AWA Issue : The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question.

[watiss]

Hi all. Here is an issue I've done to entertain for the GRE AWA-Issue section. Thank you in advance for any comment on it :) (Note: Sorry for the typing errors. I'm still having problem with the qwerty keboard :s)

The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

We live today in a modern era where democracy and freedom of speech are among the main principles of almost every nation. It goes without saying that the more people are concerned about their government and its leaders, the less probable it is that dictatorship and misleadings occur. However, the question whether or not public intervention in questioning governmental issues is truly a factor of well-being, is a rather thorny question. I perosnally think that, in general, it is worth that people participate in the main decisions taken by the government, even though it is possible that this doesn't necessarily lead to their well-being.

The most compelling reason to this argument is, to my mind, the fact that in a democratic society, the members of the government are chosen by the public, through a system based upon voting and polling. Thus, it is up to people to continuously ask themselves whether the incumbent government meets with the requirements of the country. A counterexample to this can be illustrated by the former Italian governor Silvio Berlusconi, who let the country become rife with corruption. I can barely understand how Italians could let this happen, without intervening. I think that if a governnment goes corrupt or is misled, it is before all the people of that country that should be blamed, perhaps even more than the governors themselves.

Furthermore, in some countries based on a monarchy rather than Republic, I think it is crucially important that people make sure that the inheritance does not lead "naturally" to an incompetent governor. In these nations, such as UK for instance, questioning the current government members is even more important since the latter are chosen "naturally" and there is no ptential reason to attest their ability.

Nevertheless, it should also be borne in mind that the well-being of a society is not always guaranteed by the intervention of the public. More often than not, there are contestations, strikes, sometimes even revolutions, which merely lead to a temporary mayhem in the nation without giving rise to to any satisfying result, not to mention the cases in which the situation even worsens. Take the numerous revolutions and uprisings that took place during the so-called Arab Spring. How far did the revolutionists go in acquiring what they sought? In most of the countries, apart from murders and dreadful fights, nothing more was acheievd.

In a nutshell, I think it is important that people take the time to reflect on the current government from time to time, since the latter depends on their decisions before all. However, one should not forget that these questionings do not always prove efficient.

[Al2ola]

Hi there!

I did the same essay, check out mine: (also have alot of spelling errors)

The greatest civliatsions in history from the Romans to the Egyptians prospored only its people were able to question their leaders. And these very civilations came down when democracy ceased to exist. I belive that the well being of a society is greatly enhanced by the right to question authority.

To begin with, being able to question authority allows people to critique inadequate officials and elect more qualified ones if neccassary. Without the ability to question the actions of their leaders, societies cannot overthrow malevolent rulers. In the middle east, many societies lived under dictatorial rule and were stripped of their right to speak about their presdents except in approbatory way. This saw the economic stagnation of these countries and the general deteoriation of the well being of its people. Only when these unhappy civilans overthrow their Egptian, Tunisian and Libyan rulers did society witness promising signs of growth.

 

Furthermore, the ability to question rulers increases transparency and accountaiablity. The fifity some African countries have been plagued by corrupt governments, that were the result of venial officials. Only when some countries like South Africa and Bostwana granted rights to its people to question authority did these states prosper. For example in Bostwana each minister is required to present a report every 5 years on the outcomes of his/her proposed plan for their respective ministry. A major deterrent to corruption is when a leaders face questioning from the public.

 

Additionally, immigration decreases when societies are able to openly critique their governments. Often, the educated elite of societies leave oppression in search of a better live elsewhere and thereby serve other countries. However, when this class (and all of society) have the right to voice negative opinions of new rules, regulations or any actions they tend to be happier in their countries and contribute to the prosperity of their societies. For example many people have fleed North Korea. There are many talented north Koreans around the world that have contributed to westrend societies. Perhaps if happy with their governemnts, these persons could have increase the well being of their native land.

 

My arguemnts however is qualified by who can actually question authority. It is better to unify the voice of people through organisations, avocay groups and the like. For example in the Egyptian, drunk on their ‘arab spring high” questioned and overthrew all leaders that came after Husseini Mubarak, leaving the countr in a state of complete chaos. It is therefore my recommendation to consider that this right be granted with great care.

 

To flourish is not to fear. At any point in history, prosperous societies existed only when democracy did. People who can question authority can elect suitable officials, lower rates of corruption and contribute to their societies by servicing their countries and no migrating. I strongly put forward this argument.

 

(470 words)

[triscia]

@Al2ola yours is great! Good for you! @watiss: your intro is too long and it probably took you too much time. I read an interesting article on kaplan test GRE blog, and the author (who teaches GRE prep courses) wrote that the long introduction such as those we were taught to write in high school is to be avoided on the exam day! They don't care if your essay is 'elegant', they are paid to decide if you presented solid arguments, so focus more on your body paragraphs and try to develop your thesis a bit more. I think that would greatly help you!

[psifi]

Hi, Here is my essay. Appreciate if someone can provide feedback on it.

 

I certainly agree with the point that the well-being of a society is enhanced when its

people question authority. I shall try to explain my position by considering the impact

that free-thinking can cause on the society by citing examples in the fields of science,

business and politics.

 

The church, in the time of copernicus was considered to be the highest authority. It was the

decision maker for what people should study, [what] people should think and so on. At such a time,

Copernicus was bold enough to question the authority of church and hypothesize a theory, which

challenged the popular belief held by the church that Earth was [at] the centre of the universe.

This marked a turning point in the understanding of universe. This significant feat would not have

been possible if Copernicus, being conservative, did not question the prevailing knowledge at the time.

 

In business, it can be seen that the free market leads to healthy competition and the availability

of quality goods at a competitive price for the customers. This is not possible if the government

puts the restrictions on the businesses such as price ceiling and checks on imports and exports.

It might lead to inferior products being sold at higher prices as there is no other competitor

to question the authority of this seller.

 

Finally, the idea of democracy stands as the epitome of people questioning authority. Democracy

enables only the politicians who can prove their mettle in the voting process to be elected

representatives of the society. Also, while they are in office, they need to work for the enhancement

of the society, lest they be removed in the next elections.

 

However, i cannot completely support the idea. Questioning authority might lead to chaos in some

situations, especially in business. If there is absolutely no government intervention, it might

lead to exploitation of the public.

[Al2ola]

Hi!

I really like the first example and I feel it really supports your position.

I would recommend that you work on increasing the length of your response; without sacrificing quality. GRE testers actually found out that the highest scorers in the AWA section all had essays between 500-700 words. So Work on that. Especially in your concluding paragraph where you qualify your argument, you left me wanting more. Perhaps next time give an example on that too.

 

All the