Prep101 - free Writing Sample tutoring

[Dr.Henderson]

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

The goal of elected officials is to represent the people who elected them to office. This is the reason we often term elected officials as “representatives” as they are in office to make decisions on behalf of those who elected them, meaning that the majority of the public feels they represent their interests. Therein lies the problem, as the majority of the people does not mean all of the people and a large group of people may not be accurately represented. This problem is further compounded when the elected official is wealthy or of a higher class than the vast majority of those who elected him. Although during the election the elected official may have represented the views of the majority of the people, once in office he may not accurately represent their concerns if he has never experienced the hardships they experience in their daily lives. Those who have experienced hardships are those who generally fight the hardest to correct them. Examples of leaders who have lived the same hardships as the people they represent range from Martin Luther King Jr. to Nelson Mandela. A wealthy politician does not experience life the same way the majority of the people he or she represents do and therefore may not fight as inspired a fight as the aforementioned leaders who had experienced the life of the people they lead.

 

However, there are wealthy politicians who are wealthy and worked diligently to offer fair representation to all the people. John F. Kennedy was from a very wealthy family and became president of the United States. Although he did not represent all the people, he sought to fairly represent all the people in the areas that mattered most to them. Specifically he, and many other wealthy presidents, sought to protect the nation in the face of international conflict. It is undeniable that concern for the safety of the nation fairly represents all the people.

 

Wealthy politicians are capable of offering fair representation to all the people. Whether they do or not largely depends upon the character and life experiences of the politician in question. Because a politician is wealthy does not necessarily mean that they have always been wealthy. They could have very well have experienced the everyday life of the majority of the people they represent. Whether or not they are fairly representing all people also depends upon the definition of fair representation. A popular saying is “you cannot please all of the people all of the time” simply due to differences in opinion on many issues. Fair representation means weighing the needs of all people prior to making a decision on their behalf. A wealthy politician is certainly capable of this, whether or not they offer fair representation to all the people must certainly be determined on a case by case basis.

[sheila1247]

Education makes everyone equal.

 

Education teaches students knowledge and skills that will be neccessary to succeed in the job market as well as with their society in general. Whether a child comes from a family that is poor and uneducated, or from a family who is wealthy and well-educated, a good education for a child in either situation may give them sufficent information and abilities to achieve equal success after graduation. For example, a student from a low social economic background who attends a private, high quality university on a merit based or financial needs based scholarship or bursary will recieve the same college education as another student at the institution who comes from a wealthy family. So in this situation, their education will provide both the poor student and the rich one with the same educational tools; this education experience then places both students on equal grounds for future success.

 

While education can have the power to provide equal opportunities for success, it does not always make everyone equal. In the United States, there are wide variations in financial assests and resources between different school districts. As a result, poorer districts may have fewer teachers and supplies and fewer programs with children with different learning or other special needs than more affluent schools. The differences in resources can result in stark differences in learning environments and probability of academic achievement. A child with a mild learning disability who attends a poorer school may not be given the help to learn in spite of their disability. Classrooms may have a large student to teacher ratio, so teachers may not have the time to help this child learn well. Also, the poor schoolboard may not have the money to provide as much training or resources to help teachers instruct children with special needs. A child in a richer school district with a similar disability may be placed in a special needs class or given much more support from teaching staff, allowing them to achieve academically. Therefore, a special needs child may not learn as well as another child from their class without a disability who can cope with being in a crowded classroom, and this child with the disability also will not learn as well as a child with special needs in a richer school. It is then clear that there are circumstances where inequal learning between students within or between a school can arise, and thus the educational experience does not improve equality.

 

In the case of a poor and a rich student attending the same institution, education can provide the same tools to both students to provide equal opportunities for success in the future. But when the education experience differs significantly for two students, they may not be made equal as a result of their education. Education has the ability to provide equality when there is equal access to it, and where the quality of education is the same for all students within the environment. Equal access to quality education then determines whether or not education can make everyone equal.

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello,

 

 

The argument provided in support of the prompt is adequate; however, the example is slightly vague. Thus, you need to provide further detail in order to develop your example, specifically how was the BP oil spill prioritized over economic concerns. Without specific details, the example cannot strongly support your argument. The example provided in the second paragraph is also vaguely described and the reader is left to assume what exactly you are referring to. You must provide specific information in order to adequately develop your example (what exactly was this “economic downfall”? How exactly was it addressed? How exactly was it prioritized over environmental concerns?).

The resolution principle was logical and adequately described. The language used throughout the essay is very casual and takes away from the strength of your arguments. I would suggest a more formal writing style in the future.

