Prep101 - free Writing Sample tutoring

[anto12e]

Hi! I tried to incorporate some of the feedbacks you gave to me...hopefully its alot better now.

 

 

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.

 

 

The scientific community consists of praticing scientists and clinicans who perform scientific researches to better understand the many questions Science asks. These researches are often centered around living organisms, especially humans, since theses questions address problems humans face and would need to be tested through experiments that often invovle ethical concerns. These concerns include respecting the wishes of human participants and human rights. It is therefore ideal that this scientific community, who would understand the experiments and its necessary human risks, be solely responsible for determining the ethical standards needed for scientific research. For example, pharmaceutical companies that develop a new drug that would determine the life or death of an infected patient would often need a human population to test the drug on. Often, the ethical standards that are needed involve informing the patients fully of the adverse side effects and signing contracts that would relenquish the patient's ability to sue the pharmaceutical company. These ethical standards are set by the scientific community because they are aware that such experimentations are crucial to the development of a drug and that there are certain risks involved that must be allowed, or else the development of the drug would be hindered by the unknown variables. These ethical standards that were determined accordingly would ensure that the patients who are experimented upon can provide the best scientific results to the scientific community, yet remain ethically sound. This led to the creation of many drugs such has Viagra that was found through clinic testing to cause blindness to some patients. Without creating the ethical standards accordingly by the scientific community (demanding patients to sign contracts preventing them from sueing), the pharmaceutical companies could optimize their research.

 

 

However, sometimes the scientific community itself should not determine the ethical standards by itself, even when they are the most informed regarding the potential benefits a research would bring. In the cases where the research is performed on humans where the problem is controversial (not well understood, have religious meaning connected or such), a different community would also be needed. For example, DNA cloning (replicating organisms) in the eye of the scientific community would create a new "sea" of open opportunities for the scientific community and for the rest of humanity in terms of being able to recover lost organisms or loved ones. As a result, early DNA cloning research had flourished with the leninent ethical standards in place. Scientists could clone lab rats and infamously, Dolly, a sheep. In the eye of an average citizen, one who is unaware of the scientific importance, would say otherwise. This citizen would argue that DNA cloning should not be looked into because of the religious ties associated. The birth of an organism should be "natural," between a female and a male ideally, not in a lab where scientists manipulate with tools. This concern led to another voice in determining the ethical standards for scientific research, the nonscientific community. This led to strict ethical standards to be placed on DNA cloning regarding humans and the stunted progression of DNA cloning into human subjects.

 

What determines whether or not the scientific community alone should set the ethical standards for scientific research is dependent on how controversial the particular research topic is. Ethical standards regarding resarch on a new drug that can save a life should be determined by the scientific community because of the potential benefits it has and the non-existent ties it has to any controversial topic. Ethical standards regarding research on DNA cloning on human should be determined by other parties because of the controversial nature surrounding "creating life." Therefore this principle requires a community to asses what research topic is controversial or not and to regulate the ethical standards accorindgly.

[shin]

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

 

Here is my essay for prompt#5:

 

 

 

 

In any community, the rules in which it is governed must originate and be enforced within that community itself. For it is within that community, that the rules have the greatest impact and are of the most importance. In the scientific community ethical standards form the foundation to many of the rules of conduct upon which researchers should conform themselves to. It's these ethical standards and the rules that ultimately stem from these standards that protect the community from community members. Without such rules and ethical standards, researchers acting in their own best interest may damage the community as a whole. In many instances, it is the scientific community, itself, which should determine and enforce the ethical standards because of the technical nature of scientific research. For instance, in the early 2000's, a South Korean researcher at the university of Seoul claimed to have cloned 8 different stem cell lines from a single origin. These results were a breakthrough in stem cell technology and the researcher was given many awards and research grants, including being considered for the Nobel Prize. However, upon investigation by the scientific community, it was discovered that his results were fraudulant. The South Korean researcher photoshopped his results to make it seem as though he created 8 cell lines, with a small failure rate, when in reality, his failure rate was quite high. In breaching the scientific community's ethical standards of presenting truthful research, the South Korean researcher was expelled from the University of Seoul, where he was a professor. As well, there remains a permanent blemish, even on his previous reported results. It is due to the technical nature that the scientific community should determine the ethical standards.

 

However, it is not always the case that the scientific community, alone, should be determining it's own ethical standards. There are some instances where the scientific community may be too biased, and too self promoting to objectively determine its ethical standards. In recent years, with the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration, there has been a lot of emphasis on stem cell research and stem cell technology. The ethical standards for this type of scientific research is determined by the government. During the Bush administration stem cell research was inhibited and quite limited. However, with the Obama administration stem cell research, in the United States, is much more free. The major contention is due to moral standards of US citizens. There is contention to what is considered a living organism and how we are to treat it. Many groups believe that it is wrong to treat embryonic stem cells the same was as other cells, arguing that they have the potential to become a full human and therefore should be considered the same as full humans.

 

In some instances scientific communities should determine their own ethical standards. This is when the scientific nature of the research is highly technical and the morals of the research affect only the scientific community. This was exemplified when the South Korean researcher fabricated his results. However, when the ethical standards of the scientific community impinge on the morals of society as a whole, then external bodies have a right to help in determing the ethical standards. This is especially important because scientific communities may be bias towards research over morality.

 

 

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

 

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to read this. I appreciate any feedback possible.

[aquadon]

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

 

 

Embryonic stem cell research, gene targeting therapies, pesticide resistant crops. These are all recent laboratory discoveries which could have significant negative implications if ethical standards were not adhered to. In today's society, technology enables scientists to rapidly reach discoveries and unique fields are being created at almost as rapid of a pace. In these novel fields, it is logical to expect that the scientific community alone are able to determine the standards they should follow. Since long term consequences of new areas may be unknown, only the scientific community can accurately predict what the ethical implications may be in the area they are researching. Non-scientific influences could slow down the creation of these new fields as it takes time to convert the ideas to lay terminology. Likewise, people that do not come from a scientific background may not understand the basic science well enough to agree upon a logical and ethical set of standards for research. The result of this may be result in over compensation by restricting what and how scientists are allowed to research, limiting it to areas that are already well established.

