GRE: Graduate Record Examinations Information 3

[ganeshbala]

GRE: Graduate Record Examinations Information

Quantitative Section : Analytical Writing Assessment

In a free society, laws must be subject to change.

Sample Analytical Writing Assessment-1

A society establishes laws to address the needs of the present, and these needs often change with time. When needs change, laws must either be flexible enough to address new situations or be subject to change. This is the only way to insure that the needs of contemporary society are being addressed. The given statement uses the qualification of a "free society," implying that the citizens in the society have the freedom to make their needs known and to contribute to the making of laws. For a free society to flourish, the political structure must be able to accommodate a reevaluation and possibly a restructuring of laws.

The laws which constitute the political system, specifically those ensuring citizens their basic human rights should not be subject to change. In the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens fundamental rights, and therefore it should not be subject to change. In a free society which permits its members extensive personal freedom, The Bill of Rights provides for the harmonious coexistence of diverse groups of people. As such a societal mediator, The Bill of Rights encompasses many laws that are the basis behind the notion "free society" and therefore should not be subject to change.

In deciding whether or not a law should be subject to change, the premise on which the law stands must be evaluated. Laws which make up the foundation of a free society must be stable, but can only remain so as long as they address the needs of the society's constituents. Every society contains diverse groups of people and therefore must have laws to encompass a variety of difference needs. To determine the immutability of a law, the laws impact on society must be evaluated, and care must be taken to ensure that changing a law to benefit parts of the community do not do so at the expense of some of the constituents. A law governing basic rights should be stable, while minor laws regulating certain actions do not necessitate such careful consideration. For example, the laws governing abortion involve the fundamental rights of women, and much attention must be spent on the issue to moderate its impact on society. The laws governing issues such as car parking do not involve a major issue, and should easily be subject to change if problems with existing regulations arise.

Wealthy politicians cannot offer fair representation to all the people.

This statement suggests that a wealthy person has a significant stake in the formulation of laws and policies, and that in order to maximize his or her own benefit from these laws and policies, the politician must sacrifice the needs of other people. Unless all members of the community share equally in the resources and potential profit from these resources, politicians will have the responsibility of determining how resources, taxes, and wealth are distributed. However, this is not to say that a person must choose to maximize his or her benefits when taking part in political decisions. Ultimately, the decision to represent all people fairly rests with the individual politician, each of whom has the potential to be fair or unfair.

Wealth is not the only factor which might lead a politician to give unfair representation. A person's race, sex, geographic allegions, and desire for power might influence a politician at various times in her or his career. Indeed, a person who is significantly less then wealthy might have as much at stake in an income tax law as a person who has money. Whether or not the "poor" politician chooses to make policies with her own future in mind is just as relevant as the same action undertaken by a wealthy person. If the individual politician ignores her own stake in society, she might be acting irrationally.

The quality of "fairness" must be a relative and undefinable concepts in politics, requiring that a politician try to be as fair as possible without hurting herself in the process. The degress of fairness she chooses to exert is a subjective thing, and will probably be disagreed upon by any two people.

Unfortunately, politicians must have a stake in the laws they create and destroy. Unlike judges, who are supposed to look at each situation without a chance for personal loss or gains, politicians can lose or gain substantially depending on how they act. The things they stand to lose or gain include money, status, future power or employment, popularity, and numerous other psychological and material things. Perhaps a measure of a good politician is not how rich or how poor she is, but rather how important all these potential benefits are to her. If she cares more for these things than the average person does, then she might not represent people fairly.

Thus, whether a politician has a lot of wealth or very little, money can be a motivating factor and can determine how she votes. The generalization about wealthy politicians can just as easily be made about any politician who is concerned with money or other benefits. However, it is hoped that once a person has "enough" material wealth his or her political decision making will not be solely the result of trying to maximize future gains.