Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Hi all!

    I thought to make a thread regarding section 3 of the BMAT as it is difficult to self-mark. Post your essays and hopeful I or someone else can critique it!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Hi! I would really appreciate if someone could critique my essay!

    Topic: People injured whilst participating in extreme sports should not be treated by a publicly funded health service
    Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Suggest an argument against this statement. To what extent, if any, does the statement justify a change in public attitudes to personal risk taking?

    Spoiler:
    Show

    The statement suggests that people who caused their condition themselves should pay for their treatment on their own. The first and the most important step of curing a disease is its prevention. In some cases, especially when it is talked about the situation in developing countries, prevention means health education. However, even though in developed world education system is appropriate and people usually know the risks of their choices, they still put themselves in danger. There are more examples of how people can lead themselves towards a destructive disease then extreme sports, for instance, obesity or type II diabetes. Looking from one point of view it seems logical that governments should not spend a fortune on people who caused their problems themselves - it would be better to spend it on people who are not responsible of their condition.

    On the other hand, GMC states that a good doctor's justice should not be influenced by their patient's race, religion on beliefs. Thus, the attitude towards their choices should be the same and every person should have a right to be treated, because it seems unethical that governments could let poor people die due to the fact that their actions are the reason of their illness, since the medical treatment is pricy and not everyone's income is high enough to cover the bills.

    Although policy not providing government-paid medical treatment to people suffering from self-caused diseased probably would reduce people's aims to take actions putting their health in danger, this policy would not be ethical at all.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bossmanjacks)
    Hi all!

    I thought to make a thread regarding section 3 of the BMAT as it is difficult to self-mark. Post your essays and hopeful I or someone else can critique it!
    Would appreciate if someone could take a look at my essay as well x.x

    As medicine advances, so too does the bill. What do you think is meant by this statement? Can you give examples of where this statement is correct/incorrect? What factors affect the costs of medical sciences? This statement reflects a viewpoint held by some that 21st Century medicine while improving, is becoming more expensive and possibly less affordable for patients. A gene therapy for leukemia recently approved in the United States which costs an upward of 400,000 USD seems to prove the point. Newer therapies while often more effective, are insufficiently covered by most insurance policies, leading to prohibitively huge out of pocket cost for patients. However, this is not always the case. Exploring new and proven cancer therapies to be introduced to the NHS, the Cancer Drugs Fund goes against that notion. It is able to do that as such therapies while more expensive initially works out to more cost effective in the long run. New preventative therapies could also lead to cost savings and may be introduced at a lower cost to patients. PrEP, a drug which protects people from HIV, is a relatively new therapy. However, due to its potential efficacy, it is being trialled and could be introduced to the NHS where it could be introduced at no extra cost to the public. Beyond socialised healthcare, more savvy insurance companies or governments are doing the same as it makes economic sense. Generally, there is two type of costs of medical science, the actual cost of production for the drug and the cost translated to patients. Actual cost of production depends on the cost of research and cost of synthesizing the drugs. In terms of research costs, among other factors, they are lower in fields with more prior research like cancer. Cost of the drug synthesis varies as well as some drugs are more difficult to chemically synthesize than others. Drugs for the gene therapy for leukemia has to be personalised which lead to extra cost as well. High cost of production for drugs does not necessarily translated to higher cost to patients. Higher cost to patients is affected by the amount of government subsidies and the pricing power of pharmaceutical firms. Should there be high government subsidies, therapies tend to be cheaper for patients. Also, if pharmaceutical firms are heavily regulated, they tend to have lower pricing power to charge exorbitant prices for their drugs. Firms also have less pricing power for drugs out of patents due to the higher level of competition allowed for.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barbarabac)
    Hi! I would really appreciate if someone could critique my essay!

    Topic: People injured whilst participating in extreme sports should not be treated by a publicly funded health service
    Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Suggest an argument against this statement. To what extent, if any, does the statement justify a change in public attitudes to personal risk taking?

    Spoiler:
    Show


    The statement suggests that people who caused their condition themselves should pay for their treatment on their own. The first and the most important step of curing a disease is its it's prevention. In some cases, especially when it is talked about the situation in developing countries, prevention means health education. Phrase this more clearly, 'A concept well acknowledged is that of prevention being best achieved through health education, especially in developing countries. However, even though in developed world education system is appropriate and people usually know the risks of their choices, they still put themselves in danger. There are more examples of how people can lead themselves towards a destructive disease then than* extreme sports, for instance, obesity or type II diabetes. Is this not a point AGAINST making sports injuries a self-funded service? If more destructive diseases like obesity is already covered by the NHS, why shouldn't sports injuries be? Looking from one point of view it seems logical that governments should not spend a fortune on people who caused their problems themselves - it would be better to spend it on people who are not responsible of their condition.

