This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- BMAT 2023 entry discussions megathread *Updated 14th October 2022*
- BMAT 2024 Entry Discussions Megathread
- BMAT Section 3 | Post & Reflection | 2023 FINAL SESSION
- BMAT percentage? Im at around 5.0,6.0,3A?
- Low UCAT - High BMAT (UCL, Imperial, Cambridge)
- BMAT Section 3 Essay
- BMAT section 3 tips?
- BMAT 2023 help
- 6med BMAT
- Changing an option on UCAS from medicine to biological sciences
- Bmat 2023
- bmat exam
- Official: University of Leeds A100 2023 entry Applicants and Offer Holders thread
- is my BMAT low or average?
- Official: Imperial College London A100 2023 Entry Applicants and Offer Holders thread
- GAMSAT 2024 / 2025 entry discussions megathread
- bmat
- Leeds Dentistry 2023 Entry
- Are there 12 markers in AQA A level psychology?
- Oxford A100 2023 entry Applicant and Offer Holders thread
BMAT Section 3 Essay Marking 2018 entry
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Bossmanjacks
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”
(Christopher Hitchens)
Explain what you think Christopher Hitchens means. Argue to the contrary that some assertions do not require evidence. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
Christopher Hitchens is suggesting that for a claim to even be considered, there must be robust evidence to back it up. This is in line with the scientific hypothetico-deductive model whereby a hypothesis is made and is then tested objectively. After rigorous scrutiny, if the results support the theory, it is accepted. Without evidence, any claim can be asserted to be true and will not necessarily be representative of the real world. This also raises the concept of ‘burden of proof’ as he says that it can be ‘dismissed without evidence’. The burden of proof lies first with the claimant and only after evidence is given, can the interlocutor respond by attempting to falsify the claim. This is especially important as some claims are impossible to disprove such as ‘angels exist but can’t be detected’. Great introduction.
On the other hand, this only applies to scientific claims were the purpose is to discover objective truths about the world around us. A claim that the Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting doesn’t require evidence as it is so subjective. The purpose of art is to entertain and the absence of a solid explanation for why a painting is beautiful is the precise reason for why it fascinates us. Also, some claims aren’t important enough to justify the requirement of evidence; if a friend asserts that he had a nice day, it is not necessary to press him for evidence. Finally, an implicit assumption is made that an assertion should only be accepted if it is true. Surely, some people would prefer to believe claims such as the existence of an afterlife purely for the purpose of self-comfort. Well phrased arguments.
In conclusion, I agree with the statement as far as it regards scientific claims. When an important claim is made that is required to be objective, objective evidence is needed. If a subjective matter such as drama or music is involved, it is not necessary for there to be evidence. Ultimately, although assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, they can also be accepted at the discretion of the individual.
(Christopher Hitchens)
Explain what you think Christopher Hitchens means. Argue to the contrary that some assertions do not require evidence. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
Christopher Hitchens is suggesting that for a claim to even be considered, there must be robust evidence to back it up. This is in line with the scientific hypothetico-deductive model whereby a hypothesis is made and is then tested objectively. After rigorous scrutiny, if the results support the theory, it is accepted. Without evidence, any claim can be asserted to be true and will not necessarily be representative of the real world. This also raises the concept of ‘burden of proof’ as he says that it can be ‘dismissed without evidence’. The burden of proof lies first with the claimant and only after evidence is given, can the interlocutor respond by attempting to falsify the claim. This is especially important as some claims are impossible to disprove such as ‘angels exist but can’t be detected’. Great introduction.
On the other hand, this only applies to scientific claims were the purpose is to discover objective truths about the world around us. A claim that the Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting doesn’t require evidence as it is so subjective. The purpose of art is to entertain and the absence of a solid explanation for why a painting is beautiful is the precise reason for why it fascinates us. Also, some claims aren’t important enough to justify the requirement of evidence; if a friend asserts that he had a nice day, it is not necessary to press him for evidence. Finally, an implicit assumption is made that an assertion should only be accepted if it is true. Surely, some people would prefer to believe claims such as the existence of an afterlife purely for the purpose of self-comfort. Well phrased arguments.
In conclusion, I agree with the statement as far as it regards scientific claims. When an important claim is made that is required to be objective, objective evidence is needed. If a subjective matter such as drama or music is involved, it is not necessary for there to be evidence. Ultimately, although assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, they can also be accepted at the discretion of the individual.
