Gamsat Section B - Written Expression

[Tomw2]

Yeah first attempt was technically a practice, but i spent a lot of time in the preceding months preparing for it and got a fair bit of advice from others who had sat it multiple times. Did very well, scoring above the 95th percentile (dont recall exact score :S)

Interestingly, 2nd time round my SIII dropped from low 70s to 66, but my SI & II increased by the same amount. So ended up with similar score.

Didnt practice much science-type questions 2nd time. My knowledge was good, but my speed dropped and i had to guess many SIII questions at the end.

[VivaTequila]

This took me just under 30mins from seeing the quotations to finish. It's by no means perfect, but criticisms on the vulgar and colloquial style I'm beginning to adopt would be very welcome . Is it okay, passable, dictatorial? Or should you be more reserved with these kinds of pieces?

1: Animals are such agreeable friends–they ask no questions, they pass no criticisms.
George Eliot (1819 – 1880), 'Mr. Gilfil's Love Story,' Scenes of Clerical Life, 1857

2: Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can eliminate prejudices–just recognize them.
Edward R. Murrow (1908 – 1965), television broadcast, December 31, 1955

3: Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
Eric Hoffer (1902 – 1983)

4: Opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest of violence.
Francis Jeffrey (1773 – 1850)

5: Without the aid of prejudice and custom I should not be able to find my way across the room.
William Hazlitt (1778 – 1830)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

- Explain prejudice as a figment of evolution
- Explain the origins of prejudice
- Analyse how it on practicable terms within society
- Ensure that it's neither viewed as good or bad, but rather as a facet of our (and all) species
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Prejudice. Even the word is prejudicial. Connotations go a long way in the determinism of sociocultural norms - alas, prejudice is often percieved as a terrible facet of human nature. But why should any aspects of human nature be analysed and critiqued at being 'bad'? Through which universal laws are these attributes of human nature reckoned? Mark my words - there is no "bad" in "prejudice".

You see, people habitually misinterpret the word and discuss most forms of prejudice in starkly negative terms. The proverbs "Don't judge a book by it's cover" epitomises the issue - it's widely perceived that people simply judge before they know. But this necessarily is not a horrid thing.

Animals with conscientious reasoning capacity tend to display prejudice. If an animal observes an ostensible threat, then you can expect a fight or flight response. By some cognition, this animal has rationalised what it sees as being either impasse or the very converse. Everybody has approached a timid animal with naught but good intentions to have it cower or flee - we are objectively not a threat to the animal, but it percieves us as one. That is, that animal judges us, and incorrectly at that.

Animals are prejudicial too. And they don't always get it right.

So our furry faithful friends engage in this horrible facet - but do we think that is bad? Most would say no. The natural processes which we observe in nature - cannibalism, ostracision of inferior males in pack hierarchies, consumption of progeny - wield the most horrid of human connotations. Imagine Fritzl partaking in that. But they make the choice to do exactly what they do - it's survival. Instincts. Prejudice - the cofactor in all forms of decision making - is not inherently good or bad. It's nature. It's an innate survival mechanisms bestowed upon humans which we don't reserve the rights to control. It's involuntary, and as a subsequence of that, it stands to reason that the connotations of prejudice (as being a sinful action from which we must abstain) are absurd.

Prejudice is an unwieldy term. Sure, when some recalcitrant discriminates with a racial slur, we all reel and think "how terrible!". But that feeling might not be mutual with the said sledger. To him, prejudice means nothing - what he sees doesn't bode well with his innate views; his values. To us, the "treat other's how you'd like to be treated" mentality compounds the recognition that skin colour is a simple genetic trait endemic to humans in exacerbating the horrific nature of the racial slur - nobody wants to be that victim, and to us, the punishment was purportedly undeserved.

