majority Hutus thought that they would be helping to unite the nation by killing the minority Tutsis so that the majority will dominate. This type of help is itself flawed and therefore should not expect international aid to be possible. Foreign aid should only be directed to improve the living conditions of the needy and not to promote genocide and massacres. Indeed, foreign help was not directed to Rwanda and Rwanda was left to solve the problem on its own.

 

In conclusion, when a country is willing to help its own people by saving lives or by improve living conditions, foreign aid is possible when the country cannot fulfill its intentions. In the earthquake example, foreign aid is only there to give an extra hand. But if a country helps itself through violence and massacres, which takes away the people’s freedom to live, foreign aid is not to be directed in favour of the killing. As a result, only when countries themselves care about the lives of its own people can foreign aid be possible; lack of respect to its own people will cause other nations to do the same.

[Nadil]

This was a very difficult prompt for me. I am not very informed when it comes to politics. I hope that my examples are ok and that they are accurate. I ran out of time again so hopefully there is not too many mistakes.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

"Let them eat cake", the words spoken by the wealthy princess Maria Antoinette in the late 1700's was the pinnacle of the french monarch that lead to the french revolution. Fair representation to all people, is the ability by the politician to take into consideration all the different social classes of a nation before making decisions which may affect one or more of these different classes. Wealthy politicians that are born and raised into wealth, and take power once they come of age usually have struggles with dealing with most of the classes but the ruling elite. This problem arises due to the lack of exposure that the politician has during his/her life to anything but power and wealth. The story of Maria Antoinette is a prime example of this kind of politician. Maria grew up in a wealthy family and was the heiress to the throne of France during the late 1700's. Her complete ignorance of the suffering of the non ruling class is argued to have ultimately lead to the french revolution. Maria lived in wealth while the people of France were starving and being taxed heavily for money they did not have. When asked what to do about the poverty situation all she responded was to "let them eat cake", her ignorance of the mass poverty that was destroying the nation lead to her believing that it was some how the people who decided not to eat. This example allows for clarity as to why many wealthy politicians do not offer fair representation for all people. It is impossible for poverished people to just eat cake like it just grows on trees.

 

Nelson Mandela will go down in history as one of the great men to have been an exception to this general trend. Nelson Mandela was inprisoned for over 30 years because of his radical view, which was treated as treason by the current leaders of the time. It was the actions of Mandela that lead to the uniting of a nation. Nelson Mandela was born into wealth as he was the son of a chief of one of the tribes in South Africa. The difference between Mandela and other politicians was that, he did not make decisions based on what would benefit him or the ruling elite of South Africa, Mandela made decisions based on the affects it would have on each class of the society. He refused to make decisions that would make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Mandela put the importance of his country ahead of his own well being, he did not care about personal gain just that everyone was treated fairly. In this sense by taking into consideration the needs of every social class rather than specific ones that would benefit him he was a fair representative to all people of South Africa.

 

Nelson Mandela and Maria Antoinette represent the complete opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to fair representation of all people. Maria Antoinette cared more about remaining rich while Nelson Mandela cared more for the unifying of his nation. The main difference between these two icons, and between wealthy politicians that do and do not represent the population fairly comes down to the politician. If the politician seeks personal gain then the politician will not be a fair representation of the population, however if the politician has the good of the nation in mind over personal gain then that person will better offer fair representation of all people.

 

Hi fab,

If prompts involving politics are more challenging for you I would encourage becoming familiar with at least the major political figureheads currently and in recent history (e.g. JFK, Bush, Obama, Stephen Harper, etc.). In terms of your essay:

 

The reasoning behind your argument in the first paragraph is logical and the example is also applicable and supportive of your argument, although slightly inaccurate. Marie Antoinette is believed to have uttered that famous phrase after she was informed that the people did not have bread to eat, showing her ignorance of the situation.

The example in the second paragraph is appropriate, although poorly presented. You need to provide further detail as to what exactly Nelson Mandella did that we should consider as fair representation to all the people, otherwise the example seems somewhat vague.

