Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback (summer 2011)

[andyprep101]

Dear PreMed101 members:

 

Hope your studies are going well.

 

We’re getting started a bit later this summer but it’s time to revive our Free Writing Sample Feedback service.

 

Starting today, Anita – a McMaster medical student – will post an essay question (“prompt’) every few days. We hope to entice more Prep101 instructors to get involved soon and continue this free service until mid-August.

 

As a PreMed101 member, you can post your essays responding to the prompts and our instructors will give you constructive feedback, a score based on the AAMC grading criteria, and tips/strategies to improve your essay-writing technique.

 

Please reply on the thread and not as a private message, as this is meant to help all students.

 

There’s no catch. It’s plain and simple free tutoring.

 

And if you’re a fan of free stuff (who isn’t?), check out:

 

http://portal.prep101.com/Forum/yaf_topics7_Writing-Sample-Summer-2011.aspx

 

http://www.prep101.com/mcat/free-mcat-study-aids/

 

If you have any suggestions how to improve this service - or other ways Prep101 can help the PreMed101 community - please let me know as we're always looking for new ways to make a positive contribution.

 

All the best,

 

Andy

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

Andy Romano

Executive Director

Prep101

andy@prep101.com

prep101@gmail.com

 

P.S. Many thanks to the PreMed101 moderators for approving this pro bono service.

[Sebriz]

Woo hoo! Thanks for coming again guys! Your help was very useful for me last year when I wrote my first MCAT and I will be writing again in 2.5 weeks.. but not because of the writing section!!

[andyprep101]

Dear PreMed101 Students:

 

Below is a summary of our simple 3-paragraph essay-writing method for the Writing Sample.

 

The first paragraph is the supporting paragraph where you develop an argument that agrees with the statement in the prompt. Include ONE strong example and explain its relevance.

 

The second paragraph is the refuting paragraph where you develop an argument that disagrees with the statement in the prompt. Include ONE strong example and explain its relevance.

 

The third paragraph is the resolution paragraph where you identify a resolution principle that defines when the statement is valid and when it is not valid. Apply this resolution principle to your examples in the supporting paragraph and refuting paragraph and explain why it works.

 

This 3-paragraph method is easy to remember and can be used for every MCAT essay you write.

 

 

---------------------------------SAMPLE--------------------------

 

An understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of the present.

 

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 solving a current problem might not require an understanding of the past. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the past should be considered in solving the problems of the present.

 

Task 1 – Supporting Paragraph (Great Depression → Current Recession)

 

During the early years of the Great Depression, U.S. President Roosevelt adhered to the orthodox view that the federal government should maintain a balanced budget and refused to increase spending or cut taxes. In contrast, Keynesian economists argued that the government should run a deficit – i.e., hike spending and cut taxes - during economic downturns to stimulate the ailing economy. They argued that President Roosevelt’s adherence to a balanced budget unnecessarily prolonged the Great Depression. Since then, the Keynesian school of thought has become widely accepted. When the current global recession was triggered by the collapse of the housing bubble and freezing of credit markets, today’s policy-makers had learned from the mistakes of their predecessors and many countries instituted massive stimulus spending packages in order to promote economic recovery.

 

Task 2 – Refuting Paragraph (Synthetic Life)

 

New inventions and innovations are developed and unveiled every day. Recently, there was a biotechnological breakthrough so profound that it stands alone as a landmark historical event. A team of scientists at the Craig Venter Institute have effectively created a new life form. The team engineered an artificial genome and by completely replacing the genome of a bacterium, they created a self-replicating synthetic organism. This raises a number of novel problems that are currently being addressed. For example, there are questions of morality such as whether humans are going too far by creating new life forms. Others fear that synthetic organisms could be engineered as weapons. Presently, ethicists are turning to past theoretical frameworks to help address these issues. However, past schools of philosophy, morality, and ethics have little to say about this unprecedented scientific development. Therefore, an understanding of the past principles of morality and ethics is not required to address these new problems.

 

Task 3 – Resolution Paragraph (Recurring vs. Novel Problems)

 

Whether the past should be considered when solving current problems is contingent on whether the problems in question are recurrent or novel. The boom-and-bust business cycle has produced many recessions over the course of history. Since recessions are a recurring problem, an understanding of past lessons learned from previous recessions may be applied to mitigate current recessions. Conversely, when a team of scientists create synthetic life for the first time, they also create an entirely new set of problems. These ethical and moral problems are completely novel and have no historical precedents. Therefore, an understanding of the past is not necessary for addressing these new issues.

[anitarama]

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.

 

Instructions

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread.

 

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

 

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the Forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

 

Scorer

Anita Ramakrishna is a medical student at McMaster University

 

Deadline

11:59pm Thursday July 28.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Friday July 29.

[mangos]

Lets give this a try!

 

 

It is known that humans are subject to their innert characteristic of curiosity, thus giving rise to the occupation of a researcher. A researcher is one who primary goals are to develop or find something new that may bring benefits to society. Since the beginning of man-kind, it is only through research that as led to the consistent advancement of society to this day. Similarily, only through research nowadays will lead to the advancement of our society. However, as a researcher, strict rules must be abided in order to ensure the safety of all inviduals and the ethics of the research being conducted. As a result, in order of uphold these rules, a researcher is subject to being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined. A great example of this are the researchers involved in the journey to find a cure for AIDS. AIDS is a viral disease that, if contracted, would result in immunodeficiency, and eventually death. The world has never seen this virus before and as a result, provides a huge road block in finding a cure for it. Due to the extreme danger that AIDS possesses, researchers much be thorough in their research about the function and origin of AIDS in order to better understand how it works in hopes of finding a way to counter its effects. In addition, researches must also be painstaking and endure the long hours of research that must be put into their challenge to find a cure. Finally, they must be disciplined in all aspects of their research, especially when trying to find volunteers to test for a possible cure. Strict rules must be adhered to when using a living human being as part of an experiment as the consequences of contracting AIDS are lethal. As can be seen, when research involves lethal consequences, much attention must be spent on adhering to the strict research rules and these can only be upheld if the researcher is thorough, painstaking and disciplined.

 

However, the field of research is vast and filled with many unexpected results. The high variability in research lead to the ability of some researchers, depending on their type of research, to suspend the qualities of thoroughness, being painstaking, and being disciplined, in order to follow a hunch. A hunch is defined as something that cannot be confirmed scientifically, with proof, but is rather something the researcher feels strongly for, similar to a gut feeling, and decides to act on that feeling. A great illustration of a case like this is Galileo when he confirmed the relationship between the sun and the moon and the other various planets of the solar system. During his time, Galileo did not have as advanced technology as we do nowadays. Therefore, he based his understanding of the solar system solely on the limited resources available, such as a weak telescope, and conclusions of other researches during his time. At this time, many challenged his proposal of the solar system as it was based on a hunch and he did not have clear scientific proof to support his theory due to limited technological advancements. However, several years later, when technology finally caught up, it was scientifically proven that Galileo’s hypothesis, based on a hunch, was in fact correct. In this case, Galileo had to suspend the usual characteristics of being a researcher so that he could follow a hunch because his research would not directly affect human life and he had limited resources to allow him to be fully thorough.

 

As can be seen from the above examples, researchers are encouraged to be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined in order to uphold the rules geared at the safety and ethics of a research. However, there are also cases in which a researcher is able to abandon these characteristics and follow a hunch. What determines whether the former or latter should take precedence depends solely on the type of the research and tools available to conduct that research. In the case of researchers in search of a cure for AIDS, they are expected to have the characteristics mentioned above in order to provide and ethical and safe environment to conduct the research. Since AIDS is a lethal virus, and present day technology allows researchers to manipulate the virus and test it on human beings, their research must be conducted by being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined. However, in the case of Galileo and his research for how the solar system worked, it did not directly affect human lives and Galileo only had primitive technology to research space. As a result of his type of research, Galileo was able to abandon the characteristics of being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, to pursue his hunch and predict how the solar system worked. As technology advanced, it was proven that his theory was correct, despite many challenges proposed against his theory during his time.

