Grade my essay pls

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

Hey I’ve written this practice essay and I’ll be very grateful if someone graded it. This is the article- https://cdn.kastatic.org/KA-share/sat/sat-practice-test-9-essay.pdf. Here’s the essay-

In his article, “Why We Should Work Less”, Richard Schiffman argues in favor of relaxing the work-hours of average Americans. He depicts the destructive of the current system through personal anecdotes; refutes counter arguments using clear facts; strengthens his claim by providing relevant data.

Schiffman dives right into the issue by telling us two brief anecdotes that effectively portray the hardships that American workers have to go through because of the current culture of long work-hours. For instance, he says that one of his friends, “…is routinely forced to work late and at home on weekends- often without pay…”. He talks about another friend whose job was “killing” her as “…she takes her work home with her, which has taken a toll on her personal life, health, and sleep.” These anecdotes allow Schiffman to raise the issue in a way that draws the attention of the readers and set up a foundation for the facts and data that follow. Moreover, they allow those who have faced similar conditions to emotionally connect with Schiffman’s words and the unfamiliar ones to catch a glimpse of the real picture.

In the following paragraphs Schiffman refutes counter-arguments with facts and observations. For example, opponents of lenient work-hours claim that “…grueling work schedules are necessary to boost productivity” and use the troubles of US economy to justify their argument. However, Schiffman effectively counters the claim by providing a strong fact that “Americans already work hundreds of hours a year more than their counterparts in other developed countries.” Schiffman also shows that “…corporate greed, one created by financial entities” is responsible for the depressing US economy by notifying the readers of the soaring corporate profitability and worker productivity. These facts totally refute Schiffman’s opposing defenses. Furthermore, they help the readers realize that shortening work-hours is possible without major drawbacks. Schiffman also goes on to tell us about the positive effects of shorter workweeks that allow the readers to see his claims as beneficial. This also backup Schiffman’s claim logically.

Finally, Schiffman provides results of relevant studies that appeals to the readers’ sense of logos. For example, he tells us “…nearly half of Americans surveyed in 2004 by the Center for a New American Dream said that they would be willing to accept a smaller paycheck in return for more time with their families…”. Schiffman furthers his claim by talking about another study that estimates a decline of 20% in energy consumption if US was to emulate workweeks of Western Europe. If we look at how the data contributes to the overall article, we see that they provide a logical and statistical basis to all of Schiffman’s previous paragraphs. In fact, thee results leave very little for doubt and counter-arguments in the mind of the reader. The final paragraphs provide a fitting crescendo that drives Schiffman’s point home.

In conclusion, Schiffman reasons in favors of lenient work-hours and establishes it as logical and beneficial. He does so by mostly appealing to the readers’ sense of reason through anecdotes, facts, and empirical evidence.

2

I cannot grade your essay, but I can offer a few suggestions.

Overall, I find your writing to be a bit confusing. Try to create a more clear and concise presentation.

First: Rethink using the word “relaxing” in the first sentence of your essay. Consider using “reducing” instead of “relaxing”.

Second: Your introductory paragraph fails to share why Schiffman thinks that Americans should work fewer hours. You attempt to do so, but your attempt is unclear.

Third: The first sentence of your second paragraph is weak because it is not concise. Consider:

Schiffman illustrates the problems caused by working long hours through the use of two brief anecdotes.

Fourth: In your third paragraph, the fourth sentence confuses the reader. This is due to your lack of understanding what Schiffman deems to be the “crisis”.

Schiffman identifies the “crisis” as an unsustainable drive for increasing corporate growth and profits at the expense of the long term health (stability) of the economy and of the long term health of workers.

Fifth: The fifth sentence of the third paragraph is meaningless.

Sixth: Your concluding paragraph needs to be more firm in its statement of Schiffman’s position. To do so, simply substitute the word “reduced” for “lenient”.

Consider:

In conclusion, by the use of anecdotes, facts, and empirical evidence, Schiffman argues that reduced work hours will result in long-term benefits for the planet, the health of workers, and for the stability and sustainability of the economy.

These edits try to retain as much of your words and phrases as possible in an effort to make your writing more clear. This is just the first round of edits. You need to incorporate them into your current work, then revise that work product.

I did not address all issues in need of editing. I just want to point you in the right direction in an effort to create a more clear and more concise writing.