 

Score: 4/6 (The tasks were addressed however, poorly developed examples)

[jflear]

The rich have a responsibility to help the poor.

 

> Naturally, in any society, there exists a division between the

> various classes, caused by inequitable distribution of income and

> opportunity. This variability in present in developed nations such

> as Canada and the United States, as well as developing nations such

> as Ghana and Guatemala. The more affluent members of society tend to

> have very little trouble acquiring the basic necessities of life,

> such as shelter and food, while the poorer members may spend every

> cent they have covering only the basics. Because this gap exists, it

> is often necessary for the rich to assist in providing the less

> fortunate population with the means of attaining some of the

> essentials of a quality life. Taxing income is a means of taking

> proportionally equally from both the rich and the poor in society in

> order to fund the government to maintain upkeep of the country,

> including infrastructure development, and running government

> programs such as welfare and public healthcare. On the other hand,

> by taxing goods and services a government can take a more

> progressive approach from garnering larger proportions from the more

> affluent population, who tend to have a greater disposable income to

> spend on non-essentials. In Ontario, the recently implemented HST

> tax has made changes including reducing taxes on basic items such as

> groceries, while increasing the tax on luxury goods and services

> such as cosmetics and salons. This change helps to take more money

> from the rich, in order to put into programs which will help the

> whole of society.

>

> In certain cases, it cannot be expected from the rich to simply give

> to the poorer members of society. In Canada, in order to receive

> unemployment payments, it is necessary to prove that the individual

> seeking assistance has justifiable reasoning, and is actively

> searching for work. This helps to ensure that money from tax-payers,

> which is derived for the majority from the wealthier portion of

> society, is preferentially given to poorer people who have shown

> that they are actively looking to contribute to their society, and

> to help themselves to finance their own lives.

>

> In order for any society to run smoothly, it is important that the

> basic rights and necessities of it's citizens of well looked after.

> One way to help achieve this, and to help close the gap between

> classes in society, is to take from the rich and give to the poor.

> This helps all members of society, rich and poor, by decreasing

> crime rates, and achieving overall satisfaction with government.

> However, although it is often necessary for the rich to help the

> poor, it is not the responsibility of the wealthier members of

> society to support those who are not working to help themselves. If

> the poor are not actively working to achieve independence and self-

> reliance, simply offering financial assistance will not help to fix

> the problem, and issues related to the income gap will continue to

> exist.

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello,

 

The introduction to the essay was quite clever and catchy. However, you need to further develop your argument with more detail (explain why wealth prevents a politician from representing poorer people). The brief example you provide is also too extreme and is not concrete (i.e. the fact that Conservatives are called “heartless” by some people is not an actual example of a situation when wealthy politicians cannot provide fair representation). You need to provide a concrete situation of when an actual politician could not offer fair representation to all people because of his wealth.

The example in the second paragraph is well presented and relevant. You also need to provide an explanation first of why the prompt can sometimes be untrue, such that your example can support this argument.

The concluding paragraph is cleverly written, and the resolution principle is logical. You should also tie back your resolution principle to the examples you provided in the body of the essay.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (The lack of an actual example in the first paragraph means the first task was not adequately met).

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello jab4eva,

 

The introduction to the essay is somewhat confusing, since it seems that you are writing a resolution principle right off the bat. Nonetheless, your example was relevant and clearly presented. However, I would suggest providing further detail into your example (i.e. make it clear that harvesting the oil sands meant a significant environmental cost).

In the second paragraph, the argument refuting the prompt is clear and straightforward and is substantiated well by the example.

The resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is also logically sound, however, I would suggest briefly tying back the resolution to the examples in order to make it clear how this dichotomy is resolved.

 

Score: 4.5/6 (Tasks are completed with clarity of thought and some complexity)

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hi kawalac,

Hope this is helpful,

 

 

The arguments you presented were logical and easy to follow and you substantiated both with concrete examples. The concluding principle also provides a straightforward resolution principle which is tied back to the examples. One thing I would suggest is writing more formally, since the essay seemed a bit too casual at times. Also, try to make your introductory sentences and transition sentences more creative (i.e. do not just repeat the prompt).

 

Score: 5/6 (Addresses tasks, displays depth of thought and clarity).

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello seabass,

 

 

The arguments presented in the essay are well thought out and easy to understand. The examples provided are also well presented and provided adequate detail to strongly substantiate your argument. The resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is also straightforward. I would suggest tying back your resolution to the examples in order to demonstrate how the resolution principle resolves the dichotomy between your examples. A strong control of language is evident, and the essay is easy to read and has a natural flow.