I have nothing to say except that it was an amazing essay. If I was the examiner, I would definitely give it a 5A. Did you do it within the time limit? :O
I would really appreciate some feedback - thank you in advance.
‘When treating an individual patient, a physician must also think of the wider society’
Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue that a doctor should only consider the individual that he or she is treating at that time. With respect to medical treatment, to what extent can a patient’s interests differ from those to the wider population?
The reasoning behind this statement is that publicly funded health services such as the NHS have limited resources and thus need to ration treatments to members of society. It’s impossible for a physician to provide an incredibly expensive treatment to an individual without putting the wider society at a disadvantage, as it means less funds are available for perhaps cheaper treatments for others. Putting the wider society to mind when treating an individual also complies with the ethical pillar of justice – to provide all members of society with an equal chance of receiving beneficial treatment.
On the contrary, physicians should only consider individuals when providing treatment. If the patient will gain the most benefit from receiving the most expensive treatment, then the physician should approve of and support such a treatment, and this complies with the ethical pillar of beneficence. Refusing treatments on the basis of cost is not only not in the patient’s best interest, but it also goes against non-maleficence. This is because the patient is indirectly being harmed – by providing a cheaper, less effective treatment, their health does not improve to its full potential and thus the quality of life of the patient is not as good as it could be. This could be psychologically damaging to the patient as they’re aware of the fact that they could be in a better state but money is holding them back. This could lead to the deterioration of a good doctor-patient relationship, because can a patient trust their doctor with their health if money is a more important consideration for the doctor involved than their patient’s health improving as much as possible.
Although any patient’s interests are likely to be similar to those of the wider population, in that they want the best treatment for themselves and for anyone else, when money is a factor, interests will no doubt conflict – in the majority of cases, a patient would be willing to go forward with a treatment that will provide them with the best outcome, regardless of whether it disadvantages the wider society.
‘When treating an individual patient, a physician must also think of the wider society’
Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue that a doctor should only consider the individual that he or she is treating at that time. With respect to medical treatment, to what extent can a patient’s interests differ from those to the wider population?
The reasoning behind this statement is that publicly funded health services such as the NHS have limited resources and thus need to ration treatments to members of society. It’s impossible for a physician to provide an incredibly expensive treatment to an individual without putting the wider society at a disadvantage, as it means less funds are available for perhaps cheaper treatments for others. Putting the wider society to mind when treating an individual also complies with the ethical pillar of justice – to provide all members of society with an equal chance of receiving beneficial treatment.
On the contrary, physicians should only consider individuals when providing treatment. If the patient will gain the most benefit from receiving the most expensive treatment, then the physician should approve of and support such a treatment, and this complies with the ethical pillar of beneficence. Refusing treatments on the basis of cost is not only not in the patient’s best interest, but it also goes against non-maleficence. This is because the patient is indirectly being harmed – by providing a cheaper, less effective treatment, their health does not improve to its full potential and thus the quality of life of the patient is not as good as it could be. This could be psychologically damaging to the patient as they’re aware of the fact that they could be in a better state but money is holding them back. This could lead to the deterioration of a good doctor-patient relationship, because can a patient trust their doctor with their health if money is a more important consideration for the doctor involved than their patient’s health improving as much as possible.
Although any patient’s interests are likely to be similar to those of the wider population, in that they want the best treatment for themselves and for anyone else, when money is a factor, interests will no doubt conflict – in the majority of cases, a patient would be willing to go forward with a treatment that will provide them with the best outcome, regardless of whether it disadvantages the wider society.
Original post by Jhus2
How did you practice for section 3? Or is this section just easier for you naturally? 🤔
I just did alot of planning for questions just to get the hang of the thought processes involved! You would also have to write out the essays (including planning) under exam conditions. I definitely had to do lots of practice before improving hahaha Good luck!
Hi guys, essay writing and I are not good friends and I would truly appreciate any criticism, thank you!
Science is not a follower of fashion nor of other social or cultural trends.
Explain what you think the statement means. Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
This statement is commenting on how science is a neutral field of study, unaffected by biases prevalent in society. This statement presents science as stoic and unmanipulated by the changes and whims of the media and the public.
However, to what extent can this statement ever be true? Science is forwarded and built upon by the ideas of humans who themselves are subject to following ‘fashion’. This is exemplified through the ‘race for space’ between Russia and the USA, where increases advances in space technology were made due to the public’s fear of Russia and their Satellites. Continually, companies and the government may choose to invest in certain areas due to the public’s interest, for instance in President Kennedy chose to invest large amounts of the country’s GDP in the space races, Certain areas of science then became underfunded, forcing science in the direction of the public’s interest.