 

However, while it may seem a good idea to eliminate general community members from the process of developing ethical standards, there is still considerable evidence for their presence. Community members from specific fields such as philosophy and law can add a great degree to the depth of these standards and protect scientists from legal action if they adhere to the standards exactly. If only scientists are involved in this process, there could be holes in the standards that do not provide adequate protection and scientist may be less likely to take risks. Likewise, a philosopher may add perspective as to why a particular ethical standard should be adhered to and how it can be adjusted to meet the needs of the scientific research. Finally, someone with little scientific experience may be a good grounding force as they represent how the public might react if a particular ethical standard was breached - something that a scientists who is passionate about his research may not think about.

 

There are benefits and drawbacks to inviting members from outside the scientific community to determine ethical standards of scientific research, and there are certain times where it may be more relevant to do so. If area in question involves a very specific project and can be easily insinuated from pre-existing ethical standards, people from non-scientific backgrounds may unnecessarily complicate the process and slow down the progress of the research. Alternatively, if ethical standards are being created for the first time and guidelines can not be easily transferred from pre-existing standards, community members from relevant fields should be invited to help guide the process. In this case, each member should have a specific, pre-determined role in the process to avoid confusion and speed up the process. In all, effort should be made to protect ethical treatment of subjects involved in research (from humans and animals to embryonic stem cells) while encouraging scientists to continue pursuing new areas and advancing academic research.

 

---

 

Thank you!!!!!!

[jrandhawa]

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

 

Without scientific research there can be no scientific progress; however in the pursuit of scientific progress some ethical standards must be established. Since the scientific community drives scientific research, it seems to be in position to most successfully determine the ethical standards for research. This is because the scientific community is expected to have the clearest understanding of scientific methodology and the possible implications of new scientific research. Outsiders of the scientific community usually have a more limited scientific understanding; this may hinder progress by determining unreasonably strict ethical standards for research. For example, many laypeople have a bias against “unnatural” genetically engineered foods simply because they do not understand the underlying science. However, the scientific community is unaffected by this common misunderstanding. Therefore, it should determine ethical standards for scientific research into genetically modified foods by itself.

 

Are there circumstances in which the scientific community should not determine ethical standards by itself? Let us consider stem cell research. In the US, president Obama recently lifted a ban on this type of scientific research. This is a specific case where the scientific community alone did not determine the ethical standards of scientific research. Stem cell research involves experimenting with cells that have had the potential for human life, thereby raising the issue of human rights into the ethical considerations for the research. When human rights may be directly involved, the scientific community should not determine the ethical standards of such research by itself. This is due to the fact that human rights are not limited to members of scientific community, as human rights are universal.

 

On first glance it may seem difficult to resolve the issue of whether or not the scientific community should determine ethical standards for scientific research by itself, but upon careful consideration it becomes clear that human rights are the determining factor. As the scientific community has a superior understanding of science it should determine ethical standards for scientific research by itself when the research cannot possibly result in a violation of human rights; such as research into genetically engineered foods. In contrast, when human rights may be involved, as in the case of stem cell research; the scientific community should not determine the ethical standards for research alone. Overall, the scientific community has a central role in determining ethical standards; however when human rights must be seriously considered then other communities (such as the political one in the case of stem cell research in the US) must help in determining ethical standards for scientific research.

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello yeti187,

 

The introductory paragraph was interesting and logical, and the example was relevant. However, in order to strengthen the example you must provide more specific details (e.g. which phones are comparable, why is the campaign innovative, etc.). The same goes for the second paragraph: although the argument is reasonable, you must provide greater detail in order to develop your example.

The resolution principle in the concluding paragraph was also straightforward. There were some errors in grammar and sentence structure, and the writing style was somewhat simplistic and colloquial.

 

Score: 4/6 (Addresses all 3 tasks)

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello pew peter,

 

The introduction was quite well done, with a catchy opening sentence and well developed explanation of the prompt. The example is also relevant and you provide enough detail in order to substantiate your argument.

The example in the second paragraph is also well presented, however, you must also provide an argument of why the prompt may not always be true and then provide an example to illustrate your point. Your resolution principle is also logically sound and clearly presented. The essay demonstrates a good command of language, as you provide smooth transitions between your ideas and express them clearly and concisely.

 

Score: 5/6 (Depth of though in addressing the 3 tasks, however need to present a refuting argument and more unique examples/ideas in order to get a 5.5 or 6)

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello again,

 

Like your first essay, your introduction is great, with a good opening sentence and explanation of the prompt. Although your example is relevant, it is also quite controversial (the reason behind the war on Iraq would be a touchy subject to many AAMC graders). There are plenty of other examples of G.W. favoring the rich (e.g. corporate tax credits), which would be less controversial. Furthermore, your second example does not fall under “fair representation” based on your definition, since lowering the poverty rates does not help all classes (only the poor). A more relevant example would be things like the establishment of a universal health system or lowering income taxes for all, etc. There is also the same problem as your first essay: lack of a refuting argument. Your refuting argument is rational and well presented.

 

Score: 3.5/6 (The second example does not exactly refute the prompt as you define it)

[Nadil]

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.

 

Hello gourmet,

The supporting and refuting arguments you present are rational and the examples are relevant for the most part. There are some issues with the HIV example, since I don’t believe that many scientific researchers are itching to infect healthy participants with HIV only to be held back by social ethical standards (i.e. the issue of participant safety and reasonable risk were internally set by the scientific community). Nonetheless, the example does substantiate the point that society should have input into how much human risk should be allowed in scientific experiments. The resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is logical.

 

Score: 4/6 (Addresses the 3 tasks).

[simmonsoff]

In business how a product is perceived is more important than the actual product. Footwear is worn by everyone in Canada. Yet the most popular shoes worn by a lot of people are not necesarrily the most comfortable; they are the shoes with the best image. High heels demonstrate this fact very well. In an attempt to look sexy, many women will wear uncomfortable high heels. The idea to wear these uncomfortable shoes is promoted by the media. Many different female celebraties such as Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie are seen wearing high heels while they stroll down the Red Carpet. Due to the fact that these women are both very attractive and popular and also wearing high heels, shoe companies use these women to promote their product. Ironically the point of shoes is to give the person wearing them comfort and protection from the elements; something that high heels do not do and in fact they may make the wearer less comfortable while conferring little to no protection due to the open top of heels. Still, many women wear high heels despite the fact that the primary purpose of wearing a shoe is not being fulfilled. The image that a high heel makes a women sexy allows for this product to be sold at an astonishing high rate.

