Prep101 - free Writing Sample tutoring

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello Viper,

 

 

Your explanation of the prompt in the first paragraph is very well developed and clear; however, you need to provide a concrete and specific example in order to back up this argument (i.e. must specify which country received aid in the past because they fit your definition).

The argument in your refuting paragraph also needs further development (why do countries which have suffered natural disasters deserve aid?) Nonetheless, the example provided in your second argument is more concrete and provides support to your argument.

Finally, the resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is too vague: the instructions ask you to provide a specific rationale for when aid should be given to nations that help themselves and when it should not, therefore, the resolution can’t be that it depends on the rationale. The resolution principle must be a new idea which resolves the dichotomy between the two examples, not a simple re-statement of the two examples, as in your essay.

 

Score: 3/6 (Need to provide a concrete example for your first paragraph and

need to provide a specific resolution principle)

[Nadil]

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'.

 

Hello shir312,

 

 

Although your explanation of “foreign aid” is well done, your definition of a country that help’s itself is still a little vague (a country that help’s itself is a country that does not have dire circumstances or does not spend the money too quickly or a country that sees immediate benefit from the aid?). As such, although your example is specific and provides adequate detail, it is still unclear at the end of the paragraph how exactly Tibet is a country considered able to “help itself”. Furthermore, both of your examples support the idea from the first paragraph that aid should be given to countries that benefit directly from it. Consequently, your second example doesn’t actually refute the prompt as defined in your first paragraph. Therefore, you must either make your first argument more specific to one example or your examples need to be more tailored to your arguments. The second example also requires an actual explanation refuting the prompt in order for it to be supported by your example (an example does not substitute for an explanation/argument, you need both).

Finally, you do not provide an actual resolution principle in your concluding paragraph. The resolution principle must be a specific and concrete idea which resolves the dichotomy between your two examples. A repetition of your examples does not substitute for a resolution principle.

Several mistakes in sentence structure and grammar were also noted.

 

Score: 2.5/6

[Nadil]

Hello everyone,

 

Here is the newest prompt (#4):

 

 

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

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 environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority.

 

Instructions:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Good Luck!

 

The next prompt will be posted on Thursday July 29.

[anto12e]

eww i know i did bad on this essay..rushed the last half of the essay and NO time to even read it over once...thanks for any help nadil..it will definitely help me out!

 

 

 

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

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 environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority.

 

 

The world we are currently inhabiting has been pass down from generations to generations for us to live. The resources we have, whether it is natural or man made, have been made possible due to the efforts of our previous generations. They were able to sustain the natural environment, such as ecosystems and natural resources, regardless of the exponential growth in human civilization recently, such as the Baby Boomers. However as the human popoulation grows, the needs to support the population has grown. These concerns can be summed up as economic concerns since many of these human needs (healthcare, food, social services) can be met with a wealthy economy that can provide the resources to supply them . It is important to note that environmental concerns should always take priority over any economic concerns because although the status of the economy can change over time, the environment is unlikely to be renewed once it has been tarnished. The classic example of carbon dioxide emissions further exemplies this. Many researches have shown that recent surplus in carbon dioxide emissions caused by human activities such as burning gasoline in cars have caused damage to the ozone layer. This layer in the atmosphere protects us from harmful ultraviolet light from the Sun. This damage, which currently has no solutions to repair and therefore unrenewable, poses a serious threat and a priority to address. This led to many developed countries including Canada and Japan to put this environmental concern over their economic concerns. These countries channeled a huge amount of money on developing ways to reduce this ozone damage even when there were constant economic concerns to be address. As a result, many recent technologies have been developed with the purpose of being "green." These green products have reduced carbon dioxide emissions, such as hybrid cars and have shown that addressing an enviornmental concern, especially one that cannot be renewed is more important than economic concerns.

 

At times, addressing environmental concerns may seem impratical in comparison to the economic concerns a country faces that would lead the latter taking priority. This is especially true when there are means to repair environmental damages. In many developing countries, farmers have deforested lands so that they can expand their lands to farm. This would allow the farmers to grow more crops and thus be able to harvest and bring in a higher income. This would no doubt address some of the economic concerns of a country since now there is a higher crop supply to address the needs of the citizens and more of it to trade to other countries for other resources. However, deforestations have been critiqued to destroy natural habitats and reduce the biodiversity of living organisms in the area. In Cuba, a developing country that has shown major economic advances, have address this environmental concern by creating conservatory zones to preserve the biodiversity and natural habitats. These man-made zones coupled with deforestations limit the harmful effects and make deforestations appear more favourable. This solution they implmented have allowed them to "renew" environmental damages and have allowed them to place economic concerns over their environmental concerns.

 

What determines whether environmental or economic concerns should take precedence depends on the means society has to deal with the environmental consequences. When consequences from environmental concerns have been shown to have no solutions or very limited, such as the depletion of the ozone, they appear to take priority over economic concerns. When the consequences appear to have solutions that appear to preserve the environment, no matter how futile it is, economic concerns tend to take priority. Therefore the environmental solutions we have to ensure that future generations have resources as we did will decide which concerns have a higher priority.

[kawalac]

Hey Nadil, this isn't a prompt that you have posted, but I was hoping that you could stil provide some feedback for me. My test is in a few days, and I just wanted to get some more practice in. I hope this is alright with you

 

 

Groups that attempt to influence government policy are only interested in benefitting themselves

 

 

 

From the very beginning, when modern politics was in its infancy, groups were already attempting to influence government policy in order to benefit themselves. In this context, a group is considered as a number of individuals who have the same goal in mind. Usually, the groups attempting to influence the government are large corporations fighting for changes in policy that will eventually lead to increases in their profit margins. For instance, in 2006, the provincial government of Ontario enacted a policy that prevented people from smoking indoors. Undoubtedly, this policy sent corporate leaders of tobacco companies into a rage. Not only were people prohibited from smoking in restaurants, but they were also banned from lighting up in nightclubs and casinos, where their number one customers are usually situated. Couple this with increased restrictions on smoking around schools, a very upset tobacco industry is born. As a result of these newly imposed restrictions, tobacco companies began lobbying the government heavily. Although these bans had many benefits such as reducing second hand smoke inhalation, the tobacco companies fought the policy in an attempt to better their own position. Therefore, when groups attempt to influence government policy, they usually do so in attempt to benefit no one but themselves.