[Caliver]

Thank you!

 

Research is an integral part of a developed society, as shown in a large proportion it takes in annual government budgets. Through research, people gain new knowledge about a subject and can implement it in their lives. This is shown in many technologies people are now enjoying in various areas. Some of these advancements need to be achieved appropriately with rules and ethics resesarchers must follow. For example, in clinical trials of drugs conducted in hospitals, researchers must submit their proposals to be screened and approved by ethics board to ensure their procedures are thorough and disciplined. As human subjects can easily be adversely affected by these drugs, it is essential for researchers to thoroughly test drugs in pre-clinical settings to ensure dosage, test out efficacy and closely follow up the results before using it on human subjects. Therefore, if research involves and directly affects the health of live subjects, such as humans, researchers must stick to the rules and be thorough.

 

However, there is huge variability in types of research. These various types may employ different ways of conducting research. Economics, for example, does not involve and directly affect the health of its live subjects and does not have pre-models, where the hypothesis can be tested. As such, some revolutionary hypotheses have evolved from hunches. John Nash in 90s suggested equilibrium theory, which was against the main economy theory implemented by Adam Smith. As shown in his biography, he realized the equilibrium theory all of a sudden. As there were no pre-subjects to test his model, he followed through his hunch. Later on, his theory was recognized by other economists and is now widely used for negotiations. Therefore, if the nature of research does not involve live subjects and does not offer pre-models, a researcher may rely on a hunch to devise a revolutionary theory.

 

Whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch depends on the type of research and availability of testing models. Clinical trials involve and directly affect the health of human subjects. Therefore, it is essential for researchers to be thorough and disciplined throughout their pre-clinical experiments to ensure the safety of their subjects. On the other hand, the field of economics does not have live subjects nor does it have testable models. Therefore, to devise a revolutionary theory like John Nash, it may be in researchers' best interest to follow their hunches.

[bored]

Whenever I am doing something out of laziness in the research lab I work at, my supervisor gives me a long lecture on what a research’s virtues are. As a biology student, I have always been thought to be disciplined in my research. I am often told to be systematic and thorough with the way I conduct research in a lab. It is true that all these are virtues of a good researcher. Take Kepler’s associate for example. He spent 25-30 years of his entire life monitoring the stars and recording the motions of these stars in his diaries. He was much disciplined about the work he did. Kepler has said that “his [dead associate] never missed a day in recording the motions of the stars”. It is unfortunate that this not so known researcher died, and a few days later, Kepler used all the notes and observations to come up with Laws to describe the elliptical motions of plants and moons. The dead associate was so systematic, that even after his death, Kepler was able to understand all his notes and use the extensive amount of observations to make equations. The author of those diaries had all the qualities of a good researcher. He was systematic, disciplined and very careful and the observations he made.

 

As I sat there listening to my supervisor’s three hundredth lecture on being disciplined and systematic in a research lab, I thought about the countless amount of discoveries that have occurred on basis of a little hunch. Google, world’s best search engine was produced on a hunch. In the 1980s and 90s, the creators of Google were conduction research for Stanford University. However this research let one of them to think about a search engine that can be used to access anything from the World Wide Web. Thus, while their ‘research’ was going for a couple of years, they also decided to follow this hunch on the side in their extra time. In afew years, it was known to them that they had just created the world’s best search engine. Thus they were able to finish their research on time and were able to benefit the world with the invention of Google.

 

By now, the researcher had stopped his lecture. I quickly bought up a key point in the argument. The lab that I work in is a genetics lab. In Genetics research, hunches are also a great way to save time. Often research in genetics takes many years to conclude. Researchers of genetics are often told to “follow your hunch when possible”. This is because following a hunch can often save many years of hard work. If for example a researcher is looking for a very specific protein that causes a reaction, then taking a guess at what the protein could be based on your research is better then systematically going through every protein known to man kind. My supervisor had nothing much to say after I reminded him of this.

 

Though the makers of Google got lucky with their hunch that earned them millions, this is very much a rare outcome for geneticists. How than does a researcher decide when to follow the hunch and when to follow the systematic approach to research? What the creators of Google did was they continued their main research and on their extra time, they would peruse their hunch. This was allowed to them because the research they needed to do to follow their hunch was not very costly. They could do both at the same time and it still would not use up their total grant money. By using a simple cost analysis, the creators of Google were able to accomplish their main task, and they were able to satisfy their hunch. Kepler's associate however, did not have the opportunity to stop his observations because they were very time consuming and they were absolutely necessary in order to come up with the laws of orbital motion. Therefore the main virtue of a researcher is being able to perform cost analysis and make decisions on that analysis. If the hunch can be followed because of extra time and money, than it must be followed because it has the potential to lead to success. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Thanks for commenting on this

question for you: Is it ok that I used two examples for part two? Should I not have included that example?

another qusetion for you: Is it bad that I forgot "kepler's associate's" name..? How could I handle a situation like that?

 

Thanks once again,

[Grey's Anatomy]

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.

 

 

Research plays a significant role in the scientific field for the discovery of truth and ways in which we can confront some of society's biggest challenges. Researchers must often be thorough and methodical when testing their hypotheses. Researchers and scientists generally require a basis on which they propose hypotheses, particularly when human lives are at stake. For example, when experimenting with drugs to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic, researchers must follow strict guidelines and scruples to minimize the risk endured by humans. An innovative idea in the field of research and science may be ground-breaking but scientists must have some empirical evidence on which to base their hypotheses. This stems from the absolute necessity to protect and value human lives, rather than to treat them as guinea pigs.

 

Conversely, although researchers must be thorough and scrupulous, there are certain circumstances in which they may justifiably pursue a hunch. Particularly, the testing of hypotheses on experimental models without endangering the lives of humans may justifiably be carried out based on a hunch or instinct. For instance, microbiologists are often interested in understanding how certain strains of bacteria react to antibiotics in order to assess their efficacy on treating bacterial infections. A well-known example is the testing of penicillin to asssess its effectiveness against serious illnesses such as syphilis and infections caused by streptococci. In this context, a researcher would be justified in following a hunch in hopes of making scientific progress and expanding our understanding, without harming humans.

 

In conclusion, it is important to consider under which conditions should researchers be thorough and disciplined, and when they are justified in pursuing their hunch. Since the human life holds significant value, researchers must follow precise guidelines and principles when human experimentation is involved. This is evident by the example of testing novel HIV/AIDS treatments on humans only on the basis of previous evidence from experiments conducted on models. On the other hand, researchers are not necessarily limited by the same restrictions when experimentation cannot cause any harm to humans. This is exemplified in the study of antiobiotics against bacteria. Thus, researchers must be thorough, painstaking and disciplined when conducting in vivo experiments on humans, whereas they may resonably follow a hunch when intending to enhance our understanding and knowledge through in vitro experimentation.

 

Thank you for your help!

[ShootingStar]

Ah totally did not read the instructions... sorry!

[anitarama]

Score: 3/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): First, you need to define all relevant terms from the statement made. You briefly defined "researchers" but other important terms, such as "hunch" have not been given definitions. This would have added to the overall strength of your essay. I also feel that the AIDS researcher example could have been stronger, or that your argument about "living human" contact could have been made earlier to strengthen the point being made. Sometimes less is more if you can get directly to the crux of your argument.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Here you have given the definition of a hunch, which should have been in the Supporting Paragraph. Try to keep your definitions together in the first paragraph so that you have set a good outline for your examples. Your example given was good and explained well.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): You seemed to be tackling the difference between lethal vs. non-lethal as well as the technological availability in this last paragraph, which is fine, but if you are going to do so you should explicitly state both criteria for your resolution at the beginning of the paragraph to make it stronger.