Finally, the resolution principle is also somewhat vague and simplistic and does not convincingly resolve the dichotomy in your arguments. In order to exemplify depth of thought and complexity you need to provide a resolution principle that is not so immediately obvious. The language throughout the essay is also somewhat simplistic, which also gives the impression that the ideas presented were not overly complex.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (All 3 tasks are addressed, although some difficulty with depth of thought and complexity)

[Nadil]

I really tried to implement your previous comments on this prompt. I think I could have gotten to the main point a little faster. Thank you in advance.

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

In a democratic order, the people elect an individual from their ranks to protect and advocate for their needs. In other words, the life experiences of the elected official allows him to relate to his constituents and to place their concerns before everything else. In the United-States of America, the masses are made up of the working and middle class. Although distinct by socio-economic status, these two classes have common worries. For example, both classes are concerned with ensuring their children have access to a good education and health care. A politician from the elite, however, knows that his privilege position in life guarantees that his children will be admitted into the best schools and the best hospital care money can buy. A wealthy politician, therefore, may not have the same concerns as the masses. In 2004, for example, President Bush used his veto power to annex a bill that proposed to extend health care coverage to all minors in the U.S. This bill would have ensured that irrespective of a family’s economic means, all children would have access to adequate hospital care. Bush, however, veto the bill because he believed that the government should not interfere with the free market of health care and that parents should be given the freedom to buy health insurance for their children. Critics, were baffled that the President could have denied such a positive bill. Some critics even went to the lengths of saying that President Bush veto the bill because he comes from a wealthy family that never had to worry about the affordability of health care . Not all wealthy politician, however, lack consciousness of the economic struggles of their constituents.

 

Senator Ted Kennedy, comes a wealthy family line. His grand-father made his fortune through real estate, alcohol and the banking industry. At the time of his death, his estate was estimated to be worth anywhere between $12-45 million dollars. Even though Ted grew up in a privilege circle, he was committed to ensuring that all of his constituents had access to health care in Boston. When Ted’s son was a young boy, he was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer that could not be treated .A scientist, however, included Ted’s son and a dozen other young children with the same diagnosis into an experimental trial for a treatment. Fortunately, the new treatment was proving to be effective, however, insurance companies of the families decided that the treatment was experimental and refused to continue covering the cost. The families, pleaded with their insurers to continue the coverage as this was the only way in which their children could survive. Due to his wealth, Ted’s son was the only one who was able to continue treatment. This experience, defined Ted’s career in politics. After this even t, he committed himself to the fight that would eventually lead to affordable health coverage for all Bostonians. Although wealthy, Ted’s experience allowed him to relate his constituents and advocate for their needs.

 

A wealthy politician, therefore, can offer fair representation to the masses only when he goes through a life experience that reduces him to the level of commoners. Such a dramatic event will force him to realize that not everyone has the opportunity to purchase basic services. Furthermore, this experience will make him realize that the government has a responsibility to close the gap of inequality and to secure the welfare of all its peoples. Bush has always had a financial security blanket that protected him from experiencing the daily struggle of the masses. Ted, on the other hand, has been faced with a situation that made him empathetic toward the needs of the masses. Therefore, the life experiences of a politician determines if he can provide fair representation to the people.

 

Hello,

 

The essay exemplifies a thorough treatment of both sides of the prompt, as your arguments are very well developed and substantiated by accurate, relevant and specific examples. A better concluding sentence, which re-states how the example backs up the thesis, would provide better closure to this paragraph. The current sentence jumps to briskly into the next point without nicely closing off the first.

Furthermore, in the second paragraph, you need to first provide an explanation of when the prompt is not true and then provide an example to substantiate the explanation.

The concluding paragraph is very well written as it provides a clear resolution and briefly outlines how this resolution principle relates to the examples.

There were a few spelling mistakes (mainly typos) so I would watch out for that. Overall, a very good essay!

 

Score: 5/6

[Nadil]

Hey Nadil. Sorry for bombarding you with essays. It's just that my test is in a week and I definitely need to work on writing these essays. I had trouble with this prompt in particular. I think I may have distorted the prompt statement.

 

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.