Meanwhile another type of shoe, Crocs, are considered very ugly. Yet, these shoes sell quite well. The reason that crocs are able to sell at such a high rate is because the people who wear these shoes claim that they are extremely comfortable, despite the shoes odd look. As a result of their comfort, many people have bought this shoe but they generally choose to wear them as an indoor shoe. The Croc is choosen as an indoor shoe mainly because it has openings in the shoe that would not allow for one to keep their feet dry outdoors, thus the wearer is not totally protected from the environment. The open nature of the Croc allows the person donning the shoe to be considerably more comfortable as opposed to parading around their home with naked feet. Alas, although considered a very ugly shoe, the practicality of the Croc has allowed for its sales to remain quite high despite its poor image.

For a business to be successful it must adequately promote its product. To be successful in promoting its product, the business must tailor a desirable image for it. To do so, a lot of firms try and associate their product with popular celebreties. By doing this, the general population will see the firm’s product being used by their idols and subconsciously assume that since their famous idols are using the product, it must be good. The very uncomfortable and inpractical high heel represents this trend perfectly. It does not confer a lot of comfort to the wearer nor does it protect a person’s foot from the environment. Some high heels are even so poorly designed that the wearer’s movement will be restricted by the shoe. Yet, these shoes remain popular due to the belief that by wearing these shoes you will appear to be attractive. Therefore if a shoe is not comfortable the company better develop it a desirable image. By designing a product a sleek, desirable image the profits due to the product will be high and in business that is all that matters.

[simmonsoff]

It is nearly impossible for a wealthy politician to fairly represent all of the people. For example, George W. Bush is the son of a very rich Oil Baron and he is also the former owner of the Texas Rangers. Yet, Mr. Bush was elected President of the United States and as a result, he represented all Americans on the World’s Stage. However, he did not fairly represent all of the people in his country. Mr. Bush’s policies were directed towards helping his peers in America, other rich people. He supported tax breaks for people who made over two hundred thousand dollars a year, yet he did not want to ensure that all Americans had equal access to health care. This clearly demonstrates that Mr. Bush was not fairly representing the United States. Instead, he was using his power to help out his friends, while mostly ignoring the desires of others.

Canada lies just to the north of the United States and one of their former leaders, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, was able to fairly represent the entire country. Trudeau was the son of a successful lawyer. Although he grew up during the Great Depression, he did not suffer from its ill effects. However, upon being elected, he helped improve the situation of all Canadians. Mr. Trudeau brought in Universal Health Care which gave all Canadians, both rich and poor, equal access to medical services. Although a serial womanizer, Mr. Trudeau made it legal for homosexuals to have sexual relations with one another, an unprecedented piece of legaslation at the time. Although Mr. Trudeau came from a rich upper class family, he was able to represent all of the electorate. A skill that is required by all politicians, but lacked by many.

In the United States it cost millions of dollars to run for President. As a result, only a small percentage of American citizens can actually become President, even though the Constituion says the only limit is being at least 25 years of age. With the size of America today it has become necessary to have a lot of money to run for President; unless the Candidate does not want to advertise their message. This is why only a select few people are capable of running for President because only a select few can get their message to the whole public. The electorate wants to know the person that is running for President because it allows for the Public to see who they identify with the most. Even though most people cannot truly relate with the Presidential candidates due to the significant difference in economic standing and life experiences. But to get around this, the candidates must try and design their campagin in a way that allows for the voter to have the impression that their view will be represented by that candidate. Sadly it is not possible for one person to represent the views of all of the people in a nation as large and diverse as the United States.

[sarup]

This was a prompt from a practice exam. Thanks for doing this!

 

It is each citizen's duty to obey the laws of the nation.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above

statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a citizen might not have a duty to obey a law.

Discuss what you think determines when citizens have a duty to obey the laws of the nation and when

they do not.

 

Hobbes, the famous philospher, believed that in society, each citizen must follow a basic social contract. Hobbes believed, that since a citizen is using society to further themselves economically and socially, they must follow the laws set out by society. Failure to do so means they are breaking the social contract and must suffer some punishment.Take for example the basic case that physically assaulting an idividual is against the law in many societies. In this case, citizens must obey this law as it was set out to ensure that every individual would be safe from physical danger by a fellow member of society. That is, this law was made to benefit society. If a citizen fails to do so, then they are subject to some form of punishment.

 

However, there are some cases where it is the citizens duty to ingnore a nation's laws. For example, in Hitler's Germany, it was illegal for German citizens to hide people of the Jewish faith. If it was found an individual was hiding a Jewish citizen, they were faced with severe punishment. Despite the law, there were some citizens that chose to hide individuals who were Jewish from the German police. In this case, by disobeying the law, many innocent individuals were saved from death.

 

What should determine when a citizen follows the law is whether the law is made to help or to hurt. The law that states it is illegal to physically harm another citizen is done to protect innocent member of society. In the case of Hilter's Germany, the law against the Jewish people was done to purposefully hurt innocent individuals. As Hobbes suggested, citizens should follow the laws society sets except in cases where the laws are meant to harm.

[jwang7p]

Sorry if it may sound like I was babbling. The 30mins. limit can really make my brain scramble!

 

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

Over the past few years, investment into green initiatives has exploded following a warning of global warming many years ago. In midst of global warming, our environment is also being destroyed by intense clear cutting of rainforests or the lack of technology to dispose of chemical wastes. It seems that concerns for welfare of the planet, and in turn ourselves, is at stakes. Because of this, many companies and initiatives has geared up to preserving the environment despite the major economic challenges that it may impose.

 

Ever so often, oil mining and transport has always posed potential environmental threats. A recent disaster earlier this year has been streaking headlines and streaking the ocean waters with millions of tons of oil. British Petroleum is responsible for this disaster, due to an oil rig explosion, has been under the pressure of the British and American government, and the public sphere to put a cessation to the mishap. It has been reported that British

Petroleum has spent over $39 billion to stop this leak, and the numbers are adding. It appears that an issue of such urgency combined with the pressure of millions of people is enough to overcome any economic doubts BP would have to plugging up the oil leak.

 

On the contrary, the invention of zero emmissions cars has been on a slow road to fruition. This is mainly because the pollution produced by cars is more gradual and the available technology is beyond the reach of any average-income households. Tesla Motors, which produce full electric cars, retails for over $139,000, thus if all companies decided to put aside the economic factors and go for the green factor, there will be a public uprising and not to mention a sudden loss of thousands of jobs in the oil industry. Sometimes these economic factors cannot be ignored, and the environment must wait until everyone is comfortable enough to afford sustainability.

