Help rate my writing prompts!

[pacemaker]

Hi everyone,

 

I have just started to study for the MCAT and made my first attempt on the writing section. I am posting it here and would really appreciate some feedback and comments on how it is so far and what can I do to improve.

 

No matter how oppressive a government, violent revolution is never justified.

 

Government refers to a body which holds significant amounts of power and authority. A government is one that comprises of individuals and various parties upon whom the citizens of a given nation have bestowed power and authority to exercise further control as well as ensure laws and regulations on their behalves. Thus, when dealing with several different social situations, whether it being a terrorist attack, an angry protesting mob or crowd, a threat from a neighbouring nation leading to a potential for war, an economic recession and much more, the government must make decisions on the behalf of the public of that nation and such decisions must reflect the best interests of the masses in that nation.

 

There are several different situations in which a governing body may need to use oppression. For example, government officials may be required to use oppression to control an angry protesting mob. At the same time, a violent revolution is never justified. A government is a reflection of the general public and in most democratic nations, it is one that the individuals of that nation have voted for. The government has been put into place to help ensure that the rights and safety of all individuals are protected and they are also given the power to make any required decisions in the case of a threat to any citizen of its nation. Thus, if the government is one who has been put in charge of protecting its citizen from harm caused by any other fellow citizen or by individuals of other nations, it is not justifiable for the government itself to use violent revolutions in attempts to bring about oppressive controls.

 

On the other hand, when it comes to the ethical and moral concerns in regards to the actions of any particular individual or the government itself, there are always certain exceptions under which the actions can be justified. There are certain situations under which a violent revolution by the government may be justified. Thus, it may be justified for a government (or an official of the government) to make use of violent revolutions if there are no other means that may be able to control the situation being faced. In a case where a criminal fails to surrender and poses great levels of threat to the officers and the public in the surroundings, it may be justified for those officers to use violence and brute force to bring the criminal under control and further progress to an arrest. However, if there is a similar situation with a criminal but that individual does not pose a threat to himself/herself, the officers involved and the public and that individual is willing to surrender himself/herself to the law enforcement officers, then the use of violence and brute force cannot be further justified. In fact, under the rules and regulations that must be followed by all law enforcement officers, it clearly states that the officer is allowed to use force only when absolutely necessary and the amount of that force may not exceed the amount required to bring the situation under control. Thus, the officer may only use the amount of violent force necessary to counter the actions of the criminal involved.

 

At last, it is not morally or ethically justifiable for the government to make use of violent revolutions even if it wishes to be oppressive in nature. In fact, just by thinking in regards of the sheer nature of the government, the reason for its creation and the duties that is required to perform, it is counterintuitive for such a government to engage in action similar to those of violent revolutions. However, it is also important to acknowledge the presence of certain situations and criteria where such violent revolutions are absolutely necessary. The most crucial aspect is that the government has the power and authority to engage in various different forms of actions but there is always a limit on that use of power and authority. Even though the government is highly trusted by the public and as citizens of a nation, we all expect the government of our nation to help ensure our safety and well being, we also have certain implicit cognitive expectations in regards to the extent to which the government must make use of the power and authority that has been bestowed upon it by the masses.

 

I will do some more and post them here after I hear back from a few people.

 

Thanks!

[simpy]

Pacemaker,

 

Generally I think the essay is pretty well done. Your writing is good (I am assuming you did this in the half hour time limit which explains some awkward wording and overuse of certain phrasing such as "thus," etc.).

 

However, there is a problem with one of your tasks. Presumably, you were supposed to argue for when a violent revolution is justified, yet you don't do this. You talk about when a government can "make use of violent revolutions," and this may be true, but I'm not sure that's what the prompt is asking. Probably it wants you to focus more on when a violent revolution from the people is justified - for instance in a situation like Libya where there has been an oppressive dictator for the last 40 years who would not give up power under any circumstance other than violent revolution.

 

In the concluding paragraph too you normally want to resolve the discrepancy posed by the prompt - again, without seeing the exact prompt I am not sure if you did this.