 

 

Currently, many countries are struggling economically due to weakness in the global economy. When some countries suffer due lack of funds, other countries will be negatively affected. This is because countries depend on the exchanging of goods with other countries in order to earn revenue. If other countries don’t have the funds to purchase goods, then other countries will struggle to earn profits. Because of this, foreign aid should be directed to help struggling countries. The delivery of aid should be contingent on whether or not the receiving country will use the aid to help themselves. In order words, the aid should only be given if the country receiving it is not run by a corrupt political party that will mishandle the funds. Currently, the country of Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy. Other countries such as France and England recognize the importance of keeping Greece from declaring bankruptcy, as they engage in frequent trade with Greece. Because Greece has no recent history of corruption, foreign aid should be provided in order to resurrect the economy of Greece so trading can continue.

 

However, certain instances arise where foreign aid should not be directed to countries, even if they help themselves. If a nation is suffering from problems of its own due to lack of resources, then that nation should not direct foreign aid to other countries, regardless of how the receiving nation will use the funds. For instance, although the United States would benefit from a stronger global economy, they themselves have issues with health care, homelessness, and a trillion dollar deficit. Therefore, it would be unwise for the United States to provide foreign aid to other countries. Doing so may lead to the United States having a fate similar to that of Greece.

 

Ultimately, a nation’s current economic standing determines whether or not a nation’s foreign aid should be directed to help other countries. If a nation is in good economic standing, then it should look to send foreign aid in order to help other countries who are making attempts to help themselves. A healthy global economy is dependent on countries that are capable of trading with other countries in order to generate revenue. Providing aid to other countries will help facilitate the growth of a strong global economy. However, if a nation is struggling, then that nation should look to help itself first rather than looking to help others.

 

Hi kawalac,

No problem regarding the number of essay, I'm happy to help.

 

 

The mistakes in sentence structure at the beginning make it hard to grasp your explanation of the prompt. Specifically, it is not clear when and why a struggling nation should receive aid because you refer to both countries giving and countries receiving aid as “other countries”. However, the reasoning regarding corruption is logical. Nonetheless, the example you provide is too brief to strongly back up your argument. The example is also slightly inaccurate, since the European Union was initially skeptical to lend Greece more money due to lack of confidence in the Greek government to clean things up financially. Also, the bailout was eventually approved, therefore, the word “ought not to be used; also because “should” makes your example seem less concrete and more hypothetical.

The same issue arises in the second example. Although your reasoning is correct, the example is much too brief and vague in order to provide any substantiation to your argument. You must choose examples which you are more comfortable in providing specific details to, as examples that are vague and undeveloped will not help your essay, despite logical arguments.

The concluding paragraph presents a good resolution principle; however, you need to tie this back to the examples.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (Need greater detail in order to provide stronger examples)

[Nadil]

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

 

Outside help can only go so far if the country does not help itself. Foreign aid is the allocation of resources, may that be: money, materials, food, medical supplies or people to a nation that is in need, perhaps after a natural disaster or war. These foreign aid programs are used to help nations that are in need of help. However it is believed that resources should be made available to only those nations that can help themselves. This way the money does not go to waste, and the nation can rebulid itself to become more stable and return to it's own self sufficient ways. Countries that help themselves are countries that have the drive to return to normal life, so that they can move forward on their own rather than be supported by another nation. Western Europe post world war II was in complete disarray, entire cities were demolished by the war and the nations of Western Europe faced a monstrous task to rebuild to pre war society. The United States prepared a foreign aid package that was to help Western Europe rebuild after the war. Money, material and people were sent to Western Europe and the construction began. This example fortifies how a nation uses it's foreign aid program to help a nation that can help itself. These nations had the drive to return to normal and move forward and it was accelerated by the foreign aid program of the United States.

 

A nation may be helped by foreign aid programs even if the nation does not help itself, if the nation is under occupation, or has a very poor leader then the nation may be unable to help itself. These nations will recieve aid packages to stop the possibility of further human suffering. Eastern Europe especially Germany after world war II, is a great example of a nation that was unable to help itself due to heavy restrictions by the occupying Soviet forces. Eastern Germany did not recieve the same kind of aid that Western Europe obtained because the Soviets would not allow it. Instead of money and people, the people of Eastern Germany were brought food and materials by air drop only as the Berlin Wall seperated the east from the west. The foreign aid packages here were directed to try and stop the human suffering that was taking place in East Germany.