 

Miscellaneous: The flow of your essay was hard to follow at times. Do not use run-on phrases or long words simply because you feel they will make your essay sound better when they may in fact stunt the natural flow. Give yourself a few minutes to proofread at the end of the allotted time.

 

Lets give this a try!

 

 

It is known that humans are subject to their innert characteristic of curiosity, thus giving rise to the occupation of a researcher. A researcher is one who primary goals are to develop or find something new that may bring benefits to society. Since the beginning of man-kind, it is only through research that as led to the consistent advancement of society to this day. Similarily, only through research nowadays will lead to the advancement of our society. However, as a researcher, strict rules must be abided in order to ensure the safety of all inviduals and the ethics of the research being conducted. As a result, in order of uphold these rules, a researcher is subject to being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined. A great example of this are the researchers involved in the journey to find a cure for AIDS. AIDS is a viral disease that, if contracted, would result in immunodeficiency, and eventually death. The world has never seen this virus before and as a result, provides a huge road block in finding a cure for it. Due to the extreme danger that AIDS possesses, researchers much be thorough in their research about the function and origin of AIDS in order to better understand how it works in hopes of finding a way to counter its effects. In addition, researches must also be painstaking and endure the long hours of research that must be put into their challenge to find a cure. Finally, they must be disciplined in all aspects of their research, especially when trying to find volunteers to test for a possible cure. Strict rules must be adhered to when using a living human being as part of an experiment as the consequences of contracting AIDS are lethal. As can be seen, when research involves lethal consequences, much attention must be spent on adhering to the strict research rules and these can only be upheld if the researcher is thorough, painstaking and disciplined.

 

However, the field of research is vast and filled with many unexpected results. The high variability in research lead to the ability of some researchers, depending on their type of research, to suspend the qualities of thoroughness, being painstaking, and being disciplined, in order to follow a hunch. A hunch is defined as something that cannot be confirmed scientifically, with proof, but is rather something the researcher feels strongly for, similar to a gut feeling, and decides to act on that feeling. A great illustration of a case like this is Galileo when he confirmed the relationship between the sun and the moon and the other various planets of the solar system. During his time, Galileo did not have as advanced technology as we do nowadays. Therefore, he based his understanding of the solar system solely on the limited resources available, such as a weak telescope, and conclusions of other researches during his time. At this time, many challenged his proposal of the solar system as it was based on a hunch and he did not have clear scientific proof to support his theory due to limited technological advancements. However, several years later, when technology finally caught up, it was scientifically proven that Galileo’s hypothesis, based on a hunch, was in fact correct. In this case, Galileo had to suspend the usual characteristics of being a researcher so that he could follow a hunch because his research would not directly affect human life and he had limited resources to allow him to be fully thorough.

 

As can be seen from the above examples, researchers are encouraged to be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined in order to uphold the rules geared at the safety and ethics of a research. However, there are also cases in which a researcher is able to abandon these characteristics and follow a hunch. What determines whether the former or latter should take precedence depends solely on the type of the research and tools available to conduct that research. In the case of researchers in search of a cure for AIDS, they are expected to have the characteristics mentioned above in order to provide and ethical and safe environment to conduct the research. Since AIDS is a lethal virus, and present day technology allows researchers to manipulate the virus and test it on human beings, their research must be conducted by being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined. However, in the case of Galileo and his research for how the solar system worked, it did not directly affect human lives and Galileo only had primitive technology to research space. As a result of his type of research, Galileo was able to abandon the characteristics of being thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, to pursue his hunch and predict how the solar system worked. As technology advanced, it was proven that his theory was correct, despite many challenges proposed against his theory during his time.

[anitarama]

Score: 2.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): You have not defined any of the relevant terms from the prompt, which is a crucial task for the Supporting Paragraph. Also, the inclusion of your personal account as a Biology student took away from your Kepler example, as the reader was unsure where your argument was headed.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): This argument is weak, specifically because "hunch" was never defined and not well-explained in the Google example. Try to flesh out your examples more and relate them back directly to the prompt every time. The second example expands on the idea of a hunch, but the anecdotal narration is distracting.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Your resolution is fine, just try to use a more direct method of explanation to reveal it. The quicker you come to the criteria you are going to discuss the easier it is for you to explore it deeper and relate it back to your two examples.

 

Miscellaneous: I feel that the first-person narration detracted from the strength of your essay. Using two examples is fine if you have the time available to you to adequately explain both examples and they are both strong. Not remembering a specific name is fine and happens from time to time. You handled it well.

 

Whenever I am doing something out of laziness in the research lab I work at, my supervisor gives me a long lecture on what a research’s virtues are. As a biology student, I have always been thought to be disciplined in my research. I am often told to be systematic and thorough with the way I conduct research in a lab. It is true that all these are virtues of a good researcher. Take Kepler’s associate for example. He spent 25-30 years of his entire life monitoring the stars and recording the motions of these stars in his diaries. He was much disciplined about the work he did. Kepler has said that “his [dead associate] never missed a day in recording the motions of the stars”. It is unfortunate that this not so known researcher died, and a few days later, Kepler used all the notes and observations to come up with Laws to describe the elliptical motions of plants and moons. The dead associate was so systematic, that even after his death, Kepler was able to understand all his notes and use the extensive amount of observations to make equations. The author of those diaries had all the qualities of a good researcher. He was systematic, disciplined and very careful and the observations he made.

 

As I sat there listening to my supervisor’s three hundredth lecture on being disciplined and systematic in a research lab, I thought about the countless amount of discoveries that have occurred on basis of a little hunch. Google, world’s best search engine was produced on a hunch. In the 1980s and 90s, the creators of Google were conduction research for Stanford University. However this research let one of them to think about a search engine that can be used to access anything from the World Wide Web. Thus, while their ‘research’ was going for a couple of years, they also decided to follow this hunch on the side in their extra time. In afew years, it was known to them that they had just created the world’s best search engine. Thus they were able to finish their research on time and were able to benefit the world with the invention of Google.

 

By now, the researcher had stopped his lecture. I quickly bought up a key point in the argument. The lab that I work in is a genetics lab. In Genetics research, hunches are also a great way to save time. Often research in genetics takes many years to conclude. Researchers of genetics are often told to “follow your hunch when possible”. This is because following a hunch can often save many years of hard work. If for example a researcher is looking for a very specific protein that causes a reaction, then taking a guess at what the protein could be based on your research is better then systematically going through every protein known to man kind. My supervisor had nothing much to say after I reminded him of this.

 

Though the makers of Google got lucky with their hunch that earned them millions, this is very much a rare outcome for geneticists. How than does a researcher decide when to follow the hunch and when to follow the systematic approach to research? What the creators of Google did was they continued their main research and on their extra time, they would peruse their hunch. This was allowed to them because the research they needed to do to follow their hunch was not very costly. They could do both at the same time and it still would not use up their total grant money. By using a simple cost analysis, the creators of Google were able to accomplish their main task, and they were able to satisfy their hunch. Kepler's associate however, did not have the opportunity to stop his observations because they were very time consuming and they were absolutely necessary in order to come up with the laws of orbital motion. Therefore the main virtue of a researcher is being able to perform cost analysis and make decisions on that analysis. If the hunch can be followed because of extra time and money, than it must be followed because it has the potential to lead to success. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Thanks for commenting on this

question for you: Is it ok that I used two examples for part two? Should I not have included that example?

another qusetion for you: Is it bad that I forgot "kepler's associate's" name..? How could I handle a situation like that?

 

Thanks once again,

[anitarama]

Score: 3.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): You jumped right into the example, remember to define important terms as well, as this is one of your tasks. Your example was good.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): The example here does not explore the idea of a "hunch" and how it plays a role in the context of penicillin and infections. Remember that all examples have to directly relate back to the prompt.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Very good resolution, well-explained.

