<p>I kinda suck at essay writing. I'm an international student. I'm really practicing my essays, so i will post 1 or 2 new essays on this thread for grading everyday. Guys please grade my essays. I will post the first one soon. Thanks in advance</p>
<p>topic: is it best for people to accept who they are and what they have or should people always strive to better themselves?
“Love yourself the way you are.” This saying is one that has become hackneyed in the world today. Self-acceptance is advocated worldwide. I do not believe that people should accept themselves, flaws and all, if they are capable of bettering themselves. It is only when things cannot be changed that they should be accepted. Several examples from literature and history clearly support this assertion.
In the novel ‘Frankenstein’ by Mary Shelley, the monster created by Dr. Victor Frankenstein evinces that working to develop yourself is beneficial. When the monster was created, he could not speak, read, or write. To make matters worse, his creator deserted him. He did not understand the seemingly byzantine world he was in, so he fled to the woods. There a serendipitous event occurred. He learned to communicate effectively by observing the interactions between three members of a family. This family resided in a cottage close to the woods. Then a turk, a lady , Sofia came to live with the three members of the family- Agatha, Felix, and De Lacey. Felix taught her to read english, and the monster learned to read by spying on them. He could now communicate fluently in english. Hence,the monster was able to articulate his feelins and present a request to his creator. His determination to better himself proved valuable. He was able to communicate with humans in general because of it.
Another example to prove this assertion, in the field of history, is that of Alexander the great. Although he was the king of Macedonia, Alexander was not satisfied with the size of his terorrity. His dream was to rule the whole world, and he came very close to realizing this dream.The Hellenic league was formed after he conquered the Grecian kingdoms-except Sparta. He became the Hegedom of the league. Persia fell, as did Egypt. The kingdoms in India were the last kingdoms he conquered. Although he wanted to continue with his campaigns, his beleaguered troops repudiated. He died when he was 32 years old. Although he died at a very young age, Alexander is still rememdered as one of the greatest kings of the ancient kingdoms. If he had accepted his kingdom of Macedon, if he had not sought to expand his territory,he would not be as venerated as he is today.
Is striving to improve yourself beneficial? A careful analysis of the monster in ‘Frankenstein’ and the life of Alexander the great shows that the answer to this question is indubitably yes. We should not resign ourselves to our present situations, but we should strive to improve our lives. As the adage says ‘learning never ends.’</p>
<p>topic: can common sense be trusted and accepted or should it be questioned?</p>
<p>One of the biggest problems in your (first) essay is that you spend exorbitant amounts of time discussing the plot (of Frankenstein) and the history (of Alexander). Some background can certainly be beneficial, but you should spend more time supporting your thesis.</p>
<p>Also, I notice that you only have two body paragraphs; a third body paragraph, possibly including a life experience, relating to the thesis, would be help.</p>
<p>Thanks, i’ll try to correct that.</p>
<p>Don’t talk in 1st person</p>
<p>I personally don’t really think a third paragraph would be that important. If you have deep analysis in the previous 2 paragraphs, it should be good enough. Many 12 essays don’t have 3 examples. I agree with the rest of the comments :)</p>
<p>by the way, can I also post my essay here? :D</p>
<p>I would just like to say that here on CC we all seem to judge essays rather harshly, so yes take people’s criticisms because it always helps to become a better writer, but half the time what one of us will grade as an 8 can end up actually being a 10. :)</p>
<p>Thanks guys, i didnt write a third paragraph because i’d already filled the two pages with two paragraphs</p>
<p>@waytosuccess you’re free to post yours here too</p>
<p>Should modern society be criticized for being too materialistic?</p>
<p>In todays world, there exists an interminable desire for prosperity in almost everybody. Productivity, profits, economic benefits make up the main concern, motivation and goal of most actions. It is not wrong to criticize modern society for being too materialistic since for many people, this obsession about producing and consuming has outweighed their morality and the future of their next generations.</p>