 

Score: 5.5/6 (I think this could also reasonably score a 6, I am not sure if the fact that you don’t restate your examples in the concluding paragraph would decrease your score. Good job!)

[anto12e]

Not sure if we could post essay response to other prompts but..

 

History is the record of humanity's wars.

 

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 history might be the record of something other than humanity's wars. Discuss what you think determines when history should be the record of humanity's wars and when it should be something else.

 

History refers to a record of past events that have had major impacts or significances to our civilization. Many of these past events involve wars on humanity ( the act of resolving conflicts between two parties through violent or destructive means) because of the aftermath involved. Generally, the aftermath of wars involve huge casualities from both sides, wasted resoruces, and valuable lessons learnt. It is therfore important that these wars are recorded so that mistakes made in wars are not repeated in future generations. An example is World War 2, a war that was argruably the most sigificant and has had the most impact on our civilization. This war lasted nearly six years and involved numerous countries, including Germany, France, Canada, Japan and so forth. The aftermath of the war led to world-wide poverty due to the enormous resources each country devoted to the war. France, a country that had been in the war for nearly the entire duration of the war, suffered tremendous loss in terms of population, buildings, resources and land. This aftermath itself demonstrated the economical burden a war can bring and the devastating stagnance in a country's future development. As a result, many potential wars have been diverted to more peaceful solutions, notably the Cold War, where a conflict so close to a war between the United States of America and Russia was avoided. In this case, the recordance of World War 2 into the Book of History was necessary because of its signifances and impacts.

 

However, the Book of History does not pertain to solely humanity's wars, even though they generally make up a huge portion of a civilization's history. Many historic events that have had a major impact or significance to our civilization could be classified as progression. For example, the discovery of Penicillin as an antibiotic can be regarded as a historical medical progression rather than a war. The discovery of Penicillin led to an enormous medical break through that allowed doctors to cure patients with diseases that would otherwise kill them. Its' discovery created a foundation that led to pratically every medicine to contain penicillin as the prime fighting agent against bacteria. Ultimately Penicillin led to a dramatic decrease in death and a more comprehensive toolkit to combat diseases. In this case, the discovery of Pencillin, a medical breakthough in history demonstrated a historic situation other than humanity's wars.

 

What determines whether history should be the record of humanity's wars and when it should be something else is ultimately based on the impact and significance of the event to our civilization. A war that lasted nearly six years and involved nearly the entire world is a valid entry into history because of it's significance and lessons learnt. In addition, the discovery of Penicillin is also a valid historic event because it too is significant to our civilization. Its' discovery led to a wide-spread decrease in deaths related to diseases. Therefore an event's significance and its impact is the prime critera for historic recordance.

[TankMasterFlex]

Thanks a lot for doing this!

 

"Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns."

 

In today's world there is no shortage of media coverage on the environmental impact human's have on the earth, from global warming to oil spills. For decades many countries have put economic concerns above environmental ones, and many are now realizing that the environment is deteriorating and if economic growth is to continue, decisions must take into account environmental impact. For example, it is far more profitable for farmers to grow large amounts of crops in relatively small areas using pesticides. However, as the detrimental effects of pesticides on the environment, not to mention human health, become better understood, a market for organically produced crops without the use of pesticides has emerged. In this case, environmental concerns have emerged as being more important than economic ones.

 

However, there are instances where economic concerns must take priority over environmental concerns. These largely stem from the fact that the environment and economics are not independent factors. Rather, they are interconnected in a complex system whereby economic decisions affect the environment and vise versa in both positive and negative ways. For example, during the recent recession, economic concerns were made a priority and environmentally green programs, such as the construction of bike lanes, were put on hold. Now, bike lanes are increasingly being constructed in Canadian cities with plans to continue their construction. If government had put environmtal concerns above economic ones during the recession, we would likely have gotten some bike lanes and some other green city features. However, their construction would have contributed to an unstable economic environment preventing future (and likely more substantial) environmentally friendly city features.

 

In conclusion, the decision to put the economy or the environment first when making decisions is not simple. The economy and the environment are interconnected and individual decisions must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Ultimately, the environment is important and decisions should reflect this, but there are times (such as during the recession) where the most economically sound decisions are in the end better for the environment, even if at the time they come at an environmental cost.

[Nadil]

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!

 

Hi YorkMan,

I hope this helps (sorry if it seems a little harsh),

 

The arguments presented are somewhat convoluted and it is unclear exactly what message you are trying to get across. For example, in the first paragraph it is not clear whether you are stating whether it’s not biased to say that politics are corrupt or whether the message is actually that politics are not corrupt. Your arguments need to be further developed and substantiated with concrete examples (instead of hypotheticals).The resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is logical, however the situation you provide is too controversial. There are also several spelling and grammatical errors and the language used is often colloquial.

