<p>1- I wrote about jobs, foreign relations, need for get off this earth someday… and then i argued against why people think we shouldn’t</p>
<p>2- I said rhetorical question, litote, satire of course, and repetition… it was kind of BSed</p>
<p>3-- i talked about personal experiences with my own life and my hardships and then Andrew Carnegie (Gospel of Wealth) and Horatio Alger and his five cent novels or w/e</p>
<p>i used andrew carnegie as well!
and donald trump</p>
<p>1- Anti-Space : Cost, Immaturity of Humanity, Futility
2- Sensational Tone, Arguments To Ignorance, Imagery, etc etc, I rambled.
3- Lance Armstrong, MLK Jr, personal experience- by far my worst.</p>
<p>I started my synthesis essay with, “This is ground control to major Tom.” and related it to the issues of space exploration in our own society and the various issues.</p>
<p>gahhh nobody had form B??
The 3rd question was an exerpt from somewhere saying that the stuff shown on television are all so exciting yet does not reflect real life. Television never shows people actually watching television, like real people. It asked to support, argue against, or qualify this claim.
I had no idea how to incorporate historical/current affairs to support this and just used a personal example…I was wondering what other people wrote, but seems like nobody ahd this prompt! haha</p>
<p>it might have said “take a position,” but it didn’t ask you to take a side (i.e. pro-space exploration or anti space-exploration)</p>
<p>NOT AT ALL.</p>
<p>It asked you to take a position on WHICH FACTORS MUST BE CONSIDERED when making decisions about space exploration.</p>
<p>i.e. we need to consider financial, ethical, etc. </p>
<p>nowhere were you told to take a pro or anti space exploration side.</p>
<p>i talked about the celtics for one of my examples for essay 3 as well</p>
<p>the loss of kevin garnett caused the celtics to face adversity and allowed younger players who wouldn’t normally get as much playing time develop faster and show their dormant talents…such as glen davis developing and even hitting a game winning shot in a playoff game</p>
<p>Hahaha… I wonder what a lot of yalls essays would be about if the playoffs weren’t going on?</p>
<p>Ok That’s EXACTLY WHAT I DID stix2400. Taking a side doesn’t necessarily mean pro or anti-space…that’s not even what the prompt said. I took a side and argued that ethics are most important when considering space exploration.</p>
<p>^^^foxyysoxy804, you argument makes little sense because stix2400 is right.</p>
<p>The directions provided on the test, verbatim: </p>
<p>Assignment
Read the following sources (including the introductory information) carefully. Then, in an essay that synthesizes at least three of the sources, develop a position about what issues should be considered most important in making decisions about space exploration.</p>
<p>Here’s the link
<a href=“Supporting Students from Day One to Exam Day – AP Central | College Board”>Supporting Students from Day One to Exam Day – AP Central | College Board;
<p>Taking a side does mean choosing either X or Y, or qualifying the argument and providing a better solution to the task in question.
I’m sorry to say but you messed that question up severely.</p>
<p>No, I didn’t. I answered the prompt. I talked about the most important issue when considering space exploration. I examined other issues, for instance the health benefits, but I talked mainly about the ethics and why it is most important, and how we should go about doing space exploration ethically. I didn’t say that we shouldn’t do space exploration.</p>
<p>I don’t get what is wrong with some of you people. Why do you think in such black and white terms?</p>
<p>I posted the directions, introduction, and prompt a few pages back, widly05. I know what it says.</p>
<p>I did the same thing as foxysoxy804 did. Let’s say, however, that we had to be either “pro” space exploration or “against” space exploration. If a person didn’t explicitly write whether they were pro or against, how significant would it be?</p>
<p>no… </p>
<p>what foxyysoxy804 did was okay.</p>
<p>check out the 2007 B prompt. same type of thing.</p>
<p><a href=“Supporting Students from Day One to Exam Day – AP Central | College Board”>Supporting Students from Day One to Exam Day – AP Central | College Board;
<p>In this case, you were asked to “develop a position on the most important considerations facing the person responsible for securing a new work of art or an artifact for a museum”</p>
<p>There really isn’t a pro or con side to take in this essay. Simply write about what needs to be considered. The 2009 synthesis should have been treated the same way.</p>
<p>
she still answered the prompt correctly.</p>
<p>Foxy: you did fine. I guess it’s just people here trying to discourage others.</p>
<p>Yes, the synthesis essay wanted you to take a position about which considerations are most important. Why are you criticizing a correct response to the prompt?</p>
<p>i don’t think the analysis prompt asked you to analyze the strategies used rather analyze the satire. So instead of picking out strategie I just wrote about the effect and meaning instead of function. I did pretty bad, in all of my in class analysis writes the other prompt with 2 articles i got a 4/5, every other one i got 6’s or 7’s</p>
<p>The analysis prompt was strange…it said analyze how Wilson’s satire illustrates the unproductive nature of such discussions [Wilson satirizes the languages of two groups that hold opposing attitudes about environmentalism.]</p>
<p>So basically what I said was through diction and structure, Wilson shows how stupid the groups sound. Basically. lol</p>
<p>And thanks for the support, guys. :)</p>
<p>haha no problem.</p>
<p>Yeah the second prompt was a little wierd. Especially since it didn’t mention anything about rhetorical devices. So I suppose talking about specific rhetorical devices works so long as you relate it to the question being asked, which is what was actually important.</p>
<p>I didn’t really talk about specifics… basically I wrote about the effect/purpose of his humor and exagerations. Though I suppose humor and exaggeration are both rhetorical devices. </p>
<p>Whatever, it was really open ended. All of them were actually.</p>
<p>“analyze how Wilson’s satire illustrates the unproductive nature of such discussions”</p>
<p>Are “such discussions” limited to those regarding the environment, or could Wilson’s satire be a critique of the unproductive nature of discussions between ANY two conflicting groups?</p>
<p>Also, my problem with the “what issues should be considered most important” question is that it seems as though the subject (space exploration) is irrelevant and that the most logical response would simply be an essay describing what areas (social, economic etc.) a society ought to value most (assuming space exploration impacted those areas).
Thoughts?</p>