MCAT Writing Sample Corrected 2

[jeanne7524]

Prompt 1: Often in politics new ideas are seen as radical.

In the field of politics, often introducing novel propositions can be quite challenging. In situation, where other options have not been clearly explored, new ideas may appear quite radical. On the other hand, if old ideas have lead to the perpetuation of problems, new ideas do now seem quite as radical.

After India gained its independance from the British in 1947, the western state of Punjab, formerly known as Kalistan, demanded its own independance. Kalistan rebels disrupted the peace and stability that India had finally achieved after a long war. The rebels planted home made bombs in metropolitan Indian cities and their actions resulted in over a hundred civilian deaths. The Kalistan Seperatists headquarters were located in the sacred Sikh Golden Temple. Frustrated by this new conflict, the then Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi proposed a new idea that was considered very radical. She decided to allow military troops to raid the temple and open fire at the seperatists. The whole nation was in shock as they passively watched armed conflict taking place in a holy shrine. The primary reason that Indira Gandhi's new idea was considered radical was because, she did not explore other peaceful options such as verbal negotiations and peace treaties. The radical nature of her new idea, eventually lead to her assasination a few months later.

The Rawandan Genocide on the other hand is an example of a situation, where a new idea was not seen as radical. In the late nineteenth century, the Hutu clan gained controlled of the Rawandan government. They saw this as a opportunity to finally eradicate their historical enemies- the Tutsis,owhi resided in Southern Rawanda. The Hutu's declared war and demanded "ethnic cleansing" of all Tutsis. Neighbours began to attack each other and military personell entered civilian areas, further exacerbating the death toll. The whole nation was in chaos and innocent lives were lost with no repercussions. During this political turmoil, the Rawanda's pleaded the international community to intervene and provide aid. Since Rawanda did not really possess any resources that the international community could benefit from, they decided not to interfere in local Rawandan politics. The conflict eventually subsided and the death toll revealed that over a million civilians had been killed. The Rawandan Genocide was proclaimed the worst genocide the world had ever seen. It was also an eye opener for the international community who failed to act. When the new idea of enforcing international nations to intervene when human rights, that transcend all borders, are being extensively abused, was introduced, it was not percieved as radical. On the contrary, it was very well embraced, as it provided the world with the opportunity to prevent the perpetuation of conflicts that can be prevented.

Whether or not a new idea is seen as radical, depends upon the context in which it is presented. In the case of Indira Gandhi and the Kalistan seperatists, the new idea was indeed seen as radical, as it was proposed and executed without considering other more peaceful options. On the other hand, the consequences of the Rawandan Genocide lead to the propostion of new ideas that were not seen as radical, as they provided a reasonable and ethical solution to a problem that could have been prevented. The new idea that stemmed from the Rawandan Genocide only led to benefit the world and hence was embraced.

IDEAS:
The essay contains interesting and valuable ideas. However, the student must first need to have a clear definition of the keyword “radical” in the prompt. The student also needs to be able to construct ideas effectively in terms of grammar and appropriate choice of words.

TECHNICAL ERRORS:
There are several misspellings, improper use or insertion of the comma, a couple of ambiguous terms and ineffective sentence construction. (Please see corrections below.)

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE - THE WRITING TASKS:

TASK #1:
Putting the interpretation of the statement-prompt within the context of addressing problems in conflict situations is good. However, the explanation becomes vague and confusing when referring to the term “radical”. I’m not sure if “radical” is taken in the essay as unconventional, extreme or something that is negatively risky. The thesis is not also explicitly established. Rather, the last sentence in the first paragraph “On the other hand, if old ideas have lead to the perpetuation of problems, new ideas do now seem quite as radical. [sic]” only served to provide an inconclusive point in the illustration of the prompt. This should have been appropriate if used as a resolution statement towards the end of the essay (Task 3).

TASK #2:
Overall, the essay fails to provide a definite antithesis. On the contrary, it continued to present a duality or opposition of ideas.

The two examples given – the Kalistan rebellion in India and the Rawandan Genocide – could have been worthy points of issue. However, I’m not sure how a new idea can be “considered radical…because… other peaceful options such as verbal negotiations and peace treaties” were not taken into consideration. Stating this point in reference to Indira Gandhi’s countermeasure on the Kalistan rebellion somehow suggests that being radical means being ruthlessly risky.

The next paragraph fails to present a valid argument. Connecting the ethnic conflict in Rawanda and introducing the “radical idea” of the international community intervening in a local issue seems off. There have been international peacekeeping missions done like, for example, the cases of Vietnam and North Korea.

TASK #3:
This task has been addressed since the start of the essay. However, doing so only made the essay depart from what it was supposed to accomplish: provide an argument with a thesis and antithesis on the statement provided before resolving two seemingly conflicting points of view.