Although science is often subject to the changing trends of society, science is the strive towards an objective truth, and this truth is true whether or not society agrees with it, for instance, Copernicus persevered in presenting the idea that the sun is the centre of the solar system, despite great opposition by the church, showing how science will progress despite opposing public opinion. Moreover. Scientific journals are peer reviews to makes sure that all the data is reliable and valid so that no externals sources are influencing the results.
Science strives to be uninfluenced by outsiders, however, due to the fact that science is progressed by humans who can be influenced by the media and overall trends, therefore, this statement is true but to a minimal extent
any tips on how to structure my response and whether I am approaching the question in the right way would be really helpful!
Science is not a follower of fashion nor of other social or cultural trends.
Explain what you think the statement means. Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
This statement is commenting on how science is a neutral field of study, unaffected by biases prevalent in society. This statement presents science as stoic and unmanipulated by the changes and whims of the media and the public.
However, to what extent can this statement ever be true? Science is forwarded and built upon by the ideas of humans who themselves are subject to following ‘fashion’. This is exemplified through the ‘race for space’ between Russia and the USA, where increases advances in space technology were made due to the public’s fear of Russia and their Satellites. Continually, companies and the government may choose to invest in certain areas due to the public’s interest, for instance in President Kennedy chose to invest large amounts of the country’s GDP in the space races, Certain areas of science then became underfunded, forcing science in the direction of the public’s interest.
Although science is often subject to the changing trends of society, science is the strive towards an objective truth, and this truth is true whether or not society agrees with it, for instance, Copernicus persevered in presenting the idea that the sun is the centre of the solar system, despite great opposition by the church, showing how science will progress despite opposing public opinion. Moreover. Scientific journals are peer reviews to makes sure that all the data is reliable and valid so that no externals sources are influencing the results.
Science strives to be uninfluenced by outsiders, however, due to the fact that science is progressed by humans who can be influenced by the media and overall trends, therefore, this statement is true but to a minimal extent
any tips on how to structure my response and whether I am approaching the question in the right way would be really helpful!
Original post by try hard
I have nothing to say except that it was an amazing essay. If I was the examiner, I would definitely give it a 5A. Did you do it within the time limit? :O
Haha, yes I did! I guess picking a topic that you enjoy goes a long way. Thank you.
Original post by Bossmanjacks
Haha, yes I did! I guess picking a topic that you enjoy goes a long way. Thank you.
Anyways, thanks for all the help and all the best for BMAT tmr! Hopefully all of us get our desired marks!
Hello! It's a bit last minute, I know, but I would really appreciate it if anyone could take a look at this essay, and give me some pointers on what I could improve on.
The option of taking strike action should not be available to doctors as they have a special duty of care to their patients. Explain what is meant by this statement. Argue that it should be possible for doctors to go on strike as other workers do. To what extent should doctors’ duty of care to patients affect the conditions of their employment?
This statement is claiming that doctors should be unable to take industrial action, as they have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their patients that is unique to their medical professions. It implies that, in going on strike, doctors would compromise the care of their patients.
However, it can be argued that to strike is a human right, as all people should be allowed the freedom of expression to protest against unsuitable working conditions. If other professions have this right, it is only fair that it should be extended to doctors too, as they are as deserving of safe working conditions as any other human. A recent example of industrial action by doctors was the 2016 junior doctor strike, with the BMA stating it was over proposed removals of caps on working hours, leading to unsafe amounts of work undergone. The doctors would be permanently exhausted and therefore would not be in the right state of mind to be making life or death decisions with and for their patients. A tired doctor would be more likely to make mistakes, which they would not normally make, which could harm a patient, such as prescribing the wrong drug. If this became the norm, patients would be in danger all the time they are under the care of these doctors. Compared to this, the danger caused by 48 hours worth of strikes is trivial, and emergency measures put in place mean that, according to the BMJ, patient mortality does not increase during a strike. It is therefore safer for patients, and so better, if doctors make a stand in this way, rather than accepting conditions that put patients at risk.