    On the other hand, GMC states that a good doctor's justice should not be influenced by their patient's race, religion on or beliefs. Thus, the attitude towards their choices should be the same and every person should have a right to be treated, because it seems unethical that governments could let poor people die due to the fact that their actions are the reason of their illness very debateable but the attitude point is definitely a good one, since the medical treatment is pricy and not everyone's income is high enough to cover the bills.

    Although policy not providing government-paid medical treatment to people suffering from self-caused diseased probably would reduce people's aims to take actions putting their health in danger, this policy would not be ethical at all.

    You've got good points but need to practice phrasing them more clearly. Don't know how to score essays so can't really say in that regard.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barbarabac)
    Hi! I would really appreciate if someone could critique my essay!

    Topic: People injured whilst participating in extreme sports should not be treated by a publicly funded health service
    Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Suggest an argument against this statement. To what extent, if any, does the statement justify a change in public attitudes to personal risk taking?

    Spoiler:
    Show


    The statement suggests that people who caused their condition themselves should pay for their treatment on their own. The first and the most important step of curing a disease is its prevention. In some cases, especially when it is talked about the situation in developing countries, prevention means health education. However, even though in developed world education system is appropriate and people usually know the risks of their choices, they still put themselves in danger. There are more examples of how people can lead themselves towards a destructive disease then extreme sports, for instance, obesity or type II diabetes. Looking from one point of view it seems logical that governments should not spend a fortune on people who caused their problems themselves - it would be better to spend it on people who are not responsible of their condition.

    On the other hand, GMC states that a good doctor's justice should not be influenced by their patient's race, religion on beliefs. Thus, the attitude towards their choices should be the same and every person should have a right to be treated, because it seems unethical that governments could let poor people die due to the fact that their actions are the reason of their illness, since the medical treatment is pricy and not everyone's income is high enough to cover the bills.

    Although policy not providing government-paid medical treatment to people suffering from self-caused diseased probably would reduce people's aims to take actions putting their health in danger, this policy would not be ethical at all.

    The point about obesity does seem as though it's contradicting the paragraph's side- in that obesity being funded by the NHS should mean that less 'destructive' self-inflicting diseases like sports injuries should also be funded by the NHS.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by try hard)
    Would appreciate if someone could take a look at my essay as well x.x

    As medicine advances, so too does the bill. What do you think is meant by this statement? Can you give examples of where this statement is correct/incorrect? What factors affect the costs of medical sciences? This statement reflects a viewpoint held by some that 21st Century medicine while improving, is becoming more expensive and possibly less affordable for patients. A gene therapy for leukemia recently approved in the United States which costs an upward of 400,000 USD seems to prove the point. Newer therapies while often more effective, are insufficiently covered by most insurance policies, leading to prohibitively huge out of pocket cost for patients. However, this is not always the case. Exploring new and proven cancer therapies to be introduced to the NHS, the Cancer Drugs Fund goes against that notion. It is able to do that as such therapies while more expensive initially works out to more cost effective in the long run. New preventative therapies could also lead to cost savings and may be introduced at a lower cost to patients. PrEP, a drug which protects people from HIV, is a relatively new therapy. However, due to its potential efficacy, it is being trialled and could be introduced to the NHS where it could be introduced at no extra cost to the public. Beyond socialised healthcare, more savvy insurance companies or governments are doing the same as it makes economic sense. Generally, there is two type of costs of medical science, the actual cost of production for the drug and the cost translated to patients. Actual cost of production depends on the cost of research and cost of synthesizing the drugs. In terms of research costs, among other factors, they are lower in fields with more prior research like cancer. Cost of the drug synthesis varies as well as some drugs are more difficult to chemically synthesize than others. Drugs for the gene therapy for leukemia has to be personalised which lead to extra cost as well. High cost of production for drugs does not necessarily translated to higher cost to patients. Higher cost to patients is affected by the amount of government subsidies and the pricing power of pharmaceutical firms. Should there be high government subsidies, therapies tend to be cheaper for patients. Also, if pharmaceutical firms are heavily regulated, they tend to have lower pricing power to charge exorbitant prices for their drugs. Firms also have less pricing power for drugs out of patents due to the higher level of competition allowed for.
    Great essay, although please split it into paragraphs, examiner would go absolutely crazy if he saw a block of text like that