 

When deciding what should come first, the environment or economics, it is essentially in the hands what we deem as urgent. On one side of the story, we have urgency in bringing an end to pressing environmental concerns, and on ther other side, we have a more gradual damage that leads to less urgency. The BP oil leak is a major concern, that could instantly bring havoc to the entire world if left unchecked. As for air pollution, we can wait for the affordable technology to develop since we won't be suffocating any time soon. Essentially, the environment is still pertinent on the international agenda, but our assessment of the risks of stopping environmental destruction will decide whether economics trumps environment or vice versa.

[answerjl]

Hi, this is from a practice exam. Thanks for the help.

 

Education makes everyone equal.

Explain what you think this statment means. Describe a specific situation in which education does not make everyone equal.Discuss what you think determines whether or not education makes everyone equal.

 

 

Education is often seen as the key to the future success of individuals. When two people are equal, they have the same opportunities for work, healthcare, security and other rights. Formal schooling and training is often able to provide equality to all people in a society. Education seeks to level the playing field for individuals and give each the knowledge needed to succeed. In Canada for instance, education is provided up until the end of high school at now extra cost. This education teaches individuals important practical and life skills that will be useful once they graduate. The school system is designed to teach to all students the same curriculum, providing

equal opportunities for students across Canada. In this case, students receive the same education and are viewed as equal in society where none has an advantage over the other.

 

Despite education providing equality in Canada, it is also possible that education will fail to provide equality among all individuals in society.

For example, in developping nations in Africa, education is not sufficient to make women and men equal in society. Even if both men and women are

able to attend school, they are not equal in the eyes of the government and in traditional views. Women do not have equal opportunities for

employment, healthcare and justice. Despite receiving an education, women are often physically abused while the perpetrator goes unpunished. In this situation where women and men are treated unfairly under the law and not given basic rights and freedoms, education has not brought upon equality.

 

Education can create equality in certain situations while failing to do so in other cases. The ability of education to make individuals equal depends on whether or not the individuals have equal rights and freedoms under the law. In Canada, all individuals are guaranteed certain opportunities under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This allows education to bring equality among citizens. In situations where not all people are given the same rights such as developping nations in Africa, education is unable to make everyone equal. Women able to attend school do not have equal rights to justice as men. Evidently, education can bring equality when equal rights exist but cannot when rights are not defended.

[Nadil]

Hi! I tried to incorporate some of the feedbacks you gave to me...hopefully its alot better now.

 

 

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.

 

 

The scientific community consists of praticing scientists and clinicans who perform scientific researches to better understand the many questions Science asks. These researches are often centered around living organisms, especially humans, since theses questions address problems humans face and would need to be tested through experiments that often invovle ethical concerns. These concerns include respecting the wishes of human participants and human rights. It is therefore ideal that this scientific community, who would understand the experiments and its necessary human risks, be solely responsible for determining the ethical standards needed for scientific research. For example, pharmaceutical companies that develop a new drug that would determine the life or death of an infected patient would often need a human population to test the drug on. Often, the ethical standards that are needed involve informing the patients fully of the adverse side effects and signing contracts that would relenquish the patient's ability to sue the pharmaceutical company. These ethical standards are set by the scientific community because they are aware that such experimentations are crucial to the development of a drug and that there are certain risks involved that must be allowed, or else the development of the drug would be hindered by the unknown variables. These ethical standards that were determined accordingly would ensure that the patients who are experimented upon can provide the best scientific results to the scientific community, yet remain ethically sound. This led to the creation of many drugs such has Viagra that was found through clinic testing to cause blindness to some patients. Without creating the ethical standards accordingly by the scientific community (demanding patients to sign contracts preventing them from sueing), the pharmaceutical companies could optimize their research.

 

 

However, sometimes the scientific community itself should not determine the ethical standards by itself, even when they are the most informed regarding the potential benefits a research would bring. In the cases where the research is performed on humans where the problem is controversial (not well understood, have religious meaning connected or such), a different community would also be needed. For example, DNA cloning (replicating organisms) in the eye of the scientific community would create a new "sea" of open opportunities for the scientific community and for the rest of humanity in terms of being able to recover lost organisms or loved ones. As a result, early DNA cloning research had flourished with the leninent ethical standards in place. Scientists could clone lab rats and infamously, Dolly, a sheep. In the eye of an average citizen, one who is unaware of the scientific importance, would say otherwise. This citizen would argue that DNA cloning should not be looked into because of the religious ties associated. The birth of an organism should be "natural," between a female and a male ideally, not in a lab where scientists manipulate with tools. This concern led to another voice in determining the ethical standards for scientific research, the nonscientific community. This led to strict ethical standards to be placed on DNA cloning regarding humans and the stunted progression of DNA cloning into human subjects.

 

What determines whether or not the scientific community alone should set the ethical standards for scientific research is dependent on how controversial the particular research topic is. Ethical standards regarding resarch on a new drug that can save a life should be determined by the scientific community because of the potential benefits it has and the non-existent ties it has to any controversial topic. Ethical standards regarding research on DNA cloning on human should be determined by other parties because of the controversial nature surrounding "creating life." Therefore this principle requires a community to asses what research topic is controversial or not and to regulate the ethical standards accorindgly.

 

Hello again Anto12e,

 

You definitely provide more detail to strengthen your examples. Unfortunately, although your supporting and refuting arguments are rational, the examples are somewhat convoluted and do not properly strengthen your points. In your first example, it seems unethical and manipulative that the scientific community, knowing the risks of drug testing, should prevent patients from seeking retribution for harmful side-effects in order to get “the best scientific results”. Consequently, both of your examples describe practices which are somewhat controversial (i.e. cloning and drug testing on people) and, thus, your resolution principle does not resolve any dichotomy between your examples. Since there were problems with the accuracy of your examples in both essays so far, I would encourage you to spend more time planning out examples in your outline which you can describe easily and accurately and can resolve in a straightforward manner within the resolution paragraph.

There were also quite a few spelling and grammar mistakes and I would advise working on your sentence structure in order to write more clearly.

