nathan_nacu
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
Should the law require people to vote in general elections?

Whether or not the Law should require all individuals who are eligible to vote is a debate that has become increasingly popular in today’s current society. Reasons from this range from the prevalence of questioning democracy following Brexit’s 2016 vote to the unjust shutdown of parliament by Boris Johnson earlier this year. I however, disagree with the idea of making voting compulsory for free living citizens.
A reason for this is, the idea of making voting compulsory infringes on the rights that every individual is entitled to as written in the 1948 Magna Carta by the United Nations. The right in question is the ‘right to vote and be voted for’. One might suggest that making voting compulsory supports the right to vote but I disagree. The right to vote is also succeeded by right to freedom of choice. The presence of these two rights indicates while there is freedom to vote there is freedom to abstain from it on the merit of every individual’s choice. Forcing the Law to instruct voters may modify an individual’s choice thereby reducing the fairness of the Law, thus disrupting one of the Rule of Law’s 4 pillars. The rule of law indicates that the law must be practical and just so the concept of using the law to infringe the rights that the United Nations have set out that every individual is entitled to is borderline extremism.
The view that making voting compulsory would be frowned upon is supported by Marxist sociologist L. Snider. Snider noted in his study of the government that in their rule they only pass laws which aid their dominance over the people. Using his theory leaves room to suggest that such a law would have an ulterior motive, for example, the ruling party trying to secure more votes. This goes against another pillar of the rule of law stating that the Law must not be arbitrary. The proposal of this voting law is contradictory in itself to what the law stands for.
There are however, other perspectives suggested by others as reasons why the Law should make voting in general elections compulsory. A popular reason is the idea that it is the only way to ensure an election is truly free and fair, for example, if the entire eligible population voted it would be the most accurate representation of our country’s views and we could get the best opinion of where the mindset of the majority lies. While this idea sounds good on paper, I must point out that it isn’t practical to believe that every eligible voter would vote even if the Law required. How about individuals in hospitals receiving intensive care, families on holidays outside of the country, members of the army serving internationally? The idea just isn’t feasible therefore, the opposition’s initial argument is inadequate.
Another idea the opposition has put forward is that making the Laws on voting compulsory would benefit the democracy.There is an idea that with more voters the scales of balance could shift in a minority’s favour as I’d imagine most of the country felt after remain lost 51% to 49% in the Brexit vote however, even if the roles are reversed there will always be a minority, one group wanting to be heard. Furthermore, the shifting of a minority doesn’t benefit one group it merely shifts another down the political chain causing more protest with little resolution and as the rule of law says, there will always be a minority who must have their say.
In conclusion, after careful evaluation of the points provided I maintain my original opinion that the Law should not make voting in general elections compulsory as this will not effectively achieve the desired results of popular participation and instead we should focus on advocacy and public legislation to improve public opinion on such matters but never force them.

J Papi
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by nathan_nacu)
Should the law require people to vote in general elections?

Whether or not the Law should require all individuals who are eligible to vote is a debate that has become increasingly popular in today’s current society. Reasons from this range from the prevalence of questioning democracy following Brexit’s 2016 vote to the unjust shutdown of parliament by Boris Johnson earlier this year. I however, disagree with the idea of making voting compulsory for free living citizens. No one cares about the context, use that in the main paragraphs. Just give us an overview of your arguments and dive straight into the juicy stuff

A reason for this is, the idea of making voting compulsory infringes on the rights that every individual is entitled to as written in the 1948 Magna Carta by the United Nations. Literally what? :rofl: The right in question is the ‘right to vote and be voted for’. One might suggest that making voting compulsory supports the right to vote but I disagree. The right to vote is also succeeded by right to freedom of choice. Eh? 'Succeed' isn't the wrong word, and I can't find a clear connection between the two no matter how hard I try to think of one The presence of these two rights indicates while there is freedom to vote there is freedom to abstain from it on the merit of every individual’s choice. Why are you using a legalistic argument? You haven't been a legal question. You're answering with what YOU think is right, no matter what lawmakers deemed to be right