 

Score: 2.5/6

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello,

 

 

You provide a good explanation of the prompt in the introductory paragraph. However, you did not provide an example to substantiate your argument. Furthermore, although the example in the second paragraph does refute the prompt, you must also provide an argument and then provide a supporting example. The resolution principle is logical and is an interesting take on the prompt. There were several mistakes with regards to spelling and grammar.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (You must provide an example in support of the prompt)

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hi nowitzki41,

Alas, I am not Sameer, however I hope I can help nonetheless,

 

Overall, a very good job on the essay. You provide an excellent introduction and supporting paragraph. The example in the second paragraph is equally strong. Your resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is also well though out and clearly presented. Unfortunately, the conclusion is slightly drawn out and personal opinions are usually unnecessary and often detrimental (the writing sample on the MCAT is not designed to be an opinion piece).

 

Score: 5.5/6 (I feel like if the conclusion was ended at “This is clearly illustrated in the case of fossil fuel automobiles”, this essay would have been a 6/6!)

[Nadil]

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!

 

Hello RoughER,

Hope this helps,

 

 

The arguments you present in your essay seem logical, however, they need to be substantiated by examples. The resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is also straightforward, however, it is important that you remain balanced throughout your essay; be careful not to pick any one side of the argument, as you seem to do in the last few sentences. Unfortunately, without concrete examples, you cannot adequately address the three tasks outlined in the prompt.

 

Score: 3/6

[Nadil]

Hello everyone,

 

Here is the newest prompt (#5):

 

 

The scientific community, by itself, should determine ethical standards for scientific research.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the scientific community should not determine ethical standards for scientific research by itself. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the scientific community should determine ethical standards for scientific research by itself.

 

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

[yeti187]

Nadil,

 

Thank you for helping me out, I really appreciate it.

 

Prompt #1 :In business, the image of a product is more important than the product itself.

 

 

In today's modern society we are bombarded by advertisement. Advertisements are everywhere, they are on television, roadways, internet, and on buses. In fact the advertisement industry is itself a profitable business that is essential to success of other businesses. In order to compete for a share in the market place businesses must spend millions of dollars to present products to costumers in the most appealing way possible. As a result, the images of a products is essential to its success in the market place, perhaps more so than the product itself. A great example of this can be seen in the telecommunications industry. Currently, the new Apple iPhone is a popular device, yet its features and specifications are not very unique. In fact many of its technological feature have long been available in the market place. However, due to innovative advertisement Apple iPhone has managed to provide a popular product.

 

Despite of this, there are instances where a products image is not as important as its performance. For many vital products such as automobiles, a products image can only do so much in terms of sale. At the end of the day, consumers will choose a product that they consider valuable. This can be seen with the recent Toyota break problem. Despite Toyota's active advertisement campaign, the sale for Toyota automobiles severely decreased due to faulty products. For such a business, safety and reliability is far more valuable than image.

 

In order to understand when a product's image is important in its success, one must consider how much the performance of that product is important and essential to one's life. Luxury item such as touch screen cellphones are not all to vital for day to day human life. As a result the image of such products determines its sales. However, if a product (or a service) is vital to one's life, then the image of product does not play an important role its success.

[pew peter]

Yo thanks a bunch Nadil:

 

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

 

As the saying goes, "you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover;" however, in business, many consumers do. The image of product is defined by the way the product is marketed, the way the product looks, the trust of the company producing it, and the views of other products produced by the same company. The product itself is defined, and rated, by how well it achieves it's function. In the business world, often times the way the product looks, or the company producing the product is more imortant than how well the product performs it's function. An example of this is seen with the recent release of the fourth generation of the iphone. The company producing the iphone, Apple, has such a strong image, that consumers aren't even concerned with how well the product performs. The fourth generation iphone has an incredibly high rate of "droppping" calls based upon a design malfunction; nonetheless, due of the "image" of the iphone, record iphone sales are being recorded upon its release. As can be seen with this example the image of the product can be more important than the functionality of the product.

 

Although the image of a product is sometimes more important than the product itself, this isn't always the case. A key example is Coumidin, an anticoagulant, produced by the drug company Phyzer. Coumidin, creates multimillions of dollars in sales every year in the United States, and is used to treat those who are susceptible to blood clots. The product is not successful because of the image of Coumidin or Phyzer; it is so successful because it performs it's function extremely well. As can be seen with this example, sometimes it is the product itself that is more important than the image of the product.

