MCAT Writing Sample Group

[hdlineage]

Hello,

I'm writing my MCAT this coming september.

Just trying to find some people to share writing sample examples and also to give feedbacks on each others' writing.

Anyone interested?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[macsta]

Hello,

I'm writing my MCAT this coming september.

Just trying to find some people to share writing sample examples and also to give feedbacks on each others' writing.

Anyone interested?

Great idea, but most of the people on here will probably want to spend their precious studying time on reviewing VR, BS, and PS. The writing section isn't really important.

 

[MAP2]

I'm down for that. Mine's on the 23rd, and for lots of Canadian schools there's a Q minimum I think so I'm worried! PM me?

 

[Integrated MCAT Course]

Submit a Writing Sample with an essay title as the title of the post. Responses should quote the title in their own heading. This will keep things orderly with multiple essays.

I think a key for this to work is for there to be multiple scores and opinions responding for each submission, a few sentences of cordial suggestions with each response, and a score from one to six. I think if people did participate it would help their own MCAT, both in reading and for VR. The writing sample may not as important as the other sections, but it it still important. The writing sample can either be a show-case or a question mark.

To become a useful facility, the thread needs to be self-reliant and self-sustaining through mutual assistence. If members could visit sometimes, read an essay, and give a 1 to 6 score based on the following criteria from AAMC, applying mutual assistance in a concerted way, such as scoring two or three others for each one you post of your own, I think it could work.

6 These papers show clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. The treatment of the writing assignment is focused and coherent. Major ideas are substantially developed. A facility with language is evident.
5 These essays show clarity of thought, with some depth or complexity. The treatment of the rhetorical assignment is generally focused and coherent. Major ideas are well developed. A strong control of language is evident.
4 These essays show clarity of thought and may show evidence of depth or complexity. The treatment of the writing assignment is coherent, with some focus. Major ideas are adequately developed. An adequate control of language is evident.
3 These essays may show some problems with clarity or complexity of thought. The treatment of the writing assignment may show problems with integration or coherence. Major ideas may be underdeveloped. There may be numerous errors in mechanics, usage, or sentence structure.
2 These essays may show some problems with clarity or complexity of thought. The treatment of the writing assignment may show problems with integration or coherence. Major ideas may be underdeveloped. There may be numerous errors in mechanics, usage, or sentence structure.
1 These essays may demonstrate a lack of understanding of the writing assignment. There may be serious problems with organization. Ideas may not be developed. Or, there may be so many errors in mechanics, usage, or sentence structure that the writer's ideas are difficult to follow.

 

[jellybeano]

I'm gonna ride off of this post and ask: what's the best way to start? I can always have a good outline quickly but I never know how to start the introduction to my essays...Then I panic and thoughts start to wonder...*sigh*

Thanks!

 

[Integrated MCAT Course]

I'm gonna ride off of this post and ask: what's the best way to start? I can always have a good outline quickly but I never know how to start the introduction to my essays...Then I panic and thoughts start to wonder...*sigh*

Thanks!

To get the first sentence, it helps to imagine each side of the argument as a voice in a debate. If you get stuck, transcribe what the voice would say as if you were listening. Sometimes a piece of evidence is a useful way to begin, or a reflection on the general importance of the issue. I would recommend that you imagine a town debate night as a good generative device for the first five minutes for note taking, because this can give some dynamism to things. Imagine the first person coming up to the podium to represent the thesis, speaking for the statement. What arguments would they bring to the debate? Then imagine an antithesis speaker. What would that person reply?

Finally, imagine the third part, the synthesis, as kind of the Greek chorus for the night. They come into the discussion at the end. The synthesis is like the ideal host of a focus group summing the evening up. Try to explain the deeper meanings of the discussion.

The mental movement from thesis, antithesis, to synthesis is dialectical. This is the active mind thinking critically, and it is a figure of philosophical logic. In dialectic a person looks at an idea in itself, then for some other point of view, and then strives for broader, deeper, or more universal understanding.