I've separated this into a separate para because it has nothing to do with the above. The argument above was you making up rights that supposedly appear in the the Magna Carta (or some other convention), this argument is about a wider legal-political principle that has never been codified Forcing the Law to instruct voters may modify an individual’s choice thereby reducing the fairness of the Law, thus disrupting one of the Rule of Law’s 4 pillars. What are these pillars? Why are you presuming that the RofL can be boiled down to 4 pillars? The rule of law indicates that the law must be practical and just so the concept of using the law to infringe the rights that the United Nations have set out that every individual is entitled to is borderline extremism. This just makes no sense

The view that making voting compulsory would be frowned upon is supported by Marxist sociologist L. Snider. Snider noted in his study of the government that in their rule they only pass laws which aid their dominance over the people. Er... okay, just keep in mind that 'vulgar Marxism' of this sort is the most discredited idea ever - not even Marx seems to have agreed with it. If you're going to bring it up, at least consider the alternatives! They're so obvious! For example, even if the government only introduces the mandatory vote at a time when it thinks that this will be to its advantage, what about subsequent governments who may be disadvantaged by it? How do you square the fact that the mandatory vote will likely be left in place with the possibility that the mandatory vote will end up working against those in power? Or do you honestly believe that mandatory voting is going to be brought into and out of force ever 4-5 years depending on the prevailing patterns of voter turnout? Using his theory leaves room to suggest that such a law would have an ulterior motive, for example, the ruling party trying to secure more votes. This goes against another pillar of the rule of law stating that the Law must not be arbitrary. The proposal of this voting law is contradictory in itself to what the law stands for. No - this is far too bold an assertion, don't make these assertions, they're dangerous

There are however, other perspectives suggested by others as reasons why the Law should make voting in general elections compulsory. A popular reason is the idea that it is the only way to ensure an election is truly free and fair, for example, if the entire eligible population voted it would be the most accurate representation of our country’s views and we could get the best opinion of where the mindset of the majority lies. While this idea sounds good on paper, I must point out that it isn’t practical to believe that every eligible voter would vote even if the Law required. How about individuals in hospitals receiving intensive care, families on holidays outside of the country, members of the army serving internationally? The idea just isn’t feasible therefore, the opposition’s initial argument is inadequate. This is an idiotic rebuttal. You're accepting that having 100% coverage is ideal. Your rebuttal scenario involves 99% coverage (because some people don't vote even under a mandatory system - see e.g. Australia). 99% coverage, according to how you've framed the debate, should be better than whatever coverage/turnout we're getting now (which is as low as 30% in some elections)

Another idea the opposition has put forward is that making the Laws on voting compulsory would benefit removed 'the' democracy.There is an idea that with more voters the scales of balance could shift in a minority’s favour as I’d imagine most of the country felt after remain lost 51% to 49% in the Brexit vote however, even if the roles are reversed there will always be a minority, one group wanting to be heard. Weird argument - presumably, the minority in a system with >90% turnout would be happy to lose because there's an absolute majority among all those who are eligible to vote Furthermore, the shifting of a minority doesn’t benefit one group it merely shifts another down the political chain that's literally the point of politics - we can't have everyone win as a matter of logic, so what criteria should we use to determine the winner/dominant group? causing more protest with little resolution and as the rule of law says, there will always be a minority who must have their say. This doesn't undermine the argument for mandatory voting - you can still have minority representation in a mandatory voting system by e.g. requiring supermajorities for certain laws to pass, having expert committees with people from all parties equally represented, having a regressive allocation of votes in parliament, etc.

In conclusion, after careful evaluation of the points provided I maintain my original opinion bad way to phrase it - it's not a matter of you testing your opinion, it's a matter of you PROVING TO US why you think that X argument is correct/well-reasoned that the Law should not make voting in general elections compulsory as this will not effectively achieve the desired results of popular participation and instead we should focus on advocacy and public legislation to improve public opinion on such matters but never force them.