    This statement reflects a viewpoint held by some that 21st Century medicine while improving, is becoming more expensive and possibly less affordable for patients. A gene therapy for leukemia recently approved in the United States which costs an upward of 400,000 USD seems to prove the point.excellent point Newer therapies while often more effective, are insufficiently covered by most insurance policies, leading to prohibitively huge out of pocket cost for patients. However, this is not always the case. Exploring new and proven cancer therapies to be introduced to the NHS, the Cancer Drugs Fund goes against that notion. It is able to do that as such therapies while more expensive initially works out to more cost effective in the long run. New preventative therapies could also lead to cost savings and may be introduced at a lower cost to patients. PrEP, a drug which protects people from HIV, is a relatively new therapy. However, due to its potential efficacy, it is being trialled and could be introduced to the NHS where it could be introduced at no extra cost to the public. Beyond socialised healthcare, more savvy insurance companies or governments are doing the same as it makes economic sense. Generally, there is two type of costs of medical science, the actual cost of production for the drug and the cost translated to patients. Actual cost of production depends on the cost of research and cost of synthesizing the drugs. In terms of research costs, among other factors, they are lower in fields with more prior research like cancer. Cost of the drug synthesis varies as well as some drugs are more difficult to chemically synthesize than others. Drugs for the gene therapy for leukemia has to be personalised which lead to extra cost as well. High cost of production for drugs does not necessarily translated to higher cost to patients. Higher cost to patients is affected by the amount of government subsidies and the pricing power of pharmaceutical firms. Should there be high government subsidies, therapies tend to be cheaper for patients. Also, if pharmaceutical firms are heavily regulated, they tend to have lower pricing power to charge exorbitant prices for their drugs. Firms also have less pricing power for drugs out of patents due to the higher level of competition allowed for. Wow! Great essay. I'd say it's definitely an A and you've given a comprehensive response to each question so I'd personally give it a 5. Mind taking a look at my essay?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bossmanjacks)
    Great essay, although please split it into paragraphs, examiner would go absolutely crazy if he saw a block of text like that


    This statement reflects a viewpoint held by some that 21st Century medicine while improving, is becoming more expensive and possibly less affordable for patients. A gene therapy for leukemia recently approved in the United States which costs an upward of 400,000 USD seems to prove the point.excellent point Newer therapies while often more effective, are insufficiently covered by most insurance policies, leading to prohibitively huge out of pocket cost for patients. However, this is not always the case. Exploring new and proven cancer therapies to be introduced to the NHS, the Cancer Drugs Fund goes against that notion. It is able to do that as such therapies while more expensive initially works out to more cost effective in the long run. New preventative therapies could also lead to cost savings and may be introduced at a lower cost to patients. PrEP, a drug which protects people from HIV, is a relatively new therapy. However, due to its potential efficacy, it is being trialled and could be introduced to the NHS where it could be introduced at no extra cost to the public. Beyond socialised healthcare, more savvy insurance companies or governments are doing the same as it makes economic sense. Generally, there is two type of costs of medical science, the actual cost of production for the drug and the cost translated to patients. Actual cost of production depends on the cost of research and cost of synthesizing the drugs. In terms of research costs, among other factors, they are lower in fields with more prior research like cancer. Cost of the drug synthesis varies as well as some drugs are more difficult to chemically synthesize than others. Drugs for the gene therapy for leukemia has to be personalised which lead to extra cost as well. High cost of production for drugs does not necessarily translated to higher cost to patients. Higher cost to patients is affected by the amount of government subsidies and the pricing power of pharmaceutical firms. Should there be high government subsidies, therapies tend to be cheaper for patients. Also, if pharmaceutical firms are heavily regulated, they tend to have lower pricing power to charge exorbitant prices for their drugs. Firms also have less pricing power for drugs out of patents due to the higher level of competition allowed for. Wow! Great essay. I'd say it's definitely an A and you've given a comprehensive response to each question so I'd personally give it a 5. Mind taking a look at my essay?
    Thanks for the confidence booster haha, I took significantly longer than 30mins though but I would love to take a look at your essay!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by try hard)
    Thanks for the confidence booster haha, I took significantly longer than 30mins though but I would love to take a look at your essay!
    While becoming nuclear giants, we have remained ethical infants.