 

Score: 3.5/6

[Nadil]

Here is my essay for prompt#5:

 

 

 

 

In any community, the rules in which it is governed must originate and be enforced within that community itself. For it is within that community, that the rules have the greatest impact and are of the most importance. In the scientific community ethical standards form the foundation to many of the rules of conduct upon which researchers should conform themselves to. It's these ethical standards and the rules that ultimately stem from these standards that protect the community from community members. Without such rules and ethical standards, researchers acting in their own best interest may damage the community as a whole. In many instances, it is the scientific community, itself, which should determine and enforce the ethical standards because of the technical nature of scientific research. For instance, in the early 2000's, a South Korean researcher at the university of Seoul claimed to have cloned 8 different stem cell lines from a single origin. These results were a breakthrough in stem cell technology and the researcher was given many awards and research grants, including being considered for the Nobel Prize. However, upon investigation by the scientific community, it was discovered that his results were fraudulant. The South Korean researcher photoshopped his results to make it seem as though he created 8 cell lines, with a small failure rate, when in reality, his failure rate was quite high. In breaching the scientific community's ethical standards of presenting truthful research, the South Korean researcher was expelled from the University of Seoul, where he was a professor. As well, there remains a permanent blemish, even on his previous reported results. It is due to the technical nature that the scientific community should determine the ethical standards.

 

However, it is not always the case that the scientific community, alone, should be determining it's own ethical standards. There are some instances where the scientific community may be too biased, and too self promoting to objectively determine its ethical standards. In recent years, with the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration, there has been a lot of emphasis on stem cell research and stem cell technology. The ethical standards for this type of scientific research is determined by the government. During the Bush administration stem cell research was inhibited and quite limited. However, with the Obama administration stem cell research, in the United States, is much more free. The major contention is due to moral standards of US citizens. There is contention to what is considered a living organism and how we are to treat it. Many groups believe that it is wrong to treat embryonic stem cells the same was as other cells, arguing that they have the potential to become a full human and therefore should be considered the same as full humans.

 

In some instances scientific communities should determine their own ethical standards. This is when the scientific nature of the research is highly technical and the morals of the research affect only the scientific community. This was exemplified when the South Korean researcher fabricated his results. However, when the ethical standards of the scientific community impinge on the morals of society as a whole, then external bodies have a right to help in determing the ethical standards. This is especially important because scientific communities may be bias towards research over morality.

 

 

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

 

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to read this. I appreciate any feedback possible.

 

Hello Shin,

 

The explanation of the prompt in the introductory paragraph was logical and your example is presented with great detail. Nonetheless, the introduction is a little drawn out, while your argument (i.e. the technical nature of research) is a little brief. As well, you must further accentuate why your example supports your argument in order to make sure the reader understands how your example is relevant. The second paragraph presents a well developed argument and strong example. Your resolution principle is also logical and presented clearly.

 

Score: 5/6

[Nadil]

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

 

 

Embryonic stem cell research, gene targeting therapies, pesticide resistant crops. These are all recent laboratory discoveries which could have significant negative implications if ethical standards were not adhered to. In today's society, technology enables scientists to rapidly reach discoveries and unique fields are being created at almost as rapid of a pace. In these novel fields, it is logical to expect that the scientific community alone are able to determine the standards they should follow. Since long term consequences of new areas may be unknown, only the scientific community can accurately predict what the ethical implications may be in the area they are researching. Non-scientific influences could slow down the creation of these new fields as it takes time to convert the ideas to lay terminology. Likewise, people that do not come from a scientific background may not understand the basic science well enough to agree upon a logical and ethical set of standards for research. The result of this may be result in over compensation by restricting what and how scientists are allowed to research, limiting it to areas that are already well established.

 

However, while it may seem a good idea to eliminate general community members from the process of developing ethical standards, there is still considerable evidence for their presence. Community members from specific fields such as philosophy and law can add a great degree to the depth of these standards and protect scientists from legal action if they adhere to the standards exactly. If only scientists are involved in this process, there could be holes in the standards that do not provide adequate protection and scientist may be less likely to take risks. Likewise, a philosopher may add perspective as to why a particular ethical standard should be adhered to and how it can be adjusted to meet the needs of the scientific research. Finally, someone with little scientific experience may be a good grounding force as they represent how the public might react if a particular ethical standard was breached - something that a scientists who is passionate about his research may not think about.

 

There are benefits and drawbacks to inviting members from outside the scientific community to determine ethical standards of scientific research, and there are certain times where it may be more relevant to do so. If area in question involves a very specific project and can be easily insinuated from pre-existing ethical standards, people from non-scientific backgrounds may unnecessarily complicate the process and slow down the progress of the research. Alternatively, if ethical standards are being created for the first time and guidelines can not be easily transferred from pre-existing standards, community members from relevant fields should be invited to help guide the process. In this case, each member should have a specific, pre-determined role in the process to avoid confusion and speed up the process. In all, effort should be made to protect ethical treatment of subjects involved in research (from humans and animals to embryonic stem cells) while encouraging scientists to continue pursuing new areas and advancing academic research.

 

---

 

Thank you!!!!!!

 

Hello Aquadon,

 

Your supporting and refuting arguments are well thought out and demonstrate complexity of thought. However, you must provide concrete examples to support your arguments (which you unfortunately do not); otherwise, you do not adequately address the tasks of the prompt, and thus your score greatly decreases. The resolution principle is also rational and well developed. Your essay demonstrates strong writing style and depth of though, however, you must provide concrete examples.

 

Score 3.5/6 (With examples this essay would probably score 5.5 or 6).

[Nadil]

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

 

Without scientific research there can be no scientific progress; however in the pursuit of scientific progress some ethical standards must be established. Since the scientific community drives scientific research, it seems to be in position to most successfully determine the ethical standards for research. This is because the scientific community is expected to have the clearest understanding of scientific methodology and the possible implications of new scientific research. Outsiders of the scientific community usually have a more limited scientific understanding; this may hinder progress by determining unreasonably strict ethical standards for research. For example, many laypeople have a bias against “unnatural” genetically engineered foods simply because they do not understand the underlying science. However, the scientific community is unaffected by this common misunderstanding. Therefore, it should determine ethical standards for scientific research into genetically modified foods by itself.

 

Are there circumstances in which the scientific community should not determine ethical standards by itself? Let us consider stem cell research. In the US, president Obama recently lifted a ban on this type of scientific research. This is a specific case where the scientific community alone did not determine the ethical standards of scientific research. Stem cell research involves experimenting with cells that have had the potential for human life, thereby raising the issue of human rights into the ethical considerations for the research. When human rights may be directly involved, the scientific community should not determine the ethical standards of such research by itself. This is due to the fact that human rights are not limited to members of scientific community, as human rights are universal.