3

Thank you very much

4

How’s this?

In his article, “Why We Should Work Less”, Richard Schiffman argues that work-hours of average Americans should be reduced as doing so would be beneficial for the workers, the economy, and the country as a whole. He builds his argument using personal anecdotes, facts, and relevant data.

Schiffman starts his article off with two personal anecdotes that illustrate the problems caused by working long hours. For instance, he talks of a friend who is “routinely forced to work late and at home on weekends-often without pay”. He talks about another friend whose job was “killing” her as she “takes her work home with her which has taken a toll on her personal life, health, and sleep.” Sharing these real-life examples, Schiffman draws in his readers and establishes working long hours as harmful for the workers. Moreover, the anecdotes allow the readers to see the real picture of working conditions in America.

Schiffman takes his argument further, providing facts that outline the benefits of working less and refutes counter-arguments. For example, opponents of reducing work hours argue that “grueling work schedules are necessary to boost productivity”. But the fact that “Americans work already work hundreds of hours a year more than their counterparts in developed countries” counters that argument effectively. Schiffman also states the benefits of shorter work weeks through fact like, “Historically, shorter workweek have been as large a creator of new jobs as market growth”. In doing so, Schiffman strengthens his claim and shows the positive impacts of shortening work hours. Besides, the comparison of Americans’ work hours and work hours of other developed countries compel the readers to reconsider the relation between development and work hours. This helps readers realize emulating lenient work hours is possible without serious drawbacks.

Finally, Schiffman provides results of relevant studies that appeals to the readers’ sense of logos. For example, he tells us “…nearly half of Americans surveyed in 2004 by the Center for a New American Dream said that they would be willing to accept a smaller paycheck in return for more time with their families…”. Schiffman furthers his claim by talking about another study that estimates a decline of 20% in energy consumption if US was to emulate workweeks of Western Europe. If we look at how the data contributes to the overall article, we see that they provide a logical and statistical basis to all of Schiffman’s previous paragraphs. In fact, thee results leave very little for doubt and counter-arguments in the mind of the reader. The final paragraphs provide a fitting crescendo that drives Schiffman’s point home.

In conclusion, by using anecdotes, facts, and empirical evidence, Schiffman argues in favor of reducing work hours. Appealing mostly to the reader’s sense of reason, Schiffman establishes reducing work hours as beneficial for the people, the country, and the planet.

5

Much better !

However, I am not sure about the last sentence of paragraph #3 and the use of the word “lenient.” Do you think that “diminished” might be a more accurate word ?

6

OP: The strength of your revised essay lies in the clarity of the introductory & concluding paragraphs and in the clarity & conciseness of each introductory sentence in all 5 paragraphs. This makes it easy for readers to understand your points and position.

7

The are some areas in your revised version which need attention.

For example: The second & third sentences of paragraph three reveal that you have not grasped an important point in Schiffman’s position. Schiffman cautions that the demands fueled by corporate greed which require ever increasing productivity and profits is unsustainable, therefore the negative effects on the lives of workers’ lives and health is not worthwhile even though it can be justified by increased productivity and profits.

Schiffman then cleverly points out that a reduction in work hours will result in higher employment rates and that higher rates of employment lead to a healthier economy due to stability and sustainability.

8

Yeah I think ‘diminished’ isn’t a bad choice. But ‘lenient’ kind of sounds better in my head, I don’t know why. Why do you think ‘lenient’ is less accurate?

9

I’ve seen some high-scoring SAT essays that leave out some of the discussions of the writer. Like in this one- https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/sat/new-sat-tips-planning/about-the-sat-essay/a/sat-essay-high-scoring-student-example. Here the student leaves out quite a few things the writer talks about, like the adverse effects of light pollution on our health. So I tried to write about the parts of the article that I thought would be easier for me to write about. Do you think I left out the more relevant parts of Schiffman’s article?

10

I also used KhanAcademy’s essay scoring AI on this essay. They didn’t give me good marks ;-;. Could you help me get better marks?

11

The definition of “lenient” = merciful; gentle.

“Lenient” has no relation whatsoever to Schiffman’s article.

“Lenient” is similar to “mild” or “tolerant”. None of these words relate to Schiffman’s writing.

P.S. You left out the most important point in Schiffman’s article which is that the demands for higher productivity & higher profits resulting from increased working hours fueled by corporate greed is unsustainable.