What causes the difference in the cognitive processes in the said sledger and that of the impartial onlooker? Well, really, none of it should be frowned upon. Let's have a quick analysis of what's happening here. The negro has a genetic fluctuation which causes a concentrated pigment to be produced in the skin. Big deal - it happens. But to the racist, it's not a mark of simple genetic variability - it's a mark of inferiority and an opportunity to outlandishly radiate dominance. The racist might believe, through his biological cognition processes (which we ubiquitously and nihilistically contend are not flawed, just varied) that the negro is an inferior being. We, as impartial pacificts and scientists, can recognise that it's just a different genetic makeup, which again by definition has no "wild type" or "flaws" when it comes to (interestingly, only) humans.

So whose wrong? Is anything inherently wrong with the negro? No - the cause is genetic flux, which is defined as being neutral. Is anything wrong with the prejudicial actions of the racist? No - his cognition processes are telling him that it's what he should do and governing his actions, and it is these processes which guarantee his survival - a figment of evolution.

Should we condemn discrimination?

Well no, not really, but that's not to say we don't have the rights or power to change the collective school of human thought. After all, look where education has brought us today.

[Tomw2]

General critique first.

Provocative in parts and readable with elements of great language mechanics. The way you set out to challenge the schema of prejudice in common discourse is exactly the sort of thematic approach that is rewarded - though it needn't be contrary.

That is not surprising given your previous piece. Would likely score reasonably.
However I fear your lack of comfort with this format is coming out in your writing, as is your contempt for it. The task really isn't as crude as I suspect you think it is. As an English enthusiast who has no doubt read something like the Iliad for fun, you probably find the SII exercise akin to the speeches of Deep South beauty pageant winners. Fair enough to an extent.

Think of it instead as the type of blog post D.H. Lawrence or Oscar Wilde would have written. I suspect as you become accustomed to the format, that is how you will come across and it will be great.

Below is just nitpicking for your personal consideration. It's subjective, so take as you will

Prejudice. Even the word is prejudicial. Connotations go a long way in the determinism of sociocultural norms - alas, prejudice is often percieved as a terrible facet of human nature. But why should any aspects of human nature be analysed and critiqued at being 'bad'? Through which universal laws are these attributes of human nature reckoned? Mark my words - there is no "bad" in "prejudice".

There is a floridness here and elsewhere that does not mesh. The word play itself is good, but it doesn't deliver on its hard-hitting promise. In six words you have subtly threatened to completely de-construct the definition and discourse of prejudice and yet 2 paragraphs on your intentions are not clear. I'm not suggesting you go about tritely sign-posting a contention a-la-VCE English, but do tell the marker what you intend to do and aim to have them think "I can't wait to see them do that (and I think I know what 'that' is)". It's crude in that it is almost boasting, but as I said - blog post by Lawrence or Wilde; that would be a good read no?

At the moment the marker has read "But why should any aspects of human nature be analysed and critiqued at being 'bad'?" and "there is no "bad" in "prejudice"" they will likely wonder if your position is in fact that prejudice is good... or was that value neutral...? Futhermore, veracious as it is, "Prejudice. Even the word is prejudicial" is redundant and gimmicky here. It's distracting from the promise you've hinted at.

The opening would be much stronger starting with something like: "Prejudice is often percieved constructed as a terrible facet of human nature; a fact epitomised in the oft-quoted proverb "Don't judge a book by its cover"." then point out the hypocrisy of the construction or whatever.

Animals with conscientious reasoning capacity tend to display prejudice. If an animal observes an ostensible threat, then you can expect a fight or flight response. By some cognition, this animal has rationalised what it sees as being either impasse or the very converse. Everybody has approached a timid animal with naught but good intentions to have it cower or flee - we are objectively not a threat to the animal, but it percieves us as one. That is, that animal judges us, and incorrectly at that.

Animals are prejudicial too. And they don't always get it right.

Back on track. Provocative, fluid, interesting, clear.

So our furry faithful friends engage in this horrible facet - but do we think that is bad? Most would say no.

