Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback **New Thread**

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 Chronograph

 

The medium word choice of conveying and reaching the general public has evolved from pictography, text, and voice to the current medium which is a merged chimera of all forms. This chimera is better known as the television. The television was invented in the early 20th century, and it was only during the 21st century when most homeownwers had a set of their own in their living rooms. In today's world, news are grammar broadcasted within minutes of occurance and are viewed by millions of viewers live. Such a feat in technology allows the general public to always be briefed about the happenings of their neighborhoods, cities, states, and countries all over the world, which allows vieweres to act accordingly and have an influence in their nation. It takes you too long to get to your example. Some of these facts do not add directly to addressing the writing task. You also do not paraphrase the writing prompt which is important for the introduction. In April of 2012, Judge Moriati from Texas wanted to set word choice an example of a student who has missed six days of school in one month so he decided to sentence the female student to 24 hours in jail with a fine of $100 USD. Despite being an honor student, and financially supporting two siblings with 2 jobs, the judge has tampered grammar her future with a record. It didn't take long for the news to reach the world via television. The world was emotionally torn word choice when her side of the story was revealed, and individuals of various countries donated money and signed a petition in grammar her behalf to have the charge reversed. It only took 2 days before the charges were dropped and over 100,000USD was raised to help the young student with her struggles. It clearly observable grammar the spell of influence the world was under once the news spread virally on their TVs.

This example is good in that it is a real life example. However, it needs to be more directed at illustrating why TV was powerful in this case. Only the last sentence really gets at the core issue. Furthermore, you do not explain why in this case television has more influence on people than books do. You do not even touch on the issue of books.

Before televisions were widely adopted, many have relied on books and other written texts for source grammar of knowledge and awareness. Despite the age of the book era ??, many still rely on books for source of grammar knowledge and inspiration from historical events. The content that is available on TVs only amounts to a fraction of that available in books. When one wants more detail on a subject area, he or she cannot simply flip to a different station hoping for more insight. These points should be discussed within the context of your example to have more impact.When the Royal Society of Science was still in its young developing stage, mainly notarized scientists were capable of publishing their findings due to their exposure to knowledge and financial stability. This sentence is a bit odd in the way the idea is expressed. A book binder who specialized in binding pages together for publishers took the opportunity to read the submitted books before he had to return them. With a growing fascination in the field of lenses, the young book binder developed a microscope which he later submitted to the Royal Society of Science and was given credit for inventing one of the first microscopes.

This example and explanation do not do a good job in addressing the writing task. You don't address the core issue of why in this case books had more influence on people than TV.

 

From the aforementioned examples, it is evident that both mediums of communication and content can influence its audience depending on the subject of the content. When it comes current grammar news in any subject area How about the example of science that you just addressed? , TVs have a greater influence on its viewers as it is frequently covered on many TV stations and can localize the news to its appropriate audience. Books are equally influential when the subject of inquiry requires a greater depth and specialization of the topic.

Issues:

1) There are three different resolution principles here (subject, current news and depth). You want to apply the same resolution principle to both of your examples.

2) The application of your principles is weak here. You do not focus on why in case TV is better and why in other cases, books are better.

3) This discussion is too short to provide a strong and compelling argument.

 

Overall Mark: 2/6 (Corresponds to approximately a L)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 3

[perspectives]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

As hypothesized by Darwin, human beings are genetically programed to behave in ways most beneficial for our own survival. Thus, human actions are the result of an intrinsic desire for self-interests, such as mating, food and survival. Behind most human actions, there is an ideology that it will increase their success in some way. This can be illustrated by business student's behaviors, which are evidently guided for their own benefit. One of the key aspects of business school is networking. Although some business students are naturally introvert or just may not be in a social mood, when placed in a business conference, they all still engage in networking for their own self-interest. They must network in order to gain recognition from others in the industry, and hope to remain noteworthy so that when an opportunity arises, they will be called upon. Networking may not be something they enjoy, yet it is something they do for the benefit of their career, for advancement, and for self-interests.

 

However, there have also been cases of altruism that present examples of human behavior not guided by self-interest. An example of which are ambassadors for Doctors Without Borders. Many individuals, whether doctors, nurses or other volunteers, wholeheartedly and selflessly give their time and skill in order to help those less fortunate than themselves. They do this not out of self-interest as they have little to gain materially from such an experience, but do so primarily out of their compassion and sympathy. A doctor will stand to have much more to gain through working at a cosmopolitan hospital, where technology is advanced and pay is lucrative, but there are still those that choose to provide their expertise without asking for anything in return.

 

Human behavior is not necessarily guided by self-interest, as a person's actions may be contingent on numerous factors. Whether or not human behavior is stemmed from self-interest depends on what is to be gained through your actions. For example, entrepreneurs in business act out of self-interest in order to maximize profits for their ventures. There is much to be gained materially. With more money, they can satisfy their basic physiological needs, as well as other status items to satisfy their own interests. However, according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, there is a level above owning material goods for their own esteem, which is self-actualization and transcendence. When one has the opportunity to reach that highest level, they will feel that it is within their ability to go beyond themselves and to help others. Such as in the case of Martin Luther King Jr. He did things for the benefit of his race, and for equality. He took actions that were detrimental to his own personal safety in order to stand up for a cause he believed in, and for the interests of others. As illustrated, there are many actions that are stemmed from self-interests, but also actions that go beyond oneself.

 

Thanks!

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 waldosa

The popular culture of our times tends to exhibit itself in many ways - with television and books being prominent examples. One notices, however, that television sometimes exerts a greater influence on the general populace than do books of learning or literature. Good. Some of the staple pop culture items in our world today are reality shows on TV, for example. These shows, like "Jersey Shore", serialize the everyday lives of a glamorous group of friends. They are paid to live a lifestyle of excess and exuberance, and people watch this show, perhaps out of a desire to live like them. This desire carried through the medium of television often exhibits itself in real life. For example, Snookie, a prominent character on the show, was paid more than a Nobel Prize winner in Literature to be a speaker at a university convocation in 2011. These occasions are important rites of passages for the students and the fact that they entrust the principal speaker's responsibilities with Snookie over a Nobel laureate in Literature tells us that Jersey Shore, a TV show, has had more influence on them than the many books they came across in their university careers.

This example is interesting. The explanation wasn't as clear as it could be and I had to read the last few lines twice. I think this example is good. A few more supporting points would have made it excellent.

 

This is not always the case, because often books can be of greater influence than TV shows. Good. In a series of interviews called "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out", Richard Feynman said that one of the greatest influences on his life were some calculus and physics books he borrowed from the library when he was still in high school. This was at a young age, when people are more susceptible to watching TV and being influenced by it, than books. This actually undermines your argument. This desire for a knowledge of the world around him continued well into his adulthood and into a career as a famous popularizer of science, as well as one of the greatest physicists the world has seen. The fact that some books influenced this young boy beyond any TV shows of his age shows a prominent example where books had a greater influence on a future scientist than did television.

