Grade my essay please?

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Prompt: Should people take more responsibility for solving problems that affect their communities or the nation in general?</p>

<p>When it comes to the social ills that are plaguing a nation, it is irrational to expect the pedestrians to formulate a solution to the problem. It is the responsibility of the government, who the people have entrusted their well-being towards, to fix the issue. Several historical examples illustrate this trend.</p>

<p>The Great Depression is regarded as the most significant economic crisis in American history. This time period was marked by ubiquitous poverty, unemployment, and overall discontent. It became apparent after a while that this crisis would not fix itself, so the government stepped in. President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed his "New Deal" which was a series of reforms designed to stimulate the economy. In a few years, the economy recovered and everything was back to normal. The crisis was effectively ended, thanks to the actions of the government.</p>

<p>Similar to FDR, Abraham Lincoln was the president during another time of crisis. When he was elected in 1860, several southern states immediately seceded from the country, in fear of the abolishment of slavery. Lincoln was faced with an unprecedented dilemma. It came to him to restore the union and he was forced to go to war. During this war, Lincoln put forth several questionable policies which he saw as necessary. One of these was the suspension of habeas corpus. As a result of this, any person was subject to indefinite detainment by the government without being given a reason. Although this seems outrageous, it contributed greatly to the restoration of the union. In 1865, the Union was successfully brought back together, thanks in large part to Abraham Lincoln's actions. Historians now consider Lincoln to be one of the greatest US presidents thanks to his handling of this crisis.</p>

<p>As evidenced by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, the responsibility of fixing problems that trouble a nation does indeed reside with the government. The policies set forth by these presidents were effective solutions to crises that may not have been solved, otherwise.</p>

2

<p>TheHeart, a couple of comments:
First, consider your audience. Who grades these things? What values do they hold? It is very likely that the graders consider themselves to be responsible people, generally. (At least, this is my opinion.) This means that in response to any question that asks, “Should people take more responsibility . . . ?” you will probably have the best response if you argue, “Yes, people should take more responsibility.”</p>

<p>While the graders are not supposed to consider the “side” that you take, if they agree with you, you are likely to score higher, unless you have an exceptionally well written, unexpected argument.</p>

<p>A second important point to keep in mind is this: In the US, the government IS the people; or put another way, the people ARE the government. Again, you could argue differently, but you set up a more difficult assignment for yourself if you do that.</p>

<p>“Pedestrians” are walkers. What did you mean by this word?</p>

<p>Why do you think it is irrational for ordinary people to formulate solutions to problems? This is an extremely undemocratic and anti-American outlook. Again, you can argue for your point of view, but if you run counter-current to typical American thinking, you face higher hurdles.</p>

<p>The President cannot “pass” anything, although that is said in the common parlance. Congress passes anything that does get passed. In the US, we are committed to the principle of the separation of powers–i.e., the executive (Presidential or gubernatorial), legislative, and judicial branches are separate, each with its own powers.</p>

<p>The actions of Franklin Roosevelt probably helped to prevent the Depression from being worse than it was. However, many people think that it was only when WW II broke out that the Depression truly lifted. The year 1937 was still pretty grim. As above, you can argue differently, and any inaccuracy of your remarks is not supposed to be held against you, but it does have an effect on the reader.</p>

<p>Abraham Lincoln took many commendable actions during the Civil War, but the suspension of habeas corpus was not one of them.</p>

<p>If you are from a different country or cultural background, you might do better to choose historical examples that are non-US.</p>

3

<p>I was a bit thrown off by the prompt and had some trouble coming up with examples, so I wasted alot of time doing that and was forced to rush whatever details i remembered about FDR and lincoln from school in the time i had left. Halfway through the paper i realized that i wouldve had an easier time picking the other side and using civil rights activists like MLK, but it was too late for that. Maybe i would have done better if i made up a personal anecdote instead? This is not one of my better essays, and im hesitant to ask what score u would give it. Also, I was under the impression that pedestrians was another term for civilians?</p>

4

<p>TheHeart, yes, MLK would have been an excellent choice in response to this prompt. I do think that the time allotted for a response is too short, really, to allow most people to write a well developed essay. In any event, I am glad that I took the writing test years and years ago, when it was an SAT II, and essays were only required on some dates.</p>