 

Research plays a significant role in the scientific field for the discovery of truth and ways in which we can confront some of society's biggest challenges. Researchers must often be thorough and methodical when testing their hypotheses. Researchers and scientists generally require a basis on which they propose hypotheses' date=' particularly when human lives are at stake. For example, when experimenting with drugs to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic, researchers must follow strict guidelines and scruples to minimize the risk endured by humans. An innovative idea in the field of research and science may be ground-breaking but scientists must have some empirical evidence on which to base their hypotheses. This stems from the absolute necessity to protect and value human lives, rather than to treat them as guinea pigs.

 

Conversely, although researchers must be thorough and scrupulous, there are certain circumstances in which they may justifiably pursue a hunch. Particularly, the testing of hypotheses on experimental models without endangering the lives of humans may justifiably be carried out based on a hunch or instinct. For instance, microbiologists are often interested in understanding how certain strains of bacteria react to antibiotics in order to assess their efficacy on treating bacterial infections. A well-known example is the testing of penicillin to asssess its effectiveness against serious illnesses such as syphilis and infections caused by streptococci. In this context, a researcher would be justified in following a hunch in hopes of making scientific progress and expanding our understanding, without harming humans.

 

In conclusion, it is important to consider under which conditions should researchers be thorough and disciplined, and when they are justified in pursuing their hunch. Since the human life holds significant value, researchers must follow precise guidelines and principles when human experimentation is involved. This is evident by the example of testing novel HIV/AIDS treatments on humans only on the basis of previous evidence from experiments conducted on models. On the other hand, researchers are not necessarily limited by the same restrictions when experimentation cannot cause any harm to humans. This is exemplified in the study of antiobiotics against bacteria. Thus, researchers must be thorough, painstaking and disciplined when conducting in vivo experiments on humans, whereas they may resonably follow a hunch when intending to enhance our understanding and knowledge through in vitro experimentation.

 

Thank you for your help! [/quote']

[Alchemist11]

Here it is, thanks!

 

In order to determine the meaning of the above statement, the keywords "researcher", "disciplined" and "hunch" must be analyzed. A researcher is an individual whose career revolves around discovering new data, trends and patterns in the world around them. Researchers are prevalent in many fields, although the fields of biology and chemistry are quite common. In these cases, the researcher uses the scientific method in order to generate a hypothesis, perform a study, collect and analyze data and draw conclusions. In order to be disciplined, a researcher must adhere to a certain code, whether it be the scientific method or his/her own set of principles. As described in the statement, the qualities allowing the researcher to be successful include the careful observation, discipline and thoroughness. However, in the statement it mentions that sometimes these qualities may not be required if the researcher decides to follow a hunch. If a researcher follows his/her hunch, he/she is not following their original plan. Therefore, the researcher seems to show a lack or suspension of discipline in this regard. Overall, the statement is saying that qualities of a successful researcher should include discipline and thoroughness, but the researcher must have the ability to deviate from the expected plan by following his/her intuition.

 

There are some instances when following a hunch is not only acceptable, but fruitful. For example, in the past, the general consensus on the lifespan of cells was that they all divided indefinitely. At some point, new research determined that this was not true, and most cells, depending on the species and specialization, have a finite number of divisions before they inevitably die. The original research was taken for granted and was likely compromised in some way, and part of their procedure inadvertently immortalized the cells that were being observed. However, the researchers who corrected this may have had a hunch - a feeling that this process may be flawed, and therefore they should look more carefully at the preparation. This would not likely have been a part of the original plan, and yet this lack of strict adherence changed fundamental knowledge about cells. In this example, by deviating from the original research and going on a hunch, the researchers found new information which contradicted old information that was being taken for granted by others in the scientific community.

 

Not every researcher would be successful without being disciplined. In fact, it is likely that most researchers would have the optimal results and success by not deviating from a plan, and instead maintaining discipline, rigour and thoroughness. However, researchers who have been working for a number of years have likely developed a strong intuition. This intuition can help in determining the most fruitful hunches and following up on those specifically. Therefore, individuals who have been researching for a number of years would be more likely to find hunches that led to new information. On the other hand, newer, younger individuals may not yet have that intuition. If these researchers were to go off on hunches, they would be less successful. Thus the criteria for having successful hunches relates to the intuition of the researcher, which is usually contingent on the length of time that they have been researching.

[Tangy]

Thank you so much for your help! Much appreciated!

 

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.

 

 

Science is a growing field with many academic scientists today researchering cures for various diseases, including Cancer. It is commonly known that research is a challenging field, one that requires the scientist to be determined, enthusiastic about the topic, and practically capable. This is because of the sensitivity of the work in research. For example, in science labs, students usually work with very small amounts of samples, usually microlitres. In fact, the samples themselves must be used wisely to prevent wasting precious mater. Thus, students must be very diligent about the work they perform and made sure they studied the experiment well before performing it. It is quite easy to contaminate the samples as well, and this is also an added caution. The student must take this into account and work to prevent such contaminations from happening. Otherwise, the data will prove meaningless. Furthermore, before commencing experiments, it is expected of the student to read literature articles on the field, particularly the topic of the lab, and develop a conforming hypothesis. In other words, the hypothesis has to follow up with previous proven research and seem plausible. Once this is established, the student can begin their experiments. As a result, it is expected for prospective research students to be thorough, disciplined and painstaking while taking on a research project.

 

However, sometimes the research field itself might be young. In this case, there are not a lot of background literature on the topic. Thus, the student may not have a solid foundation to form a conforming hypothesis. Instead, it is usually the case that the researcher follows a hunch - an educated guess based on intuition. Since there are noliterature on the topic or perhaps few, it is reasonable to expect a researcher to test their hunch. This is exemplified by Edward Jenner who discovered a vaccination against smallpox in the eighteenth century. In that era, there were trails on prisoners to test vaccines against smallpox, but they were not promising. Edward Jenner, with little background foundation on the field of vaccination, observed that milkmaids with cowpox virus did not catch the smallpox. Thus, he made a hunch that inoculating a person with cowpox would prevent them from getting the smallpox. Edward tested his hunch by inoculating a young boy with the pus of a milkmaid's blisters. Fortunately, this proved to vaccinate the boy against smallpox. Evidently, not only was it reasonable for Edward to have followed his hunch, but it proved succesful.

 

As a result, whether it is better for a researcher to follow a hunch or not depends on the background literature on the field of science. If there are many literature articles with proven results, then it is often expected for a researcher to develop a hypothesis that takes into account previous findings. However, if there is little or no background material on the topic, then there is only so much for a researcher to take into account. Instead, if an academic scientist has a hunch, then it is better for them to follow it.

[amalwa12]

Thank you so much for this wonderful free service and your time!!

 

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.

Human society has been able to progress to where we are today thanks to the persistent efforts of researchers over the centuries. A researcher has the task of innovating and unearthing new knowledge in order for the advancement of society at large, in arenas of academia, industry, government and more. Research is often a lengthy process wherein neglecting the smallest of details could lead to erroneous results. Therefore, a researcher must most often be thorough and disciplined in conducting his or her research, that is, he or she must plan out their research, make detailed observations of any progress, take the necessary amount of time required for their particular research and be sequential in their approach to their experiments. This is contrary to following a hunch, which entails acting on impulse and straying from the original plan. Gregor Mendel, who is known as the “father of modern genetics” in the scientific community can be used as an example of a researcher who had the former thorough approach to research and has thus made a deep impact in the study of genes. Mendel was interested in seeing the nature of inheritance in plants and did not have a concrete idea of the results he was expecting. Mendel’s painstakingly detailed and sequential analysis of 29,000 pea plants over a period of 7 years shows his commitment to and the completeness of his work, which lead to the discoveries of the Laws of Segregation and Independent Assortment. Mendel’s work demonstrates how being thorough and disciplined can lead to breakthroughs in research.

