if at least 5 people GRADE MY ESSAY......

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>If at least 5 people critique this, I will give them all something for free. After 4 posts, i will reveal the prize...</p>

<p>Prompt: Do rules and limitations contribute to a person's happiness?</p>

<p>Essay:</p>

<p>Many view rules and limitations in society as ways to prevent anarchy and maintain peace for all. Unfortunately, this claim is invalid, for rules and limitations often cause harm to society. Through careful analysis of history and literature, it becomes clear that rules and limitations detract from a person's happiness.</p>

<p>In Brave New World, a novel by Aldous Huxley, the society of the story is a futuristic utopia in which the government controls all. The government implements a vast number of laws that solve all of society's problems and eliminate social instability. While rules help the government maintain order the protagonists Bernard and Helmholtz are disenchanted with their society. Because they can not think freely, Bernard and Helmholtz are unhappy and not satisfied with their lives. Their unhappiness drives them to the extremes and they commit crimes. The example of Brave New World illustrates how rules and limitations actually make people unhappy , even if they are intended to make people happy.</p>

<p>In another novel about a futuristic utopia, 1984, society is once again ruled by a government, who plays the role of "Big Brother", that imposes strict rules and limitations on every aspect of civilian life so as to prevent social instability. The protagonist, Winston Smith, is greatly displeased by the fact that his liberties are constrained and he revels against the government. Eventually, he is tortured and loses all will, thus submitting to the control of the government. Winston illustrates how restrictive rules can lead to unhappiness, and ultimately result in the destruction of the will to live. Clearly, the rules and limitations in Winston;s life caused him to become unhappy. </p>

<p>In the 20th century, the Communist government of the USSR arose as one of the dominant world powers. The government implemented a myriad of new reforms that controlled every aspect of life in order to improve the efficiency of the nation in its economic and industrial; production. Over time, however, these rules and regulations so severely oppressed the common people of the USSR that suicide rates rose to the highest in the world. Under the rules and limitations, life for peasants changed from heaven to hell, as thousands killed themselves to escape the constraints imposed upon them. The situation of the USSR clearly reveals the negative effect of rules on happiness. For thousands of peasants, rules and limitations contributed to their unhappiness and eventual death. While limitations were introduced to create stability, they ended up lowering morale and increasing unhappiness of civilians throughout the USSR.</p>

<p>Through the analysis of 1984, Brave New World, and the Communist government of the USSR, it is evident that rules and limitations actually contribute to unhappiness. While these constraints are intended to maintain peace and order, the often lead to the disillusionment of people with those who impose the restrictions in the first place. Indeed, rules and limitations frequently bring about unhappiness in those who were meant to be appeased.</p>

2

<p>please grade my essay…i have to take the sat on saturday and i would really appreciate even the quickest comments</p>

3

<p>“Government who” is not correct syntax. “Appeased” is not used correctly in the last sentence. On the plus side, the writing style is clear. However you’ve really got three paragraphs that say exactly the same thing. Not all rules and limitations involve totalitarian states. A better essay would take three more diverse examples and perhaps make the argument more nuanced–rules are bad when they do X, but helpful when they do Y sort of thing.</p>

4

<p>Thanks for the feedback!</p>

<p>about your last piece of advice, i have heard that is not always the best idea to “qualify” your point because it can detract from the strength of your argument</p>

5

<p>Antwanmon:</p>

<p>After my first read-through, I wondered how many times you used the phrase “rules and limitations.” A ctrl-f search gave me the number. Ten. Ten times.</p>

<p>Another search for the word “happiness” (or its corollaries in happy, unhappy, and unhappiness) returned the total of 12 usages.</p>

<p>What I sense here is a blaring repetition. Your essay is only repeating the prompt within the limits of your argument. The general message is “rules and limitations create unhappiness,” and you will be wasting your precious 25 minutes repeating it.</p>

<p>Your three main points are all developed similarly to each other. Not only are 1984 and BNW companion books, but both are satires of Communism and despotism in general. I saw a lack of distinction in your arguments from one to the next, especially in the polar opposites of the novels. The “rules” in 1984 are unspoken, unwritten, and enforced by political fear and military police. The “limitations” in BNW are created mainly through artificial, genetic stupidity. Any student of literature will reach this conclusion. Instead of capitalizing on these differences, you lumped them into the bizarre generalization of “government.”</p>

<p>In addition, your protagonists all share the same traits. Bernard, Helmholtz, Winston, and the Russian peasants are “unhappy,” “unsatisfied,” “displeased,” and “oppressed.” They are shackled by their governments, which all conveniently provide the rules and limitations needed. These protagonists also fall into crime, insanity, and suicide, when clearly you have chosen a few of the most dystopian tyrannies in the human imagination. What about the thousands of other societies in which rules helped create, not destroy, prosperity?</p>

<p>You did not support your argument with strong evidence. Both the paragraphs regarding the novels were mere plot summary, while your Communism paragraph briefly mentioned suicide rates. This is not enough to convince an SAT reader. By the way, if you lived anywhere near Russia in the early 20th century, you would not describe peasant life as “heaven,” not even in passing to make a point.</p>

<p>I hope I do not sound too harsh, but the College Board is not looking for this kind of writing. If that sounds like an unqualified statement, I’ll tell you that I scored an 11 on my essay.</p>

<p>Final advice: listen to qialah. “Qualifying” your argument does not weaken it. Rather, this demonstrates that you are someone who can see the opposing viewpoint and include its perspective in a counter-argument. Your first mistake was dismissing the purpose of rules - to prevent anarchy and maintain peace - as “invalid.”</p>

6

<p>I had a little problem with the premise that an orderly society (ie, one with rules and limitations) implied peace and, therefore, happiness.</p>