J Papi
Gotta head out in a bit so you're gonna get less of a trashing than you would otherwise get. Comments in bold in the quote above

TL;DR Worst essay I've ever seen on TSR by far

Points needing urgent attention
- you have a decent intro, but you need to give me a sense of your argument through topic sentences/paragraph conclusion sentences
- you REALLY, REALLY need to start EVALUATING your own arguments (it's the back-and-forth that dyingstudent101 is familiar with). If you start doing that, you'll also realise that most of them are utter sh*t and probably shouldn't have been made in the first place.
- seriously, you really need to pay attention to the sort of arguments you're making - some are flimsy and could be torn down in about 2 seconds, others rely on massive assertions/unstated premises, etc. This isn't a question of technique - it's a question of being bad at reasoning. It's the first time I've seen this in an LNAT candidate in the 4-5 years since I sat the LNAT and I frankly don't know what I can recommend for improvement
- don't make references to legal material, this isn't a doctrinal debate about what the law says, it's a normative debate about what should be the case in your ideal world. If you are going to make a reference, do it in the right context and make sure that you know what the law is/says
- be careful with bold statements - you can't just assert that something is inimical to the very concept of law itself - that's a decades-old debate that will probably never be resolved and which will certainly not resolve itself through 2 sentences in an LNAT essay
- proofread the essay - it only takes a minute, and can spare you from a lot of awkward/badly phrased points and silly mistakes like 'UN Magna Carta of 1948'

Reality Check can check my marking to see whether it's kosher - I'm already late
Last edited by J Papi; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by J Papi)
Gotta head out in a bit so you're gonna get less of a trashing than you would otherwise get. Comments in bold in the quote above

TL;DR Worst essay I've ever seen on TSR by far

Points needing urgent attention
- you have a decent intro, but you need to give me a sense of your argument through topic sentences/paragraph conclusion sentences
- you REALLY, REALLY need to start EVALUATING your own arguments (it's the back-and-forth that dyingstudent101 is familiar with). If you start doing that, you'll also realise that most of them are utter sh*t and probably shouldn't have been made in the first place.
- seriously, you really need to pay attention to the sort of arguments you're making - some are flimsy and could be torn down in about 2 seconds, others rely on massive assertions/unstated premises, etc. This isn't a question of technique - it's a question of being bad at reasoning. It's the first time I've seen this in an LNAT candidate in the 4-5 years since I sat the LNAT and I frankly don't know what I can recommend for improvement
- don't make references to legal material, this isn't a doctrinal debate about what the law says, it's a normative debate about what should be the case in your ideal world. If you are going to make a reference, do it in the right context and make sure that you know what the law is/says
- be careful with bold statements - you can't just assert that something is inimical to the very concept of law itself - that's a decades-old debate that will probably never be resolved and which will certainly not resolve itself through 2 sentences in an LNAT essay
- proofread the essay - it only takes a minute, and can spare you from a lot of awkward/badly phrased points and silly mistakes like 'UN Magna Carta of 1948'

Reality Check can check my marking to see whether it's kosher - I'm already late
I only found I would be writing the LNAT 2 weeks ago when I decided to go for Bristol, wow I didn’t think I was that bad. I think I’ll reschedule my test for later otherwise I’ll flop my essay...... maybe this isn’t the course for me if I’m this bad. Are u sure you can’t think of any advice to do better? Practice? idk I just haven’t gotten any help, my school said I’m on my own and my mental health has kept me out of school for a bit so I’m rusty I just don’t know what I’m doing anymore
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by nathan_nacu)
I only found I would be writing the LNAT 2 weeks ago when I decided to go for Bristol, wow I didn’t think I was that bad. I think I’ll reschedule my test for later otherwise I’ll flop my essay...... maybe this isn’t the course for me if I’m this bad. Are u sure you can’t think of any advice to do better? Practice? idk I just haven’t gotten any help, my school said I’m on my own and my mental health has kept me out of school for a bit so I’m rusty I just don’t know what I’m doing anymore
I'm in total agreement with J Papi. It's terrible. I would particularly draw your attention to his wise advice about needing to both make a reasoned argument and develop it. You simply can't just make some sweeping statement and then make a half-arsed attempt at justifying it. Law is about rigour: strong arguments, backed up by evidence and able to be defended. You should be able to see that you don't really make an argument here, and you don't develop any of your points.