 

It is difficult to determine when, and when not, the image of a product is more important than the product itself. However, a key factor is whether or not the product is or isn't a necessity. The image of the iphone is more important than the iphone because it isn't an essential necessity. However, Coumidin itself, is more important than the image of Coumidin because it is an essential medicine for it's consumers.

[pew peter]

Thanks Nadil;

 

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

As the saying goes, "the rich get richer; while the poor get poorer;" sometimes wealthy polititions help those who are upper class ctizens, while neglecting the more "blue collar" citizens. A wealthy polition is defined as a polition who lives in a above average living conditions, including adequate water, food, and shelter. Fair representation to all people is considered what is best for all classes of citizens in the community. Sometimes the wealthy politions neglect the lower class citizens, while concentrating more on the views of their fellow upperclass citizens. An example of this is former United States president George Bush. The War on Iraq is often considered an attempt to control the vast oil fields found in Iraq. The benefits from the war include aiding the wealthy American owned oil companies; however, at a cost to thousands of soldiers, many of whom come from lower to middle class lifestyles. As can been seen with this example wealthy polititians don't always offer fair representation of all the people.

 

Although wealthy polititians sometimes neglect parts of the population, this isn't always the case. Former Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin, was a wealthy polititian who dramatically lowered poverty rates within the Country. He achieved this by creating more Shelters for the homeless along with superior food stamp programs. As can be seen with this example, sometimes polititians do represent the entire population.

 

Although it is difficult to determine when, and when not, wealthy polititians represent all the people, a key factor is whether the goal is to improve the country's citizen's needs or not. When the goal isn't to increase the country's citizen's needs, such as controlling the oil market, the wealthy politions tend to neglect the views of all the people. However, when the goal is to look after the citizens needs, such as reducing poverty rates, the wealthy politians offer representation of all the people. In sum, the wealthy politians represent all of the people when it is looking after the needs of it's citizens, but don't offer fair representation when looking after other factors.

[gourmet]

Hi Nadil, thanks for doing this!

 

 

Prompt #5: The scientific community, by itself, should determine ethical standards for scientific research.

 

In our modern day society, the ethics of science is among the most highly discussed and debated subjects. There is often a negotiation going on between the scientific community and the general public, regarding what is ethical and what is not in the realm of scientific research. In some instances, the scientific community is justifiably allowed to determine the ethical standards of its own research. For example, many laboratory techniques such as transformations and transductions require the use of a bacterial species, most commonly E. coli, and much research is based on the effects of these experiments on E. coli. Due to the mass amount of knowledge the scientific community has regarding the E. coli species that the public is generally unaware of, and coupled with the low risk that these experiments have on human beings, the scientific community should solely be able to determine the ethics of using E. coli in the laboratory.

 

On the other hand, there arise certain situations in which the scientific research itself borders on issues regarding morality. These instances usually involve research which presents the possibility of a risk towards members of the human society that is involved in the research. In these cases, the moral stance of the public should be weighed into the determination of ethical standards for the scientific research. For example, the research into a cure for AIDS has been an ongoing project since the AIDS epidemic began decades ago. Part of the reason why this project has lasted this long without a solution to the cure is that is it difficult to perform actual experimental procedures on people diagnosed with the HIV virus. This is due to the fact that a relatively low percentage of the overall population are infected with the HIV, and some of the infected individuals may not wish to participate in scientific experiments on themselves. Performing these same experiments on animals provide the same data that we can obtain from testing humans, but it would be unethical to knowingly infect members of the human population, ie. test subjects, because the effects of an HIV infection is detrimental to the health of an individual. In this sense, the progression of scientific research is not worth the value of the lives of citizens in the world.

 

Overall, the ethical standards for scientific research are very important in limiting the freedom of certain scientific research which presents a danger for members of society. When the human risk involved in research is low or nonexistent, the scientific community should be capable of determining the ethical standards involved with the research. Contrarily, when the human risk is significant, the societal values of morality and the health of individuals should take precedent over possible advancements in research, and is ultimately what determine the ethical standards of scientific research in such cases.

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello Shir312,

 

The introductory paragraph provides a logical supporting argument with a concrete example. The transition sentence to the second paragraph is slightly confusing however, since the distinction between the people and the companies from the first paragraph is not very obvious. Nonetheless, the refuting argument is logically sound. Unfortunately, the example in the second paragraph seems hypothetical and not specific, and would be greatly strengthened by a concrete situation. The resolution principle is well presented and resolves the dichotomy in your essay nicely.