This example is not that strong. The prompt is much broader in scope than an individual. "Describe a specific situation in which books have more influence on people than television does. You also do not explain why books had a greater influence than TV. "

 

In the same interview previously discussed, Dr. Feynman brought up the importance of a vivid imagination in reading. Books tend to require one to imagine the scenarios in the eye of their mind, and as such requires an imagination more vivid than that which is required by superficial television shows. In TV shows, one needs no imagination to enjoy the presentation, whereas books require the reader to imagine the situations presented on their own. Thus, whether TV or books yield the greater pleasure depends on the vividness of the consumer's imagination. The issue of the prompt is not one of pleasure but of influence. A TV show like Jersey Shore requires little imagination because all the characters and plot points are acted out in front of the viewer, and for someone with a comparatively limited imagination, this may understandably be of great pleasure. However, someone with a more vivid imagination may be able to appreciate not only literature, but the music of the spheres in physics, the spatial concepts of calculus, and the beauty of reading, as the young Richard Feynman did.

You need to present your resolution principle clearly at the beginning of your resolution paragraph. The resolution principle of imagination is interesting but is only weakly explored here. You also get off target in discussing pleasure rather than influence. Pleasure and influence often overlap but they are different ideas.

 

Overall Mark: 2.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a M )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[bpp]

Human Behaviour is guided primarily by self interest

 

Humans have evolved brains which produce behaviour that often considers the self first. We tend to gratify our needs first, and think of ourselves before thinking of others. This can be most apparent when societal controls break down, as is often seen when looting occurs after a natural disaster. These incidents show the extreme of behaviour guided by self interest; there is only concern for what can be gained by that individual, not for the losses that they cause to storeowners. It also suggests that normally they would not do this because of fear of societal repercussions, again motivated by self interest, in this case of wanting to avoid prison.

 

An example of human behaviour that is not guided primarily by self interest is a person who donates an organ during their life. A person may donate to a family member or to a complete stranger. In either case, the behaviour is not primarily motivated by self interest. Although there may be some benefit to the donor, for example a higher social standing, the inherent risks in donating an organ are so large that this behaviour could only be the result of altruism. This, of course, is assuming there is no financial reward for donating the organ.

 

A behaviour is often primarily guided by self interest if it serves some basic need for a person; for example in obtaining food or other resources. An extreme example of behaviour motivated by self interest was given in the looting after a natural disaster case. Someone who does this for material goods only has their interests in mind, but the same idea can be extended to less extreme examples. People need to eat and need a place to live, so they work for money. Behaviours that help other people, such as the organ donor, are not usually guided primarily by self interest.

[in2bat0r]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest

 

“Survival of the fittest” is perhaps a well-suited phrase in explaining most human behavior. In today’s capitalist society the individual often strives for excellence in the pursuit of financial gain, prestige, and power. In some instances, the competitive nature instilled in some individuals results in acts of utmost selfishness, greed, and disparity. For example, in 2010 a 23 year old woman from Burlington, Ontario was found guilty of fraud, after it was found that she had lead the public to believe that she was suffering from terminal cancer. The young woman in question went to the extreme of shaving her head to appear as though she had been through chemotherapy, and then initiated a charity fund known as “Change for a Cure” to raise funds for her own self-interests. It is clear from this woman’s actions that human behavior can in some instances be motivated solely by self-interest.

 

On the other hand, in emergency situations it can be observed that human behavior may not be guided primarily by self-interest. For example, in May of 2012 a Calgary man and his colleague were parked on the side of a major roadway, when a vehicle lost control and came hurdling towards them. The man in question took it upon himself to force his colleague out of the path of the moving vehicle, and in the process of doing so, lost his own life. When the result of a given individual’s behavior results in the death of that individual, it is clear that their behavior is not motivated by self-interest.

 

The balance between altruism and self-interest, as motivational factors for human behavior, is determined in part by the nature of the situation, and the inherent psychological nature of the individual in question. In a life or death situation, human behavior is often motivated by altruism, as many individuals react in such a way as to disregard their personal safety in order to maintain the wellbeing of another. This pattern of behavior is quite prevalent in society, as reflected in the career fields of policing, fire fighting, and paramedicine. In contrast, when the situation is not a matter of life and death per se, then human behavior may be guided primarily by self-interest. In addition, the psychological nature of the individual must be taken into consideration when assessing the degree of self-interest in motivating behavior, as the dynamic nature of human beings demands a continuum on which to assess the actions of an individual. After all, we are not all the same, and thus are not likely to act the same, given a similar situation.

[sharpshooter]

Prompt 25 Sharpshooter

 

It has often been said to “treat others the way you would want to be treated.” However, humans often do not follow this principle. A person’s behavior that is based on self-interest entails acting in ways that benefits himself, while disregarding others' interests. Usually, humans act in ways that is mainly based on their own interests. When my uncle was on a refugee boat, the boat had spontaneously rocked to one side due to strong currents and the bad weather. The spoantanous rocking of the boat to one side caused several people on the deck to fall over board. One of the men was my uncle's friend. My uncle was inside the boat and was informed of the tragic news. He really wanted to go out on deck to help find his friend. However, crew members did not allow my uncle to go on deck and they did not attempt to look for those fell over board because the waves were really strong at that point; the crew did not send out smaller boats to find the people in the water since they did not want to risk their own lives in an attempt to save other people lives. The crew members wanted my uncle and everyone on board to stay in certain parts of the boat to ensure it was balanced and to make sure the whole boat would not tip over. Therefore, the crew members acted in a way that maximized their own safety and ignored the interests of others, which included my uncle'e friend and the others who fell off the boat.

 

However, humans do not always act in ways that stems from selfisness. For example, when my uncle came to Canada as a refugee, he did not have that much money and he wanted to sponsor his relatives from Vietnam. He had no choice but to work a job that paid him less than minium wage since no one would hire my uncle, who did not speak english when he arrived in Canada. As soon as he made enough money to sponsor my relatives, he immediately paid for the sponsorship. At this point, my uncle was living in less than ideal conditions and could have used the money to buy a better house and better food. However, he used his money to sponsor my relatives because he was not selfish and wanted to help my relatives to get away from the war in Vietnam.

 

Therefore, when one's survial or safety is as stake, human behavior is based mainly on self-interest. When one's surival or safety is not at stake, human beavior is not mainly based by self-interest. For example, when my uncle's refugee boat rocked spontaneously to one side, causing people to fall off board, no one went in the water to save them because they did not want to risk their own lives. However, when my uncle came to Canada as a refugee, he used him money to sponsor his relatives to Canada instead of buying better food and shelter for himself because he wanted his relatves in Vietnam to live in better conditions.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 JB.