I also strongly advise you to not write your essays as if they are a D/E grade A level Law student's last-minute assignment (again, as J Papi points out). This is not supposed to be a legal essay; it's a test of your ability to write clearly and develop a succinct argument by using relevant facts to support what you are trying to argue. If you're unsure of the law, don't include it.

Your intro and conclusion are actually quite good. The problem is that the conclusion you make is not supported by the arguments put forward in the previous paragraphs! You need to make a much better plan of your essay before starting to write it, and check it afterwards to eliminate careless mistakes.
0
reply
Euphoria101
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by J Papi)
Gotta head out in a bit so you're gonna get less of a trashing than you would otherwise get. Comments in bold in the quote above

TL;DR Worst essay I've ever seen on TSR by far

Points needing urgent attention
- you have a decent intro, but you need to give me a sense of your argument through topic sentences/paragraph conclusion sentences
- you REALLY, REALLY need to start EVALUATING your own arguments (it's the back-and-forth that dyingstudent101 is familiar with). If you start doing that, you'll also realise that most of them are utter sh*t and probably shouldn't have been made in the first place.
- seriously, you really need to pay attention to the sort of arguments you're making - some are flimsy and could be torn down in about 2 seconds, others rely on massive assertions/unstated premises, etc. This isn't a question of technique - it's a question of being bad at reasoning. It's the first time I've seen this in an LNAT candidate in the 4-5 years since I sat the LNAT and I frankly don't know what I can recommend for improvement
- don't make references to legal material, this isn't a doctrinal debate about what the law says, it's a normative debate about what should be the case in your ideal world. If you are going to make a reference, do it in the right context and make sure that you know what the law is/says
- be careful with bold statements - you can't just assert that something is inimical to the very concept of law itself - that's a decades-old debate that will probably never be resolved and which will certainly not resolve itself through 2 sentences in an LNAT essay
- proofread the essay - it only takes a minute, and can spare you from a lot of awkward/badly phrased points and silly mistakes like 'UN Magna Carta of 1948'

Reality Check can check my marking to see whether it's kosher - I'm already late
I agree. Don’t get me wrong, my essays were also pretty trash but I think for OP:


Focus on evaluation! You give points but don’t seem to do anything else. Your essay isn’t about presenting points, it’s about presenting arguments. You need to counter, rebut, then make an overall evaluation! That’s your first step imo. Get a good outline for an essay and then worry about the rest. Your counter arguments now are too brief and quite weak.

(You also seem to mention ‘big’ concepts without explaining much which seems to me that you’re mentioning them to look good. It doesn’t look good.)

But I do agree that your intro and conclusion are quite good! Not much to say about them.
Last edited by Euphoria101; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
To counter any impression that I'm only posting on TSR to wreck 17 year olds' dreams, I actually spent some time thinking as to how one can improve their very logical reasoning. I'd use the following:

a) read through academic articles (you can find some for free through JSTOR and SSRN), particularly the conclusion (which is meant to be brief yet packed full of useful recap content)

b) read through opinionated articles in The Economist (the welcome trial is v cheap). If you don't want to pay, try the 'opinion' articles in the Guardian or BBC (neither is ideal, but they're a good starting point). Try to imitate the writers' style - brief, but full of subtance, and well in control of the material and the direction of the argument

c) try planning your other essays through bullet points (they force you to cut out the waffle). There's no need to write them out in full. Just get used to the idea that every single sentence you write needs to advance or rebut the argument meaningfully

d) try having a back and forth in your mind on the essay question, where one side says something (e.g. 'I disagree with mandatory voting because X'), the other side responds (e.g. 'I agree with mandatory voting because Y'), and a debate ensues.