<p>Chinese export around the world has accounted for more than sixty percent of the recalls in the most recent announcement of Consumer Product Safety Commission. One of the items mentioned is the toy train whose colorful paintings contain lead, a chemical capable of causing cancer, of a higher level than permissible. This type of paint was used because it is as nice as the other types and is much cheaper, which can greatly reduce the original price of the product. This and many others companies in China surely ignored the safety standard of this childrens toy. The health of the future generation loses to economic gain as a guarantee of the quality of the products. </p>
<p>The Nikes child labor scandal is another quintessential example showing why modern people should be fulminated against for overweighing materialism. The Life magazine has recently published an article showing a teenage Pakistan boy sitting among a bunch of Nike shoes doing stitching work for a cheap cost. Using child labor has long been considered a reprehensible act. Yet, because of profit, such a famous incorporation has trampled a basic code of ethics. Materialism deserved criticism since people have let it overpower their morality.</p>
<p>The US, China, India, Canada, Russia and several other countries is currently refusing to sign in the replacement of the Kyoto Protocol. Despite the risk of increasing the rate of global warming, these countries are adamant in their decision not to cut off CO2 emission. Their reasons seem diverse, but they are based only one argument: their economy and industrial development would greatly suffer due to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Again, the present prosperity is prioritized over many things including peoples life in the long run. Again, the future of human beings is outweighed by short term benefits. The modern world, therefore, should be severely upbraided for being too materialistic. </p>
<p>After carefully analyzing Chinese production of hazardous toys, Nikes illegal child labor and countries refusal to sign in the replacement of Kyotos Protocol, it is apparent that people nowadays should, indeed, be criticized for being too materialistic. Severe consequences are expected in the future if modern society keeps obsessing with never ending prosperity. </p>
<p>Thank you @ 9jagurl96 
Please grade my essay from 1 to 6. thank you all in advance.</p>
<p>It’s great. Definitely a 5 or 6. You still have to work on your grammar though.</p>
<p>thanks 9jagurl96 I’m focusing on ideas first. I believe the grammar will come as I write more essays.</p>
<p>Kk, good luck with that strategy</p>
<p>Oooh! I can see that you took something from the How to get a 12 Essay in 10 Days thread! Hopefully, this is true haha. Very very good essay btw. Transitions are very clear, you go in-depth with your examples, you clearly link your examples to the prompt, and your conclusion is fabulous! Good job!</p>
<p>@Josh95: Can you help us grade both essays from 1 to 6? thank you</p>
<p>24th December 2011
Prompt: should common sense always be trusted or should it be questioned?<br>
Common sense should be questioned because common sense is usually composed of the orthodox beliefs with which we grew up and sometimes may even be based on prejudice. Joan of Arc in the fifteenth century, Aristotle in 346 B.C.E, and Nelson Mandela in the twentieth century all illustrate this assertion.
Joan of Arc was called different names by many people: witch, rescuer, sorceress, brave soldier. Joan started hearing voices of saints in 1429 when she was only 13 years old. Now, common sense would have dictated that she ignore these voices and ascribe them to stress due to the razing of her hometown, Domremy. The voices told her to go to Vancouery and join the Dauphins (heir apparents) army. She convinced the Dauphin that the voices were real. When Joan became a commander in the army, she was sent to Orleans as reinforcement for the French troops. Although Joans regiment was supposed to wait for the other reinforcements, she went east because the voices told her to. She fortuitously met a battle, and due to her timely arrival, the French troops were able to defeat the English for the first time in a long time. If Joan had relied on common sense and blocked out the voices in her head, or if the soldiers under her command had ignored her command to move east because of common sense, the French would not have achieved that victory.
Another example to prove this point is Aristotles hypothesis about the world being flat. When Aristotle first put forward that hypothesis, no one agreed with him. After all, if the world was round we would fall off continually. It was common sense. However, centuries later, in the year 1629, Ferdinand Magellan proved that Aristotle was correct when he circumnavigated the earth. He did not encounter any sharp edge to fall from, the mystic end of the earth. If people had not trusted and accepted common sense, the fact that the world is flat would have been discovered in 346 B.C.E.