At this point I become concerned about your use of rhetorical questions here and elsewhere. I feel they have significantly diminished your prose. It's tempting to employ them in short, timed responses such as GAMSAT, but don't. With very few exceptions, repeated rhetorical questions come across as grandiose, passive and emaciated writing - even when the content is good. I've seen otherwise good writers with a perverse fondness for rhetorical questions get thrashed in SII before. Don't literally invite your readers to consider the issues you've raised, present them effectively and creatively - your aim is inception, not instruction.

The natural processes which we observe in nature - cannibalism, ostracision of inferior males in pack hierarchies, consumption of progeny - wield the most horrid of human connotations. Imagine Fritzl partaking in that. But they make the choice to do exactly what they do - it's survival. Instincts. Prejudice - the cofactor in all forms of decision making - is not inherently good or bad. It's nature. It's an innate survival mechanisms bestowed upon humans which we don't reserve the rights to control. It's involuntary, and as a subsequence of that, it stands to reason that the connotations of prejudice (as being a sinful action from which we must abstain) are absurd.

Not bad, could be shaved down though. Did you mean "But they don't make the choice to do exactly what they do - it's survival"?

Despite being a little weak, I think most readers are still with you in regards to your thesis that prejudice is involuntary and analogous to a timid animal fleeing from a friendly human. However  your claim that because it's involuntary or instinctual, attempts at constructing it as 'sinful' or bad is absurd is not substantiated. In fact, it is open to accusations of logical fallacy. In terms of prose, it stops abruptly without much needed elaboration. It makes the next pharagraph seem arbitrary and disjointed. As a reader, who has to subvert many involuntary instincts in daily human life, I was looking forward to hearing exactly how your claim stands to reason

Prejudice is an unwieldy term. Sure, when some recalcitrant discriminates with a racial slur, we all reel and think "how terrible!". But that feeling might not be mutual with the said sledger. To him, prejudice means nothing - what he sees doesn't bode well with his innate views; his values. To us, the "treat other's how you'd like to be treated" mentality compounds the recognition that skin colour is a simple genetic trait endemic to humans in exacerbating the horrific nature of the racial slur - nobody wants to be that victim, and to us, the punishment was purportedly undeserved.

What causes the difference in the cognitive processes in the said sledger and that of the impartial onlooker? Well, really, none of it should be frowned upon. Let's have a quick analysis of what's happening here. The negro has a genetic fluctuation which causes a concentrated pigment to be produced in the skin. Big deal - it happens. But to the racist, it's not a mark of simple genetic variability - it's a mark of inferiority and an opportunity to outlandishly radiate dominance. The racist might believe, through his biological cognition processes (which we ubiquitously and nihilistically contend are not flawed, just varied) that the negro is an inferior being. We, as impartial pacificts and scientists, can recognise that it's just a different genetic makeup, which again by definition has no "wild type" or "flaws" when it comes to (interestingly, only) humans.

• You have never really said why "none of it should be frowned upon".
• Don't literally invite your readers to "have a quick analysis" - the conversational theatrical tone does't work here IMO
• Negro - IMO antiquated term. Not really appropriate in most academic discourse.
• "Big deal - it happens" - this statement is rhetorical, overly casual, confusing, hard to understand the tone. Describe fully what you mean. Having this so-called "genetic fluctuation" is a pretty big deal to many who have suffered for it - a marker will at the very least consider this a minus for clarity of expression.
• You have conveniently constructed the perception of the hypothetical racist, without much substantiation - your claims are getting thin. You have backed yourself into a corner by endeavouring to define this type of prejudice in these terms. It leaves you open to attack from the markers

So whose wrong? Is anything inherently wrong with the negro? No - the cause is genetic flux, which is defined as being neutral. Is anything wrong with the prejudicial actions of the racist? No - his cognition processes are telling him that it's what he should do and governing his actions, and it is these processes which guarantee his survival -a  figment of evolution.

Big big big issues here. With logic and substance.

So the reason there is nothing inherently wrong with the "negro" is because why? What is caused by the genetic "flux"? Who defined the genetic flux as 'neutral'?