 

However, there are other groups that take it upon themselves to fight for policy change. What distinguishes these groups from other large corporations is that the former are usually not-for-profit organizations fighting for a worthy cause. Consider the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). This group was formed in response to the increasing amount of deaths due to impaired motorists. Not only were the drunk drivers claiming their own lives, but they were often taking innocent lives along with them. Rather than attempting to benefit themselves, the goal of MADD is to change policy relating to punishments for drunk drivers. The leaders of MADD believe that increasing fines and jail time for convicted drunk drivers will prevent people from driving drunk. Undoubtedly, decreasing the prevalence of drunk driving is something that benefits society as a whole. Therefore, not all groups that attempt to influence government policy are intereted in benefitting strictly themselves.

 

Ultimately, it is the nature of the group that determines whether or not the group is interested in benefitting themselves or others. Groups that are for-profit carry out their day-to-day activities with one goal in mind: maximize profits. These corporations will do whatever is necessary to acheive their goal, even if it invovles influencing the government to change policies that would benefit them and hinder the well-being of people. An example of this are tobacco companies who lobby the government to remove restrictions on smoking so that more people can become victims to their deadly products. On the other hand, not-for-profit groups like MADD fight for policies that will benefit not only themselves, but society as a whole. Therefore, when determining the motives behind a groups influence of the government, one must identify if the group is for-profit or non-profit.

[jrandhawa]

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

 

Do countries in need of foreign aid always have the capacity to help themselves? Foreign aid is support given from one country to another in the form of resources such as people and/or money. Foreign aid will be more effective when given to a country that is capable of helping itself. For example, foreign aid in support of the victims of hurricane Katrina, which devastated a part of the United States, was greatly supplemented by the US’s strong ability to help itself. As such, the US was able to slowly recover and the foreign aid was used quite efficiently. Logically, it seems that foreign aid should be directed at those countries that are most able to help themselves.

 

However, in some cases a country may be so devastated or torn apart by a crisis that is rendered unable to help itself. In these cases foreign aid is deeply needed, therefore foreign aid should not always be directed to help those countries that help themselves. Haiti, for example, was so completely destroyed by an earthquake that it was unable to truly help itself. In this case, foreign aid must be directed to help a country that is unable to effectively help itself.

 

When should foreign aid be directed to help a country that helps itself? This depends on the foreign aid-receiving country’s current socioeconomic situation. If the country does have the ability to help itself, such as the US, a country should direct its foreign aid to the countries that help themselves the most so that the aid will be most effective. However, if a country is rendered unable to help itself, such as Haiti, foreign aid should not be directed to aid those countries that help themselves as a major crisis may make this near impossible. Overall, countries in need of foreign aid are not always able to help themselves therefore a nation’s foreign aid should usually, but not always, be directed at countries that help themselves.

[kawalac]

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

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 environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority.

 

In retrospect, it is clear that the industrial revolution has had serious negative consequences on our environment. Climatologists have proved that our climates and ecosystems are changing due to the increased levels of pollutants brought on by the industrial revolution. A recent report has demonstrated that our global temperature is increasing by 0.2 degrees Celsius every year. Although this seems small, the long term effects of this can be catastrophic. If this increasing trend in global temperature continues, the polar ice caps will melt and our land will begin to flood. Furthermore, copious amounts of sulfur and nitrogen dioxide, as well as chlorofluorocarbonds are released into the atmosphere each day. These pollutants react with gases in the atmosphere to form acids that acidify our lakes and soils, making this areas inhospitable for the indigenous species who once lived there. All of these effects can be prevented if companies were willing to spend more money on less volatile reactants. Also, the problem can be curtailed if smokestacks are outfitted with filters that reduce dangerous gas emission into the atmosphere. Although these filters are quite expensive, they must be put into place in order to protect the environment. The Industrial nations who have contributed the most to the pollution are usually the most prosperous nations, such as the United States and Canada. These countries can afford to put economic concerns behind environmental ones. Without a healthy environment, human civilization may cease to exist if the polar ice caps melt or if our agricultural industries fail to produce food due to the acidified lakes and soils. Because a healthy environment is central to our existence, environmental concerns should take precedence over economic ones.

 

However, certain nations need not worry about the environment because they may not live long enough to see the outcome of a damaged environment. Underdeveloped nations such as Ghana and Gambia are suffering from famine and other serious diseases such as AIDS and malaria. These countries should focus on providing food and health care to their citizens. However, in order to provide more food and health care, these nations must focus on improving their economic standing even if this involves placing environmental concerns behind them. For instance, in order to increase farming efficieny, underdeveloped countries will have to utilize machinery. Although this machiney causes pollution, it is necessary in order for the people to produce food so their people can eat. Therefore, underdeveloped nations should focus on improving their economic standing before attemping to help improve the environment. Without focusing on their economy, Ghana and Gambia may succomb to the threat of famine and disease.

 

Ultimately, the current economic standing of a nation should determine whether they place a higher priority on economic or environmental concerns. Countries in relatively good economic standing should give priority to environmental concerns because they have the capabilities of doing so. Issues with global warming and reduction in biodiversity due to acidic rain have made it clear that protecting the envionrment should be the primary concern of most nations. However, underdeveloped countries with economic problems should give priority to economic concerns rather than environmental concerns. Countries like Ghana and Gambia are struggling with widespread famine amongst their populations. Improving their economy will help alleviate these concerns. In this case, the lives of those people should take precedence over the environmental concerns.

