GAMSAT Forum - Gold Standard GAMSAT Prep

The Only Prep You Need

GS-2 Section II Writing Task A

GS-2 Section II Writing Task A

Postby admin » Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:45 am

Be the first to discuss this written test!
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:47 pm

Re: GS-2 Section II Writing Task A

Postby Lavi » Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:56 pm


With Task A- what would be good examples to use within the essay? I had lots of ideas but didn't know which would be best to use for the argument that knowledge is needed and also with its counter-argument to say nothing can be understood.

Thank you
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: GS-2 Section II Writing Task A

Postby Darcy1 » Mon May 08, 2017 11:36 pm

I`ll train in writing not so long as you. But the example is not yet clear to me. Maybe I can handle a similar essay later.
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 11:22 pm

Re: GS-2 Section II Writing Task A

Postby Eagle123 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:16 am

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
A point of debate about the intrinsic nature of fear is what it most distinctly predicates; cowardice or the pragmatic virtue of prudence. As John F. Kennedy once said ‘Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate,’ he implicitly contended a negative connotation towards fear, effectively aligning it with the concept of cowardice. On the other hand, by stating that ’The original of all great and lasting societies consisted not in the mutual good will men had toward each other, but in the mutual fear they had of each other,’ Thomas Hobbes, demonstrated embrace of fear as a calculative instrument for ameliorating social incongruity, thus considering fear, without reserve, as a fundamental pillar of prudence. In sympathising with and elaborating on the critique of Hobbes, I believe that it is detrimental to pragmatic thinking to dualise fear and prudence and will hereby refute JFK’ conviction by divulging both the inherently unified nature of the two concepts and how this unity in turn contradicts his statement.

To view fear as a cowardly vice is to underrate the beneficial influence it has on biasing ones cognitive reasoning towards careful thoughts for the future, otherwise known as prudence. In 2012, a study published in the Journal of Advances in Health Science Education aimed at determining what factors influence interpretation and responsiveness to feedback, it was discovered that fear is a motivating factor ascribed to the careful consideration of preventative measures. Since negotiation can be defined as dialogue between two or more individuals intending to reach a compromise over a conflict, and both compromise and conflict require careful consideration of the future a priori, it stands to reason that negotiating out of fear is as appropriate to the pursuit of social incongruity as the notion of negotiation itself.

Proponents of negotiation may argue that fear-induced avoidance of negotiation is in no way virtuous nor beneficial to the objective of settling disputes. In fact, they may attest that forgoing reconciliation as a consequence of fear creates a paradox between fear and prudence, ergo supporting the antithetical viewpoint of fear as cowardice. As an illustration, advocates of negotiation may also propose the 1941 attack on pearl harbour. After dismissing compromise, due to fears they may not be able to expand their conquest of Indochina, Japan executed an unannounced cowardly attack on America, culminating two decades of friction and marking a turning point of the historic conflict.

Certainly, one must acknowledge plausibility in the notion that diplomacy holds precedence over idiosyncratic self interest. However, one must also recognise this as a superficial perspective. In critiquing the example of my proponents, I call inclination to attention. Inclination, which precedes diplomacy, entails commitment, not to conformity of moral principals like that of diplomacy, but to dependence on ones capricious and contingently determinable will to subsist. Whether prudence is exercised through cunning use of persuasion or through altruistic sagacity, devotion to survival will, out of fear, determine the decision of whether or not to negotiate. As a result, prudence and fear remain unified and Japans fear-driven decision to attack instead of negotiate, according to normative moral relativism, does not render them evil.

In enumerating a summary of the ideas above that diverged the intrinsic nature of fear, it must be said that the suggestion of fear as a cowardly vice spurred refute which then alluded to fear as a calculative instrument for desirable outcomes. After referring to empirical evidence of fear influencing pre-emptive behaviour, a connection was established between fear and prudence and JFK’ ‘Let us never negotiate out of fear’ statement was negated. It was however considered that this notion may be deemed unsuitable by opposers as they may interpret it to declass prudence as a virtue and paradoxically repartition it from fear. As reinforcement of this interpretation, a historical example of fear-led aversion to negotiation culminating in war was expressed. While the congruity of this viewpoint was acknowledged, a final critique demonstrated that ones inclinations are not subject to conventional principals of morality, but to survival. This reunited fear with prudence and demonstrated JFK’ neglect of it as a driving force of negotiation. In conclusion, I say let us embrace fear during times of negotiation. But let us never forget the impetus prudence may incite on the process.
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:11 pm

Return to Section II: Written Communication

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest