GMAT essay examples discussed in class

Issue: There are essentially two forces that motivate people: self-interest and fear.

Essay 1:
The speaker claims that people are motivated only by fear and self-interest. This claim relies on the belief that human beings are essentially selfish, or egoistic. In my view, the speaker oversimplifies human nature, ignoring the important motivating force of altruism.

On the one hand, I agree that most of our actions result in large part from self-interest and from our survival instincts, such as fear. For example, our educational and vocational lives are to a great extent motivated by our interest in ensuring our own livelihood, safety, health, and so on. We might perpetuate bad personal relationships because we are insecure—or afraid—of what will happen to us if we change course. Even providing for our own children may to some extent be motivated by selfishness—satisfying a need for fulfillment or easing our fear that we will be alone in our old age.

On the other hand, to assert that all of our actions are essentially motivated by self-interest and fear is to overemphasize one aspect of human nature. Humans are also altruistic—that is, we act to benefit others, even though doing so may not be in our own interest. The speaker might claim that altruistic acts are just egoistic ones in disguise—done to avoid unpleasant feelings of guilt, to give oneself pleasure, or to obligate another person. However, this counter argument suffers from three critical problems. First, some examples of altruism are difficult to describe in terms of self-interest alone. Consider the soldier who falls on a grenade to save his companions. It would be nonsensical to assert that this soldier is acting selfishly when he knows his action will certainly result in his own immediate death. Second, the argument offends our intuition that human motivation is far more complex. Third, it relies on a poor assumption; just because we feel good about helping others, it does not follow that the only reason we help is in order to feel good.

In sum, the speaker oversimplifies human nature. All human motivation cannot be reduced to fear and self-interest. We can also be motivated by altruism, and the pleasure we might take in helping others is not necessarily an indication that our actions are selfish.


Essay 2:
The claim in question is that there are essentially two forces that motivate people: self-interest and fear. I strongly disagree with this claim for the following reasons.

In the first place, fear is an essential motivating factor only in those circumstances that are actually scary to be in. for instance, in a tyranny, the main political motivation is neither patriotism, nor the pursuit of money, nor military honor. The main motivation is fear. The citizens fear the arbitrary justice of a cruel tyrant, and the tyrant fears for his own safety. (How else is a tyrant removed from office but by violent means?) For another example, in a civil war, in which citizen fights against citizen, the main motivation is also fear. Yet these circumstances, and thus the fear that goes with them, are by no means common.

In addition, self-interest is hardly an explanation for how most people for the most part live out their lives. When two people make considerable sacrifices in order to do the very common thing of raising a family, their motivation can hardly be put down to the pursuit of self-interest. To the contrary, raising children is far more a matter of parental love—which is quite different from self-interest. Evidence of a similar willingness to make sacrifices is to be found in many teachers. Many of them go “beyond the call of duty” and, in the interest of their students, work extra hours. Making sacrifices for others—the very antithesis of acting in self-interest—is by no means uncommon.

Finally, different “forces” motivate different people in different ways. Admittedly, some are driven by fear, others driven by self-interest, and some by both. But there are other factors that get people do things. Consider, for example, what motivates a soldier. Even though he obviously fears a violent death (who doesn’t?), he’s still prepared to expose himself to danger if and when the time comes. It is out of loyalty to his comrades and out of patriotism that he will do so. If fear and self-interest were his main motivations, he would soon prove to be a useless soldier, deserting his post at the slightest hint of danger. In addition to loyalty and patriotism, there are also the desires for recognition, for love, and for honor—desires that surely have a central place in human history.

In summary, I strongly disagree with the contention that the two essential forces that motivate people are self-interest and fear. First, fear is an essential motivating factor only in those contexts that are actually scary to be in. Second, self-interest is hardly an explanation for how most people for the most part live out their lives. And third, different “forces” motivate different people in different ways.



Issue: Technology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together.

Essay 1:
I believe there is some truth to the speaker’s claim that technology separates and alienates people. However, there is certainly at least as much evidence that technology serves best to bring people together.

The most obvious way that technology separates and alienates people from one another is symbolized by the computer nerd sitting glazed-eyed before his computer screen in a basement, attic, bedroom, or office cubicle. While this scene is a caricature, of course, it’s true that practically everybody who uses email or surfs the Internet does so alone, with only his or her computer for company. And, to the extent that computer use increases the amount of time we collectively spend in solitary activities, it increases the amount of time we spend separated from our fellow humans.

On the other hand, technology has been a wonderful aid in bringing people together, or, in many cases, back together. Speaking for myself, I can say that I have become connected with quite a number of people via email with whom I might never have spoken otherwise. These include old friends with whom I had fallen out of the habit of writing regular letters but with whom I now correspond regularly because of the ease with which email can be sent and delivered.

A second way in which the new technology has brought people together is by allowing individuals who have common interests to make contact with one another. It is possible to find people who share one’s interest in nearly anything, from aardvarks to zippers. Such contacts may be ephemeral, but they can be a great source of information and amusement as well. I would hazard a guess that for each person who sits neurotically at home, eschewing personal contacts with others in favor of an exclusive relationship with his computer, there are hundreds of others who have parleyed their email capacity and their access to the Web into a continuous succession of new acquaintances.

In sum, it seems clear to me that technology has done more to bring people together than to isolate them.


Essay 2:
It is always a controversial issue whether technology separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together. From my point of view, technology has done more to bring people together than to separate or alienate them. Thus, I disagree with the statement. Here are some reasons why.

First of all, technology has brought about a revolution in modes of communication. Thanks to these new ways of communicating, people are brought only closer together. With access to telephone or the Internet, I am now only seconds away from communicating with distant friends. With access to these things, the geographical distance between acquaintances matters much less than it did in the past. I can still maintain close contact with my family and friends, even if they are on the other side of the world. None of this would be possible without the supposedly “alienating” advances in technology.

In addition, technology has given us the means to travel great distances in relatively short periods of time for a relatively cheap price. Imagine having to travel overseas to visit your parents had you all lived a mere hundred years ago. Think of both the time and money such a trip would have cost! Now compare this with the relative ease of doing the same thing today. The technical innovations in transportation, as well as in communication, have only served to bring us closer together.

Finally, it must be said that the demands of technology are such that there is an increase in the importance of communicating with our fellows. The reason for this goes something like this: With advances in technology, there is an increase in the complexity of the things we build. With this complexity comes the increase in a division of expertise. In such a world, it becomes increasingly crucial that you and I, who are experts at different things, are able to communicate to each other. Without this ability, the construction of complex things (a computer is a good example) would not be possible. Hence, technology not only facilitates communicating, but demands it well.

In summary, I strongly disagree with the worn-out idea that technology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together. To the contrary, technology improves our ability to talk to each other. Also, it improves our ability to travel and see each other. Finally, given that a modern technological society requires a wide range of fields of expertise, it also demands that we are good at communicating with each other.