Prompt Run Results

Regarding body paragraph 1: First topic sentence provides a clear direction; the importance of IT. Relates to the prompts directly. However, after your second sentence, you mention AI’s importance. AI =/= IT, they are related and similar but not the same thing. Make sure you stick to the topic you establish or alternatively, start more broad in your first sentence by talking about the importance of technology generally, so you can then talk about both AI and IT. The second sentence is currently an assertion; we need to level it up to an explanation of your argument. How does AI help businesses outperform competitors? Explain the mechanism of logic! In medical school, you will need to learn how to explain the mechanism of action of drugs, to show your understanding of it. Here it’s the same concept but with logic! Show you understand why your argument is true/strong, don’t just state it. Examples are also relevant here. After outlining why your argument is true (that tech allows businesses to outperform competitors), give an example elucidating how this actually occurs. You can mention lots of tech companies that implemented AI and how they became more productive (like Microsoft with copilot potentially). In the second sentence, it seems to deviate from the original topic, focusing on merit as a key means of retaining talent and maximising productivity. How does merit relate to the paragraph about of AI and information technology? Are you suggestion it’s another key ingredient for a successful enterprise? If so, considering they are distinct aspects of business success, consider separating them into two paragraphs for structural clarity. The marker needs to understand what is the key argument your body paragraph is trying to make, and clarity is essential for that! Similarly to before, have examples to back up your argument (such as the argument that merit matters for business success). The last sentence is captivating (“While these priorities can drive innovation and growth, particularly in global markets, implementing them without reflection may narrow opportunities for success and overlook structural barriers that prevent additional talent from emerging.”). However, it’s almost sounding like a third mini argument; make sure your paragraphs end instead with a clear link to your overall argument and how this body paragraph’s argument supports that. This adds clarity to the reader, which is essential for them to score you well. For body paragraph 2: Good first sentence, very clear what you’re trying to argue for paragraph 2. Good definition of discrimination! Now go further. Is inclusion just the absence of discrimination or is it something more? Some would argue true inclusion is more than just not having discrimination/harassment but instead, inclusion is about embracing diversity. Embracing the different and prioritising collaboration and open mindedness. The second last sentence is good, it has a rough mechanism explaining the logic of why inclusion is good (because inclusion = no discrimination and discrimination = bad). However, show an example to prove this is true! You can use statistics, you can use business cases/stories, either way, examples are important to strengthen the argument. Last sentence is good, just tie it back more clearly to merit specifically. How does promoting merit lead to more inclusion? Supporters of non-inclusive corporations and governments often branded themselves as meritocratic; preventively rebut those claims by clearly outline how inclusion strengthens merit (e.g. if we discriminate, then cannot accurately judge merit).

The body of the essay consists of two paragraphs with varying structural quality. The second body paragraph is well-structured, following a clear TEEL format: it starts with a strong topic sentence ('True meritocracy cannot exist in environments where individuals feel unsafe or excluded'), elaborates on why this is the case, and links this back to business success. However, the first body paragraph is structurally weaker as it attempts to discuss two distinct topics—information technology and meritocracy—which dilutes its focus. For a stronger structure, each body paragraph should be dedicated to a single, clear argument with its own topic sentence.

Poor

Good

Very engaging hook! However, it feels like a third argument and not a conclusion. If it is a third argument, it’s vital to explain the logic behind the argument and give some examples. Then afterwards, finish with some overall conclusion so your essay looks finished. If your essay doesn’t seem finished to the reader, they automatically begin to take marks for the essay structure. Your sentences of “Profit is essential for survival but should not be the only focus. Organisations also shape the community, culture, and individual lives. Those who recognise ethical responsibilities beyond finance are more likely to earn community trust, sustain engagement, and produce a meaningful impact over time.” are very interesting! They have some explanation of the argument, which is good progress. However, they are still a bundle of interesting assertions. Explain how do corporations that are ethical gain community trust/etc? A really good example for this kind of argument is Ecosia! Look them up. Ricardo Semler’s enterprise is good too. The last sentence is good but because it has a fair amount of fluff, it has the risk of sounding AI generated. When making final remarks, try your best to make them sharp and sweet to nail the point home.

