Essay Writing (Mock XAT-1 Essay)

Directions: Study the following argument and present your views on the same in not more
than 350 words. You are expected to present your analysis using suitable facts (evidence),
examples, opinions; arguments in favour of the topic; alternative explanations or counter
examples which might weaken the conclusion. You may also cite changes in the argument,
that would make it more logically sound, and points that would help you better evaluate its
conclusion, if required.

"We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and human fulfilment
are created from the bottom up, not the government down. When the human spirit is
allowed to create, and individuals who believe in the magic of the marketplace are given a
personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success only then
can societies be dynamic and progressive; contradicting the notion that rigid government
controls are essential to economic development."



Essay 1:
In a free-market economy like that of the United States, the government does not intervene
in supply or demand through laws controlling market entrants or setting prices. The bottom
up approach here involves established standards and regulatory bodies which have
individuals elected from the society. The IMF, World Bank, International Finance
Corporation, Bretton Woods institutions and the GATT have facilitated individual enterprise
through free-market principles. The East India Company developed trade hubs, ports,
financial centres and cities like Singapore, Hong Kong, Cape Town, Mumbai. Likewise, the
industrial revolution, spirit of entrepreneurship and technological innovation drove the
engine of growth in the last three centuries. Today iconic individuals like Narayan Murthy
(Infosys), Ratan Tata (TCS), and private organizations like Petronas (Malaysia), Tata and
Reliance (India), Walmart (US), Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Foundations (US) have created
growth.

Free-market societies through "the interest of commons" lead to competition, more profits,
wastage of resources, overconsumption, illicit trade and tax evasion. Rich nations have
got richer and poor poorer. The power, petroleum, timber industries have led to
environmental degradation. There is a monopoly of diamond cartels and unregulated mines
worldwide as illustrated in the film "Blood Diamond". Kingfisher airlines misused the aircraft
sale and lease-back model to siphon off bank funds of Rs.2200 crores. In absence of rigid
regulations, pharma companies will sell drugs at higher prices to make profits.

Economic policies cannot be decided solely by individuals. The diverse marketplace includes
commodity markets, banking services, defence which work differently but are related to the
others. Increase in interest rates by the banking sector leads to increase in costs of
commodity products. Government controls are required, otherwise corruption will increase.
There should be policies for inclusive growth and social upliftment. The government needs
to be involved in overseeing economic policies related to space research, defence, medical
fields, education, nuclear power-plants, energy etc. Regulations like Kyoto protocol should
be made more stricter to check global warming. To improve transparency, instead of income
tax, there can be a transaction tax, so that even if people engage in illicit transactions, they
will be taxed. Other sectors like the service sector can be left to the bottom up approach of
the free-markets where individuals drive growth.

Rigid government controls and total freedom are independently insufficient. We want
neither another bankruptcy (eg. Lehmann Brothers) nor license raj which prevented free
markets. We need a mixed approach. The government should support entrepreneurs, frame
effective trade controls, waive off tax policies for foreign trade engagement, reduce
spending and tax rates, balance the budget, maintain a stable monetary policy. Economic
instruments (policies, trade, remittances) should be strategically integrated with
government controls. Synergy of expertise in trade, finance, energy, telecommunications is
required. Protection of national interests, IPR, shutting down terrorist access to financial
networks etc cannot be the sole prerogative of free-markets, the government must play its
part.
Review of Essay 1:
The essay is a well-written piece expanding on the given argument. The differences
between the top-down and the bottom-up approach are explained. The essay cites historical
background (how free-market societies developed), gives many examples of economies or
regions using free-market principles. Other examples from current affairs linking theoretical
aspects with practical observations are also mentioned. The essay discussed negative
aspects of the free-market economy as well. The essay ends by providing valid courses of
action or solutions for the scenario discussed by maintaining a neutral position that both
government controls (top-down) and bottom-up approach may be required.

The essay could be made better by citing the scenarios prevalent in China and previously
Russia and how the government controls over there still ensure a liberal economy and
growth. Also limitations of the essay in terms of the argument being too focussed on those
who live in free market societies (and not other societies) need to be discussed. One also
needs to explicitly explain under what circumstances the argument is valid and when it fails.
One also needs to come up with counter examples to contradict the notion that rigid
government controls are not essential for a prosperous economy.

There are no grammatical mistakes in the essay. The thought flow could be improved by
explicitly starting the paragraphs with a broad description of the content of the paragraph.
Eg. The topic is valid.., Other examples which reiterate the point in favour, The
argument is weak., The essay argument could be improved..

Inspite of an absence of the intro-headers for each paragraph, there are very strong points
and examples discussed in this essay. Overall, a very good essay.



Essay 2:
The argument's (a famous quote of Ronald Reagan) conclusion that economic prosperity of
a society/nation is dictated by a 'bottom-up' approach and not the top-down' approach,
though logical, fails to consider societies other than those that are 'free markets', thus
making the argument questionable and weak.