    What do you understand by the statement above? Can you provide examples of ways that we have grown morally as we have progressed scientifically? What are the implications of a lack of ethics in the nuclear age?

    The statement suggests that as science and technology expands and evolves at a faster rate than ever before, we have become 'nuclear giants'. However, we haven't been able to grow morally at nearly the same rate (some may even argue we've regressed) and remain 'infants' in the field. Technology has come to a point where military strength is so advanced that if a war ensues, mutual destruction is assured. It has allowed us to talk to someone on the other side of the world within seconds. Access to terabytes of data at our fingertips. But what have we done to improve relations between ethnicities? What have we done about the staggering inequality of wealth, causing an unjustifiable degree of poverty? It's very evident why this occurs; it can be explained by the social system we live in- capitalism. Innovation and discovery is fuelled by greed as it promises mass amounts of wealth. Morals, on the other hand, have no economic incentive to be progressed. It can't even be agreed where morals come from, let alone a reliable method of finding out what they are. Science has a verifiable, tested method of achieving objective results and as such, we have made huge progress in it.

    On the contrary, science has been proved to aid in moral development. This stretches back to the times of the Aztec empire, where humans were sacrificed to allow the world to revolve for another day. When the empire fell, it was discovered that this isn't required and the immoral practice ceased. A recent example is when homosexuality was scientifically proven not to be a 'mental illness' in the 20th century and has subsequently become more of an accepted sexuality.

    To co-exist successfully, ethics are crucial and must always lead the way for scientific development. It seems we have long forgotten the purpose of science and that is for us to understand the world and use the gained knowledge for the good of mankind. The implications of applying new scientific discoveries must be critically assessed before allowing it to become an agreed practice. For example, the successful genetic engineering of mammals has taught us that human genes can also be engineered. However, without proper regulation, it may lead to a world where features change based on societal preferences. One strongly disadvantageous feature that is favoured is all it takes to drive our species to extinction. This is one outcome in a list of destructive outcomes that lack of ethics can lead to...
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bossmanjacks)
    While becoming nuclear giants, we have remained ethical infants.

    What do you understand by the statement above? Can you provide examples of ways that we have grown morally as we have progressed scientifically? What are the implications of a lack of ethics in the nuclear age?

    The statement suggests that as science and technology expands and evolves at a faster rate than ever before, we have become 'nuclear giants'. However, we haven't been able to grow morally at nearly the same rate (some may even argue we've regressed) I love the use of parentheses here, really adds a personal touch and attitude in the essay and remain 'infants' in the field. Technology has come to a point where military strength is so advanced that if a war ensues, mutual destruction is assured. It has allowed us to talk to someone on the other side of the world within seconds. I think more focus on the idea of "Nuclear" has to be addressed at the start though, the way I construe the question at least. Access to terabytes of data at our fingertips. But what have we done to improve relations between ethnicities? What have we done about the staggering inequality of wealth, causing an unjustifiable degree of poverty? It's very evident why this occurs; it can be explained by the social system we live in- capitalism. Innovation and discovery is fuelled by greed as it promises mass amounts of wealth. Morals, on the other hand, have no economic incentive to be progressed. It can't even be agreed where morals come from, let alone a reliable method of finding out what they are. Science has a verifiable, tested method of achieving objective results and as such, we have made huge progress in it. This point is interesting but perhaps more linkage from Nuclear to Science to Capitalism would make the point slightly stronger.

    On the contrary, science has been proved to aid in moral development. This stretches back to the times of the Aztec empire, where humans were sacrificed to allow the world to revolve for another day. When the empire fell, it was discovered that this isn't required and the immoral practice ceased. A recent example is when homosexuality was scientifically proven not to be a 'mental illness' in the 20th century and has subsequently become more of an accepted sexuality.Interesting points regarding homosexuality but the point for Aztec empire needs to be expanded better to make reference to scientific progress.

    To co-exist successfully, ethics are crucial and must always lead the way for scientific development. It seems we have long forgotten the purpose of science and that is for us to understand the world and use the gained knowledge for the good of mankind. The implications of applying new scientific discoveries must be critically assessed before allowing it to become an agreed practice. For example, the successful genetic engineering of mammals has taught us that human genes can also be engineered. However, without proper regulation, it may lead to a world where features change based on societal preferences. One strongly disadvantageous feature that is favoured is all it takes to drive our species to extinction. This is one outcome in a list of destructive outcomes that lack of ethics can lead to...
    Interesting point regarding the purpose of science but could had been expounded further. Also, better linkage to nuclear age would have made it better!