Putting aside the conceptual mess created by invoking the terms "cognitive processes" and "governing his actions" (psychology major students are currently reeling in horror), you have not in any way shed light (anywhere) on how these processes "guarantee his survival", let alone the link between that point and why prejudiced behaviour is not something that should be condemned.

Is something that is derived from evolution automatically beyond human society's definition of unacceptable, good, or bad? What is the argument you are making when you state that the cognitive processes are a figment of evolution (which btw, is a borderline indefensible statement due to its oversimplification and over generalisation)?

Should we condemn discrimination?

Well no, not really, but that's not to say we don't have the rights or power to change the collective school of human thought. After all, look where education has brought us today.

Hmm, this rhetorical Q&A has weakened your concluding remarks further. And that final sentence would most certainly have cost you marks. So, where exactly has education brought us today? A marker will ask: is the mechanism and efficacy of education in changing the collective school of human thought so apparent that it qualifies as common sense here?

Was this conclusion rushed?

The statements therein are somewhat inconsistent with "the connotations of prejudice (as being a sinful action from which we must abstain) are absurd". You seemed to imply there is never any legitimate or ultimately logical reason to abstain from any prejudicial behaviour. And prejudice should never be condemned, because it is never inherently 'bad' (I like the provocative angle on this point). All of this seems to rest on a very narrow naturalistic fallacy regarding volition, which is very hard to accept absent substantiation.

[VivaTequila]

General critique first.

Provocative in parts and readable with elements of great language mechanics. The way you set out to challenge the schema of prejudice in common discourse is exactly the sort of thematic approach that is rewarded - though it needn't be contrary.

That is not surprising given your previous piece. Would likely score reasonably.
However I fear your lack of comfort with this format is coming out in your writing, as is your contempt for it. The task really isn't as crude as I suspect you think it is. As an English enthusiast who has no doubt read something like the Iliad for fun, you probably find the SII exercise akin to the speeches of Deep South beauty pageant winners. Fair enough to an extent.

Think of it instead as the type of blog post D.H. Lawrence or Oscar Wilde would have written. I suspect as you become accustomed to the format, that is how you will come across and it will be great.

Below is just nitpicking for your personal consideration. It's subjective, so take as you will

Prejudice. Even the word is prejudicial. Connotations go a long way in the determinism of sociocultural norms - alas, prejudice is often percieved as a terrible facet of human nature. But why should any aspects of human nature be analysed and critiqued at being 'bad'? Through which universal laws are these attributes of human nature reckoned? Mark my words - there is no "bad" in "prejudice".

There is a floridness here and elsewhere that does not mesh. The word play itself is good, but it doesn't deliver on its hard-hitting promise. In six words you have subtly threatened to completely de-construct the definition and discourse of prejudice and yet 2 paragraphs on your intentions are not clear. I'm not suggesting you go about tritely sign-posting a contention a-la-VCE English, but do tell the marker what you intend to do and aim to have them think "I can't wait to see them do that (and I think I know what 'that' is)". It's crude in that it is almost boasting, but as I said - blog post by Lawrence or Wilde; that would be a good read no?

At the moment the marker has read "But why should any aspects of human nature be analysed and critiqued at being 'bad'?" and "there is no "bad" in "prejudice"" they will likely wonder if your position is in fact that prejudice is good... or was that value neutral...? Futhermore, veracious as it is, "Prejudice. Even the word is prejudicial" is redundant and gimmicky here. It's distracting from the promise you've hinted at.

The opening would be much stronger starting with something like: "Prejudice is often percieved constructed as a terrible facet of human nature; a fact epitomised in the oft-quoted proverb "Don't judge a book by its cover"." then point out the hypocrisy of the construction or whatever.

Animals with conscientious reasoning capacity tend to display prejudice. If an animal observes an ostensible threat, then you can expect a fight or flight response. By some cognition, this animal has rationalised what it sees as being either impasse or the very converse. Everybody has approached a timid animal with naught but good intentions to have it cower or flee - we are objectively not a threat to the animal, but it percieves us as one. That is, that animal judges us, and incorrectly at that.