You also wrote inaccurate & incomplete thoughts.

Overall, the Schiffman piece is not an easy article to grasp after a single reading so please do not be discouraged.

12

Okay. Thanks again.

13

Wrote another essay. I’d be grateful if you gave me some suggestions.

https://cdn.kastatic.org/KA-share/sat/5LS03E%20Practice%20Essay.pdf

In response to the growing pressures on the California state senate to ban plastic bags, Adam B. Summers builds an argument to defend the people’s “right to make fundamental decisions as ‘Paper or Plastic?’”. He builds a compelling argument through skillful use of relevant data, historical evidence, and a strong word choice.

Summers starts off his article with a strategy that is an appeal to ethos as well as logos. He uses data that establish the negative impacts of banning plastic bags and the benefits of not doing so. According to the author, banning plastic bags would have “prohibited grocery stores and convenience stores with at least $2 million in gross annual sales.” He also mentions that grocery bags “make up 0.3 percent of this[1.6 percent of all municipal solid waste] total.” This approach establishes Summers’ research and expertise on the issue. Furthermore, it makes the argument more convincing as well as reasonable. The data gives the argument a more logical basis as well. Moreover, Summers’ data allow the readers to realize the potential benefits of Summer’s claim. If the readers see the author’s claim as beneficial and the opposing claims as harmful, then they will be more likely to side with him.

Summers furthers his argument with masterful use of historical evidence. He refers to the past consequences of banning plastic bags. This strategy bolsters his argument by highlighting the potential hazards of the ban. Summer mentions “San Francisco’s plastic bag ban in 2007,” which “resulted in a spike in hospital emergency room visits due to…intestinal infectious diseases…the ban even accounts for several deaths in the city each year.” He mentions the results of Ireland’s step of increasing taxes on plastic bags. This strategy strengthens the writer’s stance by providing evidence to his claim and, again, makes him more convincing. In addition, the historical context also makes the argument more engaging as well as persuasive. This technique also appeals to the readers’ sense of reason: the readers can inductively reason and follow the pattern of consequences and realize Summer’s point.

Lastly, a strong word choice throughout the article strengthens Summers’ authoritative stance on the issue. He depicts the advocates of the bill on discussion to be “not content to tell us how much our toilets can flush or what type of light bulb to use to brighten our homes.” He also refers to the bill as “nanny-state regulation.” In doing so, Summers strengthens his authoritative stance on the issue. This technique also makes the argument more likely to prompt action among the readers. On the other hand, it challenges the readers’ perception of the issue: those who oppose his claim will be more likely to think twice now.

In conclusion, Adam B. Summers builds a strong argument against banning plastic bags in his article “Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment.” He portrays how the bill negatively impacts the planet and individual freedom. He builds a complete argument, with the full circle of ethos, pathos, and logos, with frequent use of data, historical evidence, and a strong word choice.

14

And another one. Thanks a ton, in advance. Any feedback from anyone is welcome too. Something was wrong with the link of the article. I pasted it first. My essay comes later.

“Government Must Preserve National Parks” Adapted from Todd Davidson
©2014 by Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. Originally published in The Hill, September 18, 2013.

The world has an enduring love affair with America’s national parks. Conceived nearly 100 years ago, national parks connect us with our shared heritage and tell our nation’s stories. Who among us has stared into the deep blue caldera of Crater Lake, looked up at Half Dome as the special time of winter approaches in the Yosemite Valley, or witnessed the spectacular October fall colors of red maples, oaks and hickories in the forests of the Great Smoky Mountains and not been overcome by the incredible, almost magical grandeur that has been preserved for us and future generations?

Collectively, our national parks, monuments, seashores, recreation areas, historic sites, military parks, battlefields and heritage areas represent the very best our nation has to offer. Along with their intrepid and iconic Park Rangers, they embody the true spirit of our country, bringing our nation’s history to life.

In addition to being stunning and educational, national parks are immensely affordable destinations for American families and are top U.S. tourist attractions. Each year, nearly 300 million people visit one or more of America’s 401 national parks, ranging from educational Civil War battlefields to awe-inspiring places like Yellowstone, Acadia National Park and the Grand Canyon. These park visitors are a significant component of the U.S. tourism economy. They stay in nearby hotels, rent cars, dine at local restaurants, buy at retail shops and visit other neighboring attractions, generating more than $30 billion in spending and supporting a quarter-million jobs. National parks are clearly a winning economic scenario for visitors, the economies of nearby towns and communities and ultimately our nation.