    Overall, I think its a decent essay with some interesting brought up! Apologies if I am slightly harsh but I do believe being harsh is a good way for all of us to learn! Do be harsh for my future essays as well and thanks for the help in advance!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by try hard)
    Interesting point regarding the purpose of science but could had been expounded further. Also, better linkage to nuclear age would have made it better!

    Overall, I think its a decent essay with some interesting brought up! Apologies if I am slightly harsh but I do believe being harsh is a good way for all of us to learn! Do be harsh for my future essays as well and thanks for the help in advance!
    Oh definitely! I'd much rather I had positive criticism in advance and improve my essay score than have an elluded perception of how my essay is. Thank you for the feedback.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bossmanjacks)
    Oh definitely! I'd much rather I had positive criticism in advance and improve my essay score than have an elluded perception of how my essay is. Thank you for the feedback.
    Hey, mind taking a look at my essay? Don't worry about being harsh

    Qn: Doctors should always tell the truth and be honest in their dealings.

    Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might telling the truth be important in a good doctor? Under what circumstances might an honest doctor be justified in being less than perfectly truthful in the course of his or her professional practice?

    This statement states that doctors should never lie and must act with integrity. The statement also suggests that this is regardless of any other contentions a doctor may have including his personal interest or possible impacts of the truth on the patient.

    Considering the unique position of power doctors are in and the importance of the rapport between them and patients, it appears that to be a good doctor, one must never lie. Doctors are in a unique position of power. Patients who may have never known them entrust doctors with their biggest worries and more often than not accept their advice without question. Should doctors' clinical judgement be affected for instance, due to sponsorships by pharmaceutical firms which are common in the United States, it would be very dangerous. Doctors should set all personal bias aside and only present patients with facts, allowing them to make informed decisions, to practice their autonomy. Furthermore, lies will damage patient-doctor relationships when they are inevitably exposed eventually. Studies have repeatedly shown strong causation between positive patient-doctor relationship and adherence to treatment. This means that lies would inadvertently damage patients' clinical outcomes which should be the concern of good doctors.

    Though rare, there are extenuating circumstances where doctors may be allowed to or even obliged to lie. One such case would be when family members requests for the patient's information against the explicit wishes of the patients. In this case, the doctor may deliberately withhold information or even lie. Another applicable scenario would be when there is ambiguity over the facts. For a patient with no clear prognosis, a doctor may be well within his rights to provide a more positive prognosis than that of his actual opinion. Granted, the prognosis should be reasonably plausible. In fact, it may even have a placebo effect and positively affect the patient.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by try hard)
    Hey, mind taking a look at my essay? Don't worry about being harsh

    Qn: Doctors should always tell the truth and be honest in their dealings.

    Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might telling the truth be important in a good doctor? Under what circumstances might an honest doctor be justified in being less than perfectly truthful in the course of his or her professional practice?

    This statement states that doctors should never lie and must act with integrity. The statement also suggests that this is regardless of any other contentions a doctor may have including his personal interest or possible impacts of the truth on the patient.

    Considering the unique position of power doctors are in and the importance of the rapport between them and patients, it appears that to be a good doctor, one must never lie. Doctors are in a unique position of power. Patients who may have never known them entrust doctors with their biggest worries and more often than not accept their advice without question. Should doctors' clinical judgement be affected for instance, due to sponsorships by pharmaceutical firms which are common in the United States, it would be very dangerous. Doctors should set all personal bias aside and only present patients with facts, allowing them to make informed decisions, to practice their autonomy. Furthermore, lies will damage patient-doctor relationships when they are inevitably exposed eventually. Studies have repeatedly shown strong causation between positive patient-doctor relationship and adherence to treatment. This means that lies would inadvertently damage patients' clinical outcomes which should be the concern of good doctors.