 

On the other hand, there are times when acting on a hunch may bring more immediate results. Barry Marshall is an example of a researcher who acted on a hunch in order to convince the medical society that bacterial infection, and not stress and spicy foods, was the cause of stomach ulcers. Marshall had been an advocate of bacterial infection causing stomach ulcers all along but despite years of research trying to infect piglets with H. Pylori (the now well-known bacterial source of stomach ulcers), he was unable to get publishable results. So, he acted on impulse and drank a Petri dish of H. pylori in order to see if it would infect him and when it did, he was able to show that stomach ulcers are caused by bacterial infections. In this instance, Marshall did not wait to try his experiment on other animals, or perhaps start a clinical trial. Instead he broke all protocol to follow his hunch that the bacteria would lodge in his stomach and infect him. This act of impulse eventually led him to be awarded with the Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking discovery.

 

What determines whether a researcher must be thorough, painstaking and disciplined versus following a hunch is their own belief in the credibility and outcome of their experiment. In the first scenario presented, Mendel learned about the nature of inheritance as he went along in his research. He did not have a well-formulated, concrete idea of what kind of results he would be met with before he began his experiments. On the other hand, Marshall firmly believed that H. pylori caused stomach ulcers and when unable to convince the medical society through experiments on animals, he chose to act on impulse and used himself as the experimental body. The two cases differ primarily in the goals and attitudes of the researchers – while Mendel’s goal was to study the nature of inheritance without knowing for sure what the end results would be, Marshall’s was to demonstrate an outcome he was already completely sure about.

[Sebriz]

Researchers in all fields use their plethora of knowledge in order to create advancements in things like general science, medicine, technology and engineering. There are various types of knowledge

required for the varieties of research required and different types of people research these ideas for many reasons ranging from persuing a profitable idea or ending disease.There is variety in the types of researchers and areas of research but all researchers have one commonality, they have inquisitive minds. They are very meticulous in their research method and at

the same time are also not afraid to put this meticulousness aside in order to follow through on ideas. It is that very ability to put their painstaking, thorough and disciplined work ethic aside in order to find new inspirations. A lead engineer of the Shell Oil corperation was working on a problem involving underwater pipelines and even with a large team of researchers meticulously thinking away in the lab going over physics formulas and computer based flow models, they could not think of a solution to create an enviromentally friendly pipeline that could withstand the earths

tectonic plates shifting beneath the sea floor. No solutions were in sight until one day the engineer was at a resteraunt with his son and noticed him using a straw with a flexible top to suck the last bit of coke from his glass. This inspired him to design a flexible pipeline system similar to straws. It was the engineers very ability to put away his normal research methods aside and to think outside of the box that designed a solution that solved a complex problem.

 

It can also be said that following hunches may not always lead to solutions and can lead to more problems. In some situations following hunches may lead to an improper diversion of resources and no gain will come of it. Alexander Shuglin is a name that not many people have heard of but many people know of his creation, the drug extacy. Shuglin stumbled on a group of psychoactive compounds and after some further research he refined the drug 3,4-Methelenedioxymethamphatamine or "Extacy". After trials of the drug, Shuglin had a hunch that this compound would be very useful in getting people to open up to councellers and would only bring about good and the feelings of love that this drug creates could help with depression. After the drug was mass produced, shortly after, it was misused by many people and became outlawed and illegal. Shuglins original hunch was wrong and his drug continues to strain the government's resources in order to fight the war on drugs. His hunch did not bring about the good that he expected it to and if he would have kept on his painstaking thinking process he would have realized that this compound had potential for misuse.

 

As we can see, there are situations in which a researcher can put aside their disciplined research method and create good from a hunch, and others in which hunches lead astray. The key factor that ties these two possible outcomes together is the reason they are researching. The Shell researcher was an employee for a corperation and was able to use the resources of the company to do further research on the hunch and see that it was a good idea. On the other hand, Shuglin's idea for the possible uses of his compound resulted in another illegal drug on the streets. Shuglin

was not working for any corperation when he came up with this and if he had a team of researchers working with him that also were thinking painstaking and disciplined they may have realized that there was potential for problems with this compound. A true researcher must then find a balance between their painstaking disciplined thinking and not truely need to put this type of thinking away to follow along through on a hunch. After all, the people that become researchers are inquisitive souls and may find inspiration anwhere wihtout changing their thought process.

[pacemaker]

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.

 

In the modern society, researchers play a major role in various disciplines. A few examples of such disciplines include visual arts, philosophy, english, mathematics, chemistry, biomedical sciences, psychology and biophysics. It is the job of the researcher to further investigate a known theory or concept in order to investigate other ways in which it could be applied to real life. A researcher is also responsible for refining theories and concepts. Thus, a researcher’s discovery can either confirm or refute the theories and concepts in question. Therefore, it is highly important for a researcher to be thorough, painstaking and disciplined in his/her work. More specifically, the researcher should follow ethical standards, take great care within a research setting and be truthful of the findings, regardless of whether they support or refute the researchers’ own hypothesis. However, at times, the researcher should also be willing to suspend these qualities and follow a hunch.

 

In the field of science, where researchers are working with living organisms, it is highly important for them to be thorough, painstaking and disciplined in their work. For example, if a researcher is working with humans within a clinical setting, the subjects’ health and well being is in the hands of the researcher. As such, it is crucial for the researcher to be thorough as well as disciplined in the work they do. A specific example where a researcher was not thorough and disciplined while working with human subjects within a clinical setting is that of Dr. Hwang, in Korea. Dr. Hwang conducted research in the field of reproductive sciences however, he violated ethical standards by paying females from his laboratory as well as the general public to donate eggs. Subpar techniques and standards were used to extract the eggs. Furthermore, due to his hunch to become famous, he also fabricated the results of his finding in order to gain greater funding and fame as a researcher. Thus, his actions greatly misled the scientific community and the general public. Therefore, when a researcher is working with human subjects or other living being, the subjects’ health and well being is in the hand of the researcher. At the same time, the scientific community as well as the general public holds great hopes for the outcomes of such research. As such, a researcher should be very thorough in his/her work and should always attempt to follow ethical standards.

 

On the other hand, it is not always necessary for a researcher to be thorough, painstaking and disciplined. If a researcher is dealing with non living things as part of his/her research and is attempting to test a given theory, concept or idea, it is acceptable for him/her to suspend the above listed qualities. For example, a researcher from Queens University, Kingston, Ontario conducts research in the field of robotics. He is trying to test some new ideas and a new program that he has recently written. Under these circumstances, it is okay for the researcher to not be thorough, painstaking and disciplined but rather follow his hunch that the new program and idea may lead to some interesting findings. He is not placing ones’ health and well being at stake under such a research program. It is also okay for this researcher to suspend such qualities in order to follow a hunch as it may even yield greater benefits in terms of new discoveries and findings if the researcher follows a hunch, without any compromise to other living beings.

 

In conclusion, researchers play a major role in modern society. Humankind has been able to make great progress in numerous disciplines due to the great discoveries researchers have been able to make. Moreover, research findings as a whole tend to benefit humankind as a whole. Due to the nature of the work of a researcher, it is important for him/her to be thorough, painstaking and disciplined. At the same time, in certain situations, it may be better for the researcher to suspend these qualities and follow others. More specifically, a researcher should be thorough, painstaking and disciplined when he/she is dealing with animals or human subjects since the health and well being of these living organisms lies in the hands of the researcher. As such, great care needs to be taken when conducting research with living organisms and ethical standards should be followed. This was clearly illustrated by the example of Dr. Hwang and his research in the area of reproductive sciences with female subjects. When great care was not taken and ethical standards were violated, great harm was done to the subjects as well as to others in the scientific community as well as to others in the general public. However, these qualities can be suspended in order to follow a hunch if the researcher is working with materialistic things (i.e. not living beings) and theories/concepts. This was illustrated by the example of the researcher at Queens University, conducting research in the area of robotics. In this case, the researcher was investigating new ideas and programs while dealing with non living matter as part of his research. Thus, it is acceptable for a researcher in such a situation to suspend the qualities such as being thorough, painstaking and disciplined in order to follow a hunch.

 

Thanks!!