 

You should be very careful in making sure you focus on the nature of the task you are assigned. Failing to do this on an essay will result in a maximum score of 3 out of 6 which drops you down quickly.

 

Lastly, you use hypothetical examples - these are ok, but it is far better to use real-life examples. There are a multitude of examples of oppressive governments and violent revolutions - think of the French revolution, the American revolution, revolutions in Russia and China; current events in the Middle East...

[pacemaker]

Thanks Simpy! Your comments have been really helpful, I will keep in those in mind as I continue to do more practice and will be posting more here for comments.

 

Yeah, I did this in 30 minutes timed pace. Actually, I am really worried about coming up with examples (esp. real life examples) for the writing section because I am not too familiar with historical examples and stuff like that.

[simpy]

Thanks Simpy! Your comments have been really helpful, I will keep in those in mind as I continue to do more practice and will be posting more here for comments.

 

Yeah, I did this in 30 minutes timed pace. Actually, I am really worried about coming up with examples (esp. real life examples) for the writing section because I am not too familiar with historical examples and stuff like that.

 

One thing you should really be doing in preparing for the MCAT is reading the news every once in awhile. If you skim the main stories of CNN, the BBC and Al-Jazeera every couple days for a month or two you should have a whole bunch of examples to talk about.

 

You don't need to know examples in any great detail. You only have time for 2 or 3 sentences about it - and chances are the human reading your prompt doesn't know a ton about it either. So don't be intimidated to just put general details about what you know (just be sure your general details are correct).

 

For instance you could say something about how the American revolution was justified - you could talk about how the british government could not properly represent the colonies given the distance involved; and about how their unwillingness to give more autonomy to the colonists made it impossible for any other alternative to be sought.

[matthewward_prep101]

Hi Pacemaker – Matt Ward writing, the director of MCAT Course Development for Prep101. We are going to be starting up our free WS feedback corner again quite soon on PreMed101, but for now, I thought I’d provide you some of my own feedback.

 

Please don’t take any offense to what I write below. All our instructors are brutally honest with our students when we grade and provide feedback on WS’s (we don’t believe in “sugar coating,” only in helping to push our students forward).

 

As I mention below, I can certainly see major potential for you to score quite high on the WS, but as this essay stands right now, you could expect no more than a score of 2/6. Please see my comments below and send me an e-mail if you have any questions.

 

Good luck with your studies this summer!

 

Task #1 – Good opening, although the first sentence could capture the reader’s interest a bit more. It is great that you have defined the term government, but what about an oppressive government? You also talk about an oppressive government being one that is democratically elected – this is a big jump especially as this assumption was not made clear in your opening paragraph.

 

I also find that you take a very roundabout approach to explaining what the prompt statement means. You start by highlighting the different situations where a government body may need to use oppression, and then you purport that citizens have no justification to violently revolt. I understand your argument that this is only true if the government is democratically elected, but this rather large assumption needs to be addressed immediately in the first paragraph.

 

Finally, you conclude task #1 by saying that it is not justifiable for the government itself to use violent revolutions to bring about oppressive controls. Two major issues with this 1) it does not reflect the prompt statement (demonstrating a lack of understanding for what the prompt is stating) and 2) it detracts from overall unity within the essay – often the key factor which makes the difference between a score of 4, 5 or 6.

 

Your syntax and style is quite strong – this bolds well for your potential to score high on the WS.

 

Task #2 – “on the other hand” is a poor transition sentence – detracts from overall unity. Again, you discuss violent revolution by the government which is opposite to what the prompt statement declares (no matter how oppressive a government, violent revolution is never justified….[by the citizens]). Your task does describe specific counter situations, but they are hypothetical and weak at best. I think you may have really misunderstood what the prompt originally stated.

 

A much better approach would have been to use the specific examples of Egypt or Libya, demonstrating that government oppression can reach such heights whereby violent revolution is the only option available to the citizens. To show greater originality in thought, you could have used the example of the Kurds in Iraq during the 1990’s, or maybe even the IRA in Ireland during the 1970’s – anything that will give you an edge for complexity and originality of thought will score you high points.