 

Score: 4/6 (Present your argument more clearly in the second paragraph and provide a more concrete example to substantiate it)

[Nadil]

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

 

The goal of elected officials is to represent the people who elected them to office. This is the reason we often term elected officials as “representatives” as they are in office to make decisions on behalf of those who elected them, meaning that the majority of the public feels they represent their interests. Therein lies the problem, as the majority of the people does not mean all of the people and a large group of people may not be accurately represented. This problem is further compounded when the elected official is wealthy or of a higher class than the vast majority of those who elected him. Although during the election the elected official may have represented the views of the majority of the people, once in office he may not accurately represent their concerns if he has never experienced the hardships they experience in their daily lives. Those who have experienced hardships are those who generally fight the hardest to correct them. Examples of leaders who have lived the same hardships as the people they represent range from Martin Luther King Jr. to Nelson Mandela. A wealthy politician does not experience life the same way the majority of the people he or she represents do and therefore may not fight as inspired a fight as the aforementioned leaders who had experienced the life of the people they lead.

 

However, there are wealthy politicians who are wealthy and worked diligently to offer fair representation to all the people. John F. Kennedy was from a very wealthy family and became president of the United States. Although he did not represent all the people, he sought to fairly represent all the people in the areas that mattered most to them. Specifically he, and many other wealthy presidents, sought to protect the nation in the face of international conflict. It is undeniable that concern for the safety of the nation fairly represents all the people.

 

Wealthy politicians are capable of offering fair representation to all the people. Whether they do or not largely depends upon the character and life experiences of the politician in question. Because a politician is wealthy does not necessarily mean that they have always been wealthy. They could have very well have experienced the everyday life of the majority of the people they represent. Whether or not they are fairly representing all people also depends upon the definition of fair representation. A popular saying is “you cannot please all of the people all of the time” simply due to differences in opinion on many issues. Fair representation means weighing the needs of all people prior to making a decision on their behalf. A wealthy politician is certainly capable of this, whether or not they offer fair representation to all the people must certainly be determined on a case by case basis.

 

Hello,

 

 

The introduction to the essay is slightly drawn out, which also makes it hard to follow; you must provide your explanation of why the prompt is true clearly and concisely. Furthermore, although your argument is logical, you did not substantiate it by providing an example of a wealthy politician who did not represent all people. Therefore, you did not adequately fulfill the first task of the prompt.

Furthermore, although you provide an example in the second paragraph, it does not seem to fully refute the prompt, since you state that JFK did not represent all people (i.e. only in certain areas); you should just focus on the areas he did represent all people and not mention that there are areas where he did not. The example should also be further developed with more specific detail.

Finally, the resolution you provide in the concluding paragraph (i.e. life experience) is rational, however it does not relate to the examples you presented (since JFK came from a wealthy family). Furthermore, the concluding paragraph should focus on only one resolution principle; you should not also discuss the definition of fair representation as this would be more appropriate in the introductory paragraph.

 

Score: 3/6

[Nadil]

Education makes everyone equal.

 

Education teaches students knowledge and skills that will be neccessary to succeed in the job market as well as with their society in general. Whether a child comes from a family that is poor and uneducated, or from a family who is wealthy and well-educated, a good education for a child in either situation may give them sufficent information and abilities to achieve equal success after graduation. For example, a student from a low social economic background who attends a private, high quality university on a merit based or financial needs based scholarship or bursary will recieve the same college education as another student at the institution who comes from a wealthy family. So in this situation, their education will provide both the poor student and the rich one with the same educational tools; this education experience then places both students on equal grounds for future success.

 

While education can have the power to provide equal opportunities for success, it does not always make everyone equal. In the United States, there are wide variations in financial assests and resources between different school districts. As a result, poorer districts may have fewer teachers and supplies and fewer programs with children with different learning or other special needs than more affluent schools. The differences in resources can result in stark differences in learning environments and probability of academic achievement. A child with a mild learning disability who attends a poorer school may not be given the help to learn in spite of their disability. Classrooms may have a large student to teacher ratio, so teachers may not have the time to help this child learn well. Also, the poor schoolboard may not have the money to provide as much training or resources to help teachers instruct children with special needs. A child in a richer school district with a similar disability may be placed in a special needs class or given much more support from teaching staff, allowing them to achieve academically. Therefore, a special needs child may not learn as well as another child from their class without a disability who can cope with being in a crowded classroom, and this child with the disability also will not learn as well as a child with special needs in a richer school. It is then clear that there are circumstances where inequal learning between students within or between a school can arise, and thus the educational experience does not improve equality.