 

On first glance it may seem difficult to resolve the issue of whether or not the scientific community should determine ethical standards for scientific research by itself, but upon careful consideration it becomes clear that human rights are the determining factor. As the scientific community has a superior understanding of science it should determine ethical standards for scientific research by itself when the research cannot possibly result in a violation of human rights; such as research into genetically engineered foods. In contrast, when human rights may be involved, as in the case of stem cell research; the scientific community should not determine the ethical standards for research alone. Overall, the scientific community has a central role in determining ethical standards; however when human rights must be seriously considered then other communities (such as the political one in the case of stem cell research in the US) must help in determining ethical standards for scientific research.

 

Hello jrandhawa,

 

Your supporting argument is well developed and clearly presented. Although your example is relevant and supports your argument, it is quite brief and you must develop it further by providing greater detail.

Your refuting argument and example are also logical and well developed, and your resolution principle is rational and is nicely applied to your two examples. The writing style is clear and demonstrates depth of thought.

 

Score: 4.5/6 (A more developed first example would definitely increase your score to 5 or 5.5).

[Nadil]

In business how a product is perceived is more important than the actual product. Footwear is worn by everyone in Canada. Yet the most popular shoes worn by a lot of people are not necesarrily the most comfortable; they are the shoes with the best image. High heels demonstrate this fact very well. In an attempt to look sexy, many women will wear uncomfortable high heels. The idea to wear these uncomfortable shoes is promoted by the media. Many different female celebraties such as Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie are seen wearing high heels while they stroll down the Red Carpet. Due to the fact that these women are both very attractive and popular and also wearing high heels, shoe companies use these women to promote their product. Ironically the point of shoes is to give the person wearing them comfort and protection from the elements; something that high heels do not do and in fact they may make the wearer less comfortable while conferring little to no protection due to the open top of heels. Still, many women wear high heels despite the fact that the primary purpose of wearing a shoe is not being fulfilled. The image that a high heel makes a women sexy allows for this product to be sold at an astonishing high rate.

Meanwhile another type of shoe, Crocs, are considered very ugly. Yet, these shoes sell quite well. The reason that crocs are able to sell at such a high rate is because the people who wear these shoes claim that they are extremely comfortable, despite the shoes odd look. As a result of their comfort, many people have bought this shoe but they generally choose to wear them as an indoor shoe. The Croc is choosen as an indoor shoe mainly because it has openings in the shoe that would not allow for one to keep their feet dry outdoors, thus the wearer is not totally protected from the environment. The open nature of the Croc allows the person donning the shoe to be considerably more comfortable as opposed to parading around their home with naked feet. Alas, although considered a very ugly shoe, the practicality of the Croc has allowed for its sales to remain quite high despite its poor image.

For a business to be successful it must adequately promote its product. To be successful in promoting its product, the business must tailor a desirable image for it. To do so, a lot of firms try and associate their product with popular celebreties. By doing this, the general population will see the firm’s product being used by their idols and subconsciously assume that since their famous idols are using the product, it must be good. The very uncomfortable and inpractical high heel represents this trend perfectly. It does not confer a lot of comfort to the wearer nor does it protect a person’s foot from the environment. Some high heels are even so poorly designed that the wearer’s movement will be restricted by the shoe. Yet, these shoes remain popular due to the belief that by wearing these shoes you will appear to be attractive. Therefore if a shoe is not comfortable the company better develop it a desirable image. By designing a product a sleek, desirable image the profits due to the product will be high and in business that is all that matters.

 

Hello Simmonsoff,

 

Apart from repeating the prompt in the first sentence, the introductory paragraph does not provide an explanation of the prompt or an argument for why the prompt is true. Furthermore, there is also no argument to refute the prompt. Thus, although you provide two detailed examples, they do not substantiate any arguments (i.e. an example cannot replace an argument, you must provide both). The concluding paragraph also simply provides a summary of the entire essay but does not provide a resolution principle to resolve the dichotomy between your two examples.

 

Score: 3/6 (Distortion of the three tasks of the prompt).

[Nadil]

It is nearly impossible for a wealthy politician to fairly represent all of the people. For example, George W. Bush is the son of a very rich Oil Baron and he is also the former owner of the Texas Rangers. Yet, Mr. Bush was elected President of the United States and as a result, he represented all Americans on the World’s Stage. However, he did not fairly represent all of the people in his country. Mr. Bush’s policies were directed towards helping his peers in America, other rich people. He supported tax breaks for people who made over two hundred thousand dollars a year, yet he did not want to ensure that all Americans had equal access to health care. This clearly demonstrates that Mr. Bush was not fairly representing the United States. Instead, he was using his power to help out his friends, while mostly ignoring the desires of others.

Canada lies just to the north of the United States and one of their former leaders, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, was able to fairly represent the entire country. Trudeau was the son of a successful lawyer. Although he grew up during the Great Depression, he did not suffer from its ill effects. However, upon being elected, he helped improve the situation of all Canadians. Mr. Trudeau brought in Universal Health Care which gave all Canadians, both rich and poor, equal access to medical services. Although a serial womanizer, Mr. Trudeau made it legal for homosexuals to have sexual relations with one another, an unprecedented piece of legaslation at the time. Although Mr. Trudeau came from a rich upper class family, he was able to represent all of the electorate. A skill that is required by all politicians, but lacked by many.

In the United States it cost millions of dollars to run for President. As a result, only a small percentage of American citizens can actually become President, even though the Constituion says the only limit is being at least 25 years of age. With the size of America today it has become necessary to have a lot of money to run for President; unless the Candidate does not want to advertise their message. This is why only a select few people are capable of running for President because only a select few can get their message to the whole public. The electorate wants to know the person that is running for President because it allows for the Public to see who they identify with the most. Even though most people cannot truly relate with the Presidential candidates due to the significant difference in economic standing and life experiences. But to get around this, the candidates must try and design their campagin in a way that allows for the voter to have the impression that their view will be represented by that candidate. Sadly it is not possible for one person to represent the views of all of the people in a nation as large and diverse as the United States.