So in the first five minutes, go through the three tasks as a debate performance in your imagination, thinking about points each of the three might make and collect supporting evidence.

After you have notes, decide where the balance of the overall essay's point of view falls between task 1 and 2. You are thinking about the overall unity and coherence of the argument. Deciding if either the thesis or the antithesis will have a bit more concordance with the final synthesis can give the essay drive and unity. Think about how to preserve the overall voice with stylistic cues as you move through the arguments and evidence you can now see from start to finish.

This is a method I know works from teaching experience. If you get past the fear and make some quick notes using your imagination of a dialectical debate, you will put your score somewhere in the top half just from that.

 

[MAP2]

OK so I thought I'd move this into Here so we could get this thread moving! I'll make sure to check often and provide my input on the essays posted in here too.

Prompt: Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens.

Governments are obliged to keep a close eye on companies providing important services to their citizens. The foremost duty of a government is to its people, and thus the quality of services provided to its citizens by external parties, who may have other factors to consider such as profit, is a direct responsibly of the government in question.

Consider the case of pharmaceuticals. The FDA regulates the sale of substances produced by these companies, and only grants approval for the sale of such products after a lengthy review process designed to ensure that any possible side-effects of the drug are not life-threatening, and that the benefit to the person outweighs these costs. However, in the case of the pharmaceutical company itself, this issue may take a back seat to the perhaps more pressing issue of turning a profit on a drug. Quite obviously, spending 10 or more years on a single product is not the most efficient way to turn a profit. The goal of these companies is at least to improve the condition of sufferers of illness. Take the more extreme example of petroleum companies such as BP. The use of the substances produced by these companies has become necessary in the Western world; however, the goal of these companies is to turn a profit, rather than the aid others with their ailments. If the price of oil was left unregulated, then by now it could be astronomical. Many Canadians are already having difficulties paying for the high price of gasoline, and the situation in the United States is much the same. If the government was not able to control the sales of these products, then they likely would no longer be able to many of the citizens of the country, and the primary goal of the government will have been defeated.

This is not to say that all necessary services must, and should, be regulated by the government. Higher education is certainly an area where government regular is not required, and in some cases may not even be desired. Education in today's society is necessary. However, beyond the levels of state-regulated primary and secondary education, the issue of choice comes up. Government regulated education at all levels would be limited in its scope, being only able to provide some governmentally-mandated areas of study. With the current system in many countries, and even partially here in Canada, the institutions of higher education are able to provide diverse ranges of study, ranging from sociology to industrial development to neuroscience. Thus, in order to provide all citizens with the choice to pursue a wide array of disciplines, not all instates of higher education should be regulated.

Admittedly, the governmental funds imparted to regulated institutions allow these universities and colleges to delve into meaningful research and otherwise improve the quality of education they provide to their students. So when, then, is is the government's responsibility to regulate its institutions? It becomes and obligation of the dominant party to regulate these services only when the service provided is necessary to the quality and quantity of life of its citizens, and this regulation allows for all citizens to receive the necessary services without restricting choice.

 

[Integrated MCAT Course]

I think this is a unified, well-structured essay that suffers a bit in the introduction. The distinction between 'people' and 'external parties' has a bit of a rushed, bad conscience. I was left thinking that 'the people' includes both parties, buyers and sellers, so it suffers a bit in deeper coherence, but the overall unity is very good. The structural choice you made to move through fields of activity where you could coherently argue for and against government regulation was a good one. There are a few minor stylistic and mechanics failings that make the writing short of very good, such as at the end of the second paragraph where it looks like you left out a verb. Don't forget to use the subjunctive mood 'were' instead of 'was', a mistake made twice, when you are introducing hypotheticals. Pretty good though.

I'd give it a 4 or maybe a 5.