 

In the case of a poor and a rich student attending the same institution, education can provide the same tools to both students to provide equal opportunities for success in the future. But when the education experience differs significantly for two students, they may not be made equal as a result of their education. Education has the ability to provide equality when there is equal access to it, and where the quality of education is the same for all students within the environment. Equal access to quality education then determines whether or not education can make everyone equal.

 

Hello sheila1247,

 

The arguments you provide to both support and refute the prompt are rational and adequately supported by the examples. The examples seemed too hypothetical, and should be described in a manner which makes them more concrete. The resolution principle is logically sound, however there are some problems with the clarity of language (throughout the essay), as your ideas are often presented in a lengthy, convoluted manner. There are also some spelling and grammatical errors and use of colloquial language. In the future, try to write more concisely and formally.

 

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

[Nadil]

The rich have a responsibility to help the poor.

 

> Naturally, in any society, there exists a division between the

> various classes, caused by inequitable distribution of income and

> opportunity. This variability in present in developed nations such

> as Canada and the United States, as well as developing nations such

> as Ghana and Guatemala. The more affluent members of society tend to

> have very little trouble acquiring the basic necessities of life,

> such as shelter and food, while the poorer members may spend every

> cent they have covering only the basics. Because this gap exists, it

> is often necessary for the rich to assist in providing the less

> fortunate population with the means of attaining some of the

> essentials of a quality life. Taxing income is a means of taking

> proportionally equally from both the rich and the poor in society in

> order to fund the government to maintain upkeep of the country,

> including infrastructure development, and running government

> programs such as welfare and public healthcare. On the other hand,

> by taxing goods and services a government can take a more

> progressive approach from garnering larger proportions from the more

> affluent population, who tend to have a greater disposable income to

> spend on non-essentials. In Ontario, the recently implemented HST

> tax has made changes including reducing taxes on basic items such as

> groceries, while increasing the tax on luxury goods and services

> such as cosmetics and salons. This change helps to take more money

> from the rich, in order to put into programs which will help the

> whole of society.

>

> In certain cases, it cannot be expected from the rich to simply give

> to the poorer members of society. In Canada, in order to receive

> unemployment payments, it is necessary to prove that the individual

> seeking assistance has justifiable reasoning, and is actively

> searching for work. This helps to ensure that money from tax-payers,

> which is derived for the majority from the wealthier portion of

> society, is preferentially given to poorer people who have shown

> that they are actively looking to contribute to their society, and

> to help themselves to finance their own lives.

>

> In order for any society to run smoothly, it is important that the

> basic rights and necessities of it's citizens of well looked after.

> One way to help achieve this, and to help close the gap between

> classes in society, is to take from the rich and give to the poor.

> This helps all members of society, rich and poor, by decreasing

> crime rates, and achieving overall satisfaction with government.

> However, although it is often necessary for the rich to help the

> poor, it is not the responsibility of the wealthier members of

> society to support those who are not working to help themselves. If

> the poor are not actively working to achieve independence and self-

> reliance, simply offering financial assistance will not help to fix

> the problem, and issues related to the income gap will continue to

> exist.

 

Hello Jflear,

 

The arguments provided to both support and refute the prompt display depth of thought and are well presented. However, the introduction of the essay is slightly lengthy and for the most part unnecessary, since you do not get into the meat of your argument until deep into the first paragraph (i.e. government taxing in order to finance services). Furthermore, the second paragraph requires an actual argument as well as a substantiating example (i.e. do not just provide an example with no general refuting argument).

Although the resolution principle in the concluding is also logical (i.e. helping the poor only if they help themselves), the same problem arises with regards to conciseness. The only point of the concluding paragraph is to present your resolution and end the essay. Thus, you should not introduce new ideas (i.e. decreasing crime rates) or repeat all of your major points.

 

Score: 4.5/6 (Tasks are addressed with some depth of thought and complexity, however some problems with focus)

[Nadil]

Not sure if we could post essay response to other prompts but..

 

History is the record of humanity's wars.

 

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 history might be the record of something other than humanity's wars. Discuss what you think determines when history should be the record of humanity's wars and when it should be something else.

 

History refers to a record of past events that have had major impacts or significances to our civilization. Many of these past events involve wars on humanity ( the act of resolving conflicts between two parties through violent or destructive means) because of the aftermath involved. Generally, the aftermath of wars involve huge casualities from both sides, wasted resoruces, and valuable lessons learnt. It is therfore important that these wars are recorded so that mistakes made in wars are not repeated in future generations. An example is World War 2, a war that was argruably the most sigificant and has had the most impact on our civilization. This war lasted nearly six years and involved numerous countries, including Germany, France, Canada, Japan and so forth. The aftermath of the war led to world-wide poverty due to the enormous resources each country devoted to the war. France, a country that had been in the war for nearly the entire duration of the war, suffered tremendous loss in terms of population, buildings, resources and land. This aftermath itself demonstrated the economical burden a war can bring and the devastating stagnance in a country's future development. As a result, many potential wars have been diverted to more peaceful solutions, notably the Cold War, where a conflict so close to a war between the United States of America and Russia was avoided. In this case, the recordance of World War 2 into the Book of History was necessary because of its signifances and impacts.