    Though rare, there are extenuating circumstances where doctors may be allowed to or even obliged to lie. One such case would be when family members requests for the patient's information against the explicit wishes of the patients. In this case, the doctor may deliberately withhold information or even lie. Another applicable scenario would be when there is ambiguity over the facts. For a patient with no clear prognosis, a doctor may be well within his rights to provide a more positive prognosis than that of his actual opinion. Granted, the prognosis should be reasonably plausible. In fact, it may even have a placebo effect and positively affect the patient.
    This statement states that doctors should never lie and must act with integrity. The statement also suggests that this is regardless of any other contentions a doctor may have including his personal interest or possible impacts of the truth on the patient. Great! You’ve included personal interests and possible impacts which are both developed upon in further paragraphs. Makes it flow better.



    Considering the unique position of power doctors are in and the importance of the rapport between them and patients, it appears that to be a good doctor, one must never lie. Doctors are in a unique position of power. No need to repeat, remember the space you have to write on in is very small. Patients who may have never known them entrust doctors with their biggest worries and more often than not accept their advice without question. Should doctors' clinical judgement be affected for instance, due to sponsorships by pharmaceutical firms which are common in the United States, it would be very dangerous. Doctors should set all personal bias aside and only present patients with facts, allowing them to make informed decisions, to practice their autonomy. Furthermore, lies will damage patient-doctor relationships when they are inevitably exposed eventually. No need for ‘eventually’ as inevitably is sufficient. Studies have repeatedly shown strong causation between positive patient-doctor relationship and adherence to treatment. This means that lies would inadvertently damage patients' clinical outcomes which should be the concern of good doctors. Strong point. Perhaps find a way to expand on it? Example: Not only will it damage relationships with that doctor but also cause society to doubt the profession as a whole thus dramatically impacting health.



    Though rare, there are extenuating circumstances where doctors may be allowed to or even obliged to lie. One such case would be when family members requests request* for the patient's information against the explicit wishes of the patients. Explain. As a doctor’s responsibility to confidentiality is greater than truthfulness in this scenario. In this case, the doctor may deliberately withhold information or even lie. Another applicable scenario would be when there is ambiguity over the facts. For a patient with no clear prognosis, a doctor may be well within his rights to provide a more positive prognosis than that of his actual opinion. Granted, the prognosis should be reasonably plausible. In fact, it may even have a placebo effect and positively affect the patient.

    Good essay, I’d say practice including a variety of punctuation. Content is, on the whole, good.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    What should be the basic structure of a section 3 essay in your opinion?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CRTGG)
    What should be the basic structure of a section 3 essay in your opinion?
    It really depends on the question. A template I have seen recommended countless times though and one I stick to is:

    Intro- explain statement/key terms and elaborate on reasoning behind the statement.
    Para 1- Provide an argument for the statment with examples and a counter this point with examples.
    Para 2- Provide a second argument for with examples and a counter this with examples.
    Conclusion- If they ask for your opinions, make it clear which side of the fence you sit on. Summarise your points.

    Remember you have less than 1 side of A4 to write it all up so make it concise and don't waffle!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GrandExecutioner)
    It really depends on the question. A template I have seen recommended countless times though and one I stick to is:

    Intro- explain statement/key terms and elaborate on reasoning behind the statement.
    Para 1- Provide an argument for the statment with examples and a counter this point with examples.
    Para 2- Provide a second argument for with examples and a counter this with examples.
    Conclusion- If they ask for your opinions, make it clear which side of the fence you sit on. Summarise your points.

    Remember you have less than 1 side of A4 to write it all up so make it concise and don't waffle!
    Hi,
    i think this structure is a really good one. But i have one question if you don't mind answering, for questions where they don't ask you to give both sides of the argument ie for the 2016 .one: 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? should you still give both sides of the argument ? In the marking criteria it says for band 4: "Ideas are expressed and arranged in a coherent way, with a balanced consideration of the proposition and counter proposition." Or if they didnt say it in the question should i just not mention both sides and strictly stick to what the question is asking me to.


    I know its a very long question, i will be grateful if you could reply. Thanks.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GrandExecutioner)
    It really depends on the question. A template I have seen recommended countless times though and one I stick to is:

    Intro- explain statement/key terms and elaborate on reasoning behind the statement.
    Para 1- Provide an argument for the statment with examples and a counter this point with examples.
    Para 2- Provide a second argument for with examples and a counter this with examples.
    Conclusion- If they ask for your opinions, make it clear which side of the fence you sit on. Summarise your points.

