Idiot's Guide to Section 2

Biologic

Hi all,

Someone posted in another thread that they were having problems composing essays in S2. Instead of just replying to that post, I thought I'd start a thread with my idiot's guide to writing a GAMSAT essay. I had the same problems as the poster so here's my method of getting around them. Mine were complete drivel and took way over time. Most of my time was spent trying to think what my was position on a certain point, let alone getting my point on paper. My first essay literally took me 75 mins and was exponentially more painful to read than it was to write. 4 things helped me solve this.
Firstly, I chose to write my essay based on only one or two quotes. This just made it easier to focus my essay and saved time analysing all the quotes.
Secondly, I started giving very little thought to how I actually felt about the topic. I simply went with my gut feeling, wrote down three points which supported that feeling and considered the opposite point of view briefly. Try and vary the basis of these points, ie: One historical example, one social example, one political example etc...
Thirdly, I used the same format for every essay. The first paragraph began with a statement that let the reader know what the topic of my essay was going to be, then followed up with a couple of sentences showing I understood both sides of the argument and finished with where I stood on the issue. The middle three paragraphs were an elaboration on the three points I wrote down at the beginning. The final paragraph was a conclusion which glued the whole lot into one cohesive argument.
Finally, I used the same format for each middle paragraph. Think SEXC- Statement, Example, eXplanation, Conclusion. Take this quote for example:

“Our capacity to retaliate must be, and is, massive in order to deter all forms of aggression”
John Foster Dulles

Imagine I'm trying to argue that a nuclear deterrent is an obsolete method of deterring people from attacking you (this is a real example, I'll post the essay I wrote at the end). One of my three points (statements) is going to be that the number one global threat at the moment (terrorism) doesn't lend itself to nuclear retaliation. My example is going to be Iraq/Afghan, I'll explain why a nuclear attack is useless in this setting and my conclusion will flow from that. Here's how the paragraph looked in my actual essay:

The presumption that lies at the heart of this nuclear deterrant is that the agressor places value of his/her own life and land. Global terrorism, the cause of the two most recent international wars, ignores this presumption. The aggresors in this case believe with conviction that their death for this cause will send them to a better life than they currently lead. The demographics behind these types of attacks also prohibits the use of the atomic threat. Those with the extremist attitude have come from both underdeveloped countries where a nuclear strike would be criminally disproportionate, and from ethnic communities within developed countries where policing is the answer.

This format worked for every essay I wrote, regardless of whether it was used in an argumentative essay or a personal one. Some will argue that it's a very clinical way of writing essays and it lacks an artsy flair. They're right, but it brought me from writing terrible essays to scoring a 64 in the GAMSAT and getting my first choice in med school, so I don't care if it only has much flair as a padded room. There are plenty of people who scored a lot higher than me, but I honestly think this method can quickly create a cohesive essay if you don't have the time to build your literary skills from the ground up.

Here's a full essay I wrote using the techniques above:

Quote responded to- “Our capacity to retaliate must be, and is, massive in order to deter all forms of aggression”
John Foster Dulles

Throughout history there existed a power dynamic between nations based on the fact that each had particular innate weaknesses which eventually brought about their downfall. For the British this was poor colonial policy, for Rome it was economics. The emergence of atomic weapons appeared to end this dynamic and allow those with its capability to exist knowing that an attack on its territory was not an option. While this has stood true from Hiroshima/Nagasaki through the cold war to modern day in Iran, I believe it to be an unsustainable solution to the problem of international warfare.
The presumption that lies at the heart of this nuclear deterrant is that the agressor places value of his/her own life and land. Global terrorism, the cause of the two most recent international wars, ignores this presumption. The aggresors in this case believe with conviction that their death for this cause will send them to a better life than they currently lead. The demographics behind these types of attacks also prohibits the use of the atomic threat. Those with the extremist attitude have come from both underdeveloped countries where a nuclear strike would be criminally disproportionate, and from ethnic communities within developed countries where policing is the answer.
The value of a nuclear deterrant is not only under threat from low level extremism, but also from increased proliferation. With the information age spreading to often volatile countries with disproportionate defence budgets such as North Korea, we can no longer have full confidence that nuclear weapons will only be placed in the hands of those nations educated and mature enough to respect them. Kim Jong Il's missile tests over the airspace of neighbouring nations shows a worrying distain for the international community in a country thought to be verging on nuclear weapons production. Nuclear weapons will only remain holstered by nations with a rationally thinking leadership, and that caveat may no longer be universal.
As it's core, the thought that a threat can calm international aggression is flawed. The basis for most conflict is the resources or the differing of ideals. While undeveloped nations choose the idea of military supremacy as a means of advancing, they ignore the example set by much of the developed world. The scandinavian nations, never a colonial power and having some of the lowest defence expenditures, are amongst the most successful economically in the world. This has been achieved through sound foreign policy and economic policy, and is much more sustainable than a nuclear payload.
Therefore, when we examine this nuclear deterrant in terms of sustainability, it appears highly flawed. Dulles' assertion that the “capacity to retaliate” will provide national safety is based on the short term upset caused by nuclear weapons to the warfare's historical dynamic. This attitude is merely an attempt to treat the symptoms of international conflict, when the root cause of economic and social instability are a much more sustainable option.