 

However, the Book of History does not pertain to solely humanity's wars, even though they generally make up a huge portion of a civilization's history. Many historic events that have had a major impact or significance to our civilization could be classified as progression. For example, the discovery of Penicillin as an antibiotic can be regarded as a historical medical progression rather than a war. The discovery of Penicillin led to an enormous medical break through that allowed doctors to cure patients with diseases that would otherwise kill them. Its' discovery created a foundation that led to pratically every medicine to contain penicillin as the prime fighting agent against bacteria. Ultimately Penicillin led to a dramatic decrease in death and a more comprehensive toolkit to combat diseases. In this case, the discovery of Pencillin, a medical breakthough in history demonstrated a historic situation other than humanity's wars.

 

What determines whether history should be the record of humanity's wars and when it should be something else is ultimately based on the impact and significance of the event to our civilization. A war that lasted nearly six years and involved nearly the entire world is a valid entry into history because of it's significance and lessons learnt. In addition, the discovery of Penicillin is also a valid historic event because it too is significant to our civilization. Its' discovery led to a wide-spread decrease in deaths related to diseases. Therefore an event's significance and its impact is the prime critera for historic recordance.

 

Hello Anto12e,

 

Your supporting and refuting arguments are rational and you provide good examples to substantiate them. However, your examples do seem to lack specific details, which would make them stronger and more concrete. Furthermore, your example of penicillin is also slightly inaccurate. The resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is reasonable and resolves the dichotomy between your two examples. There were a few errors in spelling and grammar and the writing style seemed at times casual. I would encourage you to write more formally and carefully.

Finally, although I use brackets all the time (because it is easier) in casual writing, the use of brackets is considered informal writing style and I would advise not to do this on the actual MCAT.

 

Score: 4.5/6

[Nadil]

Thanks a lot for doing this!

 

"Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns."

 

In today's world there is no shortage of media coverage on the environmental impact human's have on the earth, from global warming to oil spills. For decades many countries have put economic concerns above environmental ones, and many are now realizing that the environment is deteriorating and if economic growth is to continue, decisions must take into account environmental impact. For example, it is far more profitable for farmers to grow large amounts of crops in relatively small areas using pesticides. However, as the detrimental effects of pesticides on the environment, not to mention human health, become better understood, a market for organically produced crops without the use of pesticides has emerged. In this case, environmental concerns have emerged as being more important than economic ones.

 

However, there are instances where economic concerns must take priority over environmental concerns. These largely stem from the fact that the environment and economics are not independent factors. Rather, they are interconnected in a complex system whereby economic decisions affect the environment and vise versa in both positive and negative ways. For example, during the recent recession, economic concerns were made a priority and environmentally green programs, such as the construction of bike lanes, were put on hold. Now, bike lanes are increasingly being constructed in Canadian cities with plans to continue their construction. If government had put environmtal concerns above economic ones during the recession, we would likely have gotten some bike lanes and some other green city features. However, their construction would have contributed to an unstable economic environment preventing future (and likely more substantial) environmentally friendly city features.

 

In conclusion, the decision to put the economy or the environment first when making decisions is not simple. The economy and the environment are interconnected and individual decisions must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Ultimately, the environment is important and decisions should reflect this, but there are times (such as during the recession) where the most economically sound decisions are in the end better for the environment, even if at the time they come at an environmental cost.

 

Hello TankmasterFlex,

 

The introductory paragraph provides a supporting argument which is straightforward, but could be further developed. Furthermore, the example you provide (and the way you present it) is not a very strong example in support of environment taking priority over economics (i.e. you mention that there is a market for organic produce, therefore farmers are not sacrificing income to grow organic).

The argument in the second paragraph is somewhat convoluted and does not directly refute the prompt. Furthermore, the same problem arises with the second example as the first, since the link between the recession and the establishment of bike lanes is not very clear (the establishment of bike lanes in Toronto was more a debate of traffic control rather than recession spending), and the timing of new bike lanes seems coincidental. Finally, you do not provide a clear resolution principle in the concluding paragraph to resolve the dichotomy between your examples. Thus the third task of the prompt is not adequately addressed.

 

Score: 3.5/6