e) while writing anything, really force yourself to ask: "how would I destroy the argument I'm writing if I was being paid £1000 to do so?" This is a very difficult thing to do and something that most undergrads ignore most of the time (much to academics' despair). If you manage to do it well now, you're already ahead of the competition

f) Have a discussion with a friend of yours on any given topic (e.g. euthanasia, mandatory voting, whether we should use referenda at all, etc.) Notice the rapid back-and-forth that takes place. Try to approximate that (in a more condensed manner, obviously) in your next essay

nathan_nacu do any of these help?
Last edited by J Papi; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Euphoria101
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by J Papi)
To counter any impression that I'm only posting on TSR to wreck 17 year olds' dreams, I actually spent some time thinking as to how one can improve their very logical reasoning. I'd use the following:

a) read through academic articles (you can find some for free through JSTOR and SSRN), particularly the conclusion (which is meant to be brief yet packed full of useful recap content)

b) read through opinionated articles in The Economist (the welcome trial is v cheap). If you don't want to pay, try the 'opinion' articles in the Guardian or BBC (neither is ideal, but they're a good starting point). Try to imitate the writers' style - brief, but full of subtance, and well in control of the material and the direction of the argument

c) try planning your other essays through bullet points (they force you to cut out the waffle). There's no need to write them out in full. Just get used to the idea that every single sentence you write needs to advance or rebut the argument meaningfully

d) try having a back and forth in your mind on the essay question, where one side says something (e.g. 'I disagree with mandatory voting because X'), the other side responds (e.g. 'I agree with mandatory voting because Y'), and a debate ensues.

e) while writing anything, really force yourself to ask: "how would I destroy the argument I'm writing if I was being paid £1000 to do so?" This is a very difficult thing to do and something that most undergrads ignore most of the time (much to academics' despair). If you manage to do it well now, you're already ahead of the competition

f) Have a discussion with a friend of yours on any given topic (e.g. euthanasia, mandatory voting, whether we should use referenda at all, etc.) Notice the rapid back-and-forth that takes place. Try to approximate that (in a more condensed manner, obviously) in your next essay

nathan_nacu does any of these help?
You’re in a charitable mood!
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
gjd800 does our resident philosopher have any tips as to how one might improve their reasoning abilities?
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by J Papi)
gjd800 does our resident philosopher have any tips as to how one might improve their reasoning abilities?
It really is a case of reading more. An intro to verbal reasoning thing might be useful, as would setting out arguments in standard form (or at least knowing how to do this).

I disagree a little, though: I think this is usually a case of technique and not ability. It can be honed.

OP—I have included a link to a how-to written by a friend of mine. This is geared towards political philosophy but the principles stand for any good argument at all, so you might find it useful:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uf3rthy9cb...Essay.pdf?dl=0

In fact, whilst the stuff here is aimed at philosophy, the stuff on how to write well and evaluate arguments will be useful to you. Have a look:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/myievaxs4...kxMvWiP8a?dl=0
1
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by gjd800)
It really is a case of reading more. An intro to verbal reasoning thing might be useful, as would setting out arguments in standard form (or at least knowing how to do this).

I disagree a little, though: I think this is usually a case of technique and not ability. It can be honed.

OP—I have included a link to a how-to written by a friend of mine. This is geared towards political philosophy but the principles stand for any good argument at all, so you might find it useful:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uf3rthy9cb...Essay.pdf?dl=0

In fact, whilst the stuff here is aimed at philosophy, the stuff on how to write well and evaluate arguments will be useful to you. Have a look:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/myievaxs4...kxMvWiP8a?dl=0
PRSOM
1
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
I echo what has already been said, by the way. Interrogate your own claims as well as those of other people. For example:

'A popular reason is the idea that it is the only way to ensure an election is truly free and fair, for example, if the entire eligible population voted it would be the most accurate representation of our country’s views and we could get the best opinion of where the mindset of the majority lies.'