 

[Integrated MCAT Course]

Don't know how well my comments went over. I hope they convey the subjective process. The most important thing is to read a lot, in general, to be a good writer and to practice. In my experience most people can argue better in speech than in writing, so working to get fluent, confident pen-speech, just like you have with the tongue takes practice.

Another good game for Writing Sample is the rare case where there is a good discussion of an issue in an online comment thread. Try to designate the commenters who are thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in this one here: http://jalopnik.com/5823543/cop-threatens-to-execute-driver-over-concealed-weapon-permit Try and make a game of how dialectical reasoning occurs in discussions out in the world, especially those that are enlightening. It's like a physical law but for how mind, communication and learning work in a healthy society. With the three part MCAT writing sample you are mastering a kind of three part rhetorical figure that builds toward a deeper understanding you can use in all kinds of writing.

I did a creative writing focus as an undergrad which meant a lot of workshops. There's a risk in showing work, but it can be really helpful not only to receive constructive criticism but also to work on reading other's writing critically. Hopefully this thread can become a mutually supportive kind of workshop with no gunner mentality. I'll watch the thing and help out a little in reserve if folks post samples and make something of it.

 

[MAP2]

Don't know how well my comments went over. I hope they convey the subjective process. The most important thing is to read a lot, in general, to be a good writer and to practice. In my experience most people can argue better in speech than in writing, so working to get fluent, confident pen-speech, just like you have with the tongue takes practice.

Another good game for Writing Sample is the rare case where there is a good discussion of an issue in an online comment thread. Try to designate the commenters who are thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in this one here: http://jalopnik.com/5823543/cop-threatens-to-execute-driver-over-concealed-weapon-permit Try and make a game of how dialectical reasoning occurs in discussions out in the world, especially those that are enlightening. It's like a physical law but for how mind, communication and learning work in a healthy society. With the three part MCAT writing sample you are mastering a kind of three part rhetorical figure that builds toward a deeper understanding you can use in all kinds of writing.

I did a creative writing focus as an undergrad which meant a lot of workshops. There's a risk in showing work, but it can be really helpful not only to receive constructive criticism but also to work on reading other's writing critically. Hopefully this thread can become a mutually supportive kind of workshop with no gunner mentality. I'll watch the thing and help out a little in reserve if folks post samples and make something of it.

Thanks! Your comments helped a lot. I think I should be able to build upon what I've got now, but I really wanted to know if it was even worth building upon... lol... Apparently the cut off last year at Queen's was an R, so I've got a bit of work to do ...

 

[GooseWing]

Here's mine! Criticism is welcome!

Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens.

In a capitalist society such as ours, companies are forced to compete amongst each other in order to attain wealth through the patronage of the consumer. They're forced to strive to produce the best product possible, as cheap as possible, and make it as attainable as possible for all consumers in order to gain an edge against their rivals. If a single company gets too large, though, the notion of "fair" competition between rivals gets thrown out the window. This can be seen with the Armour Meat Packing company in Chicago in the early 1900's. It attained such a remarkable amount of wealth that whenever rival companies sprouted up, it could begin selling its products for well below the amount required to generate profit. This was only possible because the company had a plentiful supply of capital to keep it afloat. The smaller companies would be unable to compete, they would go out of business, and Armour would raise its prices back up to previous levels due to the lack of competition. The government has a responsibility to regulate companies like this. If a company is too large, the size at which it essentially has zero competition, it has no motivation to produce high quality products, or to price those products reasonably. Furthermore, with the formation of a monopoly, no new businesses can sprout up, effectively carving out entire sectors where no entrepreneurs can find a niche and make a living. Governments should regulate companies of significant size in order to protect their citizens from the ills of monopolies.

As implied, though, if a company is one of a comparable many in its sector, the government does not have a responsibility to regulate it. The "invisible hand" of the market, that economists often refer to, essentially assumes the regulatory responsibility. Consequently, a primal struggle of coevolution that screams of darwinism plays out amongst these companies, all the while ensuring that the best products are provided to the consumer (the citizen). This can be seen quite evidently in our society by viewing the television. Commercials vie for the consumer's attention. They occupy a great percentage of television programming and advertise products that all seem to serve the same purpose while somehow having a wide array of special features or financing options.