A doctor’s duty of care to their patients should be the most important consideration in deciding working conditions, as an NHS core value is to put patients at the heart of everything it does, so duty of care should affect employment conditions to a very large extent. These conditions should never be such that a patient is put in danger. They must therefore consider that a doctor cannot carry out their duty of care if they are overworked and exhausted, and should seek to avoid this in any way possible, as compromising the care of patients goes against the core message of the NHS
The option of taking strike action should not be available to doctors as they have a special duty of care to their patients. Explain what is meant by this statement. Argue that it should be possible for doctors to go on strike as other workers do. To what extent should doctors’ duty of care to patients affect the conditions of their employment?
This statement is claiming that doctors should be unable to take industrial action, as they have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their patients that is unique to their medical professions. It implies that, in going on strike, doctors would compromise the care of their patients.
However, it can be argued that to strike is a human right, as all people should be allowed the freedom of expression to protest against unsuitable working conditions. If other professions have this right, it is only fair that it should be extended to doctors too, as they are as deserving of safe working conditions as any other human. A recent example of industrial action by doctors was the 2016 junior doctor strike, with the BMA stating it was over proposed removals of caps on working hours, leading to unsafe amounts of work undergone. The doctors would be permanently exhausted and therefore would not be in the right state of mind to be making life or death decisions with and for their patients. A tired doctor would be more likely to make mistakes, which they would not normally make, which could harm a patient, such as prescribing the wrong drug. If this became the norm, patients would be in danger all the time they are under the care of these doctors. Compared to this, the danger caused by 48 hours worth of strikes is trivial, and emergency measures put in place mean that, according to the BMJ, patient mortality does not increase during a strike. It is therefore safer for patients, and so better, if doctors make a stand in this way, rather than accepting conditions that put patients at risk.
A doctor’s duty of care to their patients should be the most important consideration in deciding working conditions, as an NHS core value is to put patients at the heart of everything it does, so duty of care should affect employment conditions to a very large extent. These conditions should never be such that a patient is put in danger. They must therefore consider that a doctor cannot carry out their duty of care if they are overworked and exhausted, and should seek to avoid this in any way possible, as compromising the care of patients goes against the core message of the NHS
Original post by jb10101
Hello! It's a bit last minute, I know, but I would really appreciate it if anyone could take a look at this essay, and give me some pointers on what I could improve on.
The option of taking strike action should not be available to doctors as they have a special duty of care to their patients. Explain what is meant by this statement. Argue that it should be possible for doctors to go on strike as other workers do. To what extent should doctors’ duty of care to patients affect the conditions of their employment?
This statement is claiming that doctors should be unable to take industrial action, as they have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their patients that is unique to their medical professions. It implies that, in going on strike, doctors would compromise the care of their patients. [Clear and concise introduction.]
However, it can be argued that to strike is a human right, as all people should be allowed the freedom of expression to protest against unsuitable working conditions. If other professions have this right, it is only fair that it should be extended to doctors too, as they are as deserving of safe working conditions as any other human. A recent example of industrial action by doctors was the 2016 junior doctor strike, with the BMA stating it was over proposed removals of caps on working hours, leading to unsafe amounts of work undergone. The doctors would be permanently exhausted and therefore would not be in the right state of mind to be making life or death decisions with and for their patients. A tired doctor would be more likely to make mistakes, which they would not normally make, which could harm a patient, such as prescribing the wrong drug. If this became the norm, patients would be in danger all the time they are under the care of these doctors. Compared to this, the danger caused by 48 hours worth of strikes is trivial, and emergency measures put in place mean that, according to the BMJ, patient mortality does not increase during a strike. It is therefore safer for patients, and so better, if doctors make a stand in this way, rather than accepting conditions that put patients at risk. [I find that you answered this question very well. Examples provided were analysed and aided in the explanation to help you bring your point across to the reader.]
A doctor’s duty of care to their patients should be the most important consideration in deciding working conditions, as an NHS core value is to put patients at the heart of everything it does, so duty of care should affect employment conditions to a very large extent. These conditions should never be such that a patient is put in danger. They must therefore consider that a doctor cannot carry out their duty of care if they are overworked and exhausted, and should seek to avoid this in any way possible, as compromising the care of patients goes against the core message of the NHS. [Poor working conditions does not necessarily equate to overworked/exhausted doctors. Could also be poor management/maintenance of facilities present in the doctor's place of work. Try not to just zoom in to the point on doctors being overworked. Explore other perspectives and you then would be able to present more points across to the examiner.