 

Hello again Simmonsoff,

 

Similar to your first essay, you provide two well developed and relevant examples (although it was unnecessary to discuss Trudeau’s “womanizer” qualities or homosexual rights), but lack an actual supporting and refuting argument. In the introductory paragraph, you must first provide an explanation of the prompt (i.e. its “definition”) and also an argument for why the prompt is true. In the second paragraph you must then provide an argument for why the prompt can sometimes be untrue. The examples will then be used to substantiate your arguments. Furthermore, the concluding paragraph must simply provide a resolution principle that addresses when each example is true. These are the required items in order to address the tasks of the prompt and score above at least a 4/6 on the MCAT WS.

 

Score: 3/6 (Distortion of the three tasks of the prompt).

[Nadil]

This was a prompt from a practice exam. Thanks for doing this!

 

It is each citizen's duty to obey the laws of the nation.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above

statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a citizen might not have a duty to obey a law.

Discuss what you think determines when citizens have a duty to obey the laws of the nation and when

they do not.

 

Hobbes, the famous philospher, believed that in society, each citizen must follow a basic social contract. Hobbes believed, that since a citizen is using society to further themselves economically and socially, they must follow the laws set out by society. Failure to do so means they are breaking the social contract and must suffer some punishment.Take for example the basic case that physically assaulting an idividual is against the law in many societies. In this case, citizens must obey this law as it was set out to ensure that every individual would be safe from physical danger by a fellow member of society. That is, this law was made to benefit society. If a citizen fails to do so, then they are subject to some form of punishment.

 

However, there are some cases where it is the citizens duty to ingnore a nation's laws. For example, in Hitler's Germany, it was illegal for German citizens to hide people of the Jewish faith. If it was found an individual was hiding a Jewish citizen, they were faced with severe punishment. Despite the law, there were some citizens that chose to hide individuals who were Jewish from the German police. In this case, by disobeying the law, many innocent individuals were saved from death.

 

What should determine when a citizen follows the law is whether the law is made to help or to hurt. The law that states it is illegal to physically harm another citizen is done to protect innocent member of society. In the case of Hilter's Germany, the law against the Jewish people was done to purposefully hurt innocent individuals. As Hobbes suggested, citizens should follow the laws society sets except in cases where the laws are meant to harm.

 

Hello Sarup,

 

It is great that you are able to paraphrase Hobbes in order to support the ideas in your essay, however, it seems that you do not add any ideas of your own apart from those of Hobbes. Even if your ideas are similar to those of the famous philosopher, you must still present your own ideas as this is what the AAMC graders are interested in. The second paragraph also lacks an actual argument refuting the prompt (i.e. you provide only an example, whereas you must provide both a refuting argument and an example substantiating this argument). Furthermore, the examples you provide are brief and need to be further developed with greater detail. The resolution principle in your concluding paragraph is rational and nicely applies to your two examples.

 

Score: 3.5-4/6

[Nadil]

Sorry if it may sound like I was babbling. The 30mins. limit can really make my brain scramble!

 

Environmental concerns should always take priority over economic concerns.

 

Over the past few years, investment into green initiatives has exploded following a warning of global warming many years ago. In midst of global warming, our environment is also being destroyed by intense clear cutting of rainforests or the lack of technology to dispose of chemical wastes. It seems that concerns for welfare of the planet, and in turn ourselves, is at stakes. Because of this, many companies and initiatives has geared up to preserving the environment despite the major economic challenges that it may impose.

 

Ever so often, oil mining and transport has always posed potential environmental threats. A recent disaster earlier this year has been streaking headlines and streaking the ocean waters with millions of tons of oil. British Petroleum is responsible for this disaster, due to an oil rig explosion, has been under the pressure of the British and American government, and the public sphere to put a cessation to the mishap. It has been reported that British

Petroleum has spent over $39 billion to stop this leak, and the numbers are adding. It appears that an issue of such urgency combined with the pressure of millions of people is enough to overcome any economic doubts BP would have to plugging up the oil leak.

 

On the contrary, the invention of zero emmissions cars has been on a slow road to fruition. This is mainly because the pollution produced by cars is more gradual and the available technology is beyond the reach of any average-income households. Tesla Motors, which produce full electric cars, retails for over $139,000, thus if all companies decided to put aside the economic factors and go for the green factor, there will be a public uprising and not to mention a sudden loss of thousands of jobs in the oil industry. Sometimes these economic factors cannot be ignored, and the environment must wait until everyone is comfortable enough to afford sustainability.

 

When deciding what should come first, the environment or economics, it is essentially in the hands what we deem as urgent. On one side of the story, we have urgency in bringing an end to pressing environmental concerns, and on ther other side, we have a more gradual damage that leads to less urgency. The BP oil leak is a major concern, that could instantly bring havoc to the entire world if left unchecked. As for air pollution, we can wait for the affordable technology to develop since we won't be suffocating any time soon. Essentially, the environment is still pertinent on the international agenda, but our assessment of the risks of stopping environmental destruction will decide whether economics trumps environment or vice versa.

 

Hello Jwang7p,

 

The introductory paragraph presents a logical argument in support of the prompt and a good supporting example. In the second paragraph, although you present a relevant example, you do not provide an argument to refute the prompt. You must first provide an argument of why the prompt can sometimes be untrue and then substantiate it with an example. The resolution principle in the concluding paragraph is rational and nicely applied to the two examples. There were several spelling, grammar and sentence structure mistakes. Furthermore, the writing style was often too casual. I would suggest writing more formally and carefully.

 

Score: 4/6 (Adequately address the 3 tasks of the prompt).

[aquadon]

Hey Nadil,

 

Thanks so much for the feedback. It was my first try (re-taking my MCAT again to try and improve my VR) so your feedback was great and the score was encouraging (a 5.5 or 6 as long as I include some examples is easily something within my range).

 

Cheers!

[lysozyme]

Hi Nadil,

Thanks for the feedback! Test date coming up soon...

 

In politics, the simple solution to a problem is often the most popular solution.

Describe a specific situation in which a simple solution might not be the most popular solution to a problem. Discuss what you think determines when the simple solution to a problem will be the most popular solution and when it will not.

 

The power of a simple solution is acknowledged in the axiom known as Ockham’s Razor: the simplest solution is likely the best. In addition, it may be true that the simplest solution is the most well-received by the public. Issues resolved in the political arena relate to taxes, transportation, access to amenities and factors in determining one’s quality of life. Certainly simplicity was an aspect in the popularity of resolution of the City of Toronto’s garbage disposal issue; despite a population of over three million, the city did not have a long-term plan on where to haul its trash. City councillors voted nearly unanimously to send waste to Detroit where it would be processed eventually over proposals to initiate a landfill or a local waste management project. In this outcome, garbage was literally pushed away, proving to be a simple and popular end to the problem.

