Before I post the first essay, I’ll explain how the test session is set up and some of the expectations for format, as I understand them. All of what I share is available on the State Department web page, so I’m not giving actual details from my test experience. I wouldn’t even share those with my sister.
The essay session is 30 minutes long: read the prompt, plan, write, and edit. Grammar and spell check are, or should be, disabled. Graders are at ACT and using the same rubric. The essay should follow the standard 5-paragraph structure. Writers must pick a position. They are not grading on what you say, but how clearly you present and support your position. I am unclear on how specific my references to outside sources need to be.
So, that’s it. Here’s my response to this prompt:
There are numerous viewpoints on the subject of cloning. One side feels that the long-term benefits of cloning-primarily a search for medical cures- is worth the effort, but with some restrictions. Others argue the there is a strong potential for abuse in the era of corporate corruption, dishonesty, and misunderstanding. In your view, aside from the religous and moral considerations, who should best make the determination whether cloning is legalized: doctors, politicians, or religious leaders? Carefully explain the rationale for your position.
The issue of cloning has become a polemic topic since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep. Factions on either side of the argument are divided about whether cloning is a benefit to medical research, or an abomination that should be outlawed. As research and technology advance, it is necessary to decide whether cloning will be an accepted and regulated as a practice, or if it will be illegal. It is clear that politicians should decide whether cloning should be legalized because they understand the law, they represent the will of the people, and they are more likely to be objective participants in the decision-making.
At times politicians are chastised for their law background, but this knowledge of law makes them exactly the right people to determine how and when cloning should be used for medical research. Those who are concerned that cloning will lead inevitably to corruption and dishonesty would have their concerns alleviated if politicians were to outline the terms and uses for clones.
As the voice of the people, it is logical that politicians would decide whether cloning, for medical purposes or otherwise, should be legal. We have elected these officials to represent us and we should allow them to take the reigns in making this important decision.
The legalization or prohibition of cloning should not be left to subjective and partial religious leaders to decide. Religious leaders would be unable to separate their beliefs from the potential gains that could be made through cloning research. For this reason, politicians who are impartial should be left to decide how we proceed with cloning.
In conclusion, we must trust in our elected representatives who are familiar with the law and who are objective participants to decide if and how the ability to clone is used in society.
I’m a big edit and re-edit person, so this looks like sticks and rocks to me. Any advice will be taken into account for the next essay I write.