This relies on the assumption that people are honest. Some people vote oddly owing to various biases even when voting freely. Other spoil their ballots. If people who do not want to vote are so compelled to vote, there is a good reason to assume that their votes would be trivial or spoilt, thus potentially sabotaging any attempt to discern a middle ground. (Further research and analysis would give an idea on how we might mitigate against this)

These are the sorts of tangents you ought to be thinking of
1
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#12
Thank you all for your help!
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by J Papi)
To counter any impression that I'm only posting on TSR to wreck 17 year olds' dreams, I actually spent some time thinking as to how one can improve their very logical reasoning. I'd use the following:

a) read through academic articles (you can find some for free through JSTOR and SSRN), particularly the conclusion (which is meant to be brief yet packed full of useful recap content)

b) read through opinionated articles in The Economist (the welcome trial is v cheap). If you don't want to pay, try the 'opinion' articles in the Guardian or BBC (neither is ideal, but they're a good starting point). Try to imitate the writers' style - brief, but full of subtance, and well in control of the material and the direction of the argument

c) try planning your other essays through bullet points (they force you to cut out the waffle). There's no need to write them out in full. Just get used to the idea that every single sentence you write needs to advance or rebut the argument meaningfully

d) try having a back and forth in your mind on the essay question, where one side says something (e.g. 'I disagree with mandatory voting because X'), the other side responds (e.g. 'I agree with mandatory voting because Y'), and a debate ensues.

e) while writing anything, really force yourself to ask: "how would I destroy the argument I'm writing if I was being paid £1000 to do so?" This is a very difficult thing to do and something that most undergrads ignore most of the time (much to academics' despair). If you manage to do it well now, you're already ahead of the competition

f) Have a discussion with a friend of yours on any given topic (e.g. euthanasia, mandatory voting, whether we should use referenda at all, etc.) Notice the rapid back-and-forth that takes place. Try to approximate that (in a more condensed manner, obviously) in your next essay

nathan_nacu do any of these help?
They help a lot😭 i was going to do my LNAT for November 11th but i think I’ll reschedule it for early December/late November so i have more preparation time
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by J Papi)
To counter any impression that I'm only posting on TSR to wreck 17 year olds' dreams, I actually spent some time thinking as to how one can improve their very logical reasoning. I'd use the following:

a) read through academic articles (you can find some for free through JSTOR and SSRN), particularly the conclusion (which is meant to be brief yet packed full of useful recap content)

b) read through opinionated articles in The Economist (the welcome trial is v cheap). If you don't want to pay, try the 'opinion' articles in the Guardian or BBC (neither is ideal, but they're a good starting point). Try to imitate the writers' style - brief, but full of subtance, and well in control of the material and the direction of the argument

c) try planning your other essays through bullet points (they force you to cut out the waffle). There's no need to write them out in full. Just get used to the idea that every single sentence you write needs to advance or rebut the argument meaningfully

d) try having a back and forth in your mind on the essay question, where one side says something (e.g. 'I disagree with mandatory voting because X'), the other side responds (e.g. 'I agree with mandatory voting because Y'), and a debate ensues.

e) while writing anything, really force yourself to ask: "how would I destroy the argument I'm writing if I was being paid £1000 to do so?" This is a very difficult thing to do and something that most undergrads ignore most of the time (much to academics' despair). If you manage to do it well now, you're already ahead of the competition

f) Have a discussion with a friend of yours on any given topic (e.g. euthanasia, mandatory voting, whether we should use referenda at all, etc.) Notice the rapid back-and-forth that takes place. Try to approximate that (in a more condensed manner, obviously) in your next essay