But now, these prolific economic engines are at risk. Over the last decade, national park budgets have seen a steady decline in funding, and currently suffer from an annual operations shortfall of more than $500 million. The National Park Service budget for construction and maintenance is only half of the amount necessary to maintain park sewer systems, roofs, foundations and road surfaces.

The sequester1 cut another $153 million to national park budgets. Before Congress left for recess, each chamber shared a funding proposal with completely opposite visions for our national parks: one that cuts even deeper, affecting rangers, visitor centers and campgrounds, and another that would get our parks on the road to recovery. Through the across-the-board sequester cuts, parks have fewer rangers to protect and maintain historic sites and greet visitors, minimized visitor center hours, closed campgrounds, restrooms and picnic areas and reduced road and trail maintenance that is essential for park accessibility and enjoyment.

There is an irony to all this, because national parks are one of the best investments this country has ever made. In addition to supporting the U.S. travel and tourism industry, which is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy that represents $1.8 trillion in economic output and supports 14 million American jobs, every dollar invested in the National Park Service generates $10 in economic activity. National parks are veritable economic engines critical to supporting the livelihood of businesses and communities across the country.

Last year, President Obama called for a national travel and tourism strategy to make the United States the world’s top travel and tourism destination, as part of a comprehensive effort to spur job creation. The White House released the strategy just over a year ago—an important step that officially elevates the travel and tourism industry to what it should be: a national priority. It also recognizes the industry for its fundamental contribution to our economy, national security and public diplomacy.

Our national parks can play an important role in making the U.S. a top travel destination. As the National Park System approaches its centennial in 2016, there should be a robust national park centennial initiative to help attract international visitors and provide needed support for our national parks to flourish into the next century.

1 A cut in spending by the federal government

Here’s my essay:

In his article, Todd Davidson builds an argument to support the fact the “Government Must Preserve National Parks.” He portrays the significance of national parks in the country’s tourism sector, economy, and the lives of Americans. He does so through skillful use of rhetorical questions, relevant data, and a strong word choice.

Davidson starts off his article with a series of rhetorical questions that appeal to the readers’ sense of pathos. He compels his readers to reminisce the time when they “stared into the deep blue caldera of Crater Lake, looked up at Half Dome as the winter approaches in the Yosemite Valley, or witnessed the spectacular October fall colors of red maples, oaks hickories.” By doing so, the writer approaches the issue in a way that plays to the emotions of the readers. It helps the overall argument by establishing the “magical grandeur” of national parks that “has been preserved for us and future generations.” As for the readers, this approach is certain spur emotions in their hearts. Through this strategy Davidson successfully completes his first step towards building a strong argument, appealing to pathos.

Davidson furthers his argument with an extensive use of facts and data that help bolster his point by proving national parks to be beneficial. He reminds his readers that “national parks connect us[Americans] with our shared heritage and tell our nation’s stories.” He points out that “every dollar invested in the National Park Service generates $10 in economic activity.” Davidson’s facts establish the emotional and economical importance of National Parks in America. This also strengthens his professorial stance on the issue as the data clearly demonstrate Davidson’s research and expertise on the issue. In addition, the argument now has a logical basis and is more convincing. The readers can also realize the importance of investing in national parks. Every one of the author’s facts and numbers add to the logical power of Davidson’s argument making it more reasonable and persuasive. This strategy not only strengthens the author’s ethos but also appeals to the readers’ sense of logos.

Finally, Davidson adds guttural power to his argument with the help of a strong word choice. He tells his readers that “national parks…represent the very best our[Americans] has to offer.” He writes that national parks “embody the true spirit of our country[America]. bringing our[Americans] history to life.” Davidson’s diction demonstrates his creative prowess and his power to captivate his readers. The argument is engaging and more likely to prompt action largely because of the strong choice of words. This outstanding use of words help the readers to really connect with Davidson’s claim and comprehend the significance of investing in national parks.

In conclusion, Todd Davidson does an outstanding job of advocating for Government regulated preservation of national parks. He builds a compelling and captivating argument through masterful use of rhetorical questions, facts, and a strong word choice.