[anitarama]

Score: 3.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Remember to define relevant terms. Also, if this is the example you are using to display when researchers use a hunch, you must clearly relate the example back to the prompt. Explain why a finding a relationship pattern between beak sizes was a leap of faith.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): This was a good example and well-explained, though it may have been strengthened if you had written about a specific drug trial, if possible.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Well-explained resolution and a link back to both examples.

 

Through the process of scientific inquiry, researchers have helped to us to gain a better understanding of our world and improved our quality of life. However, this progress not an easy feat and often requires years of dedication and diligence before results can prove of significance. There are certain guidelines in research that all investigators must follow in that they should be disciplined and precise in methods of hypothesis testing, data collection, and analysis. Yet sometimes researchers must step aside from the traditional realm of inquiry and follow their instincts. For example, Charles Darwin, while visiting the Galapolous Islands, developed a notion about possible relationships between the beak sizes of different niches of Finch birds. Darwin then collected the bird specimens and brought them back to England for analysis. By following his speculations, Darwin was able to pioneer the theory of evolution.

 

In some areas of research, it may be necessary to be disciplined rather than take risks. In clinical research and testing of drugs in clinical trials, following a strict protocol is vital to achieving valid results of the effects of the novel treatment. Researchers must ensure that precise dosage of the drug is given to the patient and also take thorough note of the drug response and side effects. Any deviation from trial guidelines can compromise the health and safety of the participants. Inaccurate recording of the effects can also produce false results that can lead to patient harm if the drug is released to the market. Thus, in clinical research of drug trials, researchers cannot risk to deviate from the protocol and must follow strict guidelines.

 

With the variety of fields of research in society, there are different approaches that investigators can take to find their results. Whether or not researchers should follow a hunch over disciplined methods depends on whether or not there is a risk to human life involved. If there is no compromise to human life, such as with Darwin's research of the Finches, this is acceptable and Darwin's speculations contributed to his success with the theory of evolution. If there is a chance that human life can be harmed, such as in clinical drug trials, strict protocols must be followed to ensure the safety of the participants. Ultimately, research aims to better our lives. However, no matter how grand the discovery, it should not be worth the risk if innocent live are carelessly harmed in the process.

 

 

 

Thanks so much!

[anitarama]

Score: 3.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Remember to define relevant terms in the first paragraph to strengthen the examples you use and how they directly relate to the prompt. The example is good, though if you had mentioned a specific drug clinical trial it would have been even stronger.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Very good example, but a further exploration about why it was a hunch rather than a calculated conclusion would have made it easier for the reader to understand how this reflects the prompt whether or not they have prior knowledge about the equilibrium theory.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Good resolution, well-explained. You have related both examples back to the prompt.

 

Research is an integral part of a developed society, as shown in a large proportion it takes in annual government budgets. Through research, people gain new knowledge about a subject and can implement it in their lives. This is shown in many technologies people are now enjoying in various areas. Some of these advancements need to be achieved appropriately with rules and ethics resesarchers must follow. For example, in clinical trials of drugs conducted in hospitals, researchers must submit their proposals to be screened and approved by ethics board to ensure their procedures are thorough and disciplined. As human subjects can easily be adversely affected by these drugs, it is essential for researchers to thoroughly test drugs in pre-clinical settings to ensure dosage, test out efficacy and closely follow up the results before using it on human subjects. Therefore, if research involves and directly affects the health of live subjects, such as humans, researchers must stick to the rules and be thorough.

 

However, there is huge variability in types of research. These various types may employ different ways of conducting research. Economics, for example, does not involve and directly affect the health of its live subjects and does not have pre-models, where the hypothesis can be tested. As such, some revolutionary hypotheses have evolved from hunches. John Nash in 90s suggested equilibrium theory, which was against the main economy theory implemented by Adam Smith. As shown in his biography, he realized the equilibrium theory all of a sudden. As there were no pre-subjects to test his model, he followed through his hunch. Later on, his theory was recognized by other economists and is now widely used for negotiations. Therefore, if the nature of research does not involve live subjects and does not offer pre-models, a researcher may rely on a hunch to devise a revolutionary theory.

 

Whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch depends on the type of research and availability of testing models. Clinical trials involve and directly affect the health of human subjects. Therefore, it is essential for researchers to be thorough and disciplined throughout their pre-clinical experiments to ensure the safety of their subjects. On the other hand, the field of economics does not have live subjects nor does it have testable models. Therefore, to devise a revolutionary theory like John Nash, it may be in researchers' best interest to follow their hunches.

[anitarama]

Score: 2/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Great job defining all of the terms. You have explained the prompt but you have not introduced an example that represents when the statement is true. That is the main task for you to carry out in the Supporting Paragraph and you will be marked down if you do not complete it.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Here you have explained and explored a specific example relating to how a hunch may benefit researchers. This is what should also be done in the Supporting Paragraph.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): A specific criteria separating researchers who are disciplined from those who employ hunches has been explained, but another important aspect of the Resolution Paragraph is to directly relate back to the two examples used in the previous paragraphs to prove the criteria correct. Since you did not give a specific example in the first paragraph, this was not possible and so this detracts from your final paragraph as well.

 

Miscellaneous: Always be certain that you have completed all tasks, as even an average essay can garner some marks if all the tasks have been adequately fulfilled. If they the main criteria for the essay is not met, it brings your essay down.

 

In order to determine the meaning of the above statement, the keywords "researcher", "disciplined" and "hunch" must be analyzed. A researcher is an individual whose career revolves around discovering new data, trends and patterns in the world around them. Researchers are prevalent in many fields, although the fields of biology and chemistry are quite common. In these cases, the researcher uses the scientific method in order to generate a hypothesis, perform a study, collect and analyze data and draw conclusions. In order to be disciplined, a researcher must adhere to a certain code, whether it be the scientific method or his/her own set of principles. As described in the statement, the qualities allowing the researcher to be successful include the careful observation, discipline and thoroughness. However, in the statement it mentions that sometimes these qualities may not be required if the researcher decides to follow a hunch. If a researcher follows his/her hunch, he/she is not following their original plan. Therefore, the researcher seems to show a lack or suspension of discipline in this regard. Overall, the statement is saying that qualities of a successful researcher should include discipline and thoroughness, but the researcher must have the ability to deviate from the expected plan by following his/her intuition.

 

There are some instances when following a hunch is not only acceptable, but fruitful. For example, in the past, the general consensus on the lifespan of cells was that they all divided indefinitely. At some point, new research determined that this was not true, and most cells, depending on the species and specialization, have a finite number of divisions before they inevitably die. The original research was taken for granted and was likely compromised in some way, and part of their procedure inadvertently immortalized the cells that were being observed. However, the researchers who corrected this may have had a hunch - a feeling that this process may be flawed, and therefore they should look more carefully at the preparation. This would not likely have been a part of the original plan, and yet this lack of strict adherence changed fundamental knowledge about cells. In this example, by deviating from the original research and going on a hunch, the researchers found new information which contradicted old information that was being taken for granted by others in the scientific community.

 

Not every researcher would be successful without being disciplined. In fact, it is likely that most researchers would have the optimal results and success by not deviating from a plan, and instead maintaining discipline, rigour and thoroughness. However, researchers who have been working for a number of years have likely developed a strong intuition. This intuition can help in determining the most fruitful hunches and following up on those specifically. Therefore, individuals who have been researching for a number of years would be more likely to find hunches that led to new information. On the other hand, newer, younger individuals may not yet have that intuition. If these researchers were to go off on hunches, they would be less successful. Thus the criteria for having successful hunches relates to the intuition of the researcher, which is usually contingent on the length of time that they have been researching.

[Kovah]

Thanks!!

