I just did my first writing sample drill. Can someone give me feedback ? There has been a recent debate about the extent career preparation should factor into a undergraduate education. We go to college with the intention of emerging into a campus filled with different perspectives, ethnicities, and ideas. As a recent Political Science graduate, I entered my studies with little knowledge about what I wanted to do. The ability to explore different classes in various subject areas allowed me to find my passion in the Pre-Law path with a major in Political Science. Taking different classes in my major illustrated my drawing to the major by illuminating ideas, such as to question in our world within voting patterns, and the building blocks of democracy among other ideas. Without these opportunities to explore, I likely would not have chosen the path I did. Therefore, I believe that a undergraduate education should not emphasize career preparation.  In a society with a unlimited arena of career paths, being thrown into a career focused education would blind us from exploring the vast amount of careers at our disposal. It is instilled to us in life to make educated decisions, but in such a education that is exactly what would be missing, the educated component of the decision. Perspective two mentions," Once I realized I didn't have to unquestioningly accept the norms and values that had been given to me, I was free to decide for myself which values I wanted to hold on to, which to leave behind, and even which new values I felt drawn to". A education focused on career preparation would not allow one to choose with free will the norms and values they want. The path would be chosen for us. One would not be introduced to different fields, and instead our paths would be already molded- we would just fit in the mold. Perspective two adds on questioning, "Would my classmates and I have been able to test out our ideas and ideals so effectively if my university were only focused on practical career skills?". That is exactly the question we should be focused on. Without the opportunity to dive into different general classes we would not be well rounded enough to find a area of career that fits our values and interests. We would not be able to test our ideas in the fields that relate to them.  We are expected to work in our society but we should be able to work in the areas we are drawn to, being given the opportunity to work to live and not live to work. Perspective four supports this notion by describing that there is no reason to admit to being agents of a chosen path, and we instead have to be the agents of our own path. The paragraph notes, "Likewise, there's no reason to accept it in our educational lives. Instead, we ought to honor the agency of students in orchestrating their own education experience". Being in a democracy we are dealt basic human freedoms. Choosing your own career path is a natural part of those freedoms. Career preparation focused in undergraduate education would serve to fog that choice. It would not be so much of a choice anymore but rather a requirement to follow. When we follow requirements it becomes another checkbox to mark instead of a path to thrive in and be motivated in. When we work for something we desire that is when we become motivated which contributes to our overall happiness, and satisfaction as well. Being tossed in a school emphasizing career preparation without giving students the chance to explore is taking away from that satisfaction and happiness, which in turn would lead to decreased job performance and employee satisfaction rather than when we are placed in a well rounded academic setting. We cannot doubt career preparation leads to students who have valuable vocational skills. Perspective 1 notes "Schools that recognize this and adapt will produce graduates who are better equipped to explore a wide array of career paths, and who can adapt to changing job roles within ever-evolving industries". That in fact is ironic as exactly that type of focused education would reduce the ability to become well rounded. Without the ability to dive into different sectors freely then a student can't adapt to different changing environments. Why ? Because the student wont be given those different environments, thus emphasizing why a undergraduate education focused on career prep would not be beneficial. In conclusion, When looking at all the arguments we see that a education focused on career preparation would lead to less well rounded students. Therefore a education needs to allow students to explore all arenas freely and make a decision that fits them, and not the reverse. 

The key word is contradictory.

A contradiction would require them to believe BOTH:

1. Etiquette has no beneficial effects.

2. Etiquette has beneficial effects.

Do they believe #2?

No.

They believe:

kindness and social harmony are good.

@180LSATManifest the environmentalists are saying Choosing the waste plant leads to a better environmental outcome overall. That is enough to justify the position.

B is correct because it is saying a unethical question is about doing many unethical things and not about one single act. Therefore the argument is weakened because a single act of a ethical thing doesn't necessarily mean overall the entity is ethical and should be patronized. You can think of b as not providing a reason to patronize therefore weakening the argument.

Answer B is correct because it provides a study in which the effects are misleading based on what we know. The question tells us that the effectiveness of a weed killer is based on which molecules are more present in concentration in the soil. Answer B is providing that the data is based on equal concentrations in soil which is misleading. Thus Answer B supports the conclusion.

@Disney I turned it into a RRE. Take the conclusion and negate it to become for most peole the generally more expensive training is warrented. C is the only one that answers that. It is giving a benefit of Long term training.

A weakens the conclusion because if the patient knows the got treatment then the conclusion is countered as Group 1 might have not had pain reduction from the magnets but instead just from them knowing of getting a treatment- so in this case there is a alternative to the magnet fields explanation.

I finally get it. E is correct because the abnormalities do not cause the snoring, and when we take that to be true then we support that the snoring will continue.

Now reviewing I see why I got this wrong: The people that thought his performance was pooe are outside of the 52 percent. Those were the people that always supported him. Meanwhile the people that think he's a poor mayor have always that that and continue too. Meaning that is why the numbers are unchanged.