Can you grade my essay? (I'll grade yours)

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>Prompt: Can knowledge be a burden rather than a benefit?</p>

<p>Knowledge is often considered as a solution to most of the problems in society. Nevertheless, it can be sometime better to be free of knowledge (ignorance). Several examples from history and literature works enlighten that knowledge may sometimes be a burden rather than a benefit.</p>

<p>In George Orwell’s 1984, the main protagonist, Winston Smith, is confronted to a world full of lies. In fact, the political party who practices dictatorship, the Angsoc, in his world does not feel ashamed at all about lying to all of its fellow citizens. The Angsoc, for instance, created an evil protagonist, Emmanuel Goldstein, who has been used to take full responsibility of unpopular reforms (e.g.: war). Winston, in that world was the only citizen to know the truth about the party. Despite that knowledge, he was unable to provoke any changes in the government and was doomed to live with two realities: the one granted by his party and the one coming from the truth. Therefore, knowledge was a burden for Winston Smith because it did not help him evolve in society; it made him develop a conflictual mind, which made him suffer.</p>

<p>As demonstrated by Galileo Galilei’s controversy during the 17th century: knowledge can ruin one’s life. In fact Galileo Galilei, who was a scientist and a physician. Believed in the heliocentric model: which pleaded that the Sun lied motionless in the center of the universe. His beliefs were in total contradiction with the Church’s ones: the Church opted for a geocentric model; placing the Earth at the center of the universe. To argue his beliefs, Galilei wrote a book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, in which he described indirectly the theory that Church violently revoked. The reactions to this book were mostly violent reactions, because the Church did not agree to what the physician had argued. As a result, Galilei was even put in trial and later sentenced to lifetime imprisonment; which ruined his life. Thus, knowledge had only harmed Galileo’s life: it made him become detested by his contemporaries and it made him live his last moments in prison.</p>

<p>After a careful analysis of George Orwell’s 1984 and Galileo Galilei’s heliocentric model controversy, one could indeed argue that knowledge can be an enormous burden. Would knowledge have had less importance, the life of the protagonist and the physician would have been better. Hopefully, knowledge in Galilei’s case was a burden only for him: it, in fact, lead to major discoveries after his painful death.</p>

<p>Thank you,</p>

2

<p>Hey,</p>

<p>Just wanted to bump!!</p>

3

<p>I’d give ur essay an 9. The examples are ok, but u can get another short one. The introduction is very weak</p>

4

<p>Thank you,</p>

<p>Do you have any suggestions on how to improve my introduction?</p>

<p>Sincerely,</p>

5

<p>The first two sentences are very good. You can say, Too much knowledge can destroy a person’s life. Galileo and 1984 novel are both strong examples that are going to prove my point of view. U can add a short but strong example to strengthen the essay</p>

6

<p>I would also give a 9/10. Your examples and developments are good, but there are several nagging grammatical errors. (I’m not sure whether or not the formatting messed it up, but “In fact Galileo Galilei, who was a scientist and a physician. Believed in the heliocentric model:” is an example.)</p>

<p>Will you grade mine? I hope you don’t mind my posting in the same topic as yours, but it’s the same prompt.</p>

<p>The notion that knowledge can be detrimental is a categorical truth. Although some may argue that knowledge can only be beneficial, these critics are too dogmatic in their romantic ideology. Knowledge has the potential to be a tremendous burden. Two prominent paradigms that exemplify how knowledge can be deleterious are the novels Ender’s Game and Frankenstein.</p>

<p>Set in the future, Ender’s Game illustrates how knowledge can hinder rather than help. In the novel, children command pilots of starship fighters in their battle against an alien enemy. However, the children are unaware that they are commanding real ships and are deceived into thinking they are playing an elaborate computer game. The adults in charge of the children withhold this knowledge because if the children were aware of the risks, they would be too paralyzed and cautious to take the risks and make the sacrifices needed to win. In addition, the knowledge that they are responsible for the deaths of soldiers devastates them when they are informed after the war.</p>

<p>Another archetype that prominently displays how knowledge can be harmful is the novel Frankenstein. Scientist Victor Frankenstein canvasses the reams of knowledge and science in order to animate a monster made of pieces of corpses. However, Frankenstein neglects and abandons the monster, inciting the monster’s revenge and leading to the deaths of Frankenstein’s close family and friends. Frankenstein’s pursuit of and eventual gain of the knowledge needed to create the monster lead only to ruin and misery.</p>

<p>In summation, the presupposition that knowledge can only be a virtue is a fallacy that can end in devastation. It is only by exercising discretion and discernment in terms of knowledge that one can achieve success.</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

7

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>Thank you for grading my essay. Yeah I messed up when I wrote it.</p>

<p>So, here is the part concerning your essay:</p>

<p>Though there are a few grammatical errors (e.g. : missing letters/words), I liked it. You had good examples. Nevertheless, you only used two examples; try to use 3 for your future essays. Also, I think that your conclusion if too short. It should be at least a sentence longer.</p>

<p>Finally, I would give you a 9/12. </p>

<p>Thank you!!</p>

8

<p>9/12: Your essay seems very formulaic. For example, “Several examples from history and literature works enlighten that knowledge may sometimes be a burden rather than a benefit” seems like something written beforehand and something that you could write in response to any prompt. While formulaic essays are sometimes okay, you take it too far. Furthermore, your sentences (especially “After a careful analysis of George Orwell’s 1984 and Galileo Galilei’s heliocentric model controversy, one could indeed argue that knowledge can be an enormous burden”) are sometimes too unnecessarily long and tortuous. Just get to the point. finally, your last sentence is incongruous with the rest o your essay.</p>

