Amisha

Thank you for reviewing my essay. I'll be sure to incorporate your pointers, they has been very helpful!

Hi. I scanned your essay and to be honest, I think that if you wrote this within 30 mins, you're good to go. Issue type essays are analysed largely on the basis of structure, logical flow of ideas and persuasiveness of examples. I am no expert but I can definitely say that your essay is quite convincing. However, I would suggest you to avoid taking a 100% stand on any topic. I hope this helps. Good luck!

Prompt: A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring. Argument Analysis: The argument being scrutinized makes some interesting deductions and extrapolates the findings on rhesus monkeys to compare similar behaviour among humans. However, the argument is rife with assumptions and shortcomings. To begin with, the conclusions that have been drawn regarding the effects of birth order on individual's levels of simulation have been made by the study of only eighteen monkeys. There is a high possibility that this kind of behaviour is limited to the monkeys of the region that have been analysed for the study and not applicable on the general population. Moreover, the ratio of monkeys that were affected is not given. Further, the reliability and validity of the cited study is unknown. In addition, the author mentions that in simulating situations, the firstborn infants produce up to twice as much cortisol as do their younger siblings. However, the argument fails to provide the simulating situations that were studied as a part of the survey. Also, we cannot be sure that this phenomenon occurs due to the birth order and not due to the difference in emotional capabilities of individual monkeys. It is probable that the firstborns studied were more emotionally charged than their siblings and it has nothing to do with the birth order. This makes the claim fuzzy. Furthermore, the deduction drawn regarding the firstborn humans has not been fortified by any form of statistical figures or studies which leaves room for questions such as how was the conclusion drawn, how reliable was the study that aided this claim and so on. Moreover, the claim about the first-time mother monkey has not been consolidated by the details of the survey. We do not know how many monkeys were studied, how many monkeys displayed the proposed behaviour or how reliable is the survey. It could be possible the external conditions used during the study caused some monkeys to release higher levels of cortisol as compared to others. Such possibilities weaken the argument and leave it indefinite. In conclusion, the argument has some promising propositions; however, the lack of information about the validity and reliability of the study renders the argument passive and open to questions. The argument could have been consolidated by providing extensive details of the performed study and more accountable extrapolations. P.S. I wrote this within 30 mins, could someone please grade my analysis and give me a few pointers on what all do I need to improve upon. Thank you.

Prompt: Scandals-whether in politics, academia, or other area-can be useful. They focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. Stand: A scandal can be defined as an event or a succession of events that are regarded as legally and morally incorrect and result in public outrage. While it may be true that in some cases scandals proved to be instrumental in achieving the solution to certain problems, however, it may or may not always be as effective. Saying that scandals are useful because they focus public attention on problems in a way that no speaker or reformer ever could, would not be quite correct. Additionally, repetitively using other people's plight to teach public a lesson or bring about a change does not speak well of the society. If we look back in time, we can find for ourselves several examples of situations where great reforms were introduced in the society by speakers and reformers without having to ride on a huge scandal. If we were to consider the sati pratha, prominent in medieval India, where the widow was required to immolate herself along with her husband at his funeral pyre, it was abolished by the efforts of reformist Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who pressurized the then Governor-General to pass appropriate laws to ban the practice. He was successful in awakening the conscience of the masses by his efforts and work through publication of pamphlets and newspaper reports. He relied on his own skills and judiciousness, without taking aid from a scandal of any sort to bring about a major reform in the society. As another example, if we look at Martin Luther King, the African-American activist and leader of the African-American Movement, he fought for equal rights for black men and to abolish unjustifiable laws. He was able to achieve the same by his famous "I have a dream speech". His speech revolutionized the nation and caused the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of America. However, the movements that took place for the freedom of blacks were fueled by scandals such as the one involving Rosa Parks, where the activist refused to give up her seat in a public transport to a white man. However, it was largely due to the efforts of the speakers and reformers that were able to focus the attention of the public towards the pressing issues and stir up a revolution. On the contrary, there have been situations in the past that have quite favorably focused public's attention towards societal issues with the aid of scandals. In 2010, the Commonwealth Games were hosted by India, a country plagued by corruption ever since its independence in 1947. The multi-sport event of 2010 is remembered for unfolding one of the most scandalous sports events of all time. The former chairperson of the Organising Committee (OC) of the CWG'10, Suresh Kalmadi, was the main accused according to the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) charge sheet on the charges of conspiracy, forgery, misconduct and corruption. The scandal caused a major uprising across the country where people took to streets, organised marches, went on hunger strikes to raise their voice against corruption. In this particular scenario, a scandal proved to be a catalyst and brought about a major reform, something that the speakers and activists had been trying to achieve for quite a while. In conclusion, thinking of scandals as a magic bullet to focus public attention upon pressing matters is naivety. We must respect the personal lives of other people and not try to use their misfortune and plight to teach public a life lesson and aggravate the situation. Scandals should not be viewed as the only vehicles of reform; we must not underestimate the oratory skills of the speakers or the efforts of the reformers to bring about a change in the society. However, there are times when scandals prove to be the most effective solution to a problem and revolutionize the situation at hand but to say that scandals are useful for the same reason is puerile.