Score: 3.5/6

-It would have been good to define" effective."
-When you support your argument with an example it is best to use an example that positively supports the argument. I.e. to support public acceptance is required to be effective, you should provide an example of someone being effective with public acceptance. Showing me that not have public acceptance leads to being ineffective is not the same argument. (you would have got a 4 if this was not the case).
-Your refuting example is good. However, after you state the example it would be a good idea to specifically relate the example back to your argument.
-Your resolution is appropriate, but could be formatted better. Look back to the writing sample manual.

Score: 4/6

-Good examples.
-Good resolution principle. However, I would have liked to know that was what you were arguing before the end of the essay. You don't mention anything about a "time of order" during the McGuinty example. To create unity and stronger examples, you should echo your resolution principle throughout your arguments.

The role of a politician can be very important as well as very fickle, but the principle of politics is based on one component; Men or women in a position of power making important decisions for the the people of their jurisidction. The effctiveness of these politicians can be measured by their ability to decide upon and implement solutions to public problems. If these decisions are to reflect the needs and feelings of society as a whole, acceptance by the general public is an absolute requirement. This can be seen in any democratic governing system. Here in Canada, we elect Members of Parliament to represent our region, or riding, in the government. Each member belongs to a specific political party and the party that wins the most ridings forms the government. If a party wins a majority of the ridings, it can be inferred that the majority of the country agrees with their ideology. A majority government has the ability to be very effective due to their strength in numbers. They have essentially been given the tools to make relatively quick, concise decisons in the name of the public. If this acceptance is taken away and the party can no longer retain their majority status, the effectiveness of the party is greatly diminished. In a democratic system, public acceptance is a key step to forming an effective government.

Most often public acceptance is needed for a politician to be effective but there are situations where public acceptance means nothing at all. In the case of a dictatorship, the government can be very effective even if most people dislike or disagree with the leader. A perfect example is that of Kim Jong Il and North Korea. As a repressive dictator, the public does not accept him but the government remains effective though military force and tight regulations and control. The decisions made may rarely be for the public good but the effectiveness of executing these ideas cannot be disputed. With military backing, all decisions are implemented swiftly regardless of public acceptance.

It can be hard to determine whether a politician needs public acceptance to be effective but the type of government is one way of deciding. If it is a democratic system, such as Canada, a politician must have public acceptance to be successful but in a military dictatorship, such as North Korea, public acceptance is unimportant in the effectiveness of a politician.

Score: 3/6

-Your supporting example largely reflects your point of view, instead of state an example that is based in fact. It is just a weak example, because all you show is the Obama won the election and therefore had public support. You do't really address the notion of "effective"
-Good refuting example.
-Your resolution principle is weak. Your arguments of winning an election vs. making a statement do not relate and thus it is very difficult to come up with a resolution for them. Further, your principle is not all encompassing... what if the political issue was economics?

Score: 3.5/6

-It would have been good to define "effective."
-Your supporting example is appropriate, but you really only talk about Obama's public acceptance based on the things he said he would do. You don't talk about the things he has actually done... the things that would actually allow him to be considered effective.
-Good refuting paragraph.
-Your resolution is appropriate. I would have liked you to concisely state the principle in one sentence before you begin applying it to your examples.

Score: 3/6

-Good intro.
-You should explore the example of Obama in more detail. Don't just say that he "put forth ideas and make changes that effected the economy, the military, and the environment," actually tell me what he did. This will dramatically strengthen your argument.
-Your refuting example is weak, not necessarily because of the example itself but because of how you portrayed it. You don't actually spend much time describing the lone politician and his struggles to combat apartheid. Tell me exactly how he was able to be effective, despite not having public acceptance. That is how you refute the prompt. You instead talk more about what abolishing the apartheid did for the country, which is more of a side note to your argument.
-You don't actually state a resolution principle. Instead, you tell me that public acceptance helps, but that politicians don't need it. This is not specific. The MCAT asks you to state under what circumstances does a politician needs public acceptance and when do they not need public acceptance. The simplest resolution would be the notion of democracy vs dictatorship. These are clear, concise and specific circumstances that address the prompt.
-As you have extra time, I would spend a few more minutes in the planning stage to develop a resolution principle that is strong and spend some more time further developing your examples.

