To MatthewWard Prep101

[mcatbuster]

Hi Matthew,

 

Thank you for grading my essays.

 

(I made up some of the examples because I couldn't think of one at the time. If I do that, will I lose marks?)

 

1)

Employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace.

 

Describe a specific situation in which an employee should not have the same right to privacy in the workplace as outside it. Discuss what you think determines whether or not employees should have the same right to privacy inside the workplace as they do outside it.

 

One famous politician once said: "The right to privacy is what we have as a Canadian citizen. But sometimes this right is violated at times where we are least suspected.” Under the Bill of Rights, every Canadian has the right to privacy, and unless a written or verbal consent is given, no one can access personal information, such as the bank account or medical history, of an individual. Often times, this right to privacy is strictly enforced in the workplace. For instance, personal information of any Canadian hospital employees is kept confidential.

 

Yet, there are situations where an employee does not have the same right of privacy in the workplace as outside it. For instance, U.S. government can access personal information of individuals working for government agencies dealing with national security. In this case, U.S. government can, at any time, go through personal files of their agency employees to screen out those who might be a threat to national security. This is necessary because sometimes safety of the majority is more important than the right to privacy of the few.

 

In conclusion, an institution where an individual works distinguishes the two circumstances. In the first example, when the person is working at an institution that does not deal with politically and nationally sensitive material, the privacy of an employee must be respected. Conversely, in the second example, the right to privacy does not have to be strictly enforced in the workplace when the person works at an institution that deals with material concerning national security and safety of the others.

 

2) Receiving a political endorsement can be as harmful as it is helpful.

 

Describe a specific situation in which receiving a political endorsement might not be harmful. Discuss what you think determines when political endorsements are harmful and when they are helpful.

 

 

A famous polician once said: "While some political endorsements can help you win elections, some can actually make you lose." A political endorsement is necessary to run for any government office. This is the case because it is financially difficult for any politician to run for a government position without money from large companies. Supports from wealth businessmen can help politicians hire the best campaign advisers and win elections. Although a political endorsement could be helpful to politicians, it can also be harmful. For instance, with the endorsements received from large companies, Mr. Bush was able to run a successful presidential election. However, because of money that Mr. Bush received from companies, he was often critized for approving policies that only help large businesses.

 

On the other hand, there are situations where a political endorsement might not be harmful but helpful. For instance, Mr. Obmma received more endorsements from ordinary Americans than from large businesses. Since Mr. Obmma received much of his endorsements from the ordinary Americans, he was able to demonstrate that the American people love Mr. Obmma`s policies more than his opponent.

 

In conclusion, who endorses a politician would distinguish the two circumstances. In the first example, the political endorsement can be harmful if large businesses endorse politicians because politicians may need to return the favor once they get elected. Conversely, if the political endorsements are from ordinary citizens, then the politician has no favor to return to large companies and the politicians can also show that they are more popular among the voters than their opponents.

[matthewward_prep101]

Hi MCATBuster – no worries, I’d be happy to give you feedback on the WS.

 

I will provide you with detailed feedback for essay #1 and a score for essay #2. I am sure you can take some of my advice from the first essay and apply it to the second.

 

If you would like to post any comments about Prep101 or our free WS feedback over the summer, please feel free to do so: http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117

 

WS#1

 

Task #1: Your supporting paragraph starts off quite well. I like the quote you opened with and your example of the Bill of Rights demonstrates some complexity of thought. However, the remaining portion of this task reads a bit like an incomplete thought. You have not really explained what the prompt statement means and have not provided any definitions for key words or terms (i.e., what is a right to privacy? What is the “workplace”?). You give a good example of when a “right” in the workplace should not be violated (hospital information), but your reader is left to infer how this supports the prompt. Be explicit with your evidence – link it clearly with support for the prompt (i.e., how you’ve defined it). This is a good start, but the task remains underdeveloped nevertheless.

 

Task #2 – “Yet” is a poor transition that does unify your essay. Instead, try something like, “Although the right to confidential medical records applies both in and out of the workplace, there are many specific examples when….” You do provide some unity in your first sentence, but this could be improved.

 

You do provide a good specific example for when the prompt statement is not true, but in answer to your original question, a real specific example is much better than an artificial/generic one. Ask yourself, what current event does this example of national security remind me of (and elaborate to support your anti-thesis)? For instance, Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bomber) was in the military for 3 years and was discharged due to psychiatric issues – his right to medical privacy from authorities could perhaps have been waived if he was a threat to others or himself (a good determinant for task #3). This was only an idea off the top of my head, but I think you can see that a higher score will likely go to a candidate who can provide a detailed and well thought-out counter example.

 

Task #3 – Your determinant is reasonable and you do a good job linking this to tasks #1 and task #2. This could probably be developed a bit further (including a solid concluding sentence to summarize what you have demonstrated), but overall, you are on the right track.

 

Your syntax, grammar, writing style and essay length is adequate, but would need to be improved substantially for a score of 6.

 

Score: 4/6 (on the cusp of a 3)

 

WS #2 – Score: 3/6

 

Total WS Score: O

 

Hope this feedback helped (although, keep in mind, I am a difficult marker when it comes to the WS - you may have scored higher on the real exam).