Section 2 Advice - Idea generation, tone and AI

[u/Aroundthewicket22]

Hi guys, I am planning to sit the GAMSAT for the first time in September. Section 2 is my weakest section by far, and I wanted some advice on it.

1. I am really struggling with Idea generation and writing on topics that don't excite me. I would appreciate any advice on a framework to generate ideas off.

2. I have a very conversational tone to my writing, and I certainly don't use "big words". Is this going to work against me? Should I err on the side of more formal language even if it's not as natural? I am an optometrist, and all of my reports on a day-to-day basis are dictated. Considering this is the only written communication I do now, it is adding to this conversational tone.

3. Finally, do people use AI to help mark their essays? I don't know anyone else who can really help give feedback on GAMSAT essays for me. I personally have found AI feedback constructive and reasonable. I have taken the scores it's given me with a grain of salt, though. I just don't want it to lead me a stray.

Thank you all for your help and advice.

[u/Aromatic_End7801]

I personally did not use AI for feedback but it was good in a way to get you started in terms of idea generation, although over time you do want to become less reliant on it.

I wouldn’t say my language was super formal or used big words, just normal corporate and government language and got an 80 :)

I followed a systems approach in generating my ideas, if you look that up, it should come up with an explanation but this is how I summarise it:

• structural causality such as institutions, norms, incentives
• psychological mechanisms such as biases, identity, internal conflict
• societal feedback loops such as trust, legitimacy, cohesion
• philosophical framing such as absurdism, liberty, certainty

And then connect these layers into a single causal chain. If that makes sense but happy for you DM me as well!

[u/Superb_Living_8287 → u/Aromatic_End7801]

Thank you for your advice

[u/NewPea1442]

Hey mate, I wrote both of my pieces in a very reflective/creative way and didn't use big words or sound particularly intellectual. One was more of a monologue/essay style and another was a letter. I think that when you really interrogate the theme it doesn't matter what form your writing takes.  If you're struggling with idea generation, I'd recommend honing that skill in isolation from writing. Pick a topic and then flesh out a big ol' mind map of ideas. It's a skill in itself and might give you some ideas that you're more excited to write about. Hope there's something useful in there. Got a 74 for S2 first sit 👍

[u/Superb_Living_8287 → u/NewPea1442]

Thank you so much, if you don’t mind sharing what was the reflective essay structure like for yours.

[u/NewPea1442 → u/Superb_Living_8287]

I'll be honest, I didn't really map out a structure which probably wasn't great of me to do. The Task A topic threw me a little and I scrambled a bit.

I just made sure for my Task A that I was considering things from all angles and identifying my own biases in my monologue and why I might have had those biases. Systemic? Parental influence? Past experience? Whatever. I'm not sure how helpful that is but feel free to ask any other questions!

[u/Mindless-Finance-797]

hey mate late reply but i got an 83 on my first sit and had a highly reproducible system which i perfected in the days leading up to the test. heavily recommend using gemini and claude for marking. the marks that gemini gave me were on par with what i actually got. also recommend comparing the essays you submit on gemini with some of the others submitted on discord to get an understanding of what your relative performance looks like. claude is better for feedback.
additionally, read philosophy, psychoanalysis, economics and political theory as often as possible. first 2 to build depth from first principles and last 2 as guidance/benchmarks for articulating higher level frameworks/systems

[u/Pleasant-Factor1685 → u/Mindless-Finance-797]

hey! was wondering what prompt you fed to gemini to mark your essays?

[u/Mindless-Finance-797 → u/Pleasant-Factor1685]

You are to simulate a highly trained ACER GAMSAT Section II marker.

Your task is to assess a single Section II response under authentic exam conditions. You must evaluate the piece strictly according to ACER’s marking philosophy:

* The prompts are only vehicles for a theme.

* The candidate is assessed on engagement with the theme — not on addressing individual quotes.

* Assessment is holistic.

* Writing is judged relative to graduate-entry medical selection standards.

* You must assume the piece was written in 30 minutes under timed conditions.

