<p>Topic: (new BB test 5)
Is conscience a more powerful motivator than money, fame, or power?
Power. Money. Fame. These are the platitudinous banal motivators for humans. Yet there is another not-so-hackneyed motivator: conscience. However, conscience is not as powerful a motivator as power, money, or fame since people are inherently selfish and only look out for themselves. This will be proven through literature and history. Money continually motivates people as people can ascertain pleasure through money. In Shakespeare's Henry IV, Falstaff is a local drunkard who is close friends with Prince Hal. He uses this friendship to gain perks like money, jobs, and free alcohol. Similarly, he continues to lie, cheat, and steal from people since he covets wealth. Falstaff is heavily pragmatic as he believes that money is the key success to unlocking his future, which involves all of the life's greater pleasures. In fact, he robs people and steals resources (whether poor or rich). He, like other humans, has an innate sense of conscience, yet he follows the money instead of his conscience.
In Richard III, Richard's desire for power to be a king is more powerful than his conscience, resulting in a trail of blood. Richard single handidly manipulates everyone around him (including marrying the wife of a man he slaughtered in battle) and later kills everyone in a paranoid craze. In a particular scene, in the play, Richard kills two incoherent princes who stood in his way to gain access to the crown. Richard felt absolutely no pity or any feeling of regret over his actions, but instead delighted in hearing about how the two little princes were killed. ll Richard saw at that point was a throne, and he removed any obstacles that would prevent him from accomplishing his goal. In the end, Richard's selfish character came to rule his judgment and coordinate his actions compared to his inner conscience.
Many leaders in history also show how fame and power are powerful motivators. Joseph Stalin was the leader of the communist party from late 1920s to about the 1940s. His rule included slaughtering many dissidents and insurgents who disagreed with his laws. These purges had killed over the two million people, all due to the fact that Stalin wanted to maintain his power. Not once did Stalin think about the morality of his actions, but rather ruthlessly massacred people as he saw fit. Similarly, Adolf Hitler began a propaganda to kill millions of Jews in the Holocaust in order to protect his own power. His aversion rose due to the fact he knew he could scapegoat Jews, and thus manipulates people into keeping him in power; he never once thought about the rightness of his actions.
Thus, money, fame, and power are more powerful motivators than conscience as humans are inherently selfish motivators than conscience as humans are inherently selfish as shown through Henry IV, Richard III, Stalin, and Hitler. Although this view might be considered cynical, it is more realistic and pragmatic.</p>
<p>EDIT: ESSAY 2 WILL COME LATER THANKS</p>
<p>I am not the best judge of SAT essays, but I would have given it a 5 or 6, probably a 6. I can tell you, however, that you should try to avoid references to hitler/the holocaust because it is an extremely overused example and essay readers will not enjoy reading about the same topic time and time again. Your other examples negate any damage the hitler example could have caused, so I say 6.</p>
<p>I used Hitler and got a 12. ^</p>
<p>11 or 12.
during my june test i thought that i messed up the essay but i got an 11. in fact many guys in my school can get only 50 on MC but 10 on essay</p>
<p>OK, thanks guys. I will post the second essay up soon-ish.</p>
<p>OK, here is the second essay
Topic from OLD BB Test 1: What motivates people to change? </p>
<p>An archaic caveman who journeys to the present will find that there are a plethora of changes compared to his Neanderthal times. There is more technology, and there is more landscaping by mankind. Yet change comes from some sort of motivation, either internal or external. For people, they are motivated to change through internal factors, such as love and fear that cause them to change their mindset and goals, as seen through literature and history.
Love can motivate to change people who have a cynical and misanthropic view on life, such as the protagonist in Les Miserable’s Jean Valjean. After being sent to jail for nineteen years for stealing a loaf of bread, Jean has come to detest life because he thinks it is completely unfair. After meeting Cosette, his heart warms up. For the first time, another person has come to love him and appreciates him for being his own self. Jean metamorphosis into a philanthropist, helping people on the street despite his own poor background. Thus, love can also make people change, which in this case was Cosette’s love, and is an internal change.
Love and fear combined can also motivate people to change and this is evident in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part One. In this play, Prince Hal (the son of Henry IV) desires his father’s love and attention. However, he is a drunkard and as a result his father has lost all respect for him. Hal suddenly decides one day due to his father’s negligence that he wants to become his father’s ideal man- a soldier, leader, and a good soon that he can be proud of. He feared losing his father’s love and thus decided to change into this ideal man that his father wants him to become. Slowly, his father came to appreciate Hal for who he is and even comes to love him for that.
Losses and defeats can also motivate people to change. After Russia lost the Crimean war in the 1880s, the Russian tsar realized that Russia was extremely backwards when it came to technology. He decided to encourage industrialization in order to ensure that Russia would have equitable ground to keep up with the western nations and maintain hegemony. Similarly, in the 1700s, Peter the Great also motivated Russia to westernize and “open more to the West” after realizing how backwards Russia was when it came to fighting other countries in wars. Also, when the Communist party took over Russia and forced the abdication of the tsar, it came from a careful internal examination of the worker’s condition, which included overworked serfs, parsimonious owners, and capitalistic economy that only benefited the top 10%. In all these 3 instances from Russian history, only through an internal examination was Russia able to change.
Change must come from within, because as Ward Sybouts said, “all of our motivation is from within.” Change has come to define the human race and has often lead to disastrous effects, especially for the environment, but for every bane, change has also brought boon.</p>
<p>wow guys
no essay graders?
my feelings are hurt :(</p>
<p>I would give the second essay a 10-11. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a very good essay, but there’s little critical analysis. Perhaps instead of including the third example, include a paragraph simply analyzing the topic. That will bump you up to a 12.</p>
<p>Don’t overuse the big words. The skill lies not in usage, but in correct usage. Vocabulary should help you articulate a particular assertion, not muddle it. </p>
<p>I would set both essays at the 10 range. They are good in the sense that all SAT essays are drafts, but organization and arguments could be stronger.</p>
<p>
@ dabrain13: What exactly do you mean by “analyzing the topic?” Aren’t we supposed to supply everything with good solid evidence?
@thequestionmark: how do you suggest I make my arguments stronger? How can I imporve my organization?</p>
<p>I mean that using purely examples will only get you so far. In fact, in the Blue Book, they have an example that receives a pair of 5’s exactly for the same reason.</p>
<p>Instead of stating fact, add some analysis. Look at your examples, and add discussion. They want to be convinced! If I just sat here and gave you example after example of perfect 12 essays, I’d never be able to convince you exactly what they’re looking for without explaining it to you. You’re very close. Instead of just stating the facts, add some sentences here and there explaining why these examples are an integral part of the understanding, how they pertain to the topic, and so forth. Does that make any sense?</p>
<p>yes dabrain, that does. thanks :-)</p>