 

Television encourages viewers to be passive. The latest technology of surround sound, high definition screens and three dimentional viewing, feeds the the disengaged tv "watcher". In contrast to the fast paced mode of television viewing where the viewer is encouraged to take every thought at face value, reading a book is much the same as taking a walk in nature- it requires a keen eye and a discerning mind. Since reading is self-directed, there is always time to re-read a difficult paragraph and time for a reader to pause and collect one's thoughts when considering an opposing viewpoint.

This discussion is off-topic and does not address the supporting task.

 

While television may have more influence on people who rely on it for different forms of instant gratification, books have more influence on people wishing to consider an idea from multiple angles. While a thirty minute television show may dedicate ten to fifteen minutes of time to commercials, books do not have the pressure of these time contstraints. As such, they are often good sources to weigh opposing viewpoints and explore complex ideas that would not be possible to be touched on in a thirty minute televison show.

The discussion here is okay. It is a bit too simple and lacks depth.

 

Education, ability to analyze information and age are often contributing factors in determing the influence television has on its viewer. You should choose one factor for your resolution principle. Having multiple factors makes applying your resolution principle to your supporting and refuting examples more complicated. Education and analysis tend to go hand in hand, as a large part of education is learning techniques to analyze information. The ability to analyze information is also considered part of higher order thinking. People who do not have the capacity to analyze information may tend to gravitate toward simple media that does not encourage analysis of information. Age also plays a role in determining the influence of television. Young children are easily swayed by the things they see and hear. They too have not yet learned how to analyze information. This is often compounded by the fact that they are able to watch and comprehend television, far before they are ever able to comprehend the written word.

You have some ideas that are useful for the resolution paragraph. But the structure is a bit disorganized and the argument needs to be more focused. There is a template for the resolution paragraph that should be followed.

 

I would recommend starting with the basics. Please refer to this link:

http://portal.prep101.com/Forum/yaf_postst58_How-to-write-Writing-Sample-essays.aspx

 

You can also read some of the strong essays that have already been marked in this thread and the last thread that I had.

 

Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is not addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 1.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 kpm

 

Parents often complain that their children watch too much television and do not read enough books. However, television seems to appeal to everyone, not only children, with its fast-paced images and the lack of mental energy required to passively sit and watch a program. With its strong appeal, television has the ability to influence a wide range of viewers in a short amount of time. You need to paraphrase the writing prompt a little bit more closely. For example, anti-smoking campaigns on television have been quite successful in reducing smoking across North America. This is largely because of the repetitive quality of television in that a viewer may see the anti-smoking message up to four times during a one-hour television program. The ability to show gruesome images and heart-felt testimonials from people adversely affected by smoking only adds to the influence of television in this case. Textbooks ?? about the risks associated with smoking reach a much smaller audience and exert much less influence on readers than the anti-smoking campaigns on television. This is because, after reading about the adverse effects of smoking, a reader can easily move onto something else and essentially forget about smoking and its effects.

This is well done.

 

However, sometimes books can have more influence on people than television. For example, textbooks that deal with complicated subjects exert more influence on the reader than a short television program on the subject would exert on the viewer. Not necessarily. One cannot hope to master an in-depth subject such as philosophy or understand complicated physics equations just by watching television. The prompt is concerned with influence not learning or mastery of a subject. These subjects require the active engagement of the reader with the subject matter, rather than the passive viewing of a short program or of a sequence of repetitive messages in campaigns or advertising.

The premise of this argument is questionable. Furthermore, it gets off target. The main element of the writing prompt is about influence not learning or mastering anything. Sometimes television can present a quick program about a complicated issue and it can heavily influence people.

 

Therefore, whether television or books have more influence depends on the type of message that is being communicated to the people. This is vague and ambiguous. When the message is straightforward and requires convincing, as in the anti-smoking campaigns, television may have more influence than books because it has the ability to present a repetitive message and broadcast heart-felt testimonials. This works. On the other hand, when a subject is relatively complicated and requires the ability to refer back to the material in order to effectively influence the reader, books may have more influence than a television program. Maybe you should provide an example of this because as a stand alone idea, it is not very convincing. When is this actually the case? This is because television, with its time constrictions, cannot convey complexities in detail. It may be able to. Some could argue that books cannot convey true realities and complexities like images can. In general, most people are influenced by a combination of both books and television, depending on the subject matter.

Overall, the ideas are not very strong. There are a lot of obvious holes in the arguments.

 

Overall Mark: 2.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a M)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is poorly addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[bored]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.

 

A wise biologist once said that all information undergoes a selection process, where only the most optimum information will survive. This applies to the Genome of an living cell, ideas, and even books. The human body is in the simplest sense, a carrier for the human genome, and the purpose of the human body, according to biologists, is to pass their genes to the next generation. We are no different from even the most primitive animals. Humans will do almost anything for their self interest. Many human beings for example do alturistic behaviour which at first seems not selfish at all, however, upon further investigation, psychologists were able to conclude that even the most alturistic behaviour is done out of selfish thoughts. These alturistic behaviour includes things like donation, adopting, charity work, and even volunteer work. Psychologists have concluded that people who take part in these activities do so because of their own beliefs. over 90% of the people taking part in these activities are religious and believe that doing these activities will help them in the long run. It is this notion of karma that compels people to take part in these actions. In the end this is done so for selfish reasons.

 

Humans on the other hand are somewhat different from primitive animals because of our evolution. Humans, along with certain evolved animals, take part in what is referred to as kin selection. Darwinist describe this as the process of sacrificing one`s self interest, in order for the survival of another. This another is a usually a family member or a loved one. This may at first seem to be completely without selfishness, but it is not. Evolved beings take part in this action for the better survival of their genome. When a family member is often in danger, we will usually try to save this family member from their danger, even at the expense of our survival. We do this because we are able to comprehend that saving a brother will mean that my brothers genes will be passed on, which are also my genes. Passing on of the genes is in the end the ultimate goal of life.

 

We are often compelled to sacrifice ourselves for a kin because this will ensure the survival of the kin, who shares their genome with us. Because brain is able to comprehend the fact that saving a kin will in the end also pass on my gene just as saving my self would, we often take part in this unselfish behaviour which is really selfish. Humans have evolved to the point that we will always think about self but when a kin or a loved one is in danger, we will try to save them at the expense of our survival. Charity work, Volunteering and donations are behaviour that we do to feel better, to put our mind at ease and feel less guilty about the unfair workings of the world. We do these things because we are able to and it helps our mental health. But when a kin or a loved one is in trouble, we will always save them at the expense of our survival. This is the only time when we take part in a seemingly unselfish behaviour, but in the end, this is also related to the passing on of self`s genome.

 

The end,

 

Thanks Raymond

 

I don`t feel good about this one becuase of the grammer, I feel that my grammer seriously needs improvement

[JB.]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

There is a popular saying often quoted on facebook, "We spend money we do not have, to buy things we do not want, to impress people we do not like". Our expression of status and self interest often seems to be expressed through the posession of money and things. Sometimes humans go to great lengths to obtain what they want. The Bernie Madoff scandal comes to mind. Other times, selfish behaviours are not as overt. For example, before taxes are due, many people donate money to charities to recieve tax credits. Although giving to charities is a noble thing to do, this behaviour is motivated by the expected return of tax credits instead of the idea of giving money to a cause for the sole purpose of making the world a better place.