 

Foreign aid is used to help nations in need, however some believe it is better spent on nations that can help themselves and some believe it is for nations that cannot help them selves. The determining factor is that if a nation can help themselves then the package is only a short period expense as the country will be up and running soon, and the resources will not be going to waste. However if the country is not able to help themselves then resources should be directed towards them only to stop further suffering of human lives.

 

Hi fab,

 

 

It is not advisable to simply repeat the prompt in your first sentence. You need to provide a more interesting introductory sentence in order to grab the reader’s attention. You defined foreign aid nicely and also provided a decent definition of what it means for a country to “help itself”. The example supports the explanation, although you could have provided more detail as to how Western Europe fit your definition of a country “helping itself” (i.e. how did they exemplify this drive to return to normal life).

The definition of a nation helping itself in the second paragraph is not consistent as that in the first paragraph. Based on your definition of a “drive to return to normal life”, a nation which does not help itself would therefore be one that does not have a drive to return to normal life or is unwilling to return to normal life. However, being under occupation or having a poor leader does not mean that the people of a nation do not have the drive to return to normal life (i.e. that they do not help themselves based on your definition), it simply means that despite wanting to help themselves they cannot. As such, your essay lacks unity, since the arguments are based on different definitions of the prompt. In the future, you must formulate a definition that can carry the same meaning throughout your essay.

Finally, the resolution principle provided in your concluding paragraph does not resolve the dichotomy in your examples: it does not clearly indicate when a nation’s foreign aid should be directed to a country that helps itself and when it should not. Instead, your resolution principle discusses why the foreign aid should be given and for how long.

 

Score: 3/6 (Distortion of one or more of the tasks).

[Nadil]

Hi Nadil, thanks so much for your help.

So I read this prompt and was really confused by the wording and so my essay doesn't really make sense. I took the prompt as meaning " a nation should help those countries that can help them in return" - I was kind of panicked so I realized after I wrote it that that isn't what it is asking... I'm sending it in anyway to see if my structure is good-ish even if the tasks are all wrong. Thanks!

 

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.

 

Nations that have the ability and means to offer aid have a moral responsibility to help nations that are less fortunate or struggling. However, it is also the responsibility of a nation to maintain its own economy and quality of life for its citizens. A nation can benefit by offering foreign aid to those nations that can reciprocate in the long run. For example, Canadians aided the Americans in response to the attacks in New York City on 9/11. Canadian troups fought alongside American troops in the War against Terror in Iraq. This not only benefitted the Americans by having more soldiers on their side, but helped the Canadians as well by maintaining their alliance with the United States. By doing so, the Canadians secured the help of Americans in return for their help if such a situations ever arose.

 

Although it is important that a nation have its own best interests and interests of its citizens at heart, a nation should not refuse aid to another country if the people of that country are in dire need of help, if it is a life or death situation. Even if the nation in need has no way of repaying the aid given to them, they should receive aid regardless. In early 2010, the nation of Haiti experienced a massively devastating earth quake. Not only did the earth quake itself take the lives of thousands of civilians, it destroyed homes, buildings, the entire capitol city of Port au Prince. The Haitian government and economy were unable to provide the means to give medical care, clear the rubble, and provide for the needs of all the displaced citizens. Foreign aid from around the globe came to the aid of the Haitian citizens and government even though the Haitian infrastructure was completely destroyed and the country would likely never be able to help those who assisted in return.

 

Ideally, a nation's foreign aid should help both the country receiving the aid and the country giving it, in the long run. An example of this is Canadian troops supporting the Americans in the Iraq war. Although some Canadian soldiers didn't make it home, Canada's loyalty to the United states will be noted and the US will be loyal in turn if Canada is ever in need of assistance. However it is not always possible that both nations benefit. Sometimes a crisis so big arises that a country is completely devastated and has nothing that can be offered in terms of reciprocity. In times such as this, when the lives of many hang on any aid that can be given, it is important that able countries do what they can to help, even if they will receive nothing in return.

