Feb Writing Section Forum

[dh22]

So which project did you choose? +1 for the hotel

[gltm]

So which project did you choose? +1 for the hotel

I chose the road and hiking trails...lol
It was going to bring in more $$.

[charlesxavier]

I chose the network of roads and trails. I felt that the info they gave really made that option seem more desirable.

[kacee]

I chose the network of roads and trails. I felt that the info they gave really made that option seem more desirable.

[too old for this sh*]

So which project did you choose? +1 for the hotel

I chose the road and hiking trails...lol
It was going to bring in more $$.

bah...but it WAS a more viable project when either of the project options ceased to be economically viable -lots easier to let nature reclaim them than for the gub'mint to be a hotel manager

(not to mention a hotel presumed a lot of infrastructure that would not already have been in place and hence even more costly in the beginning)

[7ED]

I usually limit everything i write in the written section to the information thats given, and i opted for the trails cause economically it doesn't give u enough information to determine whether one would be more profitable, or whether one is not sustainable economically. But the trails was clearly the better environmental option.

[gltm]

I usually limit everything i write in the written section to the information thats given, and i opted for the trails cause economically it doesn't give u enough information to determine whether one would be more profitable, or whether one is not sustainable economically. But the trails was clearly the better environmental option.

Actually, it explicitly stated that the trial would bring in more visitors and had more admission fee collecting booths. So, I think that indicated it would be a more profitable option.

[npodlask11]

remember it was what project can fulfill the goals best. idk abt the second opt.

[Bruiser]

I chose the hiking trails and the idea to tap into the ever growing "Ecotourism" market. There is a big market for ecotours, where you visit protected sites. I had the idea to provide guided tours and camping trips, as well as bike trails in addition to hiking trails. There are also educational tours offered (girl scouts, boy scouts, and other various groups). Its a win-win situation, you can charge entrance fees, tours, and even offer week-long camping/adventure tours. And you protect the enviornment as well. Hence, win-win.
It took me about 20 minutes to write but writing is my strongest suit. The poor lady next to me took the entire 35 minutes and wrote ONE paragraph. Very sad.

[legallybound]

I usually limit everything i write in the written section to the information thats given, and i opted for the trails cause economically it doesn't give u enough information to determine whether one would be more profitable, or whether one is not sustainable economically. But the trails was clearly the better environmental option.

Actually, it explicitly stated that the trial would bring in more visitors and had more admission fee collecting booths. So, I think that indicated it would be a more profitable option.

But you could get more money per person for the hotel. Say,1 night in hotel $250, dinner for 2 $100 (not unreasonable for a park of "world-renowned beauty"). It takes a lot of $5 admission tickets to make up for that.

That, and I'd rather go to a hotel.

[Bruiser]

But then you have to pay all the people that work at the hotel, provide them with nearby housing (I think it mentioned their housing), and all the other costs associated with running a hotel. Not to mention all the taxes.
With the trails/eco park, the overhead is fairly low and you could probably get some kind of environmental tax break as well.
Wow, I just realized I have way overthought this question. lol

[legallybound]

But then you have to pay all the people that work at the hotel, provide them with nearby housing (I think it mentioned their housing), and all the other costs associated with running a hotel. Not to mention all the taxes.
With the trails/eco park, the overhead is fairly low and you could probably get some kind of environmental tax break as well.
Wow, I just realized I have way overthought this question. lol

We all did, yet with 5 minutes left in the LSAT only 3 people in my room of 60 were working on the essay.

[gltm]

I usually limit everything i write in the written section to the information thats given, and i opted for the trails cause economically it doesn't give u enough information to determine whether one would be more profitable, or whether one is not sustainable economically. But the trails was clearly the better environmental option.

Actually, it explicitly stated that the trial would bring in more visitors and had more admission fee collecting booths. So, I think that indicated it would be a more profitable option.

But you could get more money per person for the hotel. Say,1 night in hotel $250, dinner for 2 $100 (not unreasonable for a park of "world-renowned beauty"). It takes a lot of $5 admission tickets to make up for that.

That, and I'd rather go to a hotel.

Well, many potential visitors to the national park would have no way of accessing this hotel due to the lack of roads that would accomodate them! The cost of running the hotel would still be a lot. The need to hire extra staff would be additional expenditures that would be need to be made. Also, because of the rural location, staff need rooms to stay in as well. I doubt it would be as profitable as the establishment of roads and trials.

[legallybound]

It's times like these that I realize I'm a conservative.