 

Task #3 – You generated no clear dichotomy throughout your essay and therefore proposing a clear resolution at this point is virtually impossible. This is reflected by the tangential wording of your paragraph, which really gives no clear determinant, nor links a determinant to the examples given in task #1 and task #2.

 

At most, you would score a 2/6 on this essay because you do not actually accomplish all three tasks. The plus side is that you are quite well written and I can tell you have the potential to do very well on the WS – it is just a matter of learning that actual structure and requirements of the WS which will help to bring your score up substantially.

 

I hope this helps.

[pacemaker]

Thanks Matt for taking the time to rate my writing sample. I really appreciate the help and honest comments. I just started my MCAT preparation today and just attempted that first writing prompt.

 

I kept all of the comments I have received so far in mind and did another one. I am posting it here and would love to hear back about it.....just to see if I kind of have the idea now and what other things I can keep in mind. I will be doing a couple of them/day for the next few weeks as I continue with my studying.

 

 

Positive social change requires a great leader.

Describe a specific situation in which positive social change might not require a great leader. Discuss what you think determines whether or not positive social change requires a great leader.

 

A great leader is one who is efficient at making decisions and guiding others towards a positive path. As such, outcomes greatly depend on the qualities and abilities of the leader. Positive social change refers to the growth and development of a community which could be either at a local, provincial, national or international scale. This form of change is likely to affect the lives of a large group of people. In order to accomplish social change, an individual or a group of individuals with leadership qualities may be required to take on the position of authoritative power and to make decisions on the behalf of others.

 

In the late 1940’s, citizens of India experienced a positive social change when they were granted freedom and independence from the British Empire. A large component of this social change was driven by the non-violent efforts of various groups of individuals led my Mahatma Gandhi. It was his great qualities and abilities to lead as well as direct the masses against oppression. Alternatively, it is possible for positive social change to take place in the absence of a great leader. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, women began to gain more power and rights which allowed for them to be able to vote and work outside of their homes. This form of revolution was not directed by a particular individual or a group of individuals acting as a leader, rather it was due to changing social attitudes, the industrial revolution which led to an increase in the number of jobs available and inflation which resulted in financial need to provide for the family. As a result, women have accomplished great success and have experienced a large change from primarily being responsible for household and child care duties in the past to now being employed in various different fields of work (especially in most developed nations and in some developing nations).

 

Finally, it is clear that social change tends to have an impact on the lives of a large number of individuals. Positive social change can be accomplished with the guidance and direction of a great leader or it may take place due to other factors such as social attitudes, technological advances, globalization or the economy. Therefore, a positive social change can take place either with or without a great leader and this is highly dependent on the situation at hand, the degree or magnitude of the change, other social factors and whether the change is to be accomplished against a socially constructed ideology or a body of power.

 

Thanks!

[simpy]

Hey pacemaker,

 

I'll provide some more thoughts later (just working right now), but generally speaking you should try to work with the structure of your essays.

 

You want a first paragraph where you outline where you're going, providing relevant definitions as necessary. The first paragraph of your second essay does a fairly good job of this.

 

Your second paragraph should be a discussion of when the prompt is correct. In this case, you should have a paragraph dedicated to how positive social change requires a great leader. You have an excellent example with Gandhi but it stands alone without introduction or analysis.

 

Your third paragraph should be a discussion of when the prompt is not correct (or whatever the task entails). Again, it should have an introductory sentence introducing your idea for when the prompt is not true. Then you should provide evidence, and analyze this in context.

 

Your last paragraph then ties everything together. It explains when a prompt is correct or when it isn't. For instance the synthesis of your prompt might be something like "A great leader is required for social change when a catalyst is necessary. This often occurs in the face of injustice, such as..." and "A great leader is not required for social change when the change is a result of another process." etc.

 

You really need to get this formula down. You still don't quite have it with your essay above - so although your writing is good and your examples are far better, you still likely wouldn't score very high with it. Also, your essay is a little too short. This is particularly evident in your second paragraph (which, as mentioned above, should be expanded into two paragraphs with more "meat")