The extent to which government should be involved in the operations of private companies here in the United States is a conversation that has persisted throughout our existence. At its core, though, the debate centers around how will the citizens of our country be served best. If a company is so large that it can evade the self-regulating forces of market competition, then the government has a responsibility to provide the oversight that protects its citizens from shady business practices. On the other hand, if companies are competing amongst each other in a manner that ensures quality of its products, then the government has no responsibility of regulation.

 

[MAP2]

Here's mine! Criticism is welcome!

Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens.

In a capitalist society such as ours, companies are forced to compete amongst each other in order to attain wealth through the patronage of the consumer. They're forced to strive to produce the best product possible, as cheap as possible, and make it as attainable as possible for all consumers in order to gain an edge against their rivals. If a single company gets too large, though, the notion of "fair" competition between rivals gets thrown out the window. This can be seen with the Armour Meat Packing company in Chicago in the early 1900's. It attained such a remarkable amount of wealth that whenever rival companies sprouted up, it could begin selling its products for well below the amount required to generate profit. This was only possible because the company had a plentiful supply of capital to keep it afloat. The smaller companies would be unable to compete, they would go out of business, and Armour would raise its prices back up to previous levels due to the lack of competition. The government has a responsibility to regulate companies like this. If a company is too large, the size at which it essentially has zero competition, it has no motivation to produce high quality products, or to price those products reasonably. Furthermore, with the formation of a monopoly, no new businesses can sprout up, effectively carving out entire sectors where no entrepreneurs can find a niche and make a living. Governments should regulate companies of significant size in order to protect their citizens from the ills of monopolies.

As implied, though, if a company is one of a comparable many in its sector, the government does not have a responsibility to regulate it. The "invisible hand" of the market, that economists often refer to, essentially assumes the regulatory responsibility. Consequently, a primal struggle of coevolution that screams of darwinism plays out amongst these companies, all the while ensuring that the best products are provided to the consumer (the citizen). This can be seen quite evidently in our society by viewing the television. Commercials vie for the consumer's attention. They occupy a great percentage of television programming and advertise products that all seem to serve the same purpose while somehow having a wide array of special features or financing options.

The extent to which government should be involved in the operations of private companies here in the United States is a conversation that has persisted throughout our existence. At its core, though, the debate centers around how will the citizens of our country be served best. If a company is so large that it can evade the self-regulating forces of market competition, then the government has a responsibility to provide the oversight that protects its citizens from shady business practices. On the other hand, if companies are competing amongst each other in a manner that ensures quality of its products, then the government has no responsibility of regulation.

I think it was pretty good. The argument is well development and coherent. I think I'd give it a 5, falling short of the 6 mostly due to some mechanical errors here and there. You used "though" a lot, and "they're" (just avoid contractions in these types of essays). And the the line "on how will our citizens be served best" should be rephrased to "how our citizens will be served best" or something along those lines. But over all very good! Could probably get a 6 with just cleaning off the mild grammatical flaws.

 

[Ishab]

Hey,
I would really appreciate if someone could give me some feedback on my essay. I will admit I did go over the time limit when writing. But it was only my first time and not having done much writing for a while, I was just trying to gauge my ability. I also have a question with regards to the format. Is a 3 paragraph response most effective? Does adding an intro paragraph like the one I did negatively influence the essay? Thanks in advance!

Prompt: Lies are often less harmful than the truth.
Describe a situation in which the truth might be less harmful than lies. Discuss what you think determines whether or not lies are less harmful than the truth.