[sarup]

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

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 environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority.

 

There will always be a conflict concerning the monetary aspect of a particular venture, versus the environmental concerns that venture may raise. Buisnesses, and possibly governments will tend to place a higher importance on economics citing revneue, decreased unemployment, and an overall increase in prosperity. Mean while, residents nearby the threatened area will tend to place a higher importance on the environment knowing that any environmental distaters could threaten certain livley hoods, destroy natural landscapes and cause health concerns. As more and more information is being released showing how certain industrial actions adversley and irrepairably effect our planet, it is becoming all to clear that environmental aspects must be accorded a higher priority in any industrial venture. For example, in the Pantanal region of Brazil, numerous wetlands are being drained at the same time many forests are being cut in order for large companies to build farmland and factories. The result has been a disaster to the delicate ecosystem and the native people of the land that use the region as their means for a livelihood. The only benefactors of this expansion into the Panatal? The owners and higher ups of the company.

 

In certain situations, economics must take priority over any and all environmental concerns. For example, during the Industrial revolution, it is quite clear that the increased reliance on coal for energy and increased energy consumption harmed the environment. However, in this case, the knowledge and technology that evolved because of the industrial revolution has so greatly benefitted mankind that one would be hardpressed to find any individual that would say the environmental concerns caused by the industrial revolution should have stopped the revolution from ever occuring.

 

Environmental concerns versus monetary gains will always clash. What should be used to place priority between the two should be which offers the greatest benefit to all. In the case of the Panatal, the benefits have largely been recieved by few individuals. In the case of the Industrial revolution, the advances in technology and knowledge have led to the basis of our current way of life. As a result, economic concerns should only override environmental ones when it results in the greatest good for all.

[anna8]

Thanks for commenting and grading this essay, Nadil!

 

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

It is a well-known economic principle that scarce resources must be efficiently allocated. Given the limited nature of most of the resources we have, this principle applies not only to issues related to economies of governments but also applies most especially to issues relating to the environment. The earth's natural resources - fuel, minerals, wood, clean water - are major limiting factors to life on this planet. Thus, economic concerns are only secondary to environmental concerns primarily because they depend largely on the viability of our environment. When the earth's natural resources are depleted, then life on earth will inevitably decline finding no need for economic discussions. The recent BP oil spill poses a huge environmental dilemma that takes precedence over economic concerns related to this event. The scale of the environmental impact that the oil spill has caused, and continues to cause, in the surrounding coastal areas is unprecedented. The number of deaths of birds and other marine animals in the area, as well as the negative impact of the spill on the livelihood of the people relying on the ocean are steadily increasing. Thus, the United States government as well as other institutions continue to mobilize their resources to provide a solution to this environmental problem while the economic concerns related to the event such as the loss of profits that could have otherwise driven economic growth of the industry is taking a back seat. In this case, economic concerns are not the priority issue that the officials are attempting to address.

 

However, there are times when environmental concerns may take priority over economic concerns. The global financial crisis in 2008 caused world leaders to focus their attention and resources towards the protection of their respective economies and in the creation of jobs to spur economic growth. In effect, environmental issues such as protection of endangered species and the long-standing issue on global warming were not given as much attention. In fact, the G20 summit was held and created in order to bring together leaders all over the world to talk about relevant issues. During that time, the financial crisis was one of the major agendas in the summit and took priority over environmental concerns. This led to economic solutions that aided countries to survive the massive economic downturn and subsequently recover from its detrimental effects.

 

What determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority is the significance and urgency of a particular issue confronting a nation. Resources should be mobilized as a response to the most compelling and relevant issue that confronts a particular group of people. The BP oil disaster has posed a great environmental risk and has thus been on the forefront of government aid and attention. This overrides any harmful economic issues that may arise due to the downfall of a big and influential company in the oil industry. On the other hand, when an urgent economic issue greatly impacts the lives of people in a society, such as the financial crisis in 2008 where a big percentage of people lost their jobs, then this may justifiably override environmental concerns. Therefore, a large-scale issue that is deemed to be significant at a particular period of time is a determining factor in weighing the relevance of either environmental or economic concerns.

[seabass]

Hi, this is a different prompt (one from a practice exam) but I was hoping you would look it over anyways. Thanks!!

 

 

In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen

 

A successful politician is a "man of the people". In order to gain the acceptance of the general population, a policitian must appear relatable and supportive of the ideals held by the average citizen. Voters must feel that the politician will consider their needs and act in a way that reflects their ideologies. This is precisely why Barack Obama, current President of the United States, was so successful in his campaign for presidency. He not only took the time to travel around America, meeting hundreds of thousands of "ordinary" citizens, but he used campaign slogans such as "Yes WE Can" to effectively communicate that he was in line with the wants and needs of Americans. Furthermore, he played up on the fact that he was from middle class America, thus sharply contrasting himself with his opposition, a white, priveleged, upper-class Republican male. In this way, Obama won the hearts and the votes of ordinary Americans across the country.

 

However, despite the expectation that politicians will be in line ideologically with voters, it is expected that they will conduct themselves morally in a manner differently than the average citizen. In this day and age in The United States, infidelity in a marriage is extremely common. However, when Bill Clinton, former president of the United States, engaged in an extra-marital affair with Monica Lewinsky, a young intern at the White House, the American public was outraged. Several groups called for the impeachmant of President Clinton, solely based on his poor moral choices, and he lost the respect and support of many citizens. Despite the fact that engaging in an affair may have put President Clinton's actions in line with numerous ordinary American citizens, it was viewed as an undesirable act for a President and had dire political consequences.