That was the average length of my essays in the real exam too. You should be able to get both essays done in exactly the hour. Never go over 30 mins for any one essay. If you're running short on time, conclude it!
Disclaimer: There are a million and one ways of approaching this section. Some people ditch the essay format and write dialogues, others do short stories. I'm way too much of a literary dunce to do any of this. Each to their own, but I think this method will work for most people to save time and minimise confusion.
If anyone has any other essay tips or questions, post 'em here.

Bio

whatsthecraic

Thanks a million for this Biologic, very helpful!

eimear25

Hi. I am sitting GAMSAT this year and my practice essays so far have been mostly writing a general argument to the theme that the quotes present. however looking at GRADMED sample essays the author seems to write an essay by just focusing on picking the prompts apart. does anyone know which the best approach would be? thanx :-)

Jammyc

One thing I've always found difficult with the essays is giving relevant real-world examples of your point. Can anybody suggest some reading over the next 3 weeks to help?

With regard to strategy, I think the Griffith's review strategy works well as it doesn't tie you down with regard to content.

eimear25

It is difficult to know with regards to reading in preparation for the essays but I have found AC Grayling: The meaning of things, Time magazine, www.ted.com and BBC podcasts invaluable for ideas. good luck

etymon

haha, nice one, especially the suggestive mnemonic which as we all know makes it a million times easier to remember!

cliona88

Hey does anyone know whether or not its a good idea to include an essay plan on the top of the page above where you start your essay?or would it be better to write it out rough on your answer booklet?

ciara84

cliona88 wrote: »

Hey does anyone know whether or not its a good idea to include an essay plan on the top of the page above where you start your essay?or would it be better to write it out rough on your answer booklet?

they give you a separate page for the rough work, but i sort of did bullet points for myself on what i was going to write about, like what i'd talk about in each of my paragraphs etc, not necessarily for the examiner, I got 72 overall, 76 on s2 but I did commerce in college though and got an A in higher LC english, you could do worse than to jot a few lines down to make sense out of your rough work for yourself in the case that you start forgetting how you were going to conclude your essay etc.

cliona88

Thanks that's really helpful!

souter

Fairplay biologic, nicely worked example. I have been following Peter Griffiths approach up to now, don't know if the type of question as changed over the past 3 years.
His approach is identify 2 opposing arguments amongst the quotes, then state the issues, describe both sides then conclude with one of them.

My problem is I have done quite a bit of writing in my time (not bragging, it comes with being considerably older than the typical applicant, rather than being a literary prodigy).

The thing I've always prized and worked at in writing is concision. I feel I am having to artificially pad out my essays (all 3 of them so far!) to reach 300+ words.
The result (to me) appears repetitive and prolix, but Griffiths suggests 330 words, and biologics example above is a hefty 458 words.

Is everyone else aiming to do 300+ words, or are there any other fellow Hemingway wannbes?

souter

Just got my results and somehow got 69 in this section.

Don't know how many words, but less than 3 pages each with my fairly sprawling handwriting so well below the received wisdom re. quantity.

Not taking anything away from Biologic and pretty much all other recommendations - these are brilliant tips on the classic "sandwich essay", but just saying if you are confident in your writing you don't need to get hung up on the word count.

sReq | uTeK

Like you souter I'll be following the format outlined by Griffits review, simplistic and structured, which seems to net people marks in the higher 60's and 70's.

So long as you can turn the themes into a statement, argue what both parties consider relevant today, state your preference, throw in 3 examples as to why you're for/against that and then conclude it by bringing back in both parties and perhaps a recommendation I think that's all you'll need.

I know people who have had 300 words, 2 A4 pages full and have scored low to high 70's. I definitely wouldn't worry about word count just structure and well articulated points.

It's been said by a lot of GAMSAT prep materials that the people grading section 2 normally take between 4-5 minutes to do so per essay. That's not a lot of time to get into the nitty gritty of 350 words and look for glaringly obvious errors. If you get a good point across it should net you a good mark.

IMHO.

medpad

My main advice would be to prepare approx 5 or 6 essays for Task A.. War religion, media, and another 5 or 6 for Task B.. love, marriage, youth, hope...

I used various articles, ted talks etc to make up these essays.

You should be able bend them easily to fit the quotes they provide. You'd be surprised how easy themes overlap.

One thing I would say is I don't believe everyone should do the one point for, one point against type essays. You only have 20-25mins per essay so you're better off strengthening your own view. Just acknowledge the opposing view. It worked very well for me.

A really easy section to do well in regardless of your undergrad degree etc