    Remember you have less than 1 side of A4 to write it all up so make it concise and don't waffle!
    How would you adapt the structure for questions where it tell you to address a few separate points e.g. one point could be, 'in what instances should a doctor distort the truth'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CRTGG)
    How would you adapt the structure for questions where it tell you to address a few separate points e.g. one point could be, 'in what instances should a doctor distort the truth'?
    The structure I use is split what they're asking into paragraphs. This is regardless of what they ask in particular. For example:
    'Explain the reasoning behind this statement. In what instances should a doctor distort the truth? To what extent should a good doctor be honest?

    P1- Explain (this also technically means providing evidence and backing it up
    P2- Counter (as distorting truth is to the contrary of the statement)
    P3- Conclusion (reconcile the pros and cons and find a logical balance between the two)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    There is no such thing as dangerous speech; it is up to people to choose how they react.

    Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue to the contrary that there can be instances of dangerous speech. To what extent should a society put limitations on speech or text that it considers threatening?

    This statement implies that speech in itself is not 'dangerous' in that it doesn't cause significant harm. It seems to support the concept of freedom of speech by saying that the people choose how they react and as such, is not the speaker's fault. A speech consists of words being uttered by an individual so it can't be physically harmful in any way. It is usually just ideas put across and has no direct implications in the real world. It is an opinion. One person's perspective. How can expressing your opinion be harmful? In fact, it would be dangerous if free speech was abolished as it would take our inherent right to liberty and cause us, as a society, to be less aware of truly malicious behaviour like racism and sexism. The only real danger of a speech is when the audience has a strong reaction to it and since interpretation is largely subjective (it is apparent as different people will undoubtedly have different reactions), people could adopt positive attitudes and eliminate the danger. It is not the words, but the people that are dangerous.

    On the contrary, one may argue that although interpretation is subjective, it is predictable. In a tolerant society, people will always be against homophobia. If one knows the reaction will be negative, is it really right to say it anyway? By still speaking, speakers are causing the danger. Furthermore, we can't 'choose' our reactions. Our opinions are highly influenced by that of others; 90% of people adopt the same religious beliefs as their parents. They're contagious. Any belief that discriminates against people will inevitably cause a negative reaction. Additionally, a speech that is demeaning to a group can be labelled as dangerous as it is verbal assault. This can impact self-esteem and cause long-lasting psychological harm. This is dangerous. A speech can even danger the speaker. President John F. Kennedy's death can be purely attributed to him giving a speech.

    Ultimately, speeches will always be dangerous as they can reach a substantial amount of people and there is power in numbers. Slander a company and it can go bankrupt tomorrow with all it's employees financially harmed. Speak negatively about another country and a war could arise. But this power can also be used for good; rebellions against a dictatorship can arise or inequality can be addressed as Martin Luther King did. Only speeches that are clearly conducted to offend people with no positive aim in mind should be banned. This way, we can promote healthy discussions, equality, and justice and as a result, live in a better tomorrow.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow_machine)
    Hi,
    i think this structure is a really good one. But i have one question if you don't mind answering, for questions where they don't ask you to give both sides of the argument ie for the 2016 .one: 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? should you still give both sides of the argument ? In the marking criteria it says for band 4: "Ideas are expressed and arranged in a coherent way, with a balanced consideration of the proposition and counter proposition." Or if they didnt say it in the question should i just not mention both sides and strictly stick to what the question is asking me to.


    I know its a very long question, i will be grateful if you could reply. Thanks.
    Actually the question IS asking for both sides of the argument.
    "Argue to the contrary" - They want to see you counter the statement.
    "To what extent do you agree with the statement?" - They're inferring here that they want you to provide an argument to support the statement.
    Then you say your opinion in the conclusion.

    Usually, questions will want a balanced argument so I would do that, UNLESS they specifically say argue for one side of the argument only. The purpose of the BMAT is USUALLY trying to see how well you can present a balanced argument.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CRTGG)
    How would you adapt the structure for questions where it tell you to address a few separate points e.g. one point could be, 'in what instances should a doctor distort the truth'?
    By all means there isn't a rigid structure to follow for the BMAT but you can still apply it here. They still want you to provide arguments for the statement (i.e. when a doctor should distort the truth) and against (when they shouldn't). I don't think space allows you to include various different points so you should concentrate on 2 or 3.

    All points you include should be relevant to the question and you stick to the same structure. For example, you don't want to list all your points in a single paragraph-i.e. they way you are suggesting- and then elaborate on your points in the next paragraph. That is bad practice. So when you decide on how you want to lay out your essay, keep it consistent.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.