INTRODUCTION TO THE WRITING SAMPLE
Here’s an example of a typical Writing Sample prompt:
Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.
Write a unified essay in which you complete the following tasks. Explain what you
think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which human
behavior might not be guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.
Notice that every MCAT prompt is phrased in exactly the same way. The test makers have
given you three specific tasks, and a high-scoring essay will address all of those tasks in a
“unified” way. Sometimes we call the instruction to write a unified essay “task zero”.
Whenever you read an MCAT prompt, you should think of the instructions like this:
Task 0: “write a unified essay”
Task 1: Explain what you think the above statement means
Task 2: Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be guided
primarily by self-interest
Task 3: Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is guided primarily by
self-interest and when it is not
Another way to think of the three tasks of the MCAT essay is as follows:
Task 1: clarify the prompt and give an example that showcases your interpretation
Task 2: give a specific, relevant counter-example
Task 3: reconcile the two situations you’ve described: what distinguishes between them?
An English professor would describe this structure as thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
This means that you do not have to write a five-paragraph essay. In fact, a five-paragraph
essay would be an unnecessary waste of your time. Instead, focus on the three tasks at
hand. Most people find that a three-paragraph structure works very well.
The most elegant way to write the MCAT essay involves finding two examples that are
closely related – one in support of the prompt (task 1) and one in opposition to the prompt
(task 2) – but that can be clearly distinguished by a specific rule or guideline (task 3).
When you’re developing and writing your MCAT essay, it helps to follow a clear set of steps
to complete the tasks at hand.
First, you will PRE-WRITE. This step consists of three parts:
1. Read and understand the prompt
2. Brainstorm each task
3. Outline the backbone of your essay
Then, you will WRITE.
Finally, you will save about 2 minutes to Proofread.
In step 1, “read and understand the prompt,” you will not only read the prompt carefully
you will also pick out any ambiguous or charged words that may help you to structure your
interpretation of what the prompt means.
In step 2, your job is to brainstorm! Think of alternate ways to interpret ambiguous words.
Think of where the prompt is weak or extreme to come up with a good example for Task 2
of when the opposite of the prompt is true. Look for “pairs” of examples – examples that are
parallel but different at one important point, and then exploit that point for your Task 3.
Write everything down!
In step 3, you are clarifying your main idea and planning the actual structure of your
argument. Circle the ideas you want to work with and cross out the ones that don’t fit.
Figure out what specific details you’ll use to flesh out your examples. Think about planning
transitions, or how you’re going to phrase your determining criteria in Task 3.
Then, take about 23 minutes to write, sticking carefully to your outline. Avoid digressions
and phrase your argument as clearly and precisely as possible. Use concrete and specific
details to flesh out your examples, and don’t lose sight of your conclusion, the guideline
that runs through your entire argument. Work to achieve unity.
Finally, save about 2 minutes to proofread, looking specifically for any mistakes that
obscure the meaning of your argument.
SAMPLE EXCELLENT ESSAYS
Human behavior is guided primarily by self-interest.
Write a unified essay in which you complete the following tasks. Explain what you think the
above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which human behavior might not be
guided primarily by self-interest. Discuss what you think determines when human behavior is
guided primarily by self-interest and when it is not.
Human behavior can be understood as the constellation of choices an individual
makes based on his or her expectation of a specific outcome. The factors that
influence these choices are complex, but often revolve around the potential for
happiness and self-fulfillment that a given choice may bring. That is to say, most
choices are influenced by whether or not the outcome has the potential to bring the
individual happiness. For example, a young man who has worked hard since
graduating college as a mechanical engineer will choose how to spend his money
based on the kinds of things that make him happy. He may buy tickets to his favorite
concert, a fast car, and fancy steak dinners – choices that are influenced by the
pleasure the concert, the car or the steak will bring him personally.
However, sometimes the choices an individual makes are not guided primarily by
self-interest, and are instead influenced by what would be in someone else’s best
interest. As an example, say our engineer had a family, with two young children.
Now, he is responsible not only for his own happiness, but also for his kids’
happiness and fulfillment. His choices would be influenced by the desire to bring his
family pleasure. He may choose to buy tickets to Disney On Ice or another children’s
show, for example, rather than the concert he personally loves. He may buy a more
family-friendly car, and take his kids out to eat at their favorite pizza place instead
of a fancy steakhouse.