War is a term people do not like to hear but a reality of the past, unfortunately part of the present, but hopefully not part of the future. The declaration of war, by any political figure needs to be upheld by public acceptance in order to be successful. War means lives will be lost and the current state of the nation may be altered, thus support of one’s nation is an absolute must for the war effort to be effective. If a leader were to declare war without the support of the people a political uprising is eventually bound to follow. When Franklin D. Roosevelt declared war on December 8, 1941, following the attacks at Pearl Harbour, he had overwhelming support from his followers. The Americans had largely stayed out of the war up until this point, but with such a horrendous attack on their own soil Roosevelt had little choice, but to get involved. Waiting to declare war until such a pivotal moment possibly made Roosevelt a more successful president because it is would be difficult not to support the decision under such circumstances. The large acceptance by his followers led Roosevelt and the American army to a boast a triumphant war effort, and allowed Roosevelt a long and prosperous political career as the President of the United States.

Contrary to acceptance, sometimes rejection by a group of people can create a more forceful political effort. Martin Luther King Jr. is a perfect example of a political activist that was not supported by a large percentage of the Southern Caucasian population. This disapproval for equality of rights by the ‘white’ population fuelled his civil rights movements, made his speeches stronger, and made simple actions like where a woman sat on a bus stamped into history for eternity. If the condemnation by a significant portion of the southern Caucasian population had not been so intense, and their unwillingness to accept the African American population so adamant, King’s actions would not have been as significant. The disapproval by so many is what made his movements so successful and created the American nation we know today where people are created equal regardless of the colour of their skin. Thus, sometimes public dislike can only prove to aid in a political figures efforts, strengthening the overall effectiveness as a leader.

Acceptance is something many people strive for from childhood. Political success can largely be measured by the support and acceptance provided by one’s followers, especially when involving situations that will effect the entire nation. The declaration of war marks an ideal time when a political figure seeks to gain the greatest amount of support in order to sustain one’s political career. However, when a nation is evolving and political movements are being undertaken rejection can prove to accelerate the effectiveness of a leader that is not favored by a large percentage of the public. Thus the effectiveness of a politician is largely influenced by acceptance and disapproval of the public, and both have proven to have be successful tools in the political world.

Mohandas Ghandi, one of the most influential politician in the world once labelled "politics without principles" as one of the Roots of Violence. Thus, to be a successful politician one must have many outlined principles. An important principle for a politician is the acceptance from the general public. Without the acceptance and support from the common people, a political leader cannot govern his or her country effectively. The term "effective" in politics means to successfully achieve certain intended purpose or outcome through suitable actions. In democratic societies where the general public decides who will be the leader, a politician's effectiveness is usually dependent on the acceptance of the public. For example, in the 2008 election, Barack Obama successively defeated his opponent McCain and became the first African-American president of United States. During election campaigne, Obama gained considerable acceptance among most American citizens. Furthermore, he passed health care reform and signed economic stimulus legislation, which brought America out of its devastating financial crisis. Therefore, by gaining the public acceptance of his people, Obama proved that America was running effectively in his hands.

However, there are situations where a politician may not need the public’s acceptance in order to be effective. This often occurs in countries where the general public does not have choices. An example is no better than the most famous Adolf Hitler, whom became the Chancellor of Germany during Second World War. During his rise in power, German was in depression and there were no other opponent against Hitler. Thus, citizens of Germany had no choice even though some were against his facist ideas. As a result, almost all government related issues were decided by the dictator himself. Hitler passed laws on his own will and dictated for almost a decade. Therefore, he was still considered as an effective politican without public's aceptance.

The debate of whether a politician needs the acceptance of the public to be effective is difficult to resolve. Nevertheless, it is dependent on the type of government a country holds. If the government is democratic, politicians need to gain acceptance of the public to be successful because public has the rights to choose thier own leader. In the case of Obama's winning, American citizens were able to see Obama's potential as an effective leader. Sometimes, a country does not have decentralized government, such as Germany before Second World War which is responsible for all the decisions made. Thus, the acceptance of the general public appears to be a weak principle for a politician to be effective.

Score:3/6

-Good supporting example.
-It would have been good to define "effective"
-I think the example of the civil rights movement is a good one, but I would not be so extreme as to say that because people were against his ideas that he was more effective.
-Further, in the beginning of you essay you seem to be limiting the scope of the essay to that of war, yet in your following paragraph you talk about a non-war situation. This does not give the appearance of a unified essay.
-You do not actually resolve the essay. You say that war is a good example of when support is needed, but that when a nation is "evolving" you may not need it. The MCAT wants you to specifically state the circumstances under which the prompt is true and when it is false. A good resolution principle for this prompt (but not your examples) would have been democracy vs. dictatorship.

Score: 5/6

-Good supporting paragraph.
-Good refuting paragraph. You should have spoke more to Hitler's effectiveness
-Good resolution. Very clear.