A primal human instinct is to minimize harm. On a daily basis, every individual must decide the best course of action for preventing, avoiding, minimizing harm. Whether deciding to take a certain route to school or deciding on a foreign policy towards hostile countries, everyone must decide what is the path of least pain or harm. One of the most common of these decisions is that everyone makes is lieing or telling the truth. The quesiton of telling a lie or telling the truth is a morally charged dilemma that resolves itself on the basis of which leads towards the path of least harm.

Despite the negative conotation that accompanies the concept of lieing, lies are sometimes less harmfull that the truth. Lies that prevent oneself or another from being harmed, often termed as "white lies", are morally justified. Franklin, from the famous children's cartoon series, comes home from school to find his pet fish missing from its bowl. Earlier that day, soon after Franklin left for school, his mom realized that his fish was not moving and upon closer inspection realized that it was dead. When Franklin asked his mom regarding the whereabouts of his fish, his mom in ther paternalistic opinion that telling him the truth would likely upset him and influence his emotional state for some time to come, decided against telling him the truth. Though Franklin went on to find out, his Mom was able to convey the message to him later in a way that would be elast harmful. In this case, the lie cuased less harm than the truth. In the short or long run, there was no immediate danger from lieing. there was more harm to be had if the lie was told, mostly int he form of emotional trauma. It seems reasonable to assert that presevring the emotional wellbeing of an individual when there is no other kind of immediate harm takes precedence over moral obligaiton to tell the truth when that truth can cause emotional trauma.

On the otherhand however, it seems that harm is moreoften avoided by telling the truth. As in most cases, lieing usually hides a consequence that can cuase harm to the other party--the individual or party who is the victim of the lie. Whether lieing to decieve, gain advantage, or intentional inflict physical or emotional harm, truth is often less harmful the a lie. Taking the instance of 1990's case of R vs Cuerrier, the Canadian Supereme court upheld for the first time a a verdict for the criminal transmission of HIV. Ceurrier was diagnosed with HIV in 1992. He still, however, went ont o have sexual intercourse with 2 more women before being on the bases of which we was eventually charged with aggravated assault and murder. The court ruled that becuase the defendent didnot discose his positive HIV status to the two women and also did not practice safe sex, he was guilty. As evident in this case, the truth would have been less harmfull that the lie. By lieing to the women of his HIV positive status, he risked transmitting a potentially fatal condition and cuasing severe harm. In a situation where lies lead to harm, telling the truth prevails as the course of least harm.

The moral implications of lies and truths directly derive from degree of harm that can arise. On the one hand, there are cases where the only risk of harm is through emotional distress and this can prevented by simply telling a lie in the spirit of paternalism. In most situations however, lies are are source of harm and the truth is the best way to eliminate or mitigate the harm. So what determines whether a lie is less or more harmful is the nature of the situation. More specifically, if the only threat in a situation from knowing the truth is emotional distress, a lieing can prevent such harm, then lies are justified. Although the nature of each situaiton is unique, truth can be generalized to be less harmful in most other situations. It becomes obvious why the truth has always been one of the conerstones of human moral culture.

 

[AugustMCAT]

My 2 Essays from AAMC #11

Successful politicians are motivated more by practical considerations than by moral values.

Note: I have 2 spelling and 1 grammar error here, factor that into your score .

History demonstrates that the success of a nation depends on the approach taken by its leaders and politicians in ensuring its prosperity. Those politicians who most effectively accomplish the goals of their constituency are those whose rule is based on pragmatism, not ethics. A successful leader does not allow emotional considerations or moral values to motivate them when making important decisions. The best interests of the people they represent should be supported by the actions of the politician, even if these actions result in unethical ramifications with respect to a smaller class of individuals. In other words, the key to a successful career in politics is ruling in an unbiased, practical, and objective manner. Moral values are often a separate realm that should only receieve consideration if the practicality of the decision goes untarnished. Bill Clinton, for example, was a highly pragmatic politician. Under his presidency, the United States experienced an economic surplus, unemployment was down, and overall success of the common citizen was higher than in years prior. During his presidency, Clinton was impeached for what was considered an immoral act: having sexual affairs with a woman other than his wife. Despite this lapse in moral judgment, Clinton's political success was unaffected and continued to remain positive, as his constituents continued to benefit from his political actions even after the affair.