Animals are prejudicial too. And they don't always get it right.

Back on track. Provocative, fluid, interesting, clear.

So our furry faithful friends engage in this horrible facet - but do we think that is bad? Most would say no.

At this point I become concerned about your use of rhetorical questions here and elsewhere. I feel they have significantly diminished your prose. It's tempting to employ them in short, timed responses such as GAMSAT, but don't. With very few exceptions, repeated rhetorical questions come across as grandiose, passive and emaciated writing - even when the content is good. I've seen otherwise good writers with a perverse fondness for rhetorical questions get thrashed in SII before. Don't literally invite your readers to consider the issues you've raised, present them effectively and creatively - your aim is inception, not instruction.

The natural processes which we observe in nature - cannibalism, ostracision of inferior males in pack hierarchies, consumption of progeny - wield the most horrid of human connotations. Imagine Fritzl partaking in that. But they make the choice to do exactly what they do - it's survival. Instincts. Prejudice - the cofactor in all forms of decision making - is not inherently good or bad. It's nature. It's an innate survival mechanisms bestowed upon humans which we don't reserve the rights to control. It's involuntary, and as a subsequence of that, it stands to reason that the connotations of prejudice (as being a sinful action from which we must abstain) are absurd.

Not bad, could be shaved down though. Did you mean "But they don't make the choice to do exactly what they do - it's survival"?

Despite being a little weak, I think most readers are still with you in regards to your thesis that prejudice is involuntary and analogous to a timid animal fleeing from a friendly human. However  your claim that because it's involuntary or instinctual, attempts at constructing it as 'sinful' or bad is absurd is not substantiated. In fact, it is open to accusations of logical fallacy. In terms of prose, it stops abruptly without much needed elaboration. It makes the next pharagraph seem arbitrary and disjointed. As a reader, who has to subvert many involuntary instincts in daily human life, I was looking forward to hearing exactly how your claim stands to reason

Prejudice is an unwieldy term. Sure, when some recalcitrant discriminates with a racial slur, we all reel and think "how terrible!". But that feeling might not be mutual with the said sledger. To him, prejudice means nothing - what he sees doesn't bode well with his innate views; his values. To us, the "treat other's how you'd like to be treated" mentality compounds the recognition that skin colour is a simple genetic trait endemic to humans in exacerbating the horrific nature of the racial slur - nobody wants to be that victim, and to us, the punishment was purportedly undeserved.

What causes the difference in the cognitive processes in the said sledger and that of the impartial onlooker? Well, really, none of it should be frowned upon. Let's have a quick analysis of what's happening here. The negro has a genetic fluctuation which causes a concentrated pigment to be produced in the skin. Big deal - it happens. But to the racist, it's not a mark of simple genetic variability - it's a mark of inferiority and an opportunity to outlandishly radiate dominance. The racist might believe, through his biological cognition processes (which we ubiquitously and nihilistically contend are not flawed, just varied) that the negro is an inferior being. We, as impartial pacificts and scientists, can recognise that it's just a different genetic makeup, which again by definition has no "wild type" or "flaws" when it comes to (interestingly, only) humans.

• You have never really said why "none of it should be frowned upon".
• Don't literally invite your readers to "have a quick analysis" - the conversational theatrical tone does't work here IMO
• Negro - IMO antiquated term. Not really appropriate in most academic discourse.
• "Big deal - it happens" - this statement is rhetorical, overly casual, confusing, hard to understand the tone. Describe fully what you mean. Having this so-called "genetic fluctuation" is a pretty big deal to many who have suffered for it - a marker will at the very least consider this a minus for clarity of expression.
• You have conveniently constructed the perception of the hypothetical racist, without much substantiation - your claims are getting thin. You have backed yourself into a corner by endeavouring to define this type of prejudice in these terms. It leaves you open to attack from the markers

So whose wrong? Is anything inherently wrong with the negro? No - the cause is genetic flux, which is defined as being neutral. Is anything wrong with the prejudicial actions of the racist? No - his cognition processes are telling him that it's what he should do and governing his actions, and it is these processes which guarantee his survival -a  figment of evolution.