PS- they were going to put a road in to the hotel.
PPS- Hotels are very profitable...i.e. Hilton/Marriott
PPPS- The toll collectors for the path would cost money

[tomwatts]

I pointed out that the study indicated that the trails would attract more visitors without any reference to relative prices, so apparently the trails would attract more visitors regardless of the price! So just charge as much to visit the trails as you would charge to stay a night in the hotel, and you're golden. More profit.

[existenz]

One of the criteria was maintaining the natural beauty of the park. I pointed out that having a massive hotel, parking structure, and employee housing in the interior of the park would be a detriment to the park's beauty. I also pointed out that many very successful national parks have roads and trails without threatening the beauty or the ecosystem: Joshua Tree, Sequoia, Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc.

Also, a trail system could potentially expose the park to many more visitors than a hotel (which could only accommodate a few hundred guests per night, max).

These writing questions have no "right answer", and the facts they provide are often vague, but I think I defended my decision fairly well.

[KarlZ06]

One reason I chose the roads and hiking trails was primarily to point out that it left the option open for consideration of future projects and developments.

Overall, I felt the writing section was geared towards preserving the ecosystem. Lastly, you can't ASSume the roads and hiking trails would be more profitable than the hotel and complex. All they indicated was the fact that a greater number of individuals would visit the roads and hiking trails opposed to the hotel and restaurants.

[ConsideringLawSchool]

I saw the trails to be more consistent with the stated goals because:

A) Especially in times of economic uncertainty, I would rather bet on a large number of people paying a small dollar amount than a smaller number of people spending more money. Day trips to go hiking are likely to be more stable than hotel vacations

B) The roads would enable people to come more intimately into contact with nature and, thus, to join in the preservation efforts. Many of these people would be locals who might volunteer or lobby politicians to preserve the park.

C) People are not going to donate money to a park where they once stayed in a hotel. People who use trails regularly may well become a reliable donor base to ensure sustainability of the park.

[dynomite]

It's times like these that I realize I'm a conservative.

PS- they were going to put a road in to the hotel.
PPS- Hotels are very profitable...i.e. Hilton/Marriott
PPPS- The toll collectors for the path would cost money

+1 (except on being a conservative)

PPPPS - Green building methods and renewable energy sources would reduce environmental impacts
PPPPPS - How many "more visitors?" I'd rather have 100 people each paying $300 than 1,000 people each paying $10.

[too old for this sh*]

Perhaps moreso than on any of the other occasions in whch I tested, this one had a lot of areas that could be explored with more space to write...I ran out of space by the 25 minute mark (and I write small).

[s0ph1e2007]

I just went by the facts
It stated that the hotel would be run by an outside hotel company and i did not state what percentage of the profits would go to the national park


there really is a good way to argue either side basically because they didnt specify.


also in response to one of the previous posters.
It did not say the trails would bring in more money in comparison to the hotel, it said more visitors (and with the admissions fee) that would be more money than BEFORE, not than the hotel.

anyways I am completely unconcerened with this section of the test and no one should be either... unless you hired someone to write your PS and they use the writing sample to check its authenticity lol

[Pricer]

No one is going to pay admission fees to hike on trails. I sure wouldn't. That was my logic.

[s0ph1e2007]

No one is going to pay admission fees to hike on trails. I sure wouldn't. That was my logic.

yea well i prefaced my argument by noting the assumption that my recommendation was true if the amount of people visiting the park did not decrease enough because of the fee to prevent the park from accrueing enough funds to make up for the loss of government funds from the building of the hiking trails

[dibs]

i opted for the hotels and the restaurant.

the relative profit margins of commercial enterprises are far greater than volume based admission to a national park. additionally, the restaurant and hotel are localized in their impact on the ecosystem. increasing the amount of human activity within the park, via clearing way for more paths, goes hand in hand with increasing the amount of damage to the environment.

that's how i wrote it, anyway.

[too old for this sh*]

It's times like these that I realize I'm a conservative.

PS- they were going to put a road in to the hotel.
PPS- Hotels are very profitable...i.e. Hilton/Marriott
PPPS- The toll collectors for the path would cost money

I see too many places that re-flag every few years...a property that is an SPG property this year might be Marriott in three years and might be under someone elses flag a few years down the road...and not long after that, it becomes something of a dump that is far removed from being a five-star. While I didn't go into those elements in the essay (nowhere enough space to cover THOSE arguments), it would have to be a logical consideration on any sort of argument IRL for a lease-based proposal. Too many hotel chains are far removed from being cash-cows...usually the other way around in that they are hemoraging money, leading to the properties being exchanged like pieces on a Risk board.

Maybe I am jaded by the loss of more $$$ on WYN many years ago than I care to remember...the current management really destroyed that chain as a composite. But I digress...as so many have noted, the writing tends to be an exercise in mental gymnastics and hand cramps.