I just hate the 3rd paragraph, freeze up and cant think of what to do.
1st paragraph I explain the prompt, give an example
2nd paragraph I have my detailed counter example
I know for the 3rd you are to sorta do "if... then..." am I supposed to use the same examples as in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs (I just feel that is too repetitious, but is that what they want) and then try to add a third example? Any suggestions for my problems would be great.
sure, I took the mcat last fall, writing sample score was "s", one off the highest score of T
1st paragraph (from how I read the instructions) is for explaining the phrase: all re-elected politicians make stupid lame-duck decisions: probably I'd explain that this issue relates to re-elected politicians rather than first-term politicians, that it relates to them late in their term (when they are lame ducks in the sense of little time left in office, little political clout, cannot be re-elected) explain what a lame-duck is, explain that the stupid decision time more closely relates to this time in office than before, mention the insinuation that decisions prior to this seem to make sense. Also, explain what "stupid" means, most likely ineffective and counterproductive as it relates to their politicical goals.
2nd paragraph: flesh out a specific counterexample: bush did XXX or some previous president/governor did XXX smart thing.
3rd paragraph: explain the difference between the two, possibly related to the REASON that lame duck politicians make stupid decisions is that they're trying to accomplish some last thing that's specific to them (a legacy), if they were to take the public mood in mind and work with others (say, congress) and work with them in a compromising spirit, they would be able to accomplish more. "the determinants with regard to the stupidity of politicians' decisions are the impetus behind those decisions and the willingness of politicians to compromise with others toward the end of their terms; if they are unwilling to compromise, their decisions will likely be seen as "stupid" in the sense of ineffective, whereas politicians more willing to compromise would be seen as effective throughout their terms, and therefore better able to accomplish their political goals, and less likely to be seen as making stupid decisions."
I see 3rd paragraph as the most important in explaining your logic, determining what's the most important factor in the first two paragraphs, (i.e. how is paragraph 2 possible given the statement says something different) and tying the full essay together. Just grab a couple specifics that are essential for paragraph # 2 and explanation paragraph #1 to both be able to be right some of the time.
good luck!