9

<p>I’d give your essay a 9/12. The basics are all there, however, there is some redundancy (e.g. “As a result, Galilei was even put in trial and later sentenced to lifetime imprisonment; which ruined his life.” -> lifetime imprisonment can’t really benefit anyone). The abundant use of colons also threw me off a bit, but that’s just a personal preference :P</p>

<p>Also, the mention of the “protagonist” in 1984 is a bit confusing. I don’t really see how Emmanuel Goldstein was a protagonist, and referring to Winston as the protagonist in the conclusion further confuses things.</p>

<p>I’d appreciate it if you could look over my essay as well:</p>

<p>Prompt: Should people take more responsibility for solving problems that affect their communities (v.s. the government should)?</p>

<p>While it is tempting to assign the task of solving our problems to our government, this is not always the correct thing to do. It is important that we work towards a solution ourselves. By taking initiative, people can ensure that decisions are made in their best interest, while also maintaining self-sufficiency.</p>

<p>For example, during the Nazi occupation of northern France, a puppet governmnent was installed in the south. Though it was established under the premise of allowing the French in the area to rule themselves, the government was really loyal to the Gernmans. When corruption in the country became more apparent, the people decided to take action, by starting their own resistance movements. They did not simply wait for their government or the governments of other Allied poswers to rescue them. The resistance movements quickly gained momentum, and greatly reduced the Nazi’s ascendancy over the area through attacks on factories and transportation lines. The liberation of France in 1944 was made possible by the intelligence gathered by these movements. Thus, by taking action, the people of France were able to achieve their goal of expelling the Nazis.</p>

<p>Just like the French people during WWII, African-Americans also had a government that did not have their best interests in mind. At the time, African-Americans were openly discriminated against and had few of the opportunities that white Americans had. However, instead of looking to their government for change, they created change. Rosa Parks, for example, resisted traditional etiquette when she refused to give up her seat to a white man. This act led to a public outroar that pushed for equal rights for black people If she had been complacent, and simply waited for the government to bring about change, these rights would not have been recognized.</p>

<p>Though today, we often look to the government to solve our problems, this is not always the solution. As seen from the examples of the African-American rights movement and the Nazi occupation of France, governments do not always have everyone’s best interests in mind. To have change, we must create it ourselves.</p>

10

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>Thank you for grading my essay; I appreciate it!!</p>

<p>So here is about your essay:</p>

<p>I loved it. It was relatively short but responded clearly to the prompt; your essay was a very efficient essay. I also like how you wrote it. Nevertheless, you could have developed a bit more your second example. Your first does not need to be developed any more: I found it very good and accurate with the prompt.</p>

<p>Therefore, I would give you a 11/12.</p>

<p>Sincerely,</p>

11

<p>I almost forgot: I wrote a second essay; would you mine giving it a glance?</p>

<p>Is it always best to determine one’s own views of right and wrong, or can we benefit from following the crowd?</p>

<p>Truth has always been a major concern for societies. Knowing whether an action of any kind is right or wrong is extremely crucial for the vast majority of people. Yet, different ways of determining what is right or wrong exist, but the most efficient way seems to be the personal one. In fact, several examples from literature works and history clearly demonstrate that it is always better to determine one’s own views of right and wrong.</p>

<p>In George Orwell’s 1984, the main protagonist, Winston Smith, lives in a dystopian world, ruled by a single party practicing totalitarism, the Ingsoc. Oceanian, Winston’s home land, therefore has to face perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public mind control; because of the will of “The Party”. As a result, every Oceanian citizien, except Winston Smith, had developed a false view of right and wrong. The main protagonist fought in fact against mental persecution and managed, by his own, to have the unique plausible definition of right and wrong. Therefore, one can argue that self-teaching is the best way to efficiently absorb the concept of right and wrong.</p>

<p>Moreover, as determined by the “Watergate” scandal, following the dogmatic idioms of a crowd is never a good solution to learn any king of concept, even the right and wrong one. In fact, the “Watergate” scandal was a scandal that occurred in the 1970s as a result of the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and the Nixon administration’s attempted cover-up involvement after being clearly denounced by two journalists of the Washington Post. The scandal eventually led to the resignation of Richard Nixon, the President of the United States, on August 9, 1974, the only resignation of a U.S. President. Thus, even though the “crowd” supported Nixon before the scandal, denying therefore the true definition of right and wrong, the two Washington Post journalists that held a predominant role in denouncing the mascaraed were the only ones able to hold these roles; because they built, by their own, their definition of what was right or wrong. Their definition made them able to achieve the outstanding work they achieved and to show how powerful media and democracy in the U.S. was.</p>

<p>After a careful analysis of George Orwell’s 1984 and the “Watergate” scandal, one can indeed argue the need of views of right and wrong to be determined by a unique person; rather than by a dogmatic crowd.</p>

12

<p>Look limvan, this essay is better than the one you did completely. You examples are perfect. Your introduction is perfect. You have several problems only like grammatical mistakes like " public mind control; because". You can never put a semicolon or comma before because and also rather than in your essay it never takes a semicolon before it. The conclusion is the only negative aspect in this essay. It is made of one sentence only. You should restate the introduction in the conclusion. So my score is 10/12. You did give examples from literature and history. You can give a third example from personal experience to enhance your essah</p>