Did another GRE practice essay tonight. I think I made a mistake here by saying "social security benefits" when I should have said "401K", and I'm not certain if it has happened, or if the government just gave itself the legal authority to do it. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the GRE won't be fact-checked, because they aren't giving me the freedom to get online and research my facts during the test, they said they want examples, and I really don't know that much about the prompt topic except that I have a principled disagreement with whoever said it.

I timed myself this time, and I had my phone next to me with the timer. But my phone screen kept going dark, and when I wanted to check the time I had to unlock my phone first. I use a pretty lengthy combo lock on my phone for no reason... I managed to check the time at 16 minutes remaining, and again at 6 minutes remaining. I was essentially done with the essay at 6 minutes, so I spent the last few minutes doublechecking my grammar.

Also, I made the mistake of neglecting to read the instructions on this prompt. After having written the essay I took a closer look and realized that both this and the previous prompt had instructions which differed from those given for my first essay. Fortunately, I think the distinction was small enough that I might be able to get away with what I wrote, but still it's something I'll do better next time.

Anyway, here it is:

[PROMPT]
Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
[/PROMPT]

[ESSAY]
It's true that scandals tend to capture public attention in a unique and powerful way. When a scandal has come to light, the public latches onto it, and this widespread focus tends to lead to quick resolutions. The people have proven time and time again that when they speak to the government with a unified voice, the government is forced to listen, for what government can exert authority over a people when the people do not recognize its authority?

However, scandals are not only useful as a method to apply pressure towards resolving a problem, they are also useful as a means to distract the population from more pressing issues. Someone famously said, "never let a good scandal go to waste". For example, when the government of the United States took away veterans benefits or social security benefits from its citizens by a lottery, or when the government emptied the bank accounts of a random selection of citizens in order to pay for certain pressing expenses, these events were reported briefly, but then scandal conveniently struck in an area of some less consequential misconduct, having to do with either government or business at the time. These scandals succeeded in turning the attention of the public away from the hurting individuals who lost their fortunes, and away from its own unsure futures. Instead, the public turned its eyes towards problems which ultimately did not affect them directly. The populace at large said, "that will never happen to me", and then turned their eyes towards scapegoats which were more interesting, or more entertaining than the fact that our government has both the capability and the will to sweep our futures out from under our feet.

Furthermore, while the statement seems intended to identify the silver lining surrounding scandals, the scandals themselves must nonetheless be recognized as a symptom of a problem. The scandal only captures the public eye because it points out that there are problems in existence which require public attention. It should rather be the case that neither the originating problem, nor the resultant scandal, ever came into existence. I see no benefit to attempting to cast any positive light on either the scandal or its cause. The statement, then, is akin to saying that prison is a positive thing because it keeps criminals off the street. Naive as the following sentiment may seem, I'm certain that it would be better to have neither criminal nor prison. For this reason, I believe that such a statement in itself is not useful. Rather than lauding the consequences of the crime, let's attempt to improve the society in ways which remove incentive to commit the crime at all.

So, while scandals do indeed serve the purpose of quickly resolving specific issues, they also may serve as a cover for much more serious problems. For this reason, I disagree with what I perceive to be the heart of the statement. Furthermore, I find that the statement itself is not worth making, because there is little use to be found in identifying positive aspects in the consequences of crime; it would be better to direct our energy towards preventing the crime before it becomes a scandal.
[/ESSAY]