 

However, there are times when human behaviour is decidedly kind and selfless. Examples that come to mind are the large and small random acts of kindness that occured after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Communities opened their homes to the passangers on the grounded flights, school children raised money and many people across the world joined together in an outpouring of love and kindness to all affected on that day. On a smaller scale, selfless kindness is also evident in individuals who stand up to bullies, people who hold doors open and those that choose to volunteer their time to causes they believe in.

 

It can be argued that all human behaviours are guided primarily by self interest. Some behaviours such as the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme are decidedly guided purely by self gratification. When people think they can "get away with it", there will always will be some who try. On the other hand, there are many examples of people who have put themselves in harms way or at least inconvenienced themselves for the benefit of other people. Self gratifying behaviours tend to occur on the small scale- when the individual thinks no one will find out. On a large scale, when the world is watching, humanity tends to work together and is guided by the interest of the group vs. the interest of the individual.

 

Thank you!

[sixstar]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

Human behaviour is a diverse and complex topic of study, as exemplified by the multitude of different academic disciplines, such as psychology and sociology, that work to better understand it. One question that faces researchers in these disciplines is finding out what drives humans to do what they do. It can be argued that human behaviour is guided primarily by self-interest, in that humans act in a way that benefits the individual rather than the group. For instance, it can be argued that in Canada and the United States, the "individualistic culture," in which people primarily work for the benefit of themseleves, is prominent. This can be evident when one considers rising number of individual's paying for elective cosmetic surgery in Canada and the United States. Often times, the purpose of these surgeries is not medical, but rather serves to enhance the individual's perception of their own bodies. Depending on the procedure being performed, the price for these surgeries range from a couple hundred dollars to thousands of dollars, and as such, a considerable amount of money (sometimes more than an individual can afford) is being spent for the sole benefit of oneself. Therefore, the rising number of elective cosmetic surgeries being performed in countries where the individualistic culture is prominent is evidence of human behaviour being driven primarily by self-interest.

 

However, not all human behaviour is guided by self-interest. For instance, Amish communities across North America are often referred to by academics as "collectivistic cultures," where the people belonging to each community primarily work for the benefit of the group, rather than the individual. In these Amish communities, farming serves as one of the main sources of food for the community. However, instead of each family having a farm to grow their own food, the Amish culture encourages a certain division of labour amongst the families in a community, where some families do the farming for the whole community, while other families are assigned other duties for the benefit of the entire community. As such, the Amish farmers are working, not only to feed their families, but to provide food for their entire community, thus behaving in a way that is not guided primarily by self-interest, but rather by the interest of the group.

 

It would seem that whether or not human behaviour is guided primarily by self-interest depends on the culture in which the individual belongs. In individualistic cultures, prominent in countries such as the United States and Canada, people are encouraged to live independently of others and thus, make decisions according to their self-interest. The increasing number of elective cosmetic surgeries being preformed annually in these countries serves as evidence of human behaviour being driven primarily by self-interest, as these procedure serve no benefit to anyone other than the individual on which it is being preformed. However, in the case of the Amish communities, where a collectivistic culture is prominent, the individuals work for the benefit of the entire communtiy, as exemplfied by the Amish farmers working to provide food for everyone in their community, and not just themselves. Therefore, in collectivistic cultures, certain behaviours are not guided by self-interest, but rather guided by what is in the best interest of the group. As such, it would seem that acting in one's self interest is not an inherent human quality, but rather determined more so by the culture in which the individual belongs to.

_______________________________________

 

Thanks! I was just wondering if we should try to spell words according to American conventions? I know in this essay I spelt "behaviour" in the British style and was wondering if that would lose marks on the MCAT.

[sulfamethoxazole]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest

 

 

Most people believe human beings are inherently good. That is, humans are capable of acting selflessly to help others who are in need. In reality though, few people willingly help others unless they are given some incentive to do so. Charities, for example, are often unable to amass donations without some way of giving back to their doners. Events like concerts and marathons (such as the ScotiaBank AIDS Walk hosted in Toronto every year) generate more donations for their causes than any other time of the year. Is this because awareness for the charity peaks during those times? Perhaps, but the more likely reason is that doners prefer to give money only if their self-interests are also served. While donating to a charity at any other time leads to a tax reciept in the mail with a generic thank you letter, attending an awareness event has further (and more enticing) benefits like music, freebies (T-shirts and the like), and being able to celebrate having done a good deed with numerous peers. While those pledging at charity events can just as easily donate any other time of the year, they select the time when the incentive to do so is the greatest.

 

But this isn't to say people are incapable of selfless acts. An extreme example might be that of the 26-year old Korean exchange student and 43-year old Japanese cameraman who were killed while trying to help a drunk man in a Tokyo subway station in 2001. When the two men saw a stranger fall onto the tracks, they leapt in to help despite the danger of the incoming train. While what those two men did were certainly extraordinary, selfless acts for strangers are performed all the time on a much smaller scale. People frequently help strangers pick up dropped groceries, or open the doors for the elderly, or offer to provide an engine boost. Although none of these acts of kindness have any real benefit, people still perform them without giving it much thought.

 

If not all human behaviours are neccessarily self-serving, what determines when someone's actions are guided by self-interest and when they are not? One important determining factor might be the urgency of the action in question. When there is no sense of urgency to perform a helpful act, people feel less compelled to do so and have more opportunity to rationalize against it (e.g. "I don't have a lot of money and I can always donate some other time"). Charities do not provide a time-limit for donating money, and this lack of urgency leads to people not feeling compelled to donate unless there is some specific incentive (e.g. a charity concert or lottery draw). On the other hand, when there is a pressing urgency to perform a helpful act, people feel more compelled. The heroes who tried to save the drunk man in the subway station were faced with an urgent situation and felt compelled to help despite the enormous danger associated with the task. Perhaps if people thought less and acted more, as people do in urgent situations, we would see more selfless acts and less self-serving acts in society.

 

----

 

Thanks Raymond!

[souljaboy]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.

 

A very basic human instinct is that of self preservation. This is one of the most fundamental instincts that we have, so it is no surprise when people behave with only their interests in mind in most situations. The classic novel Lord of the Flies depicted a situation where a group of children are stranded on an island and must try to survive. After some initial attempts at organization, the children quickly turned animalistic and even killed several members of their group. Their initial harmonic behavior quickly changed to one of anarchy and of self preservation. Each of them acted only in their own interest with the goal of surviving in the hostile environment. They had completely no regards for the well-being of the others. Many psychologists and socialogists believe the situation in Lord of the Flies was depicted very realistically and it reflected the fundamental human instinct of self preservation completely changing a person's behavior.