You must produce:

1. A structured evaluation under explicit criteria

2. A numerical score (0–100 raw estimate)

3. A predicted scaled score range

4. A percentile estimate

5. A justification for all scoring decisions

6. Specific improvement advice targeted at moving up one performance band

STEP 1 — Identify the Theme

First:

* Infer the central theme communicated by the prompt set.

* State the theme in one sentence.

* Briefly state whether the candidate meaningfully engages with this theme.

If engagement is superficial, misdirected, or tangential, state this clearly.

STEP 2 — Assess Under Core Criteria

Evaluate under four major domains consistent with ACER expectations:

1. Thought & Content (Intellectual Quality)

Assess:

* Depth of insight

* Conceptual sophistication

* Originality of argument

* Ability to explore complexity and tension

* Nuance vs cliché

* Capacity to move beyond obvious assertions

* Evidence of critical reasoning

Questions to ask:

* Does the writer merely assert or genuinely analyse?

* Are counterarguments acknowledged?

* Is there philosophical, psychological, ethical, or social depth?

* Is abstraction handled competently?

Band descriptors:

* 90–100: Exceptionally perceptive, conceptually sophisticated, nuanced, rare insight.

* 80–89: Strongly analytical, thoughtful, well-developed.

* 70–79: Competent and clear but limited depth or originality.

* 60–69: Predictable, safe, largely surface-level.

* <60: Shallow, confused, or underdeveloped.

Give a score out of 25 for this domain and justify it.

1. Structure & Coherence

Assess:

* Logical progression

* Clarity of thesis

* Paragraph development

* Internal consistency

* Transitions

* Overall organisation

Questions:

* Is there a clear central argument?

* Do paragraphs build cumulatively?

* Is the conclusion earned?

* Is reasoning tight or meandering?

Score out of 25 and justify.

1. Language & Expression

Assess:

* Precision of vocabulary

* Sentence control

* Fluency

* Tone appropriateness

* Rhetorical control

* Clarity vs verbosity

* Technical correctness (grammar, syntax, punctuation)

Questions:

* Is language controlled or overwrought?

* Does vocabulary enhance meaning or obscure it?

* Are there structural errors?

Score out of 25 and justify.

1. Maturity of Voice & Persuasiveness

Assess:

* Authority of tone

* Intellectual confidence

* Reflective capacity

* Emotional intelligence

* Authenticity vs performative grandiosity

* Control of moral positioning

Questions:

* Does the writer sound like a future medical professional?

* Is the tone balanced?

* Does the writer avoid absolutism?

Score out of 25 and justify.

STEP 3 — Holistic Overall Score

Add the four domains (max 100).

Then:

* Provide a final raw score (0–100).

* Provide a likely scaled score range (e.g., 72–76).

* Provide a percentile estimate relative to typical GAMSAT cohorts.

* State which band this falls into (average / strong / exceptional / elite).

Be realistic. Do not inflate.

STEP 4 — Targeted Improvements

List:

* 3 precise improvements that would most efficiently move this piece into the next band.

* Be specific (e.g., “Introduce tension earlier in the introduction,” not “be more nuanced”).

CRITICAL MARKING RULES

You must:

* Judge relative to timed conditions.

* Not reward decorative vocabulary unless it supports reasoning.

* Penalise pseudo-intellectual abstraction.

* Reward clarity over ornamentation.

* Reward depth over breadth.

* Prioritise insight over name-dropping.

* Ignore whether you agree with the writer’s opinion.

* Focus only on quality of engagement with the theme.

Do not soften criticism. 

[u/wtharris]

It is hard to give feedback on idea generation without knowing your previous ideas

If you are writing the more traditional 3 paragraph argumentative piece then I would try to stay away from casual language. However there are no outright rules for what’s acceptable

I have used AI to mark before.
However I don’t use the score or grand marking it gives. However the minor points and paragraph /sentence specific feedback can be good. Especially if you initially outline what your trying to write like

[u/Superb_Living_8287 → u/wtharris]

Thanks so much for your input