Ultimately, the choices people make are often influenced by a combination of
factors. An individual must weigh the impact his behavior will have on his own
happiness as well as on the wellbeing of people around him. It is when an individual
carries a distinct responsibility for someone else’s interests, like in parenthood, that
the primary factor in decision making shifts away from pure self-interest. Human
behavior is guided primarily by self-interest when an individual is responsible only
for his or her own happiness and fulfillment. However, when an individual is
responsible for someone else’s happiness as well – like a parent caring for a child –
then the choices that person makes will be guided not by self-interest, but instead
by someone else’s interest.
No matter how oppressive a government, violent revolution is never justified.
Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the
above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which violent revolution might be
justified. Discuss what you think determines whether or not violent revolution is justified.
The most fundamental role of government is to use legislative and judicial power to
preserve the safety and security of its citizens. However, when a government –
perhaps under the guise of preserving safety – imposes laws that violate its citizens’
basic rights, that government may be said to be oppressive. When confronted with
an oppressive regime, citizens may speak out or act out against the government,
calling for change. But fighting oppressive policies with violence does not promote
peace; when a revolution costs more lives than it saves, it is not justified. For
example, in the 18th century, American revolutionaries sought to free themselves
from the oppression of British taxation. They began a bloody war that cost
thousands upon thousands of lives. Although this war led to the establishment of a
new, strong, free nation, the war caused untold death and destruction in the name of
saving money. Because it cost more lives than it saved, it was unjustified.
However, there are times when a government is so oppressive that violent
revolution may be justified. Consider the case of Haiti seeking freedom from an
oppressive French regime, only a few years after the American revolution in the late
1700s. The Haitian revolution was driven by slaves who had not only had their
property and freedom stripped from them by oppressive government policies, but
had also seen their very lives threatened. In this case, the alternative to revolution in
itself was bloody and violent – suffering through slavery and dying at the hands of
the slave owners, who were backed by the government. In order to save their own
lives and ensure a future free from violence for their children, the slaves were
justified in violent revolution.
An oppressive government may violate its citizens rights in many ways. It may
violate their property rights by taxing then without fair representation, as the
British government did to the American colonists. It may deprive them of their
freedom, their personal safety, or even their lives, as the French government did to
Haitian slaves. When a revolution costs more lives than it saves, as was the case with
the American revolution, it is unjustified. However, a revolution may use violence to
stop violence, or to prevent violence in the future. This was the case in Haiti, where
a revolution saved more lives than it cost – a case where violent revolution was, in
fact, justified.
It is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it.
Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the
above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which it might be better to change the
law than to tolerate minor defects in it. Discuss what you think determines when it is better to
tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it and when it is better to change it.
Because different legislators may have different ideas about what things should be
allowed and what prohibited, democratic laws are usually created out of
compromise. Therefore, legal regulations are often imperfect, allowing things that
shouldn’t be allowed or prohibiting things unnecessarily. Many defects in the law
are benign and don’t cause harm to individuals or the nation. Additionally, when
legislation depends on competing priorities of diverse political representatives,
making laws and changing laws can be long and difficult processes. Therefore, it is
often more efficient to ignore legal imperfections that don’t cause harm. For
example, speed limits are usually set to allow traffic to flow well while preserving
public safety. Consider the case of a steep stretch of a mountain pass where cars can
go up to 45 miles per hour and stay in control, but the speed limit is marked at 40.
Although one could try to push new legislation to change the limit to 45 and let cars
get to their destination a little bit faster, it would be unnecessarily difficult to change
the law and the public would hardly benefit from the change.
However, some defects in the law may seem minor, but may actually be very
dangerous. For example, consider a curve in road where the speed limit is marked at
35, but many families with small children live in the block after the curve. The law
was made to account for the speed that would be safe for not losing control of the
car around the turn. However, it does not ensure that cars are going slowly enough
that they would be able to stop quickly after the turn. With the speed limit too high,
cars would make it safely around the turn, but would not be able to stop fast enough
when they come around the turn to suddenly see a child in the road. The results
could be disastrous. In this case, because of the serious threat to human safety posed
by the speed limit being too high, it would be worth it to spend the time and money
to change the law.
Overall, every nation seeks to preserve its citizens’ safety and to act in its citizens’
best interest. When imperfections in laws and regulations do not threaten human
safety, then it is a better use of resources to ignore those defects and focus on more
pressing problems, than to undergo a long and difficult process to change them.
However, when defects in the law have the potential to cause great harm, then
efficiency necessarily takes a back seat to human safety: it is worth it to spend time,
energy and money to change them.
Writing sample grading rubric: