Essay gurus : Help!

<p>I have written several essays so far, and Collegeboard always grades me a 5 w/ its electronic grader, but never explains why, or what i need to improve. </p>

<p>Here's one of my essays that scored a 5. Please help (feel free to be as harsh as you want:)). I could really use it. Thanx a lot</p>

<p>Prompt :Is style more important than substance? Plan and write an essay in which you develop your point of view on this issue. Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations.</p>

<p>Essay : (have at it)</p>

<p>When a chameleon stalks its prey, it moves in the style of a stick or leaf, yet its substance is that of a steady, patient hunter. If the prey is simply viewing the chameleon's style, or appearance, it would not see the chameleon's true substance, and loses its life as a result. Styles, or appearances, are not always accurate. Often they can act as facades for a person or animal's true substance or ability. Therefore, style is not as important as substance. Two examples are the British and American armies during the American Revolution. </p>

<p>During the American Revolution, the British were dressed in elegant, blazing red uniforms. To see a mass of British Redcoats, as they were called, was a truly impressive sight - row after row of stolid, noble soldiers representing the pinnacle of military prowess and masculine strength. However, this formidable appearance, or style, belied their true abilities. The redcoats were prone to sudden attacks; they could not react quickly enough, and they are confused, ineffective, and unsure when deprived of leadership. Clearly, in battle, just as military prowess supersedes elegant uniforms, substance supersedes style. </p>

<p>Conversely, the American Patriots were dressed in little more than tattered rags, much less uniforms, during the war. Their worn-out, dilapidated attire gave the British the impression that the Americans were inept, clumsy fighters - a rabble of farmers with pitchforks. However, the Americans shabby uniforms hide their true strength, markmanship, and courage on the battlefield. Time and time again, such as in the battles of Princeton, Trenton, and Sarotoga, these so-called "rabble" defeated large British forces in intense, pitched, battles. Here, the attire, or the style with which the Americans present themselves, is inconsequential. What was really important was their substanace of strength and value of strength on the battle field. It was that strength that won the Revolutionary War, and formed the foundation of our country as we know it today. </p>

<p>In conclusion, style is merely an impression, and an often deceptive one at that. It is the substance of a person, or institution that is truly important, for it is substance that achieves results. It won a meal for the chameleon; it won freedom for the American people.</p>

<p>Thanx again</p>

<p>Not a detailed analysis, but some tips: you cuold have related substance to the wanting of victory of the war. Still, the Redcoats were at a huge disadvantage because it was easy to see them, but their disciplinary codes required them to be in this easy to spot red clothing. The Patriots might have looked rugged, but their motivation to win was immense. They wanted freedom, they were truly determined. The Redcoats were fighting for what... keeping some "colony" under some king's control? Not a lot of control. So clothing=discipline, but that discipline couldn't come close to the wanting of victory. </p>

<p>I know that it's typical to use 2 examples, but 3 examples would not be bad at all. The American Revolution as a whole is just 1 example. Also, it didn't look like there was enough detail in your British paragraph. If you want to, make up examples as there's very little chance that your SAT grader(english teacher) will bother to look it up or has studied the war extensively. You don't have to give specific battles, but use examples like they were easy to spot and were weak. They were at a huge disadvantage because the New England Patriots had home field advantage(Edit: Funny how that relates both to the revolutionary war and the NFL considering that Tom Brady and the Patriots have home field advantage throughout; lol I would probably use that to put in a little humor in there. I mean who doesn't know about the Patriots and their 16-0 season).</p>

<p>bumpity.......</p>

<p>Pleeeez? Anybody else?</p>