Big big big issues here. With logic and substance.

So the reason there is nothing inherently wrong with the "negro" is because why? What is caused by the genetic "flux"? Who defined the genetic flux as 'neutral'?

Putting aside the conceptual mess created by invoking the terms "cognitive processes" and "governing his actions" (psychology major students are currently reeling in horror), you have not in any way shed light (anywhere) on how these processes "guarantee his survival", let alone the link between that point and why prejudiced behaviour is not something that should be condemned.

Is something that is derived from evolution automatically beyond human society's definition of unacceptable, good, or bad? What is the argument you are making when you state that the cognitive processes are a figment of evolution (which btw, is a borderline indefensible statement due to its oversimplification and over generalisation)?

Should we condemn discrimination?

Well no, not really, but that's not to say we don't have the rights or power to change the collective school of human thought. After all, look where education has brought us today.

Hmm, this rhetorical Q&A has weakened your concluding remarks further. And that final sentence would most certainly have cost you marks. So, where exactly has education brought us today? A marker will ask: is the mechanism and efficacy of education in changing the collective school of human thought so apparent that it qualifies as common sense here?

Was this conclusion rushed?

The statements therein are somewhat inconsistent with "the connotations of prejudice (as being a sinful action from which we must abstain) are absurd". You seemed to imply there is never any legitimate or ultimately logical reason to abstain from any prejudicial behaviour. And prejudice should never be condemned, because it is never inherently 'bad' (I like the provocative angle on this point). All of this seems to rest on a very narrow naturalistic fallacy regarding volition, which is very hard to accept absent substantiation.

Holy shit. Do you tutor? Cos this is exactly the sort of stuff I look for in a guy.

I will read through all of this in depth next time I'm at work and have some time to chill out.

I really, really appreciate the massive deconstruction - I got halfway through and realised that I need to really sit down and break apart my argument and follow it through with everything you're critiquing. This is awesome, solid stuff. Thank you!

I'll post back a detailed reply soon.

And P.S. I love your expression <3

[Tomw2]

Apologies for the delay, I missed your response.

Do you tutor?

Yes, privately for 4 years now. With a couple of exceptions have tended to avoid GAMSAT tutoring as I have found it difficult to assess GAMSAT-specific skill sets and construct appropriate tailored lesson plans. I have found general and discipline-specific academic writing lends itself much better to the private tutoring model for a number of reasons, in particular because one is able to offer more of a guarantee in terms of outcomes.

I really, really appreciate the massive deconstruction - I got halfway through and realised that I need to really sit down and break apart my argument and follow it through with everything you're critiquing.

It's a funny format. Very freestyle - but restrained by time and word-length - thus requiring an element of structure. Being convincing and impressive (and not in a trite way) is the challenge. Watch out for logical fallacies and do not be prescriptive with statements unless you are able to concisely demonstrate something is a fact. If you can't do this, then indirectly (not literally) invite the reader to consider an alternative possibility purposely.

An example of where you showcased this type high impact, concise, convincing and interesting prose is here:

Animals are prejudicial too. And they don't always get it right.

The subtext here is stunning - you could literally have written that same line using 40 words. It hits your thoughts hard with its brevity and cleverly comes across as both a musing proposition and a declaration of fact. It confidently gets a contention out there without buttering the readers up too much. It's also good because of its tonal contrast from the preceding paragraph, while still being consistent. Of course I'm not suggesting you break out a whole lot of 2-sentence, 11-word paragraphs and constantly try to use sledgehammer tone - but recognise the effectiveness of the tactic. Understand this as a micro-level example of what I meant by "blog post written by D.H. Lawrence".

Let me know how you go