nathan_nacu do any of these help?
By the way I’m not 17🙈 I’m 19 in 2 weeks, my dad had a stroke in my first year A-levels and i had to care for him in Africa for a bit then my grandfather died and i just flopped my AS levels then I started again so I’m just a little overwhelmed with my progression, I really appreciate everyone in this thread for helping me, i feel going to a good uni would help me mentally recover from feeling like a year of my life was wasted
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by nathan_nacu)
By the way I’m not 17🙈 I’m 19 in 2 weeks, my dad had a stroke in my first year A-levels and i had to care for him in Africa for a bit then my grandfather died and i just flopped my AS levels then I started again so I’m just a little overwhelmed with my progression, I really appreciate everyone in this thread for helping me, i feel going to a good uni would help me mentally recover from feeling like a year of my life was wasted
Good luck with it. I agree that you can improve - they key is practising your technique.
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Reality Check)
Good luck with it. I agree that you can improve - they key is practising your technique.
I’ll post another essay tomorrow if that’s okay ?
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by nathan_nacu)
By the way I’m not 17🙈 I’m 19 in 2 weeks, my dad had a stroke in my first year A-levels and i had to care for him in Africa for a bit then my grandfather died and i just flopped my AS levels then I started again so I’m just a little overwhelmed with my progression, I really appreciate everyone in this thread for helping me, i feel going to a good uni would help me mentally recover from feeling like a year of my life was wasted
You'll get there and life isn't always a straight path (coming over all philosophical )
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#18
The internet and instant communication technologies are profoundly changing our world for the better. Do you agree?

ICT has undeniably developed to greater extents than previously thought but whether or not these changes are positive is one that has been constantly debated such as, the use of social media being linked with depression. I agree with this opinion that ICT and the internet isn’t changing our world for the better.
Firstly, social media and other instant communication services have been positively linked to mental health problems. ‘Influencers’ who perpetuate false lavish lifestyles have caused users to feel their lives are inadequate causing their self-esteem to diminish. This has even resulted in individuals getting dangerous surgeries to resemble these influencers. These services have done little to combat these issues as influencers bring the most traffic to their sites and should make efforts towards limiting potentially dangerous content such as advertisements for surgeries at unverified providers.
Similarly, the internet is too vast and all kinds of information is easily accessible which is why it’s become a perfect place for portraying dangerous images. Children and members of vulnerable groups can easily find knowledge on explicit content such as pornography or political propaganda. This can result in young adults being groomed and with many negative effects such as, joining terrorist groups as seen in the case of Shamimah Begum leaving the UK at 15 to join ISIS after witnessing online videos of the cause. This addresses a need for censorship of certain content and websites.
However, the opposition will note that the internet has many positive benefits like its role at the forefront of education. The internet has provided many new accepted forms of learning such as, online degrees as opposed to attending a university and using websites for research rather than textbooks. Although, its use in this sector has been criticized due to the fact that some users, especially students can’t discern factual work from farcical content produced thus aiding in the spread of ‘fake news’. This leads to discrepancies in the work being produced and can affect the educational progression of future generations due to direction technology’s use in school is going.
In addition, the opposition also says that the use of ICT and its service has made communicating between friends and loved ones easier. People are simply one-click away should they be needed and this closeness builds relationships between individuals. However, I believe we have become too dependent on our phones and technology, research has shown that we are too addicted to them and are forgetting how to use traditional methods which are necessary in the event of technology failing. We shouldn’t have to scramble for ways to stay in touch when our favourite instant messaging service’s servers aren’t working.
In conclusion, I still maintain the belief that the internet has brought more negative connotations than positive and its use needs to be better restricted and tailored to make it safe for development.


J Papi Reality Check New Essay😅
Last edited by nathan_nacu; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Euphoria101
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by nathan_nacu)
The internet and instant communication technologies are profoundly changing our world for the better. Do you agree?