The conclusion provides an excellent wrap-up for the essay. It begins by effectively restating the central contention in a new way. It then concisely summarises the main arguments about balancing financial goals with ethical and social responsibilities. The final sentence serves as a powerful call to action or concluding thought, synthesising the essay's themes into a memorable vision of a 'successful and humane' business. The paragraph successfully provides closure without introducing any new arguments or evidence.

Good

Excellent

Very engaging hook, well done! As a general tip to help with creating captivating hooks under timed conditions, here are my three broad tips you can try: 1. Relate it to a big picture topic that most people feel matters; this could be the future of humanity, the standard of living or something even more grandiose and philosophical such as what it means to be human/etc. 2. Relate it to a contemporary issue; this is slightly different than tip 1 because this could be niche. It doesn’t have to be world defying but simply show you, as a future medical practitioner, are aware about the world and our patients that live in it. 3. Relate it to something personal to you. This is particularly useful for Task B essays/texts, and sometimes it can be easier to do since tips like number 2 require you to be somewhat aware about current affairs while personal hooks just require you to know, well, you. Hooks also need to just as importantly provide context; and you did that here! “Though each and every one of them has dreams of owning a successful business, it remains a fact that the majority of businesses fail to achieve enough success to become a long-term, financially stable business, with many failing in their first year. ” – this sentence provides a good background too but could be more succinct. Remember, introduction is there just to outline and grab attention; the bulk of your essay is in the body paragraphs. “Factors such as the extent of which the advances in technology are utilised in business operations, and meritocratic ideals which reward the most capable individuals are currently prioritised. Yet these factors alone are insufficient. A business that only profit or performance risks undermining the human foundations on which long term success depends on.” – overall, these sentences provide a clear direction about what your contention is and what your main arguments are. Good job.

The introduction is structured excellently. It begins with a broad context about the challenges of modern business, which effectively engages the reader. It then clearly establishes the essay's contention that a singular focus on profit or performance is insufficient for long-term success. The introduction successfully outlines the arguments to be discussed—technology, meritocracy, and inclusion—providing a clear and concise roadmap for the rest of the essay.

Good

Excellent

Okay

Very Good

The body paragraphs generally follow the TEEL structure well, with good emphasis on the explanation section. However, paragraph 3 is way too evidence heavy and not enough explanation or elaboration focused.

The body of your essay demonstrates an excellent command of the TEEL structure. Each of the three paragraphs begins with a clear topic sentence that directly supports your main contention. You use well-chosen evidence (e.g., Noam Chomsky, Sigmund Freud, F.A. Hayek) to support your points without letting the examples overwhelm the paragraph. Most importantly, the elaboration in each paragraph is prominent and effectively explains the 'how' and 'why' of your arguments, with your first body paragraph even including a mini-rebuttal. The paragraphs conclude with strong linking sentences that summarise the point and reinforce the essay's overall argument.

Good

Excellent

The conclusion is short and succinct, has a summary of the essay's arguments and contention. Just saying again: The conclusion is short and succinct, has a summary of the essay's arguments and contention.

Your conclusion is structured perfectly. It begins by concisely restating your main contention, followed by a clear summary of the three core arguments you presented. It avoids introducing any new information and finishes with a powerful and relevant call to action, urging society to 'remove the stigma of them not being a science in the first place'. This provides a strong sense of finality and purpose to your essay.

Excellent

Excellent

The introduction had a clear contention (that social sciences are not a science) and this contention was clearly related to the quotes (where the theme was science). The introduction also gave some engaging context and a brief summary of the 3 body paragraphs or arguments that were used in the essay.

Your introduction is excellently structured. It begins with a strong context statement about the role of scientific thinking, presents a very clear and debatable contention ('applying the scientific method to the social “sciences” has been overall very detrimental'), and then provides a perfect summary of the three arguments that will be developed in the essay. It is concise and effectively sets up the entire piece.

Excellent

Excellent

Very Good

Excellent