 

However, a simple solution is not necessarily the most popular one. During a weak economic period in the early 1990’s, the provincial government of Ontario sought to sell a major highway route to the private sector in order to balance its budget. With this ostensibly simple arrangement, the Province of Ontario would gain a large sum of money in transferring maintenance and management of the highway to another group. However, highway drivers would now have to pay a toll rate to use the road, an uncommon occurrence in Canada’s public road system. Members of the public decried the act as unfair and still consider the solution a way for the government to ‘pass the buck’ to an unaccountable independent group.

 

Determining, then, whether or not the simplest solution to a problem will be the most popular solution depends on if the burden of the solution is passed onto the public. If, in the case of the 407 toll route highway, citizens will have to pay for services that were previously free, it is likely that a different solution will be favoured. In the case of the Toronto garbage disposal issue, where citizens can benefit from the solution with no new problems associated, the simplest solution will be popular. Simple solutions are marked by their potential to reduce responsibility at the political level and will be well-received when they do the same for constituents.

[jab4eva]

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.

Scientific research has been around for decades seeking for new methods to improve people’s lives. Therefore it has the obligation to preserve every individual’s right before conducting an experiment. By itself, the scientific community should determine what kind of experiment violates human rights and avoid those experiments that conflict with current ethical standards. Nowadays, scientific research without considering individual rights and ethics are prone to scrutiny and criticism by the public, and may be driven to forced closure by public demands. Scientific research should highly consider ethical consequences before partition an experiment since science should only serve the people and humanity should not be enslaved by it. For example, psychology researches nowadays are required to meet the ethical standards of the country in order to receive proper funding. Therefore this ensures that psychology researchers always consider ethical standards before conducting an experiment.

 

However, in the old days when there are less laws governing scientific research, the scientific community should have no rights in determine the ethical standards for scientific research if the research indeed takes away the right of an individual. In this case, the scientific community should consult the public before conducting a controversial experiment. During the Little Albert experiment, researchers wanted to see if a person can be conditioned to be afraid of something by pairing the stimuli with a loud noise. A white fuzzy, rat was placed beside Albert and a loud noise was made to scare Albert. Later, Albert became afraid of all white, fuzzy stuff. This example showed that the scientific community by itself could not properly determine what is ethical and what is not, it apparently violates Albert’s right and lead to life-long damage to Little Albert.

 

In conclusion, scientific research should determine the ethical standards of a research by itself when strict rules and orders are instituted to make sure that only ethical experiments are allowed to be conducted. But when there are no strict rules and orders governing scientific experiment, the scientific community cares nothing about ethical standards and certainly should not be able to determine ethical standards regarding a scientific research by itself. As a result, it is the rules and orders that limit the experiment and place individual rights as a priority when it comes to scientific research.

[shir312]

I wrote these as extra practice and was hoping that I could get some feedback on them too. Thanks a bunch!

 

Education comes not from books but practical experience

 

Modern society provides us with a multitude of options every single day. The choices we make can either affect us for a short period of time or become a life-altering decision, and such an option with a life-altering decision is that of deciding our career paths. Individuals prepare for their careers by educating themselves about the field they are about to enter. For individuals pursuing a career in a trade, their education becomes highly dependent on the skills they obtain to excel in their career, or their practical experience. A pastry chef, for example, receives his education from perfecting the art of baking and cooking through constant practice of the skill sets he must develop. The experience he gains from consistently engaging in hands-on activities not only helps him excel at his educational institution, but also ensures that he may suceed upon entering the working world. It is clear that pastry chefs and other individuals pursuing careers in trade receive their education from practical experience.

 

However, not all forms of education come from practical experience. For students pursuing university degrees in academic fields, such as humanities or science, books become an integral part of the educational process. Such fields are built upon centuries of work and documentation that are recorded in books. As a result, an academic student's education is based primarily on the reading and absorption of relevant material from such literature. It is from these literary sources that students gain the ability to not only learn from the experiences of others, but also expand upon and contribute new information to these fields upon graduation. One can see that for academic students, education comes from books rather than practical experience.

 

It is difficult to determine whether education comes from practical experience or books. A criterion that one may use to determine the source of an individual's education is by identifying the career he is chooing to pursue. For students engaged in a trade based education, their education derives from practical exerpience that allows them to develop the skills that are necessary for them to excel at their job, such as baking a cake for a pastry chef. For students pursuing a career in academia, books are an integral form of education, as it provides students with a foundation upon which they are able to learn and expand upon past academics' studies and discoveries.

 

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit, a threat to human life can be tolerated

 

Man has always questioned the world around him, plagued with the desire to know more and understand the nature of his surroundings. From the vastness of space that is our universe to the microscopic cells that we are composed of, we have always asked 'why?' and 'how?' and used many methods in pursuit of the answers to those questions. However, sometimes our desire to answer the very questions that plague us result in the execution of unacceptable actions that put the lives of other humans at risk, possibly resulting in death. During World War II, Nazi scientists experimented extensively on prisoners, mainly twins, in concentration camps in the hopes of obtaining more knowledge about the human body. While such experiments did contribute information to our current knowledge about the human anatomy, the torturous methods in which this knowledge was gained was horrendous and unacceptable, as many lives were lost and permenantly traumatized as a result. These actions are a prime example of intolerable experimentation in the pursuit of scientific discovery.

 

However, there are certain circumstances in which human life is acceptably put at risk in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Pharmaceutical companies need to go through a number of drug trials before having their product approved and put on the market for consumer use. One of these drug trials involves experimentation on humans to study the effects of the drugs on the human body. However, these trials are only used after the drug has undergone extensive screening and after its affects have been observed in various animals. As such, pharmaceuticals are only allowed to test their products on human subjects once it has been adequately determined that human lives will not be put at significant risk.

 

It is often disputed whether there are scientific questions so important that human lives can be put at risk to determine their answers. While it is unfavorable to experiment on humans in the pursuit of any scientific discovery, it is generally accepted to do so if everything possible has been done to minimize the threat of the experiment on human life. Nazi experimentation on humans during World War II was unacceptable because very little was done to ensure the safety of the subjects, as can be seen from the tremendous amount of deaths from such experiments. However, in the case of drug trials, every conceivable risk to the human test subjects are minimized before administration of the drug being tested allowing for the method's continued use in modern society.