ICT has undeniably developed to greater extents than previously thought but whether or not these changes are positive is one that has been constantly debated such as, the use of social media being linked with depression. I agree with this opinion that ICT and the internet isn’t changing our world for the better.
Firstly, social media and other instant communication services have been positively linked to mental health problems. ‘Influencers’ who perpetuate false lavish lifestyles have caused users to feel their lives are inadequate causing their self-esteem to diminish. This has even resulted in individuals getting dangerous surgeries to resemble these influencers. These services have done little to combat these issues as influencers bring the most traffic to their sites and should make efforts towards limiting potentially dangerous content such as advertisements for surgeries at unverified providers.
Similarly, the internet is too vast and all kinds of information is easily accessible which is why it’s become a perfect place for portraying dangerous images. Children and members of vulnerable groups can easily find knowledge on explicit content such as pornography or political propaganda. This can result in young adults being groomed and with many negative effects such as, joining terrorist groups as seen in the case of Shamimah Begum leaving the UK at 15 to join ISIS after witnessing online videos of the cause. This addresses a need for censorship of certain content and websites.
However, the opposition will note that the internet has many positive benefits like its role at the forefront of education. The internet has provided many new accepted forms of learning such as, online degrees as opposed to attending a university and using websites for research rather than textbooks. Although, its use in this sector has been criticized due to the fact that some users, especially students can’t discern factual work from farcical content produced thus aiding in the spread of ‘fake news’. This leads to discrepancies in the work being produced and can affect the educational progression of future generations due to direction technology’s use in school is going.
In addition, the opposition also says that the use of ICT and its service has made communicating between friends and loved ones easier. People are simply one-click away should they be needed and this closeness builds relationships between individuals. However, I believe we have become too dependent on our phones and technology, research has shown that we are too addicted to them and are forgetting how to use traditional methods which are necessary in the event of technology failing. We shouldn’t have to scramble for ways to stay in touch when our favourite instant messaging service’s servers aren’t working.
In conclusion, I still maintain the belief that the internet has brought more negative connotations than positive and its use needs to be better restricted and tailored to make it safe for development.


J Papi Reality Check New Essay😅
I've had a very quick skim, I'm tired and cannot be bothered to read the full thing lmao but I still think you need to focus on reasoning, which means counter-arguing and rebutting. Try to rebut your points in each paragraph and come to an overall evaluation/conclusion.

Your conclusion is also seriously brief. You can easily develop it by reiterating why the use of the internet needs to be better restricted.

How many words is it?

I hate to be negative, especially as my essays for the LNAT were never great, but it is also worth mentioning that you make a lot of overgeneralisations (if that makes sense) and you don't provide any real evidence/evaluation. Some of your arguments are also really weak and you miss good opportunities to counter-argue like in the Shamima Begum paragraph, it seemed like quite a weak point simply because grooming young kids is not necessarily that common, it obviously still happens and it's good you addressed that point.

It seems to me that you're not utilising planning time, because you don't seem to making 'a chain of reasoning'. Your essay flows okay, but it just seems that you're not really having fun with the essay in that you mention a brief point and move on without anything else. The LNAT essay is a clear, logical ARGUMENT.
Last edited by Euphoria101; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
I'm going to just start by highlighting a few things in your introductory para. This is still problematic for me.
(Original post by nathan_nacu)
ICT has undeniably developed to greater extents than previously thought by whom? but whether or not these changes are positive is one that has been constantly debated such as, the use of social media being linked with depression. I agree with this opinion what opinion? that ICT and the internet isn’t changing our world for the better.this is not what you are asked to answer. The question asks whether you agree with the statement 'ICT/internet is changing our world for the better' - not whether you agree with a different, unspecified opinion.
You must make sure that you're answering the question in every point you make, and avoid making sweeping statements and wooly, vague references to unspecified opinions or facts.

I will give you further feedback, but it might be useful for you just to read through it now using the advice I've given you above and see where you could make changes.
Last edited by Reality Check; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of East Anglia
    Mini Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 22 Nov '19
  • University of Hull
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 23 Nov '19
  • Edge Hill University
    All Faculties - Undergraduate and Postgraduate Undergraduate
    Sat, 23 Nov '19

What offers have you received from universities?

Unconditional (5)
22.73%
Unconditional if firmed (1)
4.55%
Unconditional if insurance (0)
0%
Both unconditional and unconditional if firm/insurance (0)
0%
No unconditional offers (16)
72.73%

Watched Threads

View All