Something that you can add is that treating patients and ensuring their well-being is of utmost priority to doctors and is also something unique to the medical profession. Not being able to perform such tasks due to poor working conditions would thus make the roles of doctors useless. Hence, the duty of care for patients should be a very important factor when it comes to affecting employment conditions.]
The option of taking strike action should not be available to doctors as they have a special duty of care to their patients. Explain what is meant by this statement. Argue that it should be possible for doctors to go on strike as other workers do. To what extent should doctors’ duty of care to patients affect the conditions of their employment?
This statement is claiming that doctors should be unable to take industrial action, as they have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their patients that is unique to their medical professions. It implies that, in going on strike, doctors would compromise the care of their patients. [Clear and concise introduction.]
However, it can be argued that to strike is a human right, as all people should be allowed the freedom of expression to protest against unsuitable working conditions. If other professions have this right, it is only fair that it should be extended to doctors too, as they are as deserving of safe working conditions as any other human. A recent example of industrial action by doctors was the 2016 junior doctor strike, with the BMA stating it was over proposed removals of caps on working hours, leading to unsafe amounts of work undergone. The doctors would be permanently exhausted and therefore would not be in the right state of mind to be making life or death decisions with and for their patients. A tired doctor would be more likely to make mistakes, which they would not normally make, which could harm a patient, such as prescribing the wrong drug. If this became the norm, patients would be in danger all the time they are under the care of these doctors. Compared to this, the danger caused by 48 hours worth of strikes is trivial, and emergency measures put in place mean that, according to the BMJ, patient mortality does not increase during a strike. It is therefore safer for patients, and so better, if doctors make a stand in this way, rather than accepting conditions that put patients at risk. [I find that you answered this question very well. Examples provided were analysed and aided in the explanation to help you bring your point across to the reader.]
A doctor’s duty of care to their patients should be the most important consideration in deciding working conditions, as an NHS core value is to put patients at the heart of everything it does, so duty of care should affect employment conditions to a very large extent. These conditions should never be such that a patient is put in danger. They must therefore consider that a doctor cannot carry out their duty of care if they are overworked and exhausted, and should seek to avoid this in any way possible, as compromising the care of patients goes against the core message of the NHS. [Poor working conditions does not necessarily equate to overworked/exhausted doctors. Could also be poor management/maintenance of facilities present in the doctor's place of work. Try not to just zoom in to the point on doctors being overworked. Explore other perspectives and you then would be able to present more points across to the examiner.
Something that you can add is that treating patients and ensuring their well-being is of utmost priority to doctors and is also something unique to the medical profession. Not being able to perform such tasks due to poor working conditions would thus make the roles of doctors useless. Hence, the duty of care for patients should be a very important factor when it comes to affecting employment conditions.]
I also tried doing this essay and found that it wasn't a very easy essay to achieve balance with! Your essay is well done overall! Good luck!
Could anyone please have a look at my essay and suggest a score. Thanks
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Pablo Picasso).
Picasso, a world renowned artist, renders computers as 'useless' in the statement, stating that they can only offer 'answers'. While this may seem ironic considering answers are ultimately the goal, computers cannot stimulate the art of human kind's inquisitive nature which drives science.
In the 1900s, science made an immense breakthrough with the human genome project: the entire sequence of DNA bases of a human were coded, and they finished this over a decade ahead of schedule due to the development of technology such as PCR. However, now we are left with the entire genome, and we do not know quite what do with it... Technology has offered the answer, but without scientists experimenting further and learning to interpret the code, the answer is 'useless' and we cannot cure any diseases that we set out to cure.
However, unquestionably the use of computers has revolutionised science; mathematical calculations and models in astronomy, meteorology and medicine have greatly catalysed the process of scientific experimentation offering a wide scope for making new discoveries. Even in medicine, computers could potentially take over surgery with robotic technology now being used for prostate operations.
Overall, I feel that it is too far a stretch to call computers 'useless'. It may have been easier to claim so at Picasso's time, but, particularly in the last few decades, computers have been very useful in not only answering questions but also enabling scientists to test their hypotheses/ questions statistically. Although, over-reliance on technology may result in the impairment of human inquisition - we must strike the balance right.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." (Pablo Picasso).
Picasso, a world renowned artist, renders computers as 'useless' in the statement, stating that they can only offer 'answers'. While this may seem ironic considering answers are ultimately the goal, computers cannot stimulate the art of human kind's inquisitive nature which drives science.
