Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
GRE Issue Essay: People Who Are The Most Deeply Committed To An Idea Or Policy Are Also The Most Critical Of It. - With A Free Essay Review
“Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.”
I disagree with the statement that people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it, although it is possible that people who are deeply committed to an idea have better understandings about a certain issue, it is also possible that many of these people can only see one side of the issue and not being critical.
To begin with, I do not think people who are the most deeply committed to an idea are also the most critical of it because it is possible that these people are blinded due to their commitment and beliefs, and then they think their beliefs are always right. For instance, some religious people once deeply believed that God created the world and humans, and in this case, they were indeed deeply committed to that idea and the religion; thus, their minds were restricted by their beliefs and they refused to consider other evidence. In this case, these people were not likely to be critical of the notion that God created the world, because they were blinded by their beliefs and they can only see the knowledge on their own side. For this reason, I disagree that people who are the most deeply committed to an idear are also the most critical of it.
In addition, another reason I diagree with the statement is that it is possible that even if they can see both sides of an issue, and they understand the issue, but they might choose not to be critical due to their own interests. For instance, a company is advertising a new nutrient supplement pills, which can help lower the cholesterol level, and they know that this supplement product can potentially increase the chance of heart disease if people consume this supplement with large dosage. In this case, that company is not likely to be the most critical one about its product considering the potential side effects of their product, even although they may be the one who knows the best, because they may prioritize its own interests first.
However, in some cases, people need to be knowledgeable if they want to be very critical. In other words, it requires a good understanding about an issue to be critical. Thus, it is possible that people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy can understand the issue in greater depth, and thus they are able to be critical. For instance, doctors knows both pros and cons of a certain drug, and can give his patient an appropriate suggestion.
To sum up, I disagree that people who are the most deeply committed to an idea are also the most critical of it , because sometimes those who are deeply committed may be blinded or for some reason they would not choose to be critical for their own benefits. However, since it requires an in-depth knowledge to become critical, it is possible that people who are committed to an idea know the idea better than others and can be more critical.
I understand why one might have difficulty with this prompt. It's one of those vague, counterintuitive assertions that seems on the face of it designed to test your ability to imagine what its cryptic author might have been thinking about, or at least to test your ability to come up with an example that will allow you to make sense of the statement. However, there is no reason why you should not just take, as you do, the negative approach: the statement is untrue.
Your first argument in that respect is reasonable, although it is not articulated with great economy or precision. Essentially, you argue that those who are committed to an idea can be blinded by their beliefs. It seems to me that that is too little to say, and it takes you too long to say it. At least, you might try to explain why people are blinded by their existing beliefs. You might try to do that by thinking about what people stand to lose if they become critical of ideas or policies to which they have been deeply committed.
The second argument, I think, is not really relevant to a discussion of the original claim; the claim cannot be said to apply to companies, or to how companies portray their products. The third argument suffers from the same problem, although it does begin more promisingly in that you recognize why one might think at least why people who are deeply committed ought to be in a position to be critical (since they ought to be knowledgeable). The doctor's attitude to a drug distracts from that important point, since a drug is not an idea or a policy. (A knowledgeable doctor might be critical of a treatment protocol, however, which could be called a policy)