 

In a democracy in which the success of a politician relies so heavily on public opinion, there are some situations in which a politician must try to emulate the "average" ciziten, and some in which a politician must hold his or herself to a higher ideal. In terms of ideology, mannerisms, likes and dislikes, it is important for a politician to mirror those of his constituents in order to appear approachable and concerned with the needs of the general population. However, when it comes to morally questionable acts, a politician must avoid engaging in any activities that will sully his or her reputation-- even if the average citizen would take part in such an activity.

[jrandhawa]

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

Should environmental concerns always take priority over economic concerns? We, as humans, are completely dependant on our environment for our continued survival. If our environment became inhospitable, our species would become extinct. Therefore, it follows that economic concerns should be secondary to environmental concerns. The British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an excellent, although extreme, example of this. This major environmental catastrophe was of much greater priority than any possible economic concern. In most cases, environmental concerns are of greater priority than economic concerns.

 

However, in certain cases, economic concerns may be considered to have a higher priority than environmental concerns. These cases mainly include severe economic downfalls that have the ability affect an entire population. For example, an economic downfall hit the US a few years ago. This was believed to be the beginnings of the next great depression. As such, economic concerns temporarily took priority over the more long-term environmental concerns such as global warming. The American government addressed these major economic concerns with a strong stimulus package, rather than using those resources to address environmental problems like global warming.

 

When do economic concerns have priority over environmental concerns? Environmental concerns should have priority unless there is a possibility of a severe economic crisis such as in the US before the stimulus package was launched into action. If there is no impending economic crisis, however, environmental concerns must always take priority over economic concerns due to the importance of the environment on the survival of our species. Overall, most of the time environmental concerns should take priority over economic concerns.

[akv]

How would Conrad Black look as a politician? If the bastion for conservatism, elitism and aristocracy were ever to run for public office, the poorer citizens will wonder: Can this man represent us? This question is a logical one, a wealthy politician would have trouble representing some people, especially less affluent ones, because of their wealth. Conservatives are called heartless for this very reason, they cannot understand the trials of being poor.

 

However, history has shown that a wealthy man can represent his or her poorer citizens. Take Tommy Douglas, the founder of medicare. He grew up a poor boy in the prairies, he saw that many of his peers were denied health care because of their financial situation and he vowed to change it. And he was named the greatest Canadian for doing so. His idea of universal healthcare serves the rich, the poor and can truly be said to represent everybody. Even though he was wealthy, he not only was in touch with the poor, but he used to be one. It is that unbreakable connection that made him suitable to represent his poorer constituents even though he was a wealthy politician.

 

In conclusion, if pondering the ability of rich politicians to represent all of their people, think about their stories. If they, at one point, shared the hardships of all kinds of people, they can represent their views properly in the future. If not, they could be as credible as Lord Black on Parliament Hill.

[jab4eva]

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

In an economically stable, developed nation, where every civilian have the access to basic living essentials, it is time for the nation to take action against environmental concerns. Only when the country has enough resources to support each and every citizen will it have the time and energy to worry about environmental problems. Since humans are part of the environment and if the environment fails then humanity may fail as a result. Therefore, it is necessary to make environmental concerns a priority over economics concerns once the economy is stable and productive. For example, few years ago, Canadian government refused to exploit the oil that was discovered in Alberta, even though the exploitation could boost Canada’s economy further. The government decided to save the energy and to maintain a better environmental condition for Canada’s future generations. As a result, Canada as a developed nation showcased primary concern for the environment rather than economy.

 

However, in developing nations, where civilians lack the ability to obtain living essentials, economic development should be their primary concern. Environmental problems are not a concern when humanity suffers greatly. For example, after the Cultural Revolution of China, the economy suffered so much that the many people died from hunger and malnutrition. Some farmers decided to cut down trees and sell them to other countries in hope to exchange for some food. Exploitation of natural resources allowed many citizens is able to survive and therefore this situation illustrates that environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns when destroying the environment is the only way to maintain economy and provide basic living needs to the people.

 

In conclusion, in developed nations, environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns because living conditions will be ameliorated dramatically when the environment is suitable. Only when citizens have the ability to care about the environment will they do so. But in developing nations, citizens do not have the luxury to worry about the environment when their own survival is at risk. Poor citizens will do anything to maintain survival even if it means to destroy the environment.

[YorkMan]

I've been studying for the MCAT for 3 years, but I just started practicing writing a month ago, so go easy. Please let me know wht you would grade this. I think its my best ever, even though it's a bit short.

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means. What a profound statement this is, as it will be throughout the future. Politics is the practice or profession of practicing political affairs, and that is offen done with an ends in mind. However, the means to get their is often corrupt. While some people think that it's biased to say that politics are littered with corruption, I can say with confidence that it isn't. If the means of Barack Obama becoming president entailed murder on a mass scale, would that justify his presidency? Absolutely not.

 

But this is not always the case, and sometimes the end does in fact justify the means in politics. If the end is something that is for the better of the nation, then the means are trivial. For example, if the ends equals saving the country from nuclear warfare, than any means are neccessary, even if it means tons of soldiers getting slaughtered in war. This is a tried and true notion in politics and sceince. The promot states the the ends "rarely" justify the means, thus this is not true always, as I have demonstrated.

 

It is true that the ends usually never justifies the means in politicians. But just like everything, even the most brutal things, there is a grey area. While politicians shouldn't use this as an excuse to do whatever they wants, if the means mean public and national safety, then any means are justified. Think of this: if the end were saving your family's life, and the means was killing someone else, would you do it? The point is, everything is subjective, especially in politics, so it depends on the situation.

 

 

thanks in advance!

 

scheduled to write the MCAT next Thurs!

[Ahhdumb]

Hi Nadil,

 

I was wondering if you could please critique my essay? It is not one of the prompts you have posted but it would be greatly appreciated if you could it a quick read over. You guys have been a great help to me so far, thanks so much!

 

Prompt: The successful politician resembles the average citizen.

 

When a politician resembles the ordinary citizen, the politician is better able to identify with the citizens, and vice versa. The successful politician portrays qualities and values that are common among his people. This similarity between the politcian and the citizens is key to the politician's success. A politician with similair views as his people will generally want the same things for his country as his people do. By indentifying with, and sharing the same goals as the majority of his population, a politician gains popularity and approval among the citizens. However, there are ways of identifying with the citizens and being successful with them without actually resembling them.

 

Calfironia governor Arnold S. in no way resembles the ordinary citizen. His life has taken him from a farm boy in Austria, to the world's #1 body builder to an actor and now governor. Yet despite a very different life than most citizens he has still had great success as governor. Arnold's highly publicized life allows citizens to connect with, and feel almost as though they personally know him. Arnold's popularity and huge prescence in the media gives people an intimate understanding of him and provides him a means of connecting with and identifying with the people despite being very different from them. Such an avenue of a large media prescence is not available to all pollitician so instead, they instead identify with the citizens by actually resembling them.

 

The succesfull politician should resemble the ordinary citizen when he has no other means to connect or relate to the citizens. To be successfull a politician must somehow identify with and give the citizens a sense of connection to himself. For most politicians this is most easily done by actually resembling his population. The similarity between politician and the citizen is recieved positively by the citizen and usually leads to the success of the politician. However in Arnold's case, resembling the citizens is not the only method available to him to connect with the citizens. Arnold has been in the public eye for decades and his constant media prescence has given the public an intimate understanding and connection to him. Thus Arnold has achieved great success without resembling the citizens.

[nowitzki41]

Hi Sameer,

 

Thanks Again

 

Under the capitalist framework of economic growth very little is considered sacred, against the pursuits of financial gain. Capitalism by nature promotes economic growth as the primary goal of the nation, mostly with a hands off approach of low regulation. This approach is called the Laissez-Fare model of capitalism, essentially the markets are left to regulate themselves with the underlying assumption that businesses and corporations will make the correct decisions. Our recent history, however, has brought this assumption into question. As seen recently in the consequences of British Petroleum oil leak in the Mexican Gulf coast, or the extreme levels of pollution in Chinese industrial centres sometimes environmental concerns need to take priority over economic concerns. For example in Cities such as Beijing, China; the rapid industrial growth over the last two decades has lead to increased pollution concerns. The rapid industrial growth spurred on by unregulated environmental processes has lead to air pollution levels which have health impacts equivalent to smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day on the lungs. In such cases it is clear that environmental concerns need to take priority over economic concerns.

 

However, there are notable cases in which the economic concerns are reasonable and need to take priority over environmental concerns. A prime example of this is the push for Hydrogen Powered Vehicles in western economies. Many advocates of the environment are pushing for a shift from fossil fuel driven automobiles to more environmentally friendly alternatives such as Hydrogen Powered cars. In an ideal world this would be an each switch, however there are many economic barriers which make this switch less than ideal. Primarily the cost of isolation and Hydrogen fuel is paramount to the sucess of such cars, and at this point this cost is still a clear impediment to large scale commercial distribution. Also the real economic concerns of retrofitting gas stations and the power of oil companies keep such environmental changes at bay.

 

The question still remains: when should environmental concerns outweigh economic concerns? The answer lies in what is best for the people. In situations where the health of people and wildlife is under real and immediate risk, environmental concerns should take precedent. This is clearly illustrated in the Chinese pollution example mentioned above. However, in cases where, the environmental concerns, although important, do not pose an immediate and real risk, economic concerns may take precedence. This is clearly illustrated in the case of fossil fuel automobiles. This is especially the case when such economic resources could be better distributed to promote the health and wellbeing in other ways such as medical care and welfare. I agree, this proposal is a short sighted solution to dealing with such issues. The environmental actions of us today may lead to catastrophe tomorrow. Our decisions need to walk the fine balancing act of doing the best for us today, while leaving an opportunity for those tomorrow. I believe through the development of technology, the chasm between economic and environmental can be bridged. More affordable clean sources of energy are in our future. However it must be kept in mind it is this same technology, in the form of fossil fuel, which has created the problems we face.

[RoughER]

WEALTHY POLITICIANS CANNOT OFFER FAIR REPRESENTATION TO ALL PEOPLE

 

The fair representation of every person in a society is the hallmark of our democratic government. However, we can only choose one person or a set of people, to represent everything we believe in. Historically, politicians have ended up in their positions because they have simply followed in their parents or grandparents footsteps. By "keeping it in the family", it can assumed that the upbringing of many current politicians was above the average economic standard in society. This upbringing is not a true representation of the society that this politician is supposed to be representing. Their outlook is flawed (probably without intention) because the hardships many other people in society face cannot be properly empathized.

 

However, some politicians have not followed in their family's footsteps, and have arrived in politics in their own right. Politicians whose upbringing did not "match" those of a political family may better represent all people of a society. By empathizing with those that have less by direct association, it is perceived that this politician offers a better representation of the people.

 

Although a politician may have the intention to offer proper and accurate representation of all the people in a society, the ability of a politician, whose upbringing was surrounded by wealth, to empathize with his/her's people is hindered. Since half of society is living below the average economic standard, the perception of a wealthy politician from a wealthy family conveys misrepresentation of their needs. Contrary, a politician who has endured hardships, especially that of a financial background, better represents a society because of their ability to empathize with those that are less fortunate. The people living below the economic standard perceive the politician as more understanding and thus, a better person to represent them, although the politician may be wealthy now.

 

Thanks!

[Nadil]

eww i know i did bad on this essay..rushed the last half of the essay and NO time to even read it over once...thanks for any help nadil..it will definitely help me out!

 

 

 

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

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 environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority.

 

 

The world we are currently inhabiting has been pass down from generations to generations for us to live. The resources we have, whether it is natural or man made, have been made possible due to the efforts of our previous generations. They were able to sustain the natural environment, such as ecosystems and natural resources, regardless of the exponential growth in human civilization recently, such as the Baby Boomers. However as the human popoulation grows, the needs to support the population has grown. These concerns can be summed up as economic concerns since many of these human needs (healthcare, food, social services) can be met with a wealthy economy that can provide the resources to supply them . It is important to note that environmental concerns should always take priority over any economic concerns because although the status of the economy can change over time, the environment is unlikely to be renewed once it has been tarnished. The classic example of carbon dioxide emissions further exemplies this. Many researches have shown that recent surplus in carbon dioxide emissions caused by human activities such as burning gasoline in cars have caused damage to the ozone layer. This layer in the atmosphere protects us from harmful ultraviolet light from the Sun. This damage, which currently has no solutions to repair and therefore unrenewable, poses a serious threat and a priority to address. This led to many developed countries including Canada and Japan to put this environmental concern over their economic concerns. These countries channeled a huge amount of money on developing ways to reduce this ozone damage even when there were constant economic concerns to be address. As a result, many recent technologies have been developed with the purpose of being "green." These green products have reduced carbon dioxide emissions, such as hybrid cars and have shown that addressing an enviornmental concern, especially one that cannot be renewed is more important than economic concerns.

 

At times, addressing environmental concerns may seem impratical in comparison to the economic concerns a country faces that would lead the latter taking priority. This is especially true when there are means to repair environmental damages. In many developing countries, farmers have deforested lands so that they can expand their lands to farm. This would allow the farmers to grow more crops and thus be able to harvest and bring in a higher income. This would no doubt address some of the economic concerns of a country since now there is a higher crop supply to address the needs of the citizens and more of it to trade to other countries for other resources. However, deforestations have been critiqued to destroy natural habitats and reduce the biodiversity of living organisms in the area. In Cuba, a developing country that has shown major economic advances, have address this environmental concern by creating conservatory zones to preserve the biodiversity and natural habitats. These man-made zones coupled with deforestations limit the harmful effects and make deforestations appear more favourable. This solution they implmented have allowed them to "renew" environmental damages and have allowed them to place economic concerns over their environmental concerns.

 

What determines whether environmental or economic concerns should take precedence depends on the means society has to deal with the environmental consequences. When consequences from environmental concerns have been shown to have no solutions or very limited, such as the depletion of the ozone, they appear to take priority over economic concerns. When the consequences appear to have solutions that appear to preserve the environment, no matter how futile it is, economic concerns tend to take priority. Therefore the environmental solutions we have to ensure that future generations have resources as we did will decide which concerns have a higher priority.

 

Hello,

 

 

Your introduction is a bit lengthy and confusing/convoluted; write one good introductory sentence and then simply define the prompt in your own words. You must be careful in the way you define the prompt, since in your essay you set yourself up for a contradiction (stating in the first paragraph that environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns, while in the second paragraph you must argue that economic concerns can also be more important than environmental concerns).

Your examples are vague and need to be more specific. In the first paragraph, include information on what “constant” economic concerns Canada and Japan were facing and exactly how environmental concerns took priority over these. In the second example, need to specify which countries exemplify the hypothetical situation you describe. Cuba is not an example of how economic concerns take precedent over environmental concerns, since in your example the country is attempting to balance both.

The resolution principle in your concluding paragraph is clear and logical; however, you need to demonstrate how it applies to your examples.

The writing style was often convoluted and exemplified poor sentence structure. In the future, focus on writing clearly and concisely.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (Addresses all 3 tasks but weak examples)

[Nadil]

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

 

Do countries in need of foreign aid always have the capacity to help themselves? Foreign aid is support given from one country to another in the form of resources such as people and/or money. Foreign aid will be more effective when given to a country that is capable of helping itself. For example, foreign aid in support of the victims of hurricane Katrina, which devastated a part of the United States, was greatly supplemented by the US’s strong ability to help itself. As such, the US was able to slowly recover and the foreign aid was used quite efficiently. Logically, it seems that foreign aid should be directed at those countries that are most able to help themselves.

 

However, in some cases a country may be so devastated or torn apart by a crisis that is rendered unable to help itself. In these cases foreign aid is deeply needed, therefore foreign aid should not always be directed to help those countries that help themselves. Haiti, for example, was so completely destroyed by an earthquake that it was unable to truly help itself. In this case, foreign aid must be directed to help a country that is unable to effectively help itself.

 

When should foreign aid be directed to help a country that helps itself? This depends on the foreign aid-receiving country’s current socioeconomic situation. If the country does have the ability to help itself, such as the US, a country should direct its foreign aid to the countries that help themselves the most so that the aid will be most effective. However, if a country is rendered unable to help itself, such as Haiti, foreign aid should not be directed to aid those countries that help themselves as a major crisis may make this near impossible. Overall, countries in need of foreign aid are not always able to help themselves therefore a nation’s foreign aid should usually, but not always, be directed at countries that help themselves.

 

Hello,

Hope this helps:

 

 

The introduction is good and the definition of foreign aid is clear. However, you must develop the explanation of the prompt further by providing detail as to why providing foreign aid to countries that can help themselves is more effective. It would also be helpful to define what “helping themselves” is interpreted as. Furthermore, the example also requires further detail: how did the US help itself? And how was the foreign aid used efficiently?

The same lack of detail is also evident in the second paragraph. Both the argument and the example need to be developed further. Why should we help a country that faces a crisis and is unable to help itself? How was Haiti unable to help itself?

Finally, the resolution principle is unclear, especially with regards to the Haiti situation. Your last sentence also seems very illogical: we should help countries that help themselves except when countries can’t help themselves?

 

Score: 3/6 (The 3rd task is not adequately addressed; Both the arguments and the examples need to be developed further in order to adequately address the 3 tasks of the prompt)

[Nadil]

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

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 environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority.