In the 1900s, science made an immense breakthrough with the human genome project: the entire sequence of DNA bases of a human were coded, and they finished this over a decade ahead of schedule due to the development of technology such as PCR. However, now we are left with the entire genome, and we do not know quite what do with it... Technology has offered the answer, but without scientists experimenting further and learning to interpret the code, the answer is 'useless' and we cannot cure any diseases that we set out to cure.
However, unquestionably the use of computers has revolutionised science; mathematical calculations and models in astronomy, meteorology and medicine have greatly catalysed the process of scientific experimentation offering a wide scope for making new discoveries. Even in medicine, computers could potentially take over surgery with robotic technology now being used for prostate operations.
Overall, I feel that it is too far a stretch to call computers 'useless'. It may have been easier to claim so at Picasso's time, but, particularly in the last few decades, computers have been very useful in not only answering questions but also enabling scientists to test their hypotheses/ questions statistically. Although, over-reliance on technology may result in the impairment of human inquisition - we must strike the balance right.
(edited 6 years ago)
How did everyone do? Oh my god, I completed failed that exam. Bye bye Cambridge 
Original post by Bossmanjacks
How did everyone do? Oh my god, I completed failed that exam. Bye bye Cambridge
What section did you find the hardest? And how did you think it compared to the 2016 paper?
Original post by CRTGG
What section did you find the hardest? And how did you think it compared to the 2016 paper?
I found section 1 the hardest I just completely lost focus half way through
I was mind ****ed
S3 had the worst combination of essay titles than any other S3 I've done before...I put down a load of rubbish.
Guys I don't think we should be talking about the test
Others haven't sat it could result in higher boundries
Others haven't sat it could result in higher boundries
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Gapmed2018
Guys I don't think we should be talking about the test
Others haven't sat it could result in higher boundries
Others haven't sat it could result in higher boundries
Everyones done it...?
Original post by Gapmed2018
Guys I don't think we should be talking about the test
Others haven't sat it could result in higher boundries
Others haven't sat it could result in higher boundries
wow just wow. cause reading about how damn hard section 1 was is suddenly gonna help them ace that test. honestly like even if somehow we wrote the answers for the first ten questions (i doubt anyone actually got the first 10 all correct) its not like every single person who hasnt sat the test is gonna read that specific post and believe whats written on an internet forum.
Original post by Cor395
wow just wow. cause reading about how damn hard section 1 was is suddenly gonna help them ace that test. honestly like even if somehow we wrote the answers for the first ten questions (i doubt anyone actually got the first 10 all correct) its not like every single person who hasnt sat the test is gonna read that specific post and believe whats written on an internet forum.
Specific discussion is still embargoed.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4934792
Original post by ForestCat
Specific discussion is still embargoed.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4934792
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4934792
never said it wasn't. I just meant its not like anyone is giving answers away well not answers that someone reading can verify 100% as they dont have the full question. Also one person reading one post that could contain one answer to one question is not going to change the boundaries.
Original post by Cor395
never said it wasn't. I just meant its not like anyone is giving answers away well not answers that someone reading can verify 100% as they dont have the full question. Also one person reading one post that could contain one answer to one question is not going to change the boundaries.
But there had been mention of specific questions. I am afraid we tread very carefully, so just sticking to general section 1 was hard type statements is all we will allow.
for the essay when it says to explain the reasoning behind the statement is it enough to explain the statement as an intro and then later do a paragraph explaining reasons why some people would agree with it? im panicking cause idk if that properly/explicitly counts as explaining the reasoning 
Related discussions
- BMAT 2023 entry discussions megathread *Updated 14th October 2022*
- BMAT 2024 Entry Discussions Megathread
- BMAT Section 3 | Post & Reflection | 2023 FINAL SESSION
- BMAT percentage? Im at around 5.0,6.0,3A?
- Low UCAT - High BMAT (UCL, Imperial, Cambridge)
- BMAT Section 3 Essay
- BMAT section 3 tips?
- BMAT 2023 help
- 6med BMAT
- Changing an option on UCAS from medicine to biological sciences
- Bmat 2023
- bmat exam
- Official: University of Leeds A100 2023 entry Applicants and Offer Holders thread
- is my BMAT low or average?
- Official: Imperial College London A100 2023 Entry Applicants and Offer Holders thread
- GAMSAT 2024 / 2025 entry discussions megathread
- bmat
- Leeds Dentistry 2023 Entry
- Are there 12 markers in AQA A level psychology?
- Oxford A100 2023 entry Applicant and Offer Holders thread
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
