Need help reviewing my essay

This essay came from my second full-length one-sitting practice test, but I’ve written others in less formal environments. Everything has been copied exactly as written on the paper. The two pages provided were completely filled.

As always, the best criticism comes from strangers, and so I have brought my essay to the public sphere for the first time. Constructive criticism and scores are greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Prompt:

“Sometimes it is necessary to challenge what people in authority claim to be true. Although some respect for authority is, no doubt, necessary in order for any group or organization to function, questioning the people in charge - even if they are experts or leaders in their fields - makes us better thinkers. It forces all concerned to defend old ideas and decisions and to consider new ones. Sometimes it can even correct old errors in thought and put an end to wrong actions.”

Is it important to question the ideas and decisions of people in positions of authority? 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.

Answer:

  The question of the power of authority has always been an issue of contended human debate. In the history of both the United States and of the world, the defense and persecution of authority has spurred revolutions, social issues, movements, pieces of art; the list goes on and on. For the most part, authority figures and governments are respectable and should be obeyed. However, the questioning of authority remains a vital human check towards the ever-present danger of overconcentration of power. When one looks at the novel "Lord of the Flies" and at American history's Joe McCarthy, one is reminded of the necessity of questioning authority.
  Authority's potentially despotic behavior can be stopped by the people's voice. In William Golding's novel "Lord of the Flies", a plane of prepubescent boys crashes on an island. The boys try to govern themselves, with disastrous results. Eventually, a boy named Jack emerges as the dictator-like leader of his own clan of boys. Feeding off the boys' fear of a "beast", Jack initiates a ritual in which a boy, Simon, is savagely killed. This act throws all the boys into doubt over Jack's true nature. However, because no one speaks up due to fear and peer pressure, Jack remains as the despotic leader of the island, and later initiates a savage manhunt. The boys did question Jack for a moment, but had they brought that to the full and spoken up, Jack most likely would've been dethroned. In the island's tragic situation, a lack of real, active questioning allowed a savage "chief" to maintain power. Questionning authority, therefore, forms the backbone of overthrowing the ones who don't deserve power.
  It is alarming to think that a situation similar to Jack's reign could eve reach the real world. Unfortunately, it has, and multiple times at that. In a particularly sad episode of American history, a brash government prosecutor named Joe McCarthy rose to prominence in the 1950s. During this time, anti-Soviet sentiments were at an all time high, and many US citizens feared spies or worse. McCarthy, however, took this too far. He ruthlessly interrogated and jailed many innocent people, including normal citizens, Hollywood actors, and famous playwright Arthur Miller. For a while, the public worried over but did not question McCarthy's actions. His day of reckoning finally came when he went after the military, while a live broadcast recorded his unreasonable attacks in court. McCarthy was a man whose sentiments led to crazed and immoral persecutions. Only did a mass outcry and the military finally dethrone him. The questionning of the government-affiliated McCarthy stopped a wave of fervent, Witch-Trial like court cases. 
  The question of authority and power will probably still plague the human race. However, by looking at Lord of the Flies and at Joe McCarthy, it is logical to see questionning authority as a method to check otherwise respectable power. As human history continues to unfold, the vital method will (and must) go on.

Besides my constantly misspelling “questioning” (which I just noticed - I’m seeing a lot of red lines), what else should I fix?

WTF all my indents were deleted.

Anyway, anywhere where you see a line of white, an indent comes after that. Also the last three lines are my conclusion

bump

bump

bump

10 or 11

The intro is relatively long, but it has nice depth.

Your first example has some faulty logic. You give an example of an instance in which the authority was not questioned and negative consequences resulted. The example doesn’t really prove how questioning authorities is good, it merely says that not questioning authorities is bad. The only pertinent part in the first example is in the last 3 sentences, where you state basically that if the boys had questioned Jack, Jack would not have been such a tyrannical leader. It is simply too much to assume this fact, but then you base your concluding sentence on this hypothetical assumption.

Your next example is relevant, but it does not cut down to the chase until the last 2 sentences: Only did a mass outcry and the military finally dethrone him. The questioning of the government-affiliated McCarthy stopped a wave of fervent, Witch-Trial like court cases." It would be better if you elaborated more on the consequences of questioning such an authority, rather than spending the bulk of the paragraph outlining how evil McCarthy was.

Conclusion is fine

Mechanics: Good length, nice vocab, good grammar, just work on your spelling a bit more.

Alright, thank you! Lack of analysis seems to be my major issue.

Anyone else?