 

Hello,

 

Your explanation in the first paragraph is somewhat relevant to the prompt, since a nation that can “help itself” would be able to return the favor more readily. However, the explanation needed to be better developed and include what is meant by a country being able to help itself. Furthermore, your example is also slightly vague in terms of supporting your explanation. Yes the Canadians offered help, but you need to provide detail as to how the Americans were able to quickly reciprocate this favor. This is important in order to add concreteness to your example, otherwise this is a hypothetical example (“if the Canadians ever need help in the future, the American’s will help them”).

The example in the second paragraph is also relevant to refuting the prompt. However, although your argument wasn’t too far off, the explanation needed to focus more on why aid should be directed to a country that can’t help itself.

Finally, the resolution principle could have been stated a little more clearly in your concluding paragraph, instead of diffusely throughout the whole paragraph (i.e. Whether or not a country should help another depends on…).

The language in the essay also seemed a little too casual and simplistic, I would encourage you to write a little more formally (e.g. instead of saying “some soldiers didn’t make it home” you can say “although Canada suffered many casualties due to the war”).

 

Score: 3/6 (Distortion of one or more of the tasks).

[Nadil]

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

 

When a disaster strikes, the quickest aid is the nation itself. Fast national donations and military recruitments will help save the lives of many. Only after the nation itself has tried to help its own people first can international aids be directed upon; foreign aid will not be possible if the nation itself is unwilling to cooperate with external aids. For example, in May 2008, a rural city in Sichuan, China was hit by an earthquake of 8.0 in magnitude. National aid was immediately implemented through donations and soldiers were recruited to save lives. Every Chinese at that time was concerned with the situation in Sichuan and many volunteered themselves to help the needy people. Few days later, when the news reached the government Japan, the Japanese government has agreed to send hundreds of elite soldier to save more lives. This is an example where foreign aid is directed only when national aid is implemented first; foreign aid is only directed to help the nation that will help itself, not as an obligation.

 

However, if a country’s means of helping themselves involve violence and massacres, foreign aid should not be directed. During Rwanda genocide, the majority Hutus thought that they would be helping to unite the nation by killing the minority Tutsis so that the majority will dominate. This type of help is itself flawed and therefore should not expect international aid to be possible. Foreign aid should only be directed to improve the living conditions of the needy and not to promote genocide and massacres. Indeed, foreign help was not directed to Rwanda and Rwanda was left to solve the problem on its own.

 

In conclusion, when a country is willing to help its own people by saving lives or by improve living conditions, foreign aid is possible when the country cannot fulfill its intentions. In the earthquake example, foreign aid is only there to give an extra hand. But if a country helps itself through violence and massacres, which takes away the people’s freedom to live, foreign aid is not to be directed in favour of the killing. As a result, only when countries themselves care about the lives of its own people can foreign aid be possible; lack of respect to its own people will cause other nations to do the same.

 

Hi,

I hope this helps,

 

You provide two different trails of thought in your first paragraph (if a nation initially tries to help itself or if a nation is willing to accept external aid). Therefore, it is confusing which line of reasoning you are using to explain the prompt and apply your example to.

Furthermore, you do not refute the prompt in the second paragraph, since you must provide an example of when a nation should not provide foreign aid to a country that can help itself. Another reasonable situation could be when a nation should provide help to a country that can’t help itself. Furthermore, the example you provide is not completely accurate (It was the Hutu who conducted the genocide). Also, should aid not be provided to the minority being massacred? Along the same line, the resolution principle does not seem reasonable, since you state that a country should not be provided foreign aid during the course of genocide.

The language used in the essay is too casual and simplistic and there were also several grammar and sentence structure mistakes. Avoid using colloquial language and focus on writing more formally.

 

Score: 2.5/6 (Distortion of the tasks)

[Abraska]

Hi, here's my attempt at "Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people." Blah, I'm still trying to get the timing down (little rushed). Thanks for taking a look.

 

Have a good one.

 

 

The saying "all for one and one for all" does not often apply in politics; rich politicians often do not represent the people. The adjective "wealthy" is rather redundant as a certain level of wealth is required for one to be called a politician. Thus, politicians are different from the average citizen and it is not surprising the wishes of the people are not reflected by politicians. An example of this is Steven Harper's decision to invoke the HST in British Columbia. 82% of BC citizens opposed the tax yet Harper established it anway. The tax replaces the old GST and PST which was paid in part by companies as well as consumers. The HST passes all of the tax down to the consumer and thus it is the reason for BC's opposition agains the tax. Since Harper is financially well-off compared to the people, this tax does not affect him as much. Thus, Harper could not fairly represent the people when his wealth exempts him from the tax.