Despite the demonstrated success of a practical approach to politics, there are also numerous instances in history when an ethical approach to political decision-making proved to be highly effective. One instance occured in the 19th Century, when Abraham Lincoln was the president of the United States. During his presidency, the nation was embroiled in a Civil War that had the entire population of the country on edge. After the war was over, Lincoln took the moral route and established that slavery in the United States was illegal. While this decision may not have been practical since a large portion of the nation advocated slavery and depended on it economically, it ended up being what many historians consider a momentous political action. The African-American population was liberated from the bonds of servitude, and the country began a long but successful healing process.

When determining the most appropriate motivations with respect to successful political decision-making, the state of the nation is of great relevance. In particular, history demonstrates that successful politicians are motivated by practical considerations during times of general peace and stability, whereas moral considerations reign supreme when the population is at war and unstable. In peacetime, the state of the common citizen is a measure of a successful politician, and the most pragmatic politicians seem to ensure a happy populace. During times of great instability and unrest, such as during and after wars, the population is more willing to accept an individual who can guide them in an ethical manner that is essential to the recovery process.

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

With a high rate of unemployment throughout the world, financial security has become a pressing concern for people of all ages. In essence, financial security means the possession of enough funds to live a comfortable lifestyle, including the bare necessities like food, housing, and transportation. With such an unstable economic climate, the first priority of an individual in the workforce should be to earn enough money to attain enough this "comfortable lifestyle," as a lack of funds can result in a regression of health, happiness, and lifestyle. Further, if one ever wishes to start a family, one must first have enough funds to take care of oneself before bringing a spouse and possibly even children into one's life. Without sufficient funds to buy food or live in a house, a downward spiral can occur, in which the individual becomes so focused on attaining proper living conditions that he or she is unable to find work. Further, employers are unlikely to hire seemingly unstable and poorly clothed employees in favor of more well-polished individuals, especially with such a surplus of possible workers. For these reasons, financial security should be a primary goal from the beginning, as financial security promotes financial stability. Investment bankers, for instance, enter their professions with the knowledge that hours are long and tedious. The lifestyle is stressful, but the salary is beyond sufficient for attaining financial security. Such individuals have prioritized the acquisition of money in front of their other interests, and the ultimate result is financial stability.

In spite of the fact that certain professions allow for financial security better than others, many individuals follow their interests and desires rather than choosing the more financially profitable route. For example, many painters live in an uncomfortable manner and are below the poverty line. However, these painters are pursuing their dreams rather than stressing tirelessly for numerous hours in an office in New York City. While painters may live in deteriorating conditions with insufficient clothing and amenities, their primary priority is producing a piece of art that they consider to be worthy. Financial security is a priority in that it ensures the purchase of painting materials, but it is not the first priority.

In discerning between those who work in order to attain financial security and those who do not, one major trend is evident: people who prioritize financial security work in careers which they consider tiresome and unenjoyable, while those who do not prioritize financial security pursue their interests, even if it means living in uncomfortable conditions. For the former group, "work" is quite literally work. For the latter group, work is a hobby, meant to be enjoyed regardless of the associated salary.

 

[Integrated MCAT Course]

I think you were close to an excellent philosophically based argument. In the essay you took the statement's frame of 'harm' and tried to develop a philosophical - ethical approach to lying based on the proposal that 'the best is the least harm'. I think you made a big mistake in the very first sentence, though, by maybe in the rush, using 'instinct' as the basis of moral logic. This made the argument come through a lot more tinnily than it would have if you could have, perhaps, stuck to a primarily moral argument based on a deeper truth, justifying lying in some cases.