The argument is valid in pointing out that in free market societies, when the individual is
given a stake in the decision making and in the success arising out of it, individuals and
hence societies prosper. When the markets are free from any external or governmental
influences, both production and consumption are maximized and markets set prices in the
most efficient way. However, if governments interfere with excessive subsidization on
consumption, the production is bound to get affected and the state of equilibrium between
the supply and demand that dictates prices is disturbed. Similarly, high taxation on sellers,
though spurs income for the governments, will inevitably result in high prices in the
markets, a situation no economy would want to be in.

However, authoritarian economies such as China contradict the argument's claim that the
top-down governmental regulations are not essential to economic development. In a society
like China, which is a single political party set-up, where citizens have no control over what
policies are implemented, the fact that the country has been succeeding economically over
the past decade cannot be overlooked. Though China remains a closed political society and
exercised rigid governmental control, it is liberal in its economic policies, which have helped
see the growth of the country. For example, the opening up of Chinese markets to Foreign
Direct Investment has been instrumental in boosting the economy. Here, an individual's
belief in free markets does not play a role.

The argument is weak primarily because it relies only on the aspect that individual freedom
stirs economic prosperity but conveniently ignores providing substantial evidence of how
rigid governmental controls are not essential. The argument would be more persuasive if it
weighs both the notions on similar grounds.
Review of Essay 2:
The intended flow of the essay is as follows: (a) acknowledge that the argument though
valid is insubstantial and fallacious. (b) Explain under what circumstances the argument is
valid and when it fails.(c) Provide counter example to contradict the notion that rigid govt.
controls are not essential for a prosperous economy.

The second paragraph of the essay focuses only on "prices". There are more negative
consequences of a free market economy that need to be discussed. The third paragraph
expands on the situation in China only. More practical and specific examples of the positive
benefits and misuses of economic policies under both "top-down" and "bottom-up" approach
need to be highlighted.

The overall structure of the essay is good but content needs improvement. Courses of
action, remedial measures etc need to be expanded and not mentioned in passing.

Essay 3:
The American Constitution enshrines health, wealth and the pursuit of happiness as the
birthright of every individual. Unfortunately, the American dream today upholds only the
endless pursuit of monetary gains as a democratic given.

The overconfidence of the speaker in the topic who assumes capitalism to be the messiah of
society and Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations as the Bible of the unenlightened
socialists borders on arrogance. This rhetoric would have been laughable had it not reflected
somewhere the machinations of Wall Street gurus who have humbled and discarded the
harworking 99% of Americans after squandering their lifetime savings in high-profile
speculations.

Efficient markets do not generate employment and competition does boost quality and drive
down prices to the everlasting benefit of the consumer. But the world is not a glitzy mall
and was never meant to be.

Adam Smith himself cautioned that capitalism is not Darwinism and called for a more
equitable redistribution of resources among the underpriveleged to ensure that no one is left
behind. Business ethics should have been the Hippocratic oath of capitalists, but it is
increasingly evident that let alone largesse, even fair play seems to be alien to the
bottomline of an organization.

Most policy makers, though belatedly, have realized that neither capitalism nor socialism
can by itself fulfill the socio-economic obligations of a political body. And, hence the welfare
state.

No corporate should ever assume the role of a feudal overlord of slaves who can be used
and thrown away at will. For the class divide is the biggest bane of today's society. The
youth who leave schools and colleges early to join the labour classes are no less human
than Ivy League graduates who are the movers and shakers of the world. Unequal
opportunities prevent many a promising bud from glowing in full bloom. And this is where
the government can step in to redress the balance if societies are to be progressive at all.

Promoting equitable social development and fair standards of living cannot be left to the
mercy of market forces. If an elected political party is to justify its raison d'etre to the
people at large, it must promote economic justice by checking the greed of capitalists and
ensuring humane dignity to every individual, regardless of social status.

It would be just as well if policymakers, while taxing the financially sound population to
ensure welfare benefits to the indigent, professes that there is life beyond a reasonable
bank balance and that one must spend quality time with one's loved ones and be prepared
for the divine bliss of a spiritual world thereafter.
Review of Essay 3:
The essay needs improvement. Ideas need to be more coherent and explained in details.
The use of poetic expressions and general statement could be reduced.

The essay is divided into eight neat paragraphs, which makes easy reading. The
introduction is arresting and comes to the point without beating about the bush Further, the
essay is vivid with telling imagery of capitalistic exploitation which damages the credibility of
the topic beyond repair. The essay employs market logic and rubbishes its oversimplification
of human life. It frames capitalism in a more realistic light and slowly explains the rationale
behind government intervention in the economy. The essay then makes no bones about the
fact that capitalism benefits capitalists, and introduces the poetics of socialism. The essay
reiterates its main point that an elected government should promote equality and then
subtly moves from socialism to the promised land where purity of soul and not purity of gold
matters.

The essay nonetheless appears hastily written and lacks finesse. Sentences are unduly long
and grammatical errors need to be taken care of.