 

In retrospect, it is clear that the industrial revolution has had serious negative consequences on our environment. Climatologists have proved that our climates and ecosystems are changing due to the increased levels of pollutants brought on by the industrial revolution. A recent report has demonstrated that our global temperature is increasing by 0.2 degrees Celsius every year. Although this seems small, the long term effects of this can be catastrophic. If this increasing trend in global temperature continues, the polar ice caps will melt and our land will begin to flood. Furthermore, copious amounts of sulfur and nitrogen dioxide, as well as chlorofluorocarbonds are released into the atmosphere each day. These pollutants react with gases in the atmosphere to form acids that acidify our lakes and soils, making this areas inhospitable for the indigenous species who once lived there. All of these effects can be prevented if companies were willing to spend more money on less volatile reactants. Also, the problem can be curtailed if smokestacks are outfitted with filters that reduce dangerous gas emission into the atmosphere. Although these filters are quite expensive, they must be put into place in order to protect the environment. The Industrial nations who have contributed the most to the pollution are usually the most prosperous nations, such as the United States and Canada. These countries can afford to put economic concerns behind environmental ones. Without a healthy environment, human civilization may cease to exist if the polar ice caps melt or if our agricultural industries fail to produce food due to the acidified lakes and soils. Because a healthy environment is central to our existence, environmental concerns should take precedence over economic ones.

 

However, certain nations need not worry about the environment because they may not live long enough to see the outcome of a damaged environment. Underdeveloped nations such as Ghana and Gambia are suffering from famine and other serious diseases such as AIDS and malaria. These countries should focus on providing food and health care to their citizens. However, in order to provide more food and health care, these nations must focus on improving their economic standing even if this involves placing environmental concerns behind them. For instance, in order to increase farming efficieny, underdeveloped countries will have to utilize machinery. Although this machiney causes pollution, it is necessary in order for the people to produce food so their people can eat. Therefore, underdeveloped nations should focus on improving their economic standing before attemping to help improve the environment. Without focusing on their economy, Ghana and Gambia may succomb to the threat of famine and disease.

 

Ultimately, the current economic standing of a nation should determine whether they place a higher priority on economic or environmental concerns. Countries in relatively good economic standing should give priority to environmental concerns because they have the capabilities of doing so. Issues with global warming and reduction in biodiversity due to acidic rain have made it clear that protecting the envionrment should be the primary concern of most nations. However, underdeveloped countries with economic problems should give priority to economic concerns rather than environmental concerns. Countries like Ghana and Gambia are struggling with widespread famine amongst their populations. Improving their economy will help alleviate these concerns. In this case, the lives of those people should take precedence over the environmental concerns.

 

Hello Kawalac,

 

 

Unfortunately, although your example in the first paragraph is very well explained, it does not strongly support the prompt. The example must directly support the prompt, meaning that it must be a situation in which environmental concerns were actually placed above economic concerns, not, as in your case, where environmental concerns should be placed above economic ones. Furthermore, you must also provide an argument before you provide an example to support it (i.e. must provide an explanation of why the prompt is true and then an example).

The logic behind your second paragraph is well thought out and the example is supportive. The same goes for the concluding paragraph, as the resolution principle is logical and well presented.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (The first task was not adequately addressed).

[Nadil]

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

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 environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority.

 

There will always be a conflict concerning the monetary aspect of a particular venture, versus the environmental concerns that venture may raise. Buisnesses, and possibly governments will tend to place a higher importance on economics citing revneue, decreased unemployment, and an overall increase in prosperity. Mean while, residents nearby the threatened area will tend to place a higher importance on the environment knowing that any environmental distaters could threaten certain livley hoods, destroy natural landscapes and cause health concerns. As more and more information is being released showing how certain industrial actions adversley and irrepairably effect our planet, it is becoming all to clear that environmental aspects must be accorded a higher priority in any industrial venture. For example, in the Pantanal region of Brazil, numerous wetlands are being drained at the same time many forests are being cut in order for large companies to build farmland and factories. The result has been a disaster to the delicate ecosystem and the native people of the land that use the region as their means for a livelihood. The only benefactors of this expansion into the Panatal? The owners and higher ups of the company.

 

In certain situations, economics must take priority over any and all environmental concerns. For example, during the Industrial revolution, it is quite clear that the increased reliance on coal for energy and increased energy consumption harmed the environment. However, in this case, the knowledge and technology that evolved because of the industrial revolution has so greatly benefitted mankind that one would be hardpressed to find any individual that would say the environmental concerns caused by the industrial revolution should have stopped the revolution from ever occuring.

 

Environmental concerns versus monetary gains will always clash. What should be used to place priority between the two should be which offers the greatest benefit to all. In the case of the Panatal, the benefits have largely been recieved by few individuals. In the case of the Industrial revolution, the advances in technology and knowledge have led to the basis of our current way of life. As a result, economic concerns should only override environmental ones when it results in the greatest good for all.

 

Hello sarup,

 

The introductory paragraph provides a clear and well thought out argument in support of the prompt. Nonetheless, the example does not directly support the prompt since it describes a situation in which environmental concerns should be prioritized over economic concerns, not a situation in which environmental concerns are actually prioritized over economic concerns. Therefore, the support for why the prompt is true is actually weak.

Furthermore, the second paragraph could use a more detailed explanation of why this example refutes the prompt. At the time of the industrial revolution people did not realize that coal burning actually harmed the environment and destroyed the ozone layer (these concepts came much later). Therefore, it is unclear how in this situation economic concerns were actually prioritized over environmental ones, since there were no immediate environmental concerns that were actually considered at the time due to lack of knowledge.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (Weak examples).

[Nadil]

Thanks for commenting and grading this essay, Nadil!

