Advice on MCAT Prompt

[jordan19]

Could anyone give me some feedback on what I wrote in response to this prompt?

I tried posting twice in the Prep101 writing sample, but recieved no feedback.

Don't know if I correctly responded to this prompt.

 

Anyways here's what i wrote.

 

Stability in society can lead to stagnation.

 

Stability in society can lead to stagnation when there is no changes in the political or social structure which would be necessary to better serve the majority of the population. This frequently occurs in a country where the society follows an absolutist regime, and hence, this person will keep the current tyrannical regime to preserve the capacities of power that he or she possesses. For example, in 1675, King Henry the 8th of France was a Monarch who maintained societal stability throughout his reign. There were no changes in the societal structure, as there were different classes of people: the poor, the middle class, and the nobility. However, this stability led to stagnatation of France, as the Upper Class maintained that the King held the position of power, who did not serve to represent the interests of the majority of the population in France. During this time, King Henry was unsympahtetic to the troubles that were ravaging the poor population, and hence due to many droughts many poor people from the lower class died as a result.

 

There are instances; however where stability in society does not lead to stagnation, and this occurs in more modern societies. Democratic countries all across the world today have achieved a governmental stability in society, where there is no radical parties who have successfully undermined and overthrown the current government. This static democratic structure ensures that changes in laws and policies are done through a systematic procedure, which is well adapted to handling the problems currently faced in society. For example, in Canada, there is stability in society, as the democratic system has been preserved for over 140 years, since 1867. One would argue that there has not been stagnation, and the Canadian society has radically progressed since the establishment of the static democratic system. This static democratic system has been instrumental in developing the policies and rules of law which benefit the country of Canada. In fact, due to such a system, Canada, once regarded as a developing nation is now regarded as a fully developed country.

 

Therefore, stability in society can lead to stagnation depends on whether or not the stability of the society gives power to a single person rather than a group of people. If power is given to a single person, such as the case in an absolutist rule, stability among the people can be maintained; but, this can lead to stagnation of the country as a whole, as the single person is unable to single handledly address the problems concerning the nation. However, if the stability of society is represented by preserving a political structure, such as the case in a democractic society, the power of a nation is in the hands of a group who collectively represent the interests of the majority of the population. Thus, in such instances, society is not stagnant, and is free to adopt changes which will ultimately allow a nation to develop.

[LupeFiasco]

Could anyone give me some feedback on what I wrote in response to this prompt?

I tried posting twice in the Prep101 writing sample, but recieved no feedback.

Don't know if I correctly responded to this prompt.

 

Anyways here's what i wrote.

 

Stability in society can lead to stagnation.

 

Stability in society can lead to stagnation when there is no changes in the political or social structure which would be necessary to better serve the majority of the population. This frequently occurs in a country where the society follows an absolutist regime, and hence, this person will keep the current tyrannical regime to preserve the capacities of power that he or she possesses. For example, in 1675, King Henry the 8th of France was a Monarch who maintained societal stability throughout his reign. There were no changes in the societal structure, as there were different classes of people: the poor, the middle class, and the nobility. However, this stability led to stagnatation of France, as the Upper Class maintained that the King held the position of power, who did not serve to represent the interests of the majority of the population in France. During this time, King Henry was unsympahtetic to the troubles that were ravaging the poor population, and hence due to many droughts many poor people from the lower class died as a result.

 

There are instances; however where stability in society does not lead to stagnation, and this occurs in more modern societies. Democratic countries all across the world today have achieved a governmental stability in society, where there is no radical parties who have successfully undermined and overthrown the current government. This static democratic structure ensures that changes in laws and policies are done through a systematic procedure, which is well adapted to handling the problems currently faced in society. For example, in Canada, there is stability in society, as the democratic system has been preserved for over 140 years, since 1867. One would argue that there has not been stagnation, and the Canadian society has radically progressed since the establishment of the static democratic system. This static democratic system has been instrumental in developing the policies and rules of law which benefit the country of Canada. In fact, due to such a system, Canada, once regarded as a developing nation is now regarded as a fully developed country.

 

Therefore, stability in society can lead to stagnation depends on whether or not the stability of the society gives power to a single person rather than a group of people. If power is given to a single person, such as the case in an absolutist rule, stability among the people can be maintained; but, this can lead to stagnation of the country as a whole, as the single person is unable to single handledly address the problems concerning the nation. However, if the stability of society is represented by preserving a political structure, such as the case in a democractic society, the power of a nation is in the hands of a group who collectively represent the interests of the majority of the population. Thus, in such instances, society is not stagnant, and is free to adopt changes which will ultimately allow a nation to develop.

 

That's pretty good. I would elaborate more on how Canada has progressed through the 140 years instead of making one generalized statement after another.

 

Also, for the first sentence of the first paragraph you should paraphrase the prompt and not repeat it verbatim.

 

If you do both of those things and eliminate the typos/grammar mistakes I think this a 5.5/6. You would get the full 6/6 if it was longer.

[jordan19]

That's pretty good. I would elaborate more on how Canada has progressed through the 140 years instead of making one generalized statement after another.

 

Also, for the first sentence of the first paragraph you should paraphrase the prompt and not repeat it verbatim.

 

If you do both of those things and eliminate the typos/grammar mistakes I think this a 5.5/6. You would get the full 6/6 if it was longer.

 

Really???? Are you serious? haha Lol I was sooo unsure about whether I had addressed the prompt correctly in the first place.

Thanks

[jordan19]

The benefits of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete.

 

Individuals who compete amongst each other have the potential to confer benefits when what there is a limited number of positions that they are competing for. If there is a quota, or finite number of positions for a particular job in society, then the employer can choose the best candidates suited for the position from a pool of people. This ensure that the people that are selected for the job meet the criteria on all levels, and thus society can benefit from this competition the most. For example, becoming a doctor in Canada is highly competitive process in which 1 out of every 10 applicants gains admission to medical school. The reason for this is because being a doctor is a profession which requires a high level of responsibility, dedication, intelligence, and morals. The lives of other people are in the hands of people in this profession, and hence, it is neccesary to choose the best applicants that would be well adapted and suited to handle such positions. Since admission to medical school is a very meticulous process, only the brightest and most responsible people are picked to become doctors. This ensures that patients will be in the good hands of future doctors.

 

There are instances where competition in society confers more caveats, when an individual is concerned about oneself rather than how society benefits as a whole. In such instances, since the individual is focused on themselves, they may be motivated to achieve individual goals in any means possible, whether that means harming others in the process. For example, in 1945, with the advent of the Stock Exchange in Canada, trading stocks had become a new, profitable buisness. Many investors began to earn money by buying stocks amongst each other and selling them for profit. However, there came to a point where some investors were only concerned about themselves, as they only wanted to further their selves by gaining more money. A rich investor, Steven Gatsby sought to do this in any means possible, and he tricked other people, and in some cases murdered other people simply because they were competition. In doing so, he was able to make lots of money but in this case, competition bred mistrust, and people could no longer rely on their neighbours because everyone was out for furthering themselves.

 

Therefore, the advantages of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete depends on whether or not the motive behind a particular competition. If the competition is primarily motivated to seek only the best amongst a group of people, as seeen in the case of selecting doctors, then competiton is welcomed, as society benefits by having more qualified doctors. However, if the competition is motivated by self-interests, as seen in the advent of the stock exchange, then competition does not offer much benefits to individuals, as it leads an individual to mistrust their neighbour, and forces one to achieve this goal in any means possible.