Also, you really think you might suffer for using a cartoon strip because it gives away gravity needlessly, and you want your reader to take what you are saying seriously. The same is true for using the plots of TV shows or movies. I think it would help you make a more convincing argument if you dip into the well of politics, history, literature or real life community issues before going to an example with mass culture characters.

If you find yourself staring at the paper trying to find evidence for either argumentative voice in the writing sample, you would be surprised how quickly you can fix things by spending time noodling around Wikipedia. The history articles there are really good reading. Reading some articles in economics and political science can be good, as well as refreshing yourself on some of the literary classics you have read in high school. This will help VR, and the things that interest you will give you some better examples for the thesis an antithesis parts of the writing sample.

I think you could do better pretty easily, I think, because you know how to structure the three part overall argument. The essay is unified. Having a bit more compelling evidence and maybe you should be bit cleaner in argumentation or at least try not to make arguments based on some 'instinct' or other without being very careful because that has a history of being used as a sock puppet for anything. Argument from instinct is essentially irrefutable which is the bad conscience of it I guess.

I think your essay would probably get a 3 or 4 maybe.

 

[Blaughable]

John it's awesome that your taking the time to look at posters' writing examples. Just did the profit WS prompt. Was my first WS under test conditions and my test is the 18th! So feedback is much appreciated. Didn't realize how hard it is to write under pressure. Well here is what i came up with (no spellcheck or post 30min review)


In order for a business to be considered successful, you must be able to measure its success. Often the only way to measure success is through profit, which is after all one of the few quantative measurements of a business. To its workers, its owners, and its investors the only way that they can insure the business is a success and will continue to be a success is if it is profitable and how much of a profit it is making. This often means means higher wages to the worker, higher payouts to the investor and future growth for the company, all in hopes of making yet an even larger profit the following year. A company has no purpose if not to make a profit. Family Video, a local video rental store had been competeing to remain in the business. It offered low rental prices, a large selection of movies as well as amazing customer service. However, with the advent of by mail DVD rentals, Family Video saw a smaller and smaller profit. Once it was no longer profitable, Family Video ceased to exist.

There are situations however where maximizing profits may not be in the companies best interest. An example of such a situation is Micorsoft in its advertisement and selling of its video game system to the japanese market. Microsoft has notoriously failed at "breaking" into the eastern video game market and thus has been losing out on a large pool of potential customers. With their most recent system they tried to target Japan through large marketing campaigns, xbox giveaways, buying popular japanese video game companies and titles to be sold exclusively on their console. These measures were never in hope of turning a profit and often resulted in a net loss of money, but instead it was in hopes of expanding their brand name among Japan and the eastern world. Expansion can thus be thought of as another measure of success. This shows that often maximizing profits does not always correlate to the vision of a company. Microsoft was more concerned about expansion that would lead to sales growth and stability than profit.

In order for a company to be economically viable it must forsee a profit. However, maximizing profits currently does not always lead to the greatest profits in the future. As seen with Microsoft, it is hopeful that its eastward expansion will mean a greater customer base later in exchange for lower profits now. A company should always be concerned with the future and how the business that they take part in today will insure economic stability and profitablity for years to come.

 

[Ishab]

Hey, really appreciate the help.

Prompt: The Best Way to Fight Injustice is to Expose it.
Describe a specific situation in which the best way to fight an injustice might not be to expose it. Discuss what you think determines when the best way to fight an injustice is to expose it.

Public pressure is often the strongest force in fighting injustice. Infact politician and elected individuals in leadership positions are highly sensitive to the public opinion as it is the public word that decides the future of these representatives at their posts. So what what better way is their to fight injustice than to expose it? In the 1970s, Nike came under immense pressure aver its use of sweatshops. Individual rights activists and some individuals actually enduring the conditions of these sweatshops came out and exposed the unjust wokring conditions in overseas Nike factories in coountries like China and Vietnam. Exposure of these unfair business practices gave rise ot many protest in the West, especially America where well informed student began to protest. The public pressure came in the form of more then forty universities acncelling their endorsement of Nike and furthermore, moany more in the public boycotting Nike good. Threatened by the loss of market share and profits, Nike has since enforced strict regulatory practices, pending millions in ensuring worker saftey. Exposing the injustice by Nike, aroused important support from the public, that was instrumental in forcing Nike to change its business practices.