TWO INDEPENDENT MARKERS:
Score #1: 2/6
Score #2: 1/6
Overall Letter Grade: J

For a clearer definition of the meaning of a score out of 6, look at the last section of the first lesson for The Writing Sample in The Gold Standard MCAT or below:
6/6: Thorough exploration of the topic and fully addressed tasks are features of six point essays. These essays show depth, structure, excellent vocabulary and sentence control as well as coherent focused organization.
5/6: All tasks are addressed by the essay. The treatment of the subject is substantial but not as thorough as for a six point essay. While some depth, structure and good vocabulary and sentence control is exhibited, this is at a lower level than for a six point essay.
4/6: All three tasks are addressed but the topic is given only a moderate exploration. Clarity of thought is present but some digression is seen although the text is structured. The quality of the vocabulary and of the sentence structure is adequate.
3/6: The essay distorts or neglects one of the three tasks. The issue may be only minimally treated. The essay demonstrates basic control of sentence structure and vocabulary, but the language may not serve to adequately forward the writer's thoughts. The essay may show organization but may be classified as simplistic.
2/6: The essay completely fails to address adequately one or more of the tasks. There may be recurring mechanical errors (i.e. spelling and grammar). Problems with analysis and organization are typical.
1/6: Problems with organization and mechanics in these essays make it very difficult for the reader to follow them. The essay may fail to address the topic entirely.
The essay is scored by two readers on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 6 (highest). The combined scores from the two essays (2 to 12 out of 12) are then converted to a scale ranging from J (lowest) to T (highest):

J (2), K (3), L (4), M (5), N (6), O (7), P (8 ), Q (9), R (10), S (11), T (12)

Corrections: (Corrections and suggestions are in parentheses.)


(Oftentimes,)in the field of politics, often(omit the word "often") introducing novel propositions can be quite challenging. In a situation,(omit the comma) where other options have not been clearly explored, new ideas may appear quite radical. On the other hand, if old ideas have lead (led) to the perpetuation of problems, new ideas do now (not?) seem quite as radical.

After India gained its independance (independence) from the British in 1947, the western state of Punjab, formerly known as Kalistan, demanded its own independence (independence). Kalistan rebels disrupted the peace and stability that India had finally achieved after a long war. The rebels planted home made (homemade) bombs in metropolitan Indian cities and their actions resulted in over a hundred civilian deaths. The Kalistan Seperatists (Separatists) headquarters were located in the sacred Sikh Golden Temple. Frustrated by this new conflict, the then Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi proposed a new idea that was considered very radical. She decided to allow military troops to raid the temple and open fire at the seperatists (separatists). The whole nation was in shock as they passively watched an armed conflict taking place in a holy shrine. The primary reason that Indira Gandhi's new idea was considered radical was because, (omit the comma) she did not explore other peaceful options such as verbal negotiations and peace treaties. The radical nature of her new idea, eventually lead led to her assasination (assassination) a few months later.

The Rawandan Genocide on the other hand is an example of a situation, where a new idea was not seen as radical. In the late nineteenth century, the Hutu clan gained controlled control of the Rawandan government. They saw this as a an opportunity to finally eradicate their historical enemies- the Tutsis,owhi (omit the comma and replace the word "owhi" with who) resided in Southern Rawanda. The Hutu's (Hutus) declared war and demanded "ethnic cleansing" of all Tutsis. Neighbours began to attack each other and military personell (personnel) entered civilian areas, further exacerbating the death toll. The whole nation was in chaos and innocent lives were lost with no repercussions (? - "with no repercussions" doesn't seem to fit in the general idea of the sentence). During this political turmoil, the Rawanda's (Rawandans) pleaded the international community to intervene and provide aid. Since Rawanda did not really possess any resources that the international community could benefit from, they (confusion in the use of pronoun) decided not to interfere in local Rawandan politics. The conflict eventually subsided and the death toll revealed that over a million civilians had been killed. The Rawandan Genocide was proclaimed the worst genocide the world had ever seen. It was also an eye opener for the international community who failed to act. When the new idea of enforcing international nations to intervene when human rights, that transcend all borders, are being extensively abused, was introduced, it was not percieved (perceived) as radical. (The preceding sentence needs to be rephrased.) On the contrary, it was very well embraced, as it provided the world with the opportunity to prevent the perpetuation of conflicts that can be prevented. (The phrase "to prevent the perpetuation of conflicts that can be prevented" needs to be revised.)

Whether or not a new idea is seen as radical, (omit the comma) depends upon the context in which it is presented. In the case of Indira Gandhi and the Kalistan seperatists (separatists), the new idea was indeed seen as radical, as it was proposed and executed without considering other more peaceful options. On the other hand, the consequences of the Rawandan Genocide lead (led) to the propostion (proposition) of new ideas that were not seen as radical, as they provided a reasonable and ethical solution to a problem that could have been prevented. The new idea that stemmed from the Rawandan Genocide only led to benefit the world and hence was embraced.