A more recent example is that of the president emeritus of South Africa, Nelson Mandela. He was arrested in 1962 for activism against the pro-apartheid government. In the year 1970, president P.W Botha offered a compromise to Mandela. If Mandela would renounce his anti-apartheid acts, he would be released from jail. Common sense would dictate that one should look out for oneself. However, Mandela rejected the deal. If Mandela had relied on common sense, apartheid might have still been in existence now.
After a meticulous analysis of the lives of Joan of Arc and Nelson Mandela, and the reaction to the hypothesis of Aristotle, it can be seen that common sense should indeed be questioned, not accepted blindly.
25th December 2011
Topic: do circumstances determine whether or not we should tell the truth?
Honesty is the best policy, the truth will always triumph, these sayings, although trite, have proved to be incontrovertibly true. Some people believe that the circumstances determine whether the truth should be told, but this opinion is indubitably wrong. In the end, it is always better to tow the path of honesty. Several examples from literature and classic films illustrate this assertion.
In the classic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Dr. Victor Frankenstein decided not to tell the truth when his brother, William, was killed by the monster he created. Frankenstein created the monster when he was in the university, far away from home. When he arrived home with his friend, Henry Clearval, he discovered that his brother had been murdered. He immediately suspected that the monster had committed this despicable act. Meanwhile, Justine Moritz, a family friend, was framed for the murder. The monster placed a document he found on William in her pocket; she was doomed in the eyes of the towns people. Rather than reveal the truth, Dr. Frankenstein kept mute; he was scared to reveal his actions in the university town to his family. An innocent woman was hanged. On the other hand, the monster did not stop his killing spree, he went on to kill all the remaining members of Dr. frankensteins family, and even his friend Henry Clearval. If Frankenstein had owned up to the truth, he would have spared himself and his family members a lot of grief.
Another example from the field of literature is that of John proctor in The crucible by Arthur Miller. John proctor refused to reveal the truth about his extramarital affair with Abigail Williams, even when it meant that the debacle of witch hunting would cease. His reputation was his paramount concern. He and his wife, Elizabeth, were later incarcerated and prosecuted as witches. When he revealed the truth, it was already too late; even then his wife Elizabeth lied, thus annulling his own statement. John Proctor was hanged at the gallows. He would have saved many lives, 19 to be exact, if he had told the truth when he was supposed to.
An example from the classic film citizen kane by Orson Welles, is that of Jedidiah Leland. Jedidiah was a friend and employee of Charles Foster Kane. When charles wife performed at her first theatre show, she was a debacle to behold. Jedidiah was torn. The decision between honesty and loyalty was an extremely difficult one for him. Eventually, he chose honesty. Charles kane sacked him for this. This proved to be a fortuitous event for him, because if he had stayed with Kane his life would have been destroyed. Kane was a disloyal person. His decision to tell the truth turned to be his saving grace.
After a careful analysis of The Crucible, Frankenstein, and citizen kane , it is obvious that deception is injustifiable. Honesty is indeed the best policy. We should always tell the truth no matter the circumstances.</p>
<p>please grade these essays i’ll post the other 8 essays i wrote this week later today</p>
<p>@waytosuccess: Sure thing. I have read your essay and it was very well written. I’ll just be going down the paragraphs to make it easier:
- Personally, I think your thesis is a little weak in that your tone and diction presents your stance as a “Oh it’s good for us to do this” instead of one that is more like “we should do this…” do you get what I’m trying to get at? It sounds good but it makes your essay much more believable if you provide a strong thesis and scorers look for the strong thesis in an essay.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You have good transitional phrases from paragraph to paragraph.</p></li>
<li><p>Nice use of difficult vocabulary. This ups your grade by a bit even though it’s not one of the guidelines.</p></li>
<li><p>Your last sentence is a bit disappointing. You have this superb essay and your very last sentence is “there will be severe consequences,” which is vague and ambiguous. If you have time, say what will happen and that will most likely up your score as high as possible. If not, rewrite the sentence but add in something that shows exactly why criticism is important. Just one significant outcome that would occur if people “keep obsessing with the never ending prosperity.”</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Besides that there is nothing really much. All I have given you are specific little things but with such a good essay with a score most likely in the upper digits that’s what it comes to. The difference between 11 and 12 is all personal. Once again, very good essay :)</p>