 

Sometimes, there can be greater bonds between people that completely overcomes the instinct of self-preservation, leading to extraodinary sacrifices. During the Sichuan earthquake in China in 2008, rescuers found a mother and infant who were trapped by debris for several days. The mother used her body to shield the child from getting hurt at the cost of her own life. Because of her, the infant was able to survive until rescuers reached them. Her actions are completely against the basic instinct of survival because of the emotional bonds she has with the child. She regards the child's safety as important than her own. Strong interpersonal bonds such as those of a mother and child can make one behave in the best interest of others at the expense of their self interst.

 

Humans act in their own self interest unless there are important bonds between the individuals to affect their decision. In the instance of the children stranded on the island, they were all strangers prior to the experience and thus had no strong emotional bonds with each other. Therefore, their instinct of self preservation caused them to act in their own interest at the expense of others. In the situation with the earthquake, the mother had a strong emotional bond with her child, which was so strong that she acted against her own best interest in order to preserve the child's life. Because self preservation is such a basic instinct, only very important bonds can cause someone to act against their own self interest at the benefit of others.

[loopas]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest

 

We are taught from a young age to help others and to treat others the way that we would want to be treated. However, are these just policies that sound nice? When, in reality, are these rules actually followed? Human behavior is often guided by self-interest which is taking advantage of opportunities without keeping in mind the thoughts and feelings of others. For example, the basis of evolution is self-interest. Since the beginning of human history, humans choose to protect themselves and their kins before others so that they can ensure that their genes are propagated. This is evident in 'Lord of the Flies,' a novel by William Golding. In this novel, a group of pre-adolescent boys is stranded on an island. Over time, each boy begins to see the other boys as threats to his survival and becomes a savage in an attempt to eliminate the other boys; his behavior is guided by self-interest.

 

On occasion though, human behavior can be guided by the interest of others. In these cases, people put others before themselves and apply what they are taught in school. For example, during the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, countries all across the world joined forces to rebuild Haiti. The Canadian government matched the donations made by Canadians so as to double the dollar amount that Haiti would receive. Agencies like Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders sent personnel who could provide physical labor and begin to reconstruct Haiti. These people chose to put their comfort and self-interest behind them and chose to rebuild a country so millions of people could have shelter.

 

Human behavior is a very complex subject which has been research by psychologists for thousands of years. The motivation behind human behavior depends on the situation; if a person is directly involved in conflict then his/her behavior will be guided by self-interest however, if the person is not directly involved in a crisis situation, he will strive to help those engulfed in conflict. In Lord of the Flies, the boys' behavior was driven by self-interest because they were directly immersed in the conflict. During the Haiti earthquake however, members of the other country were not directly involved in the conflict so their behavior was driven by the interest of the citizens of Haiti. The proximity to the situation determines what drives human behavior.

 

Thank you Raymond!

[blue181]

Thanks Raymond!

 

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

It is often said that humans are selfish creatures who act mainly for self-benefit. Many situations that occurred recently can prove that idea, including how Mark Zuckerberg cut business partner Eduardo Saverin out of their company, Facebook.com, once Saverin was no longer useful to the company’s growth. When Zuckerberg first had the idea to start Facebook, he approached Saverin because he knew Saverin had the money he needed to start up the company. The two agreed to be business partners; however, their relationship quickly went downhill from there. Zuckerberg and Saverin had different ideas about what was best for the company. Many of Saverin’s actions, including the running of unauthorized ads on the website, angered Zuckerberg, and soon he was finding other people like Sean Parker to handle the business end of the company instead of Saverin. Eventually, in October 2004, Zuckerberg delivered the final blow when he diluted Saverin’s share of the company to less than 10%, effectively cutting him out of the company. In this case, Zuckerberg’s interest has always been in himself and his company, and his actions matched his interests. He never really cared about Saverin, only that he had the start up money he needed and some business sense, so as soon as Saverin ceased to be useful to the development of his company, Zuckerberg cut him off without hesitation.

 

However, sometimes humans are not so selfish, and can act with the best interest of another individual in mind. This can particularly be true if a person cares for the well-being of that individual just as much, or more so than their own well-being. For example, Don Lansaw was very selfless when he acted to save his wife’s life. When a devastating tornado ripped through their home town of Joplin, Missouri, Bethany Lansaw went to hide in the bathtub. Her husband then instinctively covered her body with his own, thereby protecting her from the majority of the flying debris. In the end, Bethany suffered only minor injuries, but Don did not survive – he had sacrificed his own life to protect his wife. In this case, Don Lansaw probably cared for his wife more than he cared for himself, thus his actions were guided not to benefit himself, but to benefit his wife Bethany instead.

 

Overall, whether or not human behavior is guided by self interest depends on if, in the particular situation within which a person is acting, there is someone else who the person cares about just as much, or more so than themselves. With Mark Zuckerberg, while he was developing Facebook.com he cared mostly for himself and his company. He did not really care about the well-being of Eduardo Saverin; he was only interested in what Saverin could offer his company. Therefore, as soon as Saverin stood in the way of the company’s progress, Zuckerberg cut him off. On the other hand, Don Lansaw evidently cared more for his wife than himself, and for that reason his behavior during the tornado reflected his wife’s best interest rather than his own.

[DaKirbster]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.

 

 

-----

 

 

Human behaviour is a subject that has been thoroughly studied because it offers explanations to why we do the things we do. In evolutionary terms, an individual of any species behaves in a way that best serves itself. Generally, this maximizes its potential to live as long as possible. It follows then that the behaviour of the species Homo Sapiens, ie. humans, is guided primarily by self-interest. For example, scam artists are common across the world. These people will do anything in order to make quick money at the expense of another human. They will lie, trick, cheat, deceive, and gain the trust of others for their own benefit without batting an eye at the tremendous loss and grief that they often cause the people that they scam. The scammers benefit by quikly acquiring what the victim has likely worked long and hard to earn.

 

However, there are cases in which human behavior is not guided by self-interest, but is instead focussed on benefitting others. For example, many men and women of the United States of America have volunteered to go to wars to fight for the liberty of their country. This behaviour is clearly not done out of self-interest, as the many soldiers die in combat. Rather, this behaviour can be linked to the desire to defend the things that the soldiers hold dearly; their family and loved ones, friends, and their country. Indeed, the soldiers selflessly risk and sacrifice their lives in order to protect others.

 

Human behaviour is most often guided by self-interest, however humans will make sacrifices when it protects their loved ones. In the first example, scam artists behave out of self-interest alone by tricking people into giving them money with no thought to the interest of others. In the case of war, many soldiers volunteer to go for the sake of their loved ones despite the likelihood that they will not return. This makes sense in evolutionary terms as well; an individual, in addition to surviving as well as it can, is compelled to protect its genetic offspring as a continuation of the family tree. Ultimately, it all comes down to the old age homage: family comes first.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 aikigirl8

 

In today’s “plugged in” North American society, television is a constant source of information. In grammar inundates us with facts (think “24/7 news coverage) and advertisements (which may be overt or covert). Bracketed ideas are not very effective for a formal essay like the writing sample. It has the power to influence our decisions concerning what we choose to eat, buy, or wear. This is clear from the billions of dollars spent each yea crafting television advertisements. Savvy companies and businesspeople know that effective, well-timed advertising can influence more consumers to purchase their product. Who cannot picture the logo that accompanies the words “Just do it,” and who doesn’t have some inkling that cute, fluffy polar bears are somehow associated with Coca-Cola? Certainly, television is a medium that has great influence on North American behavior and culture.