 

Though Harper did not fairly represent the people with the HST, there are times where he does represent the people well. Harper and his government aided Haiti after it suffered the tragic earthquake. The earthquake occured in January 2010 25km west of Port-al-Prince. Many Haitians died from the crisis and many more would have perished had it not been for the billions of dollars in relief money provided by Harper and his government. Canada has a reputation for being kind and most Canadians live up to this well. Among Canadians, it was no question that Canada would provide foreign aid. Being Canadian himself, Harper fulfilled the wishes of the people and represented them fairly in providing aid. His status as a wealthy politician did not prevent him from fair representation of the people.

 

It is clear that there is no obvious distinction of when wealthy politician can fairly represent the people. However, the guidline that wealthy politicians fail to fairly represent the people in matters of economy but succeed when it comes to national identity may help. The HST affected Harper and the people differently so fair representation was not feasible. However, when it came to helping a foreign nation, Harper with his Canadian identity fairly represented the people. Thus, these are the occasions of when and when not a wealthy politician can fairly represent the people.

[viper]

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

 

Naturally, the modern world has developed in such a sense that there is extreme segregation between the advanced, financially powerful first world nations and the struggling, overly impoverished third world nations. Due to this gap, it is essentially an expectation of the thriving, economically stable nations to assist developing countries through foreign aid. Because a nation only has limited resources, it must choose which countries it will assist. In this process, priority in aid should be given to those nations which are exhibiting an effort themselves to develop an grow economically, socially, academically and culturally. A country that illustrates a desire to enhance the quality of life of it’s inhabitants through spending on social programs to assist it’s citizens deserves the money more than a nation which spends on military goals and weapons, for example. By demonstrating an attempt to enhance a nation’s own infrastructure and the well-being of it’s civilians, it is more likely that the capital obtained through foreign aid will be used efficiently and effectively, therefore justifying the choice of the developing state.

 

Despite this improved assurance that the aid will be utilized to its greatest potential in such a nation, there are circumstances where countries which do not exemplify these aforementioned qualities deserve foreign assistance regardless of their domestic actions. Relief aid given to nations after a catastrophic natural disaster is such an instance. Take the example of the devastating tsunami that struck southeast Asia in late December of 2004. Although the nation of Indonesia may not be known globally as a state which spends to improve the lives of it’s citizens, the tragic disaster resulted in unprecedented damage within the country which could in no way be repaired by the Indonesian government alone. Foreign aid was absolutely necessary in order to rebuild the nation and return conditions to being livable for many individuals. In such dire emergencies, it is critical that the advanced nations of the world assist those in need regardless of prior judgement of the country.

 

In determining which underdeveloped nations require foreign assistance in order to improve conditions within their boundaries, the deciding factor is the rationale and timing behind the aid itself. If a developed nation is simply proving assistance as it always does on an annual basis, then those nations which exemplify a thorough effort by there own internal government to enhance conditions, infrastructure and quality of live of local citizens deserve the funding. However, if a freak natural disaster results in the sheer demoralization and devastation to a developing country, it is the obligation of a modern nation to provide relief.

[shir312]

Ugh, I don't think I developed my examples well at all in this one either. Hopefully the essay's still coherent though- thanks again!

 

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

 

 

Global economic statuses of nations can be summed up either one of two words: developed or underdeveloped. As such, developed countries have been deemed to have an obligation to provide foreign aid to those that are less fortunate than it in the form of monetary donations, health or development services, or resources. However, there is considerable debate over whether it is worthwhile for a developed nation to yield foreign aid to nations that are considered unable to support themselves economically due to extremely dire circumstances like civil war, as any such contribution would surely be used too quickly to yield any long-lasting benefits. Due to this idea, certain nations aim their foreign aid to countries they deem able to benefit directly from their contributions. An example of this is China's consistent contributions to rebuilding and renovating of various cities in Tibet. To date, China has contributed enough money to Tibet to directly benefit its citizens, so much so that each citizen has seen an average increase of their incomes by $15,000. These benefits along with a newly renovated airport and city buildings, Tibet has seen a great increase in quality of living for its citizen's due to China's direction of its foreign aid to a country that could help itself.