 

 

The profession of a researcher requires a careful balance between the virtues of careful discipline and the use of intuition. A researcher can come from a variety of professions and depending on the task, they may spend the majority of their time collect data or they may search for the solutions to specific problems. Researchers ought to make every effort to gather reliable and relevant information by paying close attention to detail, regardless of the proposed hypothesis. The intent of the research is not to prove the hypothesis, but to find the facts. For example, Stats Canada is the major statistical research in Canada. It gathers information in a variety of ways so that the government will have current statisitics from which to base its decisions. It would not be reasonable for Stats Canada to abandon the methods of careful data collection in an effort to follow a hunch because the information is meant to be objective and based on a representative sample of the population. In such a case the researchers should continue to maintain their discipline and forget about their personal bias and suspicions toward the results of the research.

 

However, when a researcher is in search of a solution for a particular problem, it may be more effective to follow a hunch at the sacrifice of some discipline and thoroughness. A mechanic is not normally considered a researcher, but a large part of their responsibility is to search for the solution to a broken vehicle. Likewise, doctors have the duty to their patients to quickly find the nature of a patient’s illness so that treatment may be provided. When my grandfather was experiencing long-term fatigue the doctor had a hunch that there was a problem with his thyroid gland. Instead of advising my grandfather to a specialist, the doctor directly tested for signs of that condition and as a result treatment was given much more quickly. For researchers who are in search of the solution to a specific problem, it can be acceptable to follow a hunch even it is not the most thorough of methods.

 

Depending on the intention of the researcher it may or may not be advisable to abandon painstaking data collection in an effort to follow a hunch. It is best conduct work throughly, disregarding personal suspicions of the results of research, when the researcher is looking for general knowledge such as that found by a survey or a statistical study. On the other hand, when the purpose of research is to find the answer to a specific problem such as the diagnosis of a patient or the cause of a disease, a researcher would benefit from following a hunch. All researchers want to find facts that will be useful and relevant to to the object of their study. Regardless of what is being studied researchers should make every effort to honestly and objectively complete the study by the most efficient and effective means.

[anitarama]

Score: 3/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Remember to define relevant terms from the prompt in your Supporting Paragraph to introduce the reader to the topic and be able to directly relate to your examples. Also, remember to use a specific example to ensure that you have a strong essay.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Here you have used the specific example of Jenner and you have also explained it in detail. It is a very strong Refuting Paragraph, well done!

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Your Resolution Paragraph is an important one, remember to directly refer back to the examples used in the first to paragraphs to prove why your criteria is true for the prompt.

 

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.

 

 

Science is a growing field with many academic scientists today researchering cures for various diseases, including Cancer. It is commonly known that research is a challenging field, one that requires the scientist to be determined, enthusiastic about the topic, and practically capable. This is because of the sensitivity of the work in research. For example, in science labs, students usually work with very small amounts of samples, usually microlitres. In fact, the samples themselves must be used wisely to prevent wasting precious mater. Thus, students must be very diligent about the work they perform and made sure they studied the experiment well before performing it. It is quite easy to contaminate the samples as well, and this is also an added caution. The student must take this into account and work to prevent such contaminations from happening. Otherwise, the data will prove meaningless. Furthermore, before commencing experiments, it is expected of the student to read literature articles on the field, particularly the topic of the lab, and develop a conforming hypothesis. In other words, the hypothesis has to follow up with previous proven research and seem plausible. Once this is established, the student can begin their experiments. As a result, it is expected for prospective research students to be thorough, disciplined and painstaking while taking on a research project.

 

However, sometimes the research field itself might be young. In this case, there are not a lot of background literature on the topic. Thus, the student may not have a solid foundation to form a conforming hypothesis. Instead, it is usually the case that the researcher follows a hunch - an educated guess based on intuition. Since there are noliterature on the topic or perhaps few, it is reasonable to expect a researcher to test their hunch. This is exemplified by Edward Jenner who discovered a vaccination against smallpox in the eighteenth century. In that era, there were trails on prisoners to test vaccines against smallpox, but they were not promising. Edward Jenner, with little background foundation on the field of vaccination, observed that milkmaids with cowpox virus did not catch the smallpox. Thus, he made a hunch that inoculating a person with cowpox would prevent them from getting the smallpox. Edward tested his hunch by inoculating a young boy with the pus of a milkmaid's blisters. Fortunately, this proved to vaccinate the boy against smallpox. Evidently, not only was it reasonable for Edward to have followed his hunch, but it proved succesful.

 

As a result, whether it is better for a researcher to follow a hunch or not depends on the background literature on the field of science. If there are many literature articles with proven results, then it is often expected for a researcher to develop a hypothesis that takes into account previous findings. However, if there is little or no background material on the topic, then there is only so much for a researcher to take into account. Instead, if an academic scientist has a hunch, then it is better for them to follow it.

[anitarama]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): You have defined the terms proficiently. The example of Mendel is a good one and you have explained it in direct relation to the prompt. Well done!

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Once again, you have done an excellent job using a very appropriate example and explaining it clearly in relation to the prompt.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Your criteria could have been stronger, as it is hard to argue how certain or uncertain a historic researcher was in their hypothesis. But overall this is a very well-written essay.

 

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.

Human society has been able to progress to where we are today thanks to the persistent efforts of researchers over the centuries. A researcher has the task of innovating and unearthing new knowledge in order for the advancement of society at large, in arenas of academia, industry, government and more. Research is often a lengthy process wherein neglecting the smallest of details could lead to erroneous results. Therefore, a researcher must most often be thorough and disciplined in conducting his or her research, that is, he or she must plan out their research, make detailed observations of any progress, take the necessary amount of time required for their particular research and be sequential in their approach to their experiments. This is contrary to following a hunch, which entails acting on impulse and straying from the original plan. Gregor Mendel, who is known as the “father of modern genetics” in the scientific community can be used as an example of a researcher who had the former thorough approach to research and has thus made a deep impact in the study of genes. Mendel was interested in seeing the nature of inheritance in plants and did not have a concrete idea of the results he was expecting. Mendel’s painstakingly detailed and sequential analysis of 29,000 pea plants over a period of 7 years shows his commitment to and the completeness of his work, which lead to the discoveries of the Laws of Segregation and Independent Assortment. Mendel’s work demonstrates how being thorough and disciplined can lead to breakthroughs in research.

 

On the other hand, there are times when acting on a hunch may bring more immediate results. Barry Marshall is an example of a researcher who acted on a hunch in order to convince the medical society that bacterial infection, and not stress and spicy foods, was the cause of stomach ulcers. Marshall had been an advocate of bacterial infection causing stomach ulcers all along but despite years of research trying to infect piglets with H. Pylori (the now well-known bacterial source of stomach ulcers), he was unable to get publishable results. So, he acted on impulse and drank a Petri dish of H. pylori in order to see if it would infect him and when it did, he was able to show that stomach ulcers are caused by bacterial infections. In this instance, Marshall did not wait to try his experiment on other animals, or perhaps start a clinical trial. Instead he broke all protocol to follow his hunch that the bacteria would lodge in his stomach and infect him. This act of impulse eventually led him to be awarded with the Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking discovery.

 

What determines whether a researcher must be thorough, painstaking and disciplined versus following a hunch is their own belief in the credibility and outcome of their experiment. In the first scenario presented, Mendel learned about the nature of inheritance as he went along in his research. He did not have a well-formulated, concrete idea of what kind of results he would be met with before he began his experiments. On the other hand, Marshall firmly believed that H. pylori caused stomach ulcers and when unable to convince the medical society through experiments on animals, he chose to act on impulse and used himself as the experimental body. The two cases differ primarily in the goals and attitudes of the researchers – while Mendel’s goal was to study the nature of inheritance without knowing for sure what the end results would be, Marshall’s was to demonstrate an outcome he was already completely sure about.

[anitarama]

Score: 3/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Remember to define all relevant terms from the prompt in your Supporting Paragraph. Defining "hunch" would have allowed you to directly relate it to your example and explain how it fulfilled the prompt.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Instead of coming up with an example where it was not helpful for the researcher to employ a hunch, it may be easier to come up with one example in support of disciplined research and another in support of hunches, rather than a negative argument.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Your criteria was good but could have been even stronger.

