MCAT Sample Essays
As part of the Writing Sample section of the MCAT, you will be required to write two essays based upon the given two topic statements. The two essays to be written will usually be based upon political or issues of general interest. The essays need to be attempted within 30 minutes each. The allotted time must be managed to frame the essays and then present them with finesse. An effective presentation of these essays can only be mastered with rigorous practice. You will have to be fast and explain your idea precisely.
Each of these essays will be evaluated twice and the cumulative scores of both the essays will then be equated to an alphabetic grade ranging between J (low) and T (high). So, you must be very careful while attempting this section since the essays are scrutinized very rigorously and you cannot take the chance of committing even the slightest errors. The following presented is a sample essay that will help you understand the nuances of essay writing and fine presentation.
A truly democratic society cannot maintain any unjust laws.
Describe a specific situation in which a democratic society might reasonably maintain an unjust law. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a truly democratic society can maintain an unjust law.
Democracy has long been established as the most convincing governing rule in many of the countries. Many countries of the world have slowly or with opposition have shifted to being democratic. In contrast to the present day world, earlier, since ancient times, almost all the countries of the world were ruled by monarchs or kingship families that controlled every aspect of the state or a country. With many technologies emerging slowly by the early 17th century, democracy started taking its toll on many countries. Democracy was an established concept since 500 BC but today, it has an all-new meaning with its effective deployment in many areas of the world. Monarchism, Dictatorships, Communist rules have all been offended by the people in many countries seeking rights that got vested in the public interest. Democracy is identified as the political rule in which the right to elect the ruling is vested in the public. Election of different hierarchy levels in the state or the country differs. For instance, a local representative will be solely elected by the public and the elected local representatives elect the highest official and so on. However, there are different types of political democratic rules in existence. A true democratic society is bound to protect the interests of the public as a whole giving the right for them to enjoy their rights. Here, we discuss a particular situation where, in democracy, unjust laws were created, maintained in a justifiable manner.
It is an accepted fact that the United States were never the same prior to the 9/11 attacks. Right after the 9/11 attacks, a new bill named the 'Repressive Patriot Act' was framed. This bill was passed through the Congress favorably. It is also said that this bill was passed with a dissent that is considered one of the lowest in the American Political History. The Repressive Patriot Act frisked the people ripping apart their utmost privacy rights. The Arabs, Muslims, Asian citizens who were legitimately residing in the US have witnessed harsh times. Many such people were detained without any special reason and their phone lines, securities were are seized giving them no access to contact even a lawyer at the time. The detainees experienced methodical torture and abuse from the police authorities. Furthermore, there were scores of military tribunals held with an explanation of bringing the guilt to justice. The very fact that the act has got enacted with very little opposition supports the responsible endeavor of the politicians in order to preserve national security. George Soros, founder of Open Society Institute, a reputed activist foundation that questioned the ruthless acts of the government quoted that 'America after 9/11: victims turned perpetrators." However, the American Government cannot just stay calm after the incident and has to take some action that leads to an enforcement of stringent laws that will help preserve their national security.
On the other hand, the law was accepted widely by the Native American citizens who felt the need of the law that helps preserve their national security. This way, we can state this specific situation as a strong reason of bringing a justifiably unjust law into force by a nation that is truly democratic. Contradicting the given topic statement, this situation can be a strong example for enforcing an unjust law that is justified by a section of people that felt the responsibility of preserving the American national security. A reason for the enactment of this law is further strengthened by the fact that this law, which has been formulated as temporary was being announced to become permanent. The prime reasons that can be cited for the enactment of this law are to depict the power of the American Judicial system as well as national security.
Considering the situations of crises in many democratic countries, enactment of such ruthless laws in order to preserve the national security has been customary. It is evident that when a disaster of such magnitude happens, no one believes that it was totally under alien guidance. It is so true that there would be crime doers at home too. Hence, when the situation demands the enforcement of a law that shakes public interests to the core in a truly democratic nation, it will be enough justifiable to be acceptable. It might not satisfy the whole community but it is also not being offended by the whole community as well. Hence, when it comes to the noble reason of a greater good to the society, even true democratic governments are forced to enforce laws that are unjust under the judicial conduct but are justifiable by a section of people that feel the necessity. Here, we are not speaking about the pros or odds of the consequences that follow the enforcement of the unjust law. We are just probing the reasons that determine its enforcement. The bottom line is that even true democratic countries enact unjust laws with a view to exercise their power in order to evade any further threats thereby attempting to preserve the national security.