 

However, that is not to say that all developmed nations direct their foreign aid to countries that are able to help themselves. During the Rwandan genocide in the early 1990s, countries like Belgium, France, and Canada all sent medical support to a nation deemed too war torn and politically unstable to help. While the country did not see many immediate political benefits from this aid, its citizens benefited from it greatly, and continue to do so to the present times. As a result of this aid, Rwanda has been able to rebuild its nation out of unstable political times, despite previously being deemed a country that was unable to help itself.

 

All developed nations have an obligation to those less fortunate to send adequate amounts of foreign aid to underdeveloped nations. However, it is often difficult to determine whether foreign aid should be directed to countries that already use sustainable, if not less than satisfactory by developed standards, practices to keep the country functioning or to countries that undoubtedly need it more but may not reap immediate sustainable political and economic benefits from it. It is then appropriate to determine which country's citizens need aid most urgently. Chinese foreign aid was directed to Tibet because they felt that the conditions that Tibetan citizens were living under were not acceptable, and they sought to change that. However, during the Rwandan genocide, while the country did not benefit economically or politically from foreign aid, its citizens needed medical aid urgently and benefited from the generosity of surrounding developed nations'.

[Nadil]

Hi, here's my attempt at "Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people." Blah, I'm still trying to get the timing down (little rushed). Thanks for taking a look.

 

Have a good one.

 

 

The saying "all for one and one for all" does not often apply in politics; rich politicians often do not represent the people. The adjective "wealthy" is rather redundant as a certain level of wealth is required for one to be called a politician. Thus, politicians are different from the average citizen and it is not surprising the wishes of the people are not reflected by politicians. An example of this is Steven Harper's decision to invoke the HST in British Columbia. 82% of BC citizens opposed the tax yet Harper established it anway. The tax replaces the old GST and PST which was paid in part by companies as well as consumers. The HST passes all of the tax down to the consumer and thus it is the reason for BC's opposition agains the tax. Since Harper is financially well-off compared to the people, this tax does not affect him as much. Thus, Harper could not fairly represent the people when his wealth exempts him from the tax.

 

Though Harper did not fairly represent the people with the HST, there are times where he does represent the people well. Harper and his government aided Haiti after it suffered the tragic earthquake. The earthquake occured in January 2010 25km west of Port-al-Prince. Many Haitians died from the crisis and many more would have perished had it not been for the billions of dollars in relief money provided by Harper and his government. Canada has a reputation for being kind and most Canadians live up to this well. Among Canadians, it was no question that Canada would provide foreign aid. Being Canadian himself, Harper fulfilled the wishes of the people and represented them fairly in providing aid. His status as a wealthy politician did not prevent him from fair representation of the people.

 

It is clear that there is no obvious distinction of when wealthy politician can fairly represent the people. However, the guidline that wealthy politicians fail to fairly represent the people in matters of economy but succeed when it comes to national identity may help. The HST affected Harper and the people differently so fair representation was not feasible. However, when it came to helping a foreign nation, Harper with his Canadian identity fairly represented the people. Thus, these are the occasions of when and when not a wealthy politician can fairly represent the people.

 

Hi Abraska,

 

 

The explanation is not very clear requires further development (i.e. why is a certain amount of wealth required for one to be called a politician? And why are the wishes of the people not reflected by politicians simply because they are “different”?). Although your example is somewhat relevant, you also need to develop it further in order for the reader to get a clear understanding of why it does not favour the poor. Furthermore, your example is not completely accurate. Although the HST has not received a warm reception, it is intended to be revenue neutral due to a reduction in income taxes and certain tax credits especially for those with lower income.

Your second example is unique and the resolution principle is interesting and well thought out. The language throughout the essay is somewhat casual, and I would recommend you try and write more formally.

Score: 4/6 (Adequately addresses all three tasks, provide further development of your explanations and examples and write more formally)