 

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

It is a well-known economic principle that scarce resources must be efficiently allocated. Given the limited nature of most of the resources we have, this principle applies not only to issues related to economies of governments but also applies most especially to issues relating to the environment. The earth's natural resources - fuel, minerals, wood, clean water - are major limiting factors to life on this planet. Thus, economic concerns are only secondary to environmental concerns primarily because they depend largely on the viability of our environment. When the earth's natural resources are depleted, then life on earth will inevitably decline finding no need for economic discussions. The recent BP oil spill poses a huge environmental dilemma that takes precedence over economic concerns related to this event. The scale of the environmental impact that the oil spill has caused, and continues to cause, in the surrounding coastal areas is unprecedented. The number of deaths of birds and other marine animals in the area, as well as the negative impact of the spill on the livelihood of the people relying on the ocean are steadily increasing. Thus, the United States government as well as other institutions continue to mobilize their resources to provide a solution to this environmental problem while the economic concerns related to the event such as the loss of profits that could have otherwise driven economic growth of the industry is taking a back seat. In this case, economic concerns are not the priority issue that the officials are attempting to address.

 

However, there are times when environmental concerns may take priority over economic concerns. The global financial crisis in 2008 caused world leaders to focus their attention and resources towards the protection of their respective economies and in the creation of jobs to spur economic growth. In effect, environmental issues such as protection of endangered species and the long-standing issue on global warming were not given as much attention. In fact, the G20 summit was held and created in order to bring together leaders all over the world to talk about relevant issues. During that time, the financial crisis was one of the major agendas in the summit and took priority over environmental concerns. This led to economic solutions that aided countries to survive the massive economic downturn and subsequently recover from its detrimental effects.

 

What determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority is the significance and urgency of a particular issue confronting a nation. Resources should be mobilized as a response to the most compelling and relevant issue that confronts a particular group of people. The BP oil disaster has posed a great environmental risk and has thus been on the forefront of government aid and attention. This overrides any harmful economic issues that may arise due to the downfall of a big and influential company in the oil industry. On the other hand, when an urgent economic issue greatly impacts the lives of people in a society, such as the financial crisis in 2008 where a big percentage of people lost their jobs, then this may justifiably override environmental concerns. Therefore, a large-scale issue that is deemed to be significant at a particular period of time is a determining factor in weighing the relevance of either environmental or economic concerns.

 

Hello anna8,

 

 

Although the explanation provided in support of the prompt is well developed, you must avoid setting up a contradiction between your two arguments (in the first paragraph you argue that environmental concerns must always take priority over economic ones, although you must inevitably also discuss how economic concerns can also take priority). Although the BP oil-spill is a relevant example, you must provide more details in order to make the example stronger. For example, what exactly are the economic concerns related to this incident and how are they de-prioritized?

The introductory sentence of the second paragraph is inaccurate, since it must introduce the opposite argument. Furthermore, although the example was well presented, the argument to refute the prompt must first be developed such that the example can support the refuting argument (i.e. an example does not substitute an argument; you must first provide us with your argument and then the example).

The resolution principle provided in the concluding paragraph could be better developed, since the principle is too general and vague. Specifically, you must define what makes an issue “compelling” or “relevant”.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (The three tasks are addressed, however, the refuting principle needs to be further developed in order to adequately resolve the dichotomy between the two arguments)

[shir312]

I hope my resolution principle is clearer in this one. Thanks again!

 

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

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 environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority.

 

Modern societies revolve around consumerism and finance, with money being the main concern of individuals of all backgrounds. However, as technology and society continue to grow, more and more individuals are beginning to realize the importance of protecting the environment we are surrounded by and the threats we pose to its continued growth. The great lakes, for example, are one of the world’s largest natural resources of fresh water in North America. Over the past few years, industrialization and urban growth has compromised the cleanliness of the lakes, which are a source of drinking water for millions of people on the continent. The continued pollution of these bodies of water by large corporations seeking increased profit have caught the attention of many individuals. This resulted in laws controlling waste and sewage dumping into these lakes, since continued pollution would lead to compromised health in people drinking unclean water. It was wise for action to be taken to solve this environmental concern, despite compromising the profit of these large corporations, because the health of many individuals would have been at risk otherwise.

 

Alternatively, economic concerns do take precedence over environmental ones when people rely on a form of income that stems from an activity that harms the environment. For individuals living in small cities based around mining sites, the income provided for families in the city take priority over the pollution caused by the mining operation itself. While mining for minerals is very detrimental to the environment, the livelihood and well being of families and individuals living in these small towns depend on the operation and continued existence of the mine. Therefore, the economic concerns of the families are prioritized over the environmental concerns caused by the mine.

 

Therefore, in determining when environmental concerns should take priority over economic concerns, one should consider the health and well-being of the public directly affected by these concerns. The environmental concern involving pollution of the great lakes took priority over the economic concerns of the large corporations related to the pollution because the health of the general public was at risk. However, the economic concerns of individuals working in small town mines to provide an income for their families overrode the environmental concerns stemming from the pollution of the mining operation itself because the well being of these families relied on that income.

[newmeddude]

wo does this guy, nadil, think he is? gives everyone a 3 or 3.5, as if a 4 is such an extraordinary essay. I have news for you: if you can write coherently, and somewhat address the tasks, you're going to get a 4. 3's are reserved for pretty shi.tty essays.

[supafield]

wo does this guy, nadil, think he is? gives everyone a 3 or 3.5, as if a 4 is such an extraordinary essay. I have news for you: if you can write coherently, and somewhat address the tasks, you're going to get a 4. 3's are reserved for pretty shi.tty essays.

 

Minus the unnecessarily aggressive tone... newmeddude has a point. The scores being handed out are too low.

 

Some of these essays are definitely in the 4-5 range. I have written many essays arguably weaker than some of these and never came out with less than an R on any princeton practice exam or an actual MCAT (3 tries)....

 

an R would be two 5's. If you address the three tasks clearly you've already secured a 4..... the quality of examples and writing style will push you into the 5 and 6 region.