 

Miscellaneous: Remember to proofread your work by giving yourself a couple of minutes at the end to do so, it can really improve the overall strength of your essay.

 

Researchers in all fields use their plethora of knowledge in order to create advancements in things like general science, medicine, technology and engineering. There are various types of knowledge

required for the varieties of research required and different types of people research these ideas for many reasons ranging from persuing a profitable idea or ending disease.There is variety in the types of researchers and areas of research but all researchers have one commonality, they have inquisitive minds. They are very meticulous in their research method and at

the same time are also not afraid to put this meticulousness aside in order to follow through on ideas. It is that very ability to put their painstaking, thorough and disciplined work ethic aside in order to find new inspirations. A lead engineer of the Shell Oil corperation was working on a problem involving underwater pipelines and even with a large team of researchers meticulously thinking away in the lab going over physics formulas and computer based flow models, they could not think of a solution to create an enviromentally friendly pipeline that could withstand the earths

tectonic plates shifting beneath the sea floor. No solutions were in sight until one day the engineer was at a resteraunt with his son and noticed him using a straw with a flexible top to suck the last bit of coke from his glass. This inspired him to design a flexible pipeline system similar to straws. It was the engineers very ability to put away his normal research methods aside and to think outside of the box that designed a solution that solved a complex problem.

 

It can also be said that following hunches may not always lead to solutions and can lead to more problems. In some situations following hunches may lead to an improper diversion of resources and no gain will come of it. Alexander Shuglin is a name that not many people have heard of but many people know of his creation, the drug extacy. Shuglin stumbled on a group of psychoactive compounds and after some further research he refined the drug 3,4-Methelenedioxymethamphatamine or "Extacy". After trials of the drug, Shuglin had a hunch that this compound would be very useful in getting people to open up to councellers and would only bring about good and the feelings of love that this drug creates could help with depression. After the drug was mass produced, shortly after, it was misused by many people and became outlawed and illegal. Shuglins original hunch was wrong and his drug continues to strain the government's resources in order to fight the war on drugs. His hunch did not bring about the good that he expected it to and if he would have kept on his painstaking thinking process he would have realized that this compound had potential for misuse.

 

As we can see, there are situations in which a researcher can put aside their disciplined research method and create good from a hunch, and others in which hunches lead astray. The key factor that ties these two possible outcomes together is the reason they are researching. The Shell researcher was an employee for a corperation and was able to use the resources of the company to do further research on the hunch and see that it was a good idea. On the other hand, Shuglin's idea for the possible uses of his compound resulted in another illegal drug on the streets. Shuglin

was not working for any corperation when he came up with this and if he had a team of researchers working with him that also were thinking painstaking and disciplined they may have realized that there was potential for problems with this compound. A true researcher must then find a balance between their painstaking disciplined thinking and not truely need to put this type of thinking away to follow along through on a hunch. After all, the people that become researchers are inquisitive souls and may find inspiration anwhere wihtout changing their thought process.

[anitarama]

Score: 3/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): The line "due to his hunch to become famous" is confusing. How is this an example of a hunch? Would be a better example perhaps if you had defined what a hunch is when defining relevant terms.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): You have taken on the task of defining when a person does not need to be disciplined rather when a researcher should and should not follow a hunch, which actually makes it harder for you to find valid examples. Remember that it is a good idea to make supportive arguments, such as "researchers SHOULD use a hunch, because..." versus an opposing argument such as "researchers SHOULD NOT be disciplined because..." as it will most likely make the essay less complicated and easier for you to write.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Very thorough explanation of your resolution criteria. Well done.

 

Miscellaneous: Remember that it is best to stick to the three-paragraph format. An introductory paragraph isn't always necessary, as markers are trying to find out if you have accomplished the tasks set out to you and though a nice introduction may make your essay stronger this is not always the case. Basically, you might in fact strengthen your essay spending more time tightening up your arguments and developing your examples further.

 

A researcher must be thorough, painstaking, and disciplined, but also willing to suspend these qualities in order to follow a hunch.

 

Describe a specific situation in which it might be better for a researcher to follow a hunch. Discuss what you think determines whether a researcher should be disciplined or follow a hunch.

 

In the modern society, researchers play a major role in various disciplines. A few examples of such disciplines include visual arts, philosophy, english, mathematics, chemistry, biomedical sciences, psychology and biophysics. It is the job of the researcher to further investigate a known theory or concept in order to investigate other ways in which it could be applied to real life. A researcher is also responsible for refining theories and concepts. Thus, a researcher’s discovery can either confirm or refute the theories and concepts in question. Therefore, it is highly important for a researcher to be thorough, painstaking and disciplined in his/her work. More specifically, the researcher should follow ethical standards, take great care within a research setting and be truthful of the findings, regardless of whether they support or refute the researchers’ own hypothesis. However, at times, the researcher should also be willing to suspend these qualities and follow a hunch.

 

In the field of science, where researchers are working with living organisms, it is highly important for them to be thorough, painstaking and disciplined in their work. For example, if a researcher is working with humans within a clinical setting, the subjects’ health and well being is in the hands of the researcher. As such, it is crucial for the researcher to be thorough as well as disciplined in the work they do. A specific example where a researcher was not thorough and disciplined while working with human subjects within a clinical setting is that of Dr. Hwang, in Korea. Dr. Hwang conducted research in the field of reproductive sciences however, he violated ethical standards by paying females from his laboratory as well as the general public to donate eggs. Subpar techniques and standards were used to extract the eggs. Furthermore, due to his hunch to become famous, he also fabricated the results of his finding in order to gain greater funding and fame as a researcher. Thus, his actions greatly misled the scientific community and the general public. Therefore, when a researcher is working with human subjects or other living being, the subjects’ health and well being is in the hand of the researcher. At the same time, the scientific community as well as the general public holds great hopes for the outcomes of such research. As such, a researcher should be very thorough in his/her work and should always attempt to follow ethical standards.

 

On the other hand, it is not always necessary for a researcher to be thorough, painstaking and disciplined. If a researcher is dealing with non living things as part of his/her research and is attempting to test a given theory, concept or idea, it is acceptable for him/her to suspend the above listed qualities. For example, a researcher from Queens University, Kingston, Ontario conducts research in the field of robotics. He is trying to test some new ideas and a new program that he has recently written. Under these circumstances, it is okay for the researcher to not be thorough, painstaking and disciplined but rather follow his hunch that the new program and idea may lead to some interesting findings. He is not placing ones’ health and well being at stake under such a research program. It is also okay for this researcher to suspend such qualities in order to follow a hunch as it may even yield greater benefits in terms of new discoveries and findings if the researcher follows a hunch, without any compromise to other living beings.

 

In conclusion, researchers play a major role in modern society. Humankind has been able to make great progress in numerous disciplines due to the great discoveries researchers have been able to make. Moreover, research findings as a whole tend to benefit humankind as a whole. Due to the nature of the work of a researcher, it is important for him/her to be thorough, painstaking and disciplined. At the same time, in certain situations, it may be better for the researcher to suspend these qualities and follow others. More specifically, a researcher should be thorough, painstaking and disciplined when he/she is dealing with animals or human subjects since the health and well being of these living organisms lies in the hands of the researcher. As such, great care needs to be taken when conducting research with living organisms and ethical standards should be followed. This was clearly illustrated by the example of Dr. Hwang and his research in the area of reproductive sciences with female subjects. When great care was not taken and ethical standards were violated, great harm was done to the subjects as well as to others in the scientific community as well as to others in the general public. However, these qualities can be suspended in order to follow a hunch if the researcher is working with materialistic things (i.e. not living beings) and theories/concepts. This was illustrated by the example of the researcher at Queens University, conducting research in the area of robotics. In this case, the researcher was investigating new ideas and programs while dealing with non living matter as part of his research. Thus, it is acceptable for a researcher in such a situation to suspend the qualities such as being thorough, painstaking and disciplined in order to follow a hunch.