On the contrary, exposure of injustices can sometimes do more harm than good. In matters where the public opinion does not hold sway on the guilty party's actions, exposing the injustice can be futile or even harmful. Pakistan is an example of a superficial democracy that has a lot of corruption. In 1980s, a case was brought up against Ali Zardari, the husband of the Prime Minister of the time. Muhammed Malik publically accused Asif Ali Zardari of having his older brother, an affluent business man and landowner, assassinated over a personal land dispute. However, before the case could get anymore publciity and be brought before the Pakistan judiciary, Malik revoked the case. Years later reports surfaced revealing that Malik and his family was threatened severely and fearing any extreme measures, had revoked the case. In an unestablished democracy such as of the time in Pakistan, where there is corruption and a unstable judiciary system, exposing an injustice is not the best way to fight it.

The effectiveness of exposure then, depends on the state of government. In a strong democracy, where the judiciary system is independent of external influence, corruption is non-existent, and public opinion lends a heavy influence, the best way to fight injustice is to expose it. On the other hand, in an autocratic system of government, that is only disguised in a veil of democracy as in the case of Pakistan, exposure of injustice often to no avail. In such a government, where the poeple donot have a significant influence, exposing an injustice is futile. Moreover, due to the characterisitcs that accompany such a form of government, such as corruption and violence, exposing an injustice can be dangerous. With the prospect of only the most courageous of endeavors by the collective public, such as the Arab uprisings, can exposing injustice be effective in corrupt, authoritarian regimes.

 

[aussiefrzz16]

This is my first practice essay and I really need to know where I stand! Thanks for your feedback!

Laws-
-to obey an unjust law is to approve it-Describe a specific situation in which obeying an unjust law might not necessarily mean approving of it. Discuss what you think determines when disobeying a law is justified.


People often act passively towards social norms and laws that benefit them even though obeying those laws may be detrimental to others. For example, during the 18th slavery in the south, slavery, and the Jim Crow laws to follow, were vigorously defended by slave owners and a generally racist white public. By supporting the slave trade and by frequenting restaurants that continued black segregation, the public ensured the continued exploitation and estrangement of the African American community. The Jim Crow laws where an extension of the dehumanization of African americans that began in slavery which was essentially a means of insuring the cheapest labor possible. Without direct defiance of Jim Crow laws, the racist paradigm set forth in the 18th century would have continued unhindered.

Rosa Parks stood against a racially oppressed social atmosphere by disobeying bus law. Her decision to disobey the law was justified because it set into action public opposition to rampant segregation laws, otherwise known as the civil rights movement. Her defiance brought together others to rally against Jim Crow laws. Rosa Parks was not disobeying bus law for the sake of deifying the law itself; she was not too lazy to walk to the segregated area of the bus. She was disobeying bus law to fight against a unilateral spirit of oppression, she was fighting for equality.

Conversely , homosexual individuals have been aggressively pursuing the legalization of gay marriage. In this case, people that are gay and want to get married are NOT approving of the law by not getting married, they simply are not allowed to get married. Without state recognition, homosexuals can not garner lawful privileges of marriage. Moreover, they are estranged by society in that they are not allowed to have their marriage recognized while their heterosexual peers are granted lawful recognition of their legally binding relationship. However, if there is no active civil opposition by homosexual and heterosexual alike, than we as a culture are passively approving of the dehumanization of the homosexual community.

In conclusion, unjust laws are not justified if they are followed, nor are just laws if they are. The prerequisite for a just law in any case is that it first and foremost recognizes the humanity in others. This is not realized if members of a democracy are unaware that their actions work with other groups to define the laws that govern.