You establish that television is influential but do not address the supporting task because you do not establish that it has more influence than books.

 

However, television is not the only medium with some degree of power over us. This is not a good paraphrasing of the refuting task.

The “classics,” such as ****ens, Austen, Hemingway and Verne- are remembered and studied to this day. The lessons about humanity gleaned from Frankenstein, and the truths about love learned from, say, Pride and Prejudice - these are ideas that exist in our collective consciousness and that have shaped the foundations of how we think. Although books may not hold as much sway over what we choose to wear or eat, they guide our thinking on a deeper level.

This is okay but needs more elaboration. It also is not focused enough on books being more influential than TV.

When looking at the influence of television and books, it is clear that both media

can affect our thoughts and even our actions. This is not what the resolution paragraph is concerned with. Books have been around longer and therefore have shaped our collective consciousness and ideas about the basic truths of the universe. On the other hand, television, a powerful medium in itself, exerts more influence in terms of our decisions as modern consumers.

There is no clear resolution principle and no application of that principle to your previously discussed examples.

 

Not bad for a first essay but there is a lot of work to do. Please refer to this link:

http://portal.prep101.com/Forum/yaf_postst58_How-to-write-Writing-Sample-essays.aspx

 

Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 All of the tasks are only weakly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 kylamonkey

Television (TV) can exert an enormous influence on people. The media often decries dramatic violence shown on TV as being an influence on people to inflict real-life violence on others. In any case, the vast majority of TV viewing is oriented towards the quick, forgettable, fast-paced lifestyle that many people today live, and the influence, in most cases, on daily lives is similarly short-lasted. This undermines the supporting argument that you are suppose to make. Some people might be drawn to the drama on TV because they are bored by their own lives, seeing their day-to-day normal lifestyle as boring. A danger can come when they try to inject more drama into their real-life interactions, encouraged by what is seen on TV. An extreme example might be found, again, in violence. A spur-of-the-moment act of violence can have profound effects on many lives, and if it can be shown to link back to TV violence, whether shown on the news or in dramatic shows, then TV does indeed affect lives in a very profound way.

This does not address the supporting task. You don't make a good case that TV has a strong influence on people and you neglect the books element of the prompt.

There are many cases, however, where books have a profound influence on a person. Here, you should also have the TV element. A recent revitalization of book clubs has introduced literature to a whole new group of readers. Oprah Winfrey has used her influence to start books clubs al over North America. Books can take hours, days, or even months to read, but unlike many 30-minute TV programs, can continue to exert their influence even when the reader is not reading. Good. This is on topic and has both the book and TV elements. For books to exert any influence, however, the reader must have the motivation to read in the first place. This is off-topic and actually takes away from your argument. Some books can cause a person to change their life in ways that TV never can- for example, the highly popular self-help book "The Secret". This book is a manifesto for positive thinking and encourages the reader to change their life for the better. One would be hard-pressed to find a TV show with as much influence over lives than books of that sort.

This is much better and is generally well done.

 

Whether television or books have more influence on a person depends on the person themselves, and the myriad of factors that make that person unique. This is vague and ambiguous which is not what you want. Factors such as age, education level, and the type of leisure time the person prefers influence whether a person chooses the long-term pleasure of a book, or the shorter and easier satisfaction of TV. You should choose one factor to be the basis of your resolution principle. Multiple factors only makes applying your principle more difficult. Of course, even Oprah's book club, referenced above, only attained its popularity due to being promoted by a TV show! This undermines your argument. You are shooting your own argument in the foot. However, the short-term "fix" that TV can offer is not always long-lasting, with the content of the TV program often being forgotten shortly after it's over. As part of the essay, you were suppose to argue "Television has more influence on people than books do." The influence of books can be much longer lasting, and ultimately exert a greater influence on an individual's life, as long as the person is motivated to read.

 

I think you got a little bit lost on this prompt. You don't make a supporting argument at all. Then your resolution paragraph is muddled and confused.

 

Overall Mark: 2/6 (Corresponds to approximately a L)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is not addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[medhopeful64]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

 

Human behaviour can be a difficult thing to understand. Often, there are many things that guide human behaviour. One of them is self-interest. Take physicians for example. Their job is to essentially save lives but this behaviour is guided primarily by self interest. It is their job, and they are paid in six figure incomes for it. The money earned by this generous paycheck can be spent on material goods and various other luxuries. Thus, it can be argued that human behaviour is guided primarily by self interest.

 

On the other hand, saving lives does not always come with generous paycheck. Often times, people do incredibly self-less things, and in such cases, human behaviour is not guided primarily by self interest. For example, a man named Todd Irvine stumbled upon Christopher Husbands one night, who lay bleeding in the streets. Irvine pulled over, and called 911. He waited for ambulance to arrive, and attempted to console the dying man. As quoted by Irvine himself, he "just wanted him to live." In this case, there was no direct, monetary reward for saving a life. Irvine had non-selfish reasons for helping Husbands. Thus, it is clear here that human behaviour is not necessarily always guided by self interest.

 

One of the main factors that governs human behaviour is self interest. The factor that determines when human behaviour is guided primarily by self interest and when it is not depends on if there is a direct, material reward involved for a certain behaviour. If there is a direct, material reward involved, then human behaviour is guided (primarily) by self interest. This can be seen in a career as a physician. A physician's behaviour is guided primarily by self interest because they are directly paid for their services. The money is a motivating factor for their behaviour. If, however, the behaviour does not involve a direct material reward, then human behaviour is not guided by self interest. Todd Irvine went out of his way to aid a dying man even though he would receive no monetary or direct reward for this heroic act. Thus, it is clear that human behaviour is guided primarily by self interest when a reward is offered (or may be offered), but is not guided by self interest when no reward is offered.

 

___

Sorry I am a bit late, thanks a lot Raymond!

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 chris67

 

It is undeniable that modern society is more fast paced than ever before: we are constantly pressured to finish tasks as fast grammar and efficiently as possible. This kind of lifestyle has led people to favour television shows and films over written material, thus increasing the opportunity for visual media to affect people's opinions and actions. In 2002, a book called "The Truth Behind 9/11" was published. It called into question the events leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and implied that some blame may be placed on the Bush government for not acting to prevent the attacks. The book was not marketed at all, and received little public attention. In 2004 famed filmaker Michael Moore released a film titled "Fahrenheit 9/11", which brought up many of the same ideas as the aforementioned book. It became a blockbuster hit, and the subject of much public debate and controversy. Try having a concluding sentence to end your supporting paragraph.

This example is interesting. There are some points that are a little bit less convincing but the example works well overall.

However, it is still possible for books to influence people on a large scale. Before Dr. Atkins published his bestselling book "The Atkins Diet", he appeared on several daytime talk shows that focus on nutrition to discuss the benefits of low carb diets such as his own. His television appearances did little to spread his nutritional viewpoints. It wasn't until he put his thoughts together in a book and released it as "the secret to weight loss" that his ideas became part of mainstream beliefs about weightloss. His book became a bestseller, and his diet was followed by millions of people worldwide. Again, try ending with a concluding sentence to wrap up your argument.

This is solid. To add more depth, try to elaborate more upon why in this case a book was more influential than TV.

 

Ultimately, what determines whether television and visual media will be able to influence people more than a book is the audience that is reached. This is vague and ambiguous which is not what you want. You want something that is clear on its own. If many people are able to view the show or movie, then it has the potential to be influencial. Fahrenheit 9/11 was shown in theatres worldwide, and many audiences were exposed to its ideas. However, if a television program is available to only a small and specific audience, then it is unlikely that it will be able to exert a large influence on people. When Dr. Atkins appeared on daytime nutritional talk shows his audience consisted mostly of the unemployed who already had some interest in nutrition, which represents a relatively small portion of the population. By releasing a book, he made his views available to everyone who had access to a bookstore.

Here, you do not have a resolution principle that creates contrast between your two examples. What happens when both books and television are both widely available?

The argument also lacks depth. Just because a movie or book is available to everyone does not make it influential.

 

The essay is a bit short. Try expanding upon your ideas.

 

Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[Neuro_07]

Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.

Thank you, Raymond!

 

As the evolutionary theory suggests, every living organism acts in a way to promote its own survival over others. Similarly, the human behaviour is motivated by the purpose of serving selfish goals. In modern society, people act to fulfill their own interests even when the outcome of the act might not guarantee enhanced chances of survival. The Time Magazine listed India’s ‘2G Scam’ at the second position in its list of ‘Top 10 Abuses of Power’. India’s Minister of Communication and Information Technology, A. Raja, corruptly allocated the telecommunication bandwidths to the telecommunication companies at prices that were significantly lower than their market value. He was bribed 400 million dollars by the owners of telecom companies to sell them the 2G frequencies at lower rates. Due to this scam, the Indian Government suffered a loss of close to 40 billion dollars. Raja’s lust for money made him oblivious to his duty to the party that appointed him and to the citizens of the country who voted for him. His decision to indulge in corrupt activity aptly demonstrates that human behaviour is primarily driven by self-interest.

 

However, it is important to note that humans are not always motivated by selfishness. History holds numerous examples of people spending their lives in serving others. Gandhi and Nelson Mandela did not fight for their country’s freedom to fulfill their own interests. In fact, they put their own lives in jeopardy to free their nation from the oppressive rule of the British. They were motivated by the desire to attain basic human rights for the people of their country. Their altruistic behaviour exemplifies that, in some circumstances, human behaviour is guided by others’ interests, rather than personal benefits.

 

Thus, whether or not human behaviour is guided by self-interest depends on whether the person in question is in power or not in power. When a person is in power, he/she is most likely to use the power for personal benefits, rather than the benefit of the society. A. Raja used his power as the Telecom Minister for personal monetary gain and, at the same time, caused the government to lose billions of dollars along with their credibility among the citizens of the country. On the other hand, the behaviour of people who are not in power or, more specifically, who face the tyranny of those in power, is not motivated by personal interest, but by the interest of other people. Historical figures like Gandhi and Mandela had led their countries to independence by selflessly devoting themselves to the purpose of freeing their countrymen from the oppression of the British rule. In conclusion, whether a person behaves selfishly or altruistically depends on the situation the person is in.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 DaKirbster

 

People are naturally influenced by their environment and the activities in which they engage. Since the beginning of modern civilization, reading books has been a widespread activity among citizens. Similarly, since the invention of the television, watching television everyday has become a norm for many people. Television has become more popular than books, and along with that, it has a larger influence on people. Most people rely on television for entertainment and information. It connects them to fellow television-watchers and to their surroundings through news and media outlets. People will often reflect word choice what they see on television into their daily lives. For example, Jersey Shore is a popular television series among youths and young adults. The series' viewers often reference the show and attempt to emulate the characters. Many people dress, talk, act, and have even come to think like the characters on the show. Some attempt to adopt the pseudonyms of the characters as well. Jersey Shore's popularity has resulted in it having a large impact on people, arguably much more than any modern book.

This discussion is okay. However, it needs more elaboration on why TV is more influential than books in this case. You have a few points but it isn't the main focus of the discussion.

 

However, there are some cases whereby books have more influence on people than television does. This is often the case when the book was popularized in a time before the television was invented, or if it has had a significant historical impact. The Holy Bible, for example, is a book that has had a large influence on all of mankind. It has started religions, sparked wars, and guided the lives of many of its readers and followers. It is thousands of years old and yet even today it holds a great impact word choice on the lives of many people around the world. Clearly, it has had a larger influence on people than any television show ever made, and likely always will.

Well done.

What determines whether or not television has more influence on people than books do depends on whether the book was popular before the invention of the television. Although this may work for your specific example. This argument is clearly not going to hold up to scrutiny. There are lots of books that were popular after the invention of television that are also greatly influential. Furthermore, this principle does not apply to your supporting example. Jersey Shore has gained popularity among people today in a time where television shows are very widespread, accessible, and easy to watch; few modern books have had a similar influence on people. The Bible, on the other hand, was popular thousands of years ago before the invention of the television, and had a huge impact on the world. As such, its contents continue to be influential today - to interested readers and curious historians alike. There are old books - considered classics - that continue to be influential today despite the popularity of television. Perhaps one day, when some sort of super-television is invented, today's popular television shows will be studied for the influence they had on society.

The resolution principle was not very strong. When you start off with a weak principle, the rest of the discussion is going to follow the same trend.

 

Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 souljaboy

 

In today's world, most of the information we receive come from either the internet or television. Unsurprisingly, television usually has a much more profound influence on the general public that normal word choice books because of our vast exposure to it. Television provides a medium where information is conveyed in visual form where it is much more vivid that text in a book. According to scientific studies, humans have a much stronger reaction to something they see graphically and hear directly as opposed to reading about in words. The majority of a U.S. presidential candidate's campaign fund is spent on television commercials to promote themselves because it is proven to have the greatest influence on the eventual result of an election. It is the greatest way for them to leave a lasting image in someone's mind, which is why it has the most profound effect.

This discussion is okay. There needs to be more emphasis on why in this case TV is more influential than books. You have a few points but it is not the main focus of the discussion.

 

Even though television has a much more significant impact on us nowadays, many books that has grammar been passed along throughout history still remains grammar very much influencial. The Bible is a book that has been around for centuries and shapes the life of millions of people. Because of the its history and its importance in the largest religion worldwide, the bible has tremendous influence in people's lives and even countries. Many people have made dramatic changes to their lives simply by reading the bible. Remorseless criminals have completely changed their ways by reading the bible. Countries such as the United States have many laws that can be traced back to the bible and Christianity. The bible may just be a book, but it is capable of influencing people in such a dramatic way that television can never do.

This example works well but there needs to be more focus on why in this case the Bible is more influential than TV. Bible should also be capitalized.

Television is the by far more influencial than most books in our lives because of its visual impact, but some important historical books can have a much greater effect that television because of their significance. This is not a good paraphrasing of the resolution task. This is also not a well formulated resolution principle. Someone can read a book to form an opinion, but the book can only use words to pass along its influence. ?? When the person see something from television, it can completely changes grammar their opinion because of the more powerful visual impact on our brains, which affects us more more than words do. However, the person can still have fundamental principles from the bible that they believe completely and television can never change their opinion. Only a few books, such as the bible and quran Bible and Quran should both be capitalized. , have this impact on many people but the impact is greater than television can ever achieve.

The resolution principle here is not clear. The contrast is also not clear. The arguments are not clear. Overall, the resolution paragraph is the weakest part of your essay.

 

Overall Mark: 3/6 (Corresponds to approximately a N )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is poorly addressed.

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 Sharpshooter

 

Television has a major impact on people; it affects peoples choices and how they interact with others. Usually, television influences people more than books do. In one of the episodes of ‘The Office,’ a television comedy series, Jim said “It smells like up dog in here.” Then another character, Dwight, asked “What is up dog?” and Jim replied back “Nothing much. What is up with you?” After this episode, people at my school started to use Jim’s line from the show to humour themselves and others. Even my cousin asked me this question. I went along with the joke and I still found it funny since he laughed in a funny manner after replying to my question.

As a rule of thumb, personal examples are one of the weakest types of examples. They can be used as a last resort but tend to be weak because they lack depth and it is difficult to demonstrate complexity of reasoning.

The novels and textbooks we read for school did not really affect our behavior as much as television did since we often just memorized the material, regurgitated it on an exam, and then forgot the material after a couple of day. Furthermore, even my cousins in grade school often say “That is what she said,” which I believe is something they should not be saying at that age due saying’s sexual reference. This made me realize television is often more powerful than books at influencing others.

This example is okay. There needs to be more emphasis on why television is more influential than books in this case. Try to avoid personal examples for writing sample essays.

 

However, television does not always have more influence on people than books do. For example, the book ‘Doing Right’ has more influence on many medical school applicants than television does. Even the promotional video for University of Western Ontario’s medical school interview made a reference to the book. This book was written by a family physician, who explains ethical principles, such as the principle of beneficence, which asks the question “what can be done to help the patient?” He also discusses ethical scenarios, including abortion, reproductive technology, euthanasia, and end of life treatment. One of the case scenarios discusses a patient who believes in Jehovah’s witness and refuses to do a blood transfusion to save his life. In such a case, the medical doctor would have to respect the patient’s decision in refusing the blood transfusion since patients have a right to refuse treatment in Canada. If a medical school applicant does not read this book prior to an interview, he would probably say he would do the blood transfusion because he wants to save the patient’s life. However, doing the blood transfusion would be unethical in such a case. Thus, many applicants read the book, which highly influences their approach to answering ethical questions during medical school interviews.

This discussion is off-topic and does not address the writing task.

Therefore, what determines whether television has more influence on people than books do depends if the influence pertains to morals or ethical decision making. This resolution principle is weak. Television shows have a great deal of influence on the morals and ethics of society. If the influence is not in regard to morals or ethical-making, then television has more influence. For example, ‘The Office’ has more influence on students that their textbooks and novels they read for school. You don't actually apply your resolution principle. However, when the influence is in regard to morals or ethical decision making, books have more influence on people than books do. For instance, the book ‘Doing Right’ influences medical school applicants than any television show, even ‘House, which is medical drama series. Again, you don't apply your principle (You don't mention that Doing Right is a basic guide to ethics for medical trainees.)

 

Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is not addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 1.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 24 blue181

 

Television has been around for a relatively short time compared to books, but by accessing the power of moving image and sound, its programs already can have more influence than books – especially when it comes to the general public. Strong start. Through accessing more than one sense, a television program can convey a sense of reality to the portrayed subject better than the still print of a book. This sense of immediacy allows people to connect more easily with the program’s message, thus possibly influencing their interpretations and decisions about the subject. These ideas would be stronger if discussed within the context of your example. For example, many charities like World Vision have television commercials to try and convince viewers to sponsor a child in need. The video footage often details the hardships some of the children in developing countries face. Seeing their poor living conditions, malnourished bodies, and even hearing them talk about difficulties they deal with on a daily basis may help viewers really connect and understand the gravity of their situation. In this case, a print advertisement or a book written about those same children will probably not be as effective as the commercial at influencing viewers to donate, because television gives the audience a seemingly more direct connection to those children than a book could.

This is well done. It would have been excellent if you had integrated your strong points before the example into the main discussion.

 

However, sometimes books can still be more influential than television programs. For example, many academic subject matters are published in print. The scientific community communicates through the publication of papers in journals. Once a researcher discovers something they believe to be novel, they publish their findings in a journal. Other researchers in the same field can then read about those findings which may influence the direction of their own work. Particularly revolutionary works like Darwin’s The Origin of Species can go on to influence how generations of scientists study evolutionary biology. In fact, Darwin is hailed as the “Father of Evolution” just because he was able to publish his theory of natural selection first, even though another scientist, Alfred Wallace, thought of the same theory independently at the same time; this difference shows just how influential a publication can be. Television programs are not really capable, nor are they appropriate for relating the kind of in depth scientific material presented in scientific books or journals Why?, so books, in this case, can be more influential than television.

This example could work well but there is not enough emphasis on why in this case books are more influential than TV. Only your last sentence addresses that issue and the statement is not backed up by any supporting points or evidence.

Overall, whether or not television has more influence on people than books depends on where the influence is sought to be exerted. This is vague and ambiguous. You could have simply said depends on whether the audience is the general public or a smaller specialized group. That would be much more clear. You set up the principle but just did not execute it well here. If the goal is to influence many members of the general public, then television can probably be more effective than books because it is a more engaging media that sways the public’s opinion through the use of sound and visuals. Many charities use this advantage to create convincing commercials that urge viewers to donate. The application needs to be improved. However, if the goal is to influence a more specific audience with more in depth information, television may not be the most efficient way to communicate such complex material, as it is used more often as a way to present simplified concepts suitable for the general public. For that reason, printed journals and books have far more influence on the scientific community than television programs can. Again, the application needs to be expanded and elaborated upon.

You have some good ideas for the resolution paragraph but the execution fell short.

 

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5