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).

Your body paragraphs logically progress your argument, but their internal structure could be strengthened. Your second paragraph discusses technology and meritocracy but lacks a single, clear topic sentence at the beginning; the main point arrives at the end, which slightly weakens its impact. Your third paragraph has a very strong topic sentence (“True meritocracy cannot exist in environments where individuals feel unsafe or excluded”) and good elaboration. However, both paragraphs would be stronger with more distinct evidence (e.g., a specific company case, a historical example) to substantiate the claims, and deeper elaboration explaining the logical connections between your points rather than listing effects.

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.

Your conclusion provides a powerful and effective end to your essay. You successfully restate your main contention about the limitations of a profit-only focus and summarise the key themes of technology, merit, and inclusion. The conclusion is concise and avoids introducing new information. Your final sentences act as a strong call to action, urging businesses to recognize their broader social responsibilities to achieve a success that is both sustainable and humane, leaving a lasting impression on the reader.

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.

Your introduction is excellently structured. It begins with a strong context statement that frames the high-failure rate of modern businesses, creating an engaging hook. You clearly state your contention that a narrow focus on profit or performance is insufficient for long-term success. Furthermore, you effectively summarise the arguments you will explore—technology and meritocracy—and position them as key parts of a larger, more humane business model. The introduction is concise and sets a clear, purposeful direction 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 paragraphs demonstrate a masterful use of the TEEL structure. Each of the three paragraphs begins with a clear topic sentence that directly corresponds to the arguments previewed in the introduction. The evidence provided is strong, using a mix of expert opinions (Chomsky), historical examples (Freud, Hayek), and conceptual contrasts (natural vs. social sciences). The elaboration in each paragraph is prominent and insightful, thoroughly explaining the logic behind the argument and even including mini-rebuttals to strengthen the claims. Finally, each paragraph concludes with a succinct linking sentence that effectively summarizes the point and ties it back to the essay's overall contention.

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.

The conclusion provides a textbook-perfect ending to the essay. It starts by restating the main contention clearly and succinctly. It then summarizes the three core arguments from the body paragraphs, reinforcing the essay's logical progression. The paragraph concludes with a powerful and fitting call to action, urging a change in perspective towards the social sciences. It successfully wraps up the entire piece without introducing any new information or arguments, leaving a lasting impression on the reader.

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.

The introduction is structured exceptionally well. It begins with an engaging statement that sets up the essay's central tension, provides necessary context on the 'legitimacy crisis' in social sciences, and then presents a very clear contention. Crucially, it concludes by explicitly outlining the three key arguments that will be developed in the body, providing a perfect roadmap for the reader. The paragraph is also concise and impactful, adhering to all the principles of a strong introduction.

Excellent

Excellent

Very Good

Excellent