<p>I don’t really know well enough how the scoring works to say what you’d score.</p>

<p>“Pedestrians” just mean walkers. The word “pedestrian” (singular) as an adjective can be used to mean commonplace, ordinary, or unimaginative, as well as with reference to a person on foot; however, “pedestrians” does not mean the common people, nor anything similar to that.</p>

5

<p>I strongly disagree with QuantHeart.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Graders are taught to not let personal bias affect their judging. In fact, the go through training that teaches them how to grade essays. During this training, they are taught to base solely off argument. DO NOT try to guess which side of the argument the reader will side with. Please choose the argument you can most convincingly argue.</p></li>
<li><p>FACTS ARE NOT GRADED FOR ACCURACY. Even though your facts may not be true, they do contribute to your argument, which is all that matters. </p></li>
<li><p>Pedestrian does not mean civilian; civilian would have worked better. However, in your essay it was understandable in the context of your sentence.</p></li>
<li><p>Take time before your essay to consider both sides and which examples you can use to argue your point. Second guessing yourself halfway through the essay is the worst thing you can do. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>I give your essay a 4/6.</p>

6

<p>On the one hand, Preply is correct that the graders are not supposed to deduct anything for errors of fact. There are some ridiculously erroneous examples included in an essay by one of the test-prep gurus who retakes the SAT every so often, just to keep in touch with any trends in the questions. Maybe someone can find a link to the essay.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, the graders are human, and I think they can’t help reacting a little, if there is something in the essay with which they strongly disagree.</p>

<p>Most of the questions have more “duality” than this one, in the sense that good arguments can be made for both sides. However, when it comes to the question of whether people should take more responsibility, it is really hard to write a strong essay arguing that they should not.</p>

<p>I suspect that a number of the graders are high-school English teachers, or retired teachers. Have you ever heard a teacher argue that you should take less responsibility?</p>

<p>This is not to say that you should choose the side you think the reader wants to see, when you have a question that really has two sides. You should argue your own point of view. This is a really lop-sided question, though.</p>

7

<p>TheHeart does a great job of using examples to back up his/her argument.</p>

<p>Sometimes, SAT questions are more one-sided. E.G., December’s administration which asked whether leaders should be judged for their treatment other people instead of their accomplishments.</p>

<p>The obvious and socially acceptable answer would be to say yes. However, you have the ability to argue otherwise. Am I to believe that an entire room full of retired school teachers would be apt to score thousands of tests with a lower grade because they don’t agree with the writer?</p>

<p>If that is the case, then CB would would have a huge problem on its hands for unfair grading.</p>

8

<p>I think that the question of whether leaders should be judged for their treatment of other people instead of their accomplishments is an excellent, two-sided question. A strong argument could be made on either side. One could use President Jimmy Carter’s term of office as an example. Carter is sometimes viewed as a weak president, due to the Iran hostage crisis, his talk about “malaise” affecting Americans, and the economic stagnation at the time. On the other hand, Carter is a man of high principles, and I admire him greatly. He has engaged in a number of charitable activities since he left office. He has also argued in the New York Times against the use of drones. It is said that when a hurricane struck an area with multiple houses built by Habitat for Humanity, the ones on which Carter had worked were the only ones still standing. (I don’t know whether this is true or not.) I suspect that historians may see the Carter presidency differently.</p>

<p>Looking again at the original prompt, I still think that if you interpret it as a question about whether people should take more responsibility, it’s really hard to argue that they should not.</p>

<p>Actually, I think the two-sided contrast that was intended by the original prompt was this: Should people take more responsibility for solving problems that affect their communities, or should they take more responsibility for solving problems that affect the nation in general? It is assumed that people should take more responsibility for something! The question is: should they focus locally or nationally? </p>

<p>Then this becomes a two-sided question, where either side could be argued.</p>

9

<p>I’d give 9/12</p>

10

<p>TheHeart: An even better choice than the word “civilians” would be “citizens.” This might be useful to you in the future also. The word “civilians” sets up a contrast with the military, and it is sometimes also used by police officers to refer to people who are not police officers. The good thing about “citizens” is that it refers to all of the citizens of a country. Of course, there could be an issue about permanent residents or immigrants, but I don’t think most people would be bothered by that–if you think that could be an issue, then I would recommend the use of the term “residents.” That is very inclusive.</p>