Please check w/ my essay

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Topic comes from Barron 2400:
Work informs us about people's character. For those in the workforce, the majority of their hours are taken up by playing various work roles in society. To an extent, which roles they play and how those roles are played reveals their nature.
Assignment: Does an individual's profession define his or her character and moral fiber?</p>

<p>Can a doctor be a malicious person? Can thug mobs fooling around on streets everyday be docile at heart? They can. All the things happen. Therefore, an individual's profession cannot define his or her character and morality.
If knowledge is spared aside, morality is what still left in each person. People climb on the ladder of promotion chiefly by their knowledge. Nixon,a former US president, showed his evil intent vehemently in the Vietnam war. George W Bush, the present one, have left Iraq citizens leave in fear in the meaning less destruction for over four years. Though both may achieve high IQ scores, they did not attain very high degrees in their moral success.
Have you ever notice the antagonist in most Western comic books come from an upper position, or at least have a so- called "good job"? The scarecrow, Batman's foe, is a lawyer. He was not by any means, humble, however. Instead, he stood up against Batman- the vigilante of Gotham and finally be beaten by our protagonist. Lawyers, doctors, football players or even drivers and sweepers, all can be complacent or kind at heart. That is why we have the word "snob" in the English language to insinuate pretentious folks.
To encapsulate, profession can only define a person's knowledge yet fail to do so with virtue. This holds true through history, animation, movies and almost every aspect that reflects the nature of society. There is no book to judge, especially on the spiritual side.</p>

2

<p>i'd say a 3, at most 4.</p>

3

<p>Once again, I don't know enough about SAT grading to give you specific information there. But here's how I would respond to this essay.</p>

<p>Assignment: Does an individual's profession define his or her character and moral fiber?</p>

<p>"Can a doctor be a malicious person? Can thug mobs fooling around on streets everyday be docile at heart? They can."</p>

<p>I really like that opening. I might say "gang members" instead of "thug mobs", though.</p>

<p>"All the things happen."</p>

<p>I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you expanding on "They can"? I'm not sure you need to.</p>

<p>"Therefore, an individual's profession cannot define his or her character and morality."</p>

<p>I really like this, too. If you dropped "All the things happen" I think you'd have a very striking opening paragraph.</p>

<p>"If knowledge is spared aside, morality is what still left in each person. People climb on the ladder of promotion chiefly by their knowledge."</p>

<p>So you're saying that a person is knowledge plus morality? I'm not sure I would go that far. But I do think that your underlying point, which I take to be that knowledge and morality are different things, is a good one to start with. The idea that people will do what is good so long as they know what is good is a longstanding one in Western civilization. You're challenging that idea. What if you said, "If knowledge is set aside" -- that's more idiomatic than "spared aside" -- "morality is still lef in each person. People climb the ladder of promotion" -- again, idiomatic -- "chiefly by their knowledge"?</p>

<p>"Nixon,a former US president, showed his evil intent vehemently in the Vietnam war. George W Bush, the present one, have left Iraq citizens leave in fear in the meaning less destruction for over four years."</p>

<p>What strikes me about this paragraph is that it's not clear what you think is evidence of Nixon's and Bush's immorality: with Nixon it seems to be intent, but with Bush it seems to be the outcome. Would Nixon be as immoral, in your view, if he intended to do the right thing? Would Bush be as immoral if someone else had intervened and the people in Iraq hadn't suffered so much? And while Bush both started and directed the war in Iraq, Nixon inherited the situation in Viet Nam -- why do you choose Nixon here instead of Johnson?</p>

<p>It's not that I think you ought to explain all these things in the essay, but that I want to trust that they are clear in your mind. I'm not sure whether they aren't clear in your mind or whether you are having trouble communicating that clarity, but it just seems odd. Anyway, let's suppose we just edit what you have here: "Nixon, a former US president, vehemently showed his evil intent in the Viet Nam War. George W. Bush, the present one, has left Iraqi citizens to live in fear in the meaningless destruction for over four years."</p>

<p>"Though both may achieve high IQ scores, they did not attain very high degrees in their moral success."</p>

<p>IQ scores, in theory, give us an idea of aptitude, not knowledge. (Like the SAT, they test aptitude by testing knowledge under the theory that the knowledge they're looking for is freely available to all of us in our environments. But that's another story.) Since you say knowledge, not aptitude, allows us to "climb the ladder of promotion," you don't want to use IQ here. I'd suggest something like "Though both acquired a great deal of knowledge, we can see by their actions that their morality did not keep up with their intellect." That's obviously a major change to that sentence, and it may not be the way you would want to go, so please understand that it's just a suggestion.</p>

<p>"Have you ever notice the antagonist in most Western comic books come from an upper position, or at least have a so- called "good job"? The scarecrow, Batman's foe, is a lawyer. He was not by any means, humble, however. Instead, he stood up against Batman- the vigilante of Gotham and finally be beaten by our protagonist."</p>

<p>I think this is great. I love this shift. I would just edit it for things like language: "Have you ever noticed that the antagonists in most Western comic books come from upper positions, or at least have "good jobs"? The Scarecrow, Batman's foe, is a lawyer. He was not at all humble. Instead, he stood up against Batman - the vigilante of Gotham - and finally was defeated by our protagonist."</p>

<p>"Lawyers, doctors, football players or even drivers and sweepers, all can be complacent or kind at heart. That is why we have the word "snob" in the English language to insinuate pretentious folks."</p>

<p>I would probably expand this section. You're bringing in the idea that people who haven't climbed very far up the ladder of success may be moral or immoral, and that people who have climbed may also be moral. Until here, you've focused mainly on the idea that people with a lot of knowledge may not have a lot of virtue. </p>

<p>Actually, I might go back and start bringing this idea in in the previous section: am I correct that Bruce Wayne himself is a rich and successful man? (I'm just going to confess here: I've seen some of the episodes of the old live-action TV show, and that's about it.)</p>

<p>But in this section I might make reference to people like John Gotti and Tookie Williams, or possibly your family members. I have an aunt I might bring up here if it were my essay.</p>

<p>"To encapsulate, profession can only define a person's knowledge yet fail to do so with virtue. This holds true through history, animation, movies and almost every aspect that reflects the nature of society. There is no book to judge, especially on the spiritual side."</p>

<p>Again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean in the last sentence, but I think the rest of this paragraph is great. It says exactly what you've been arguing for.</p>

<p>As I've said repeatedly, I don't know how they score these kinds of essays on the SAT. I don't think the essay the way you wrote it is likely to score all that well, though. You've got some problems with the language, and it wasn't easy for me to follow when I read it fast, which I know is how the SAT graders are going to be reading.</p>

<p>But when I go through it slowly, there are some real strengths here that aren't immediately obvious. I especially like your introduction and conclusion: they're very strong and with the possible exception of one sentence in each (I was confused about those) they say exactly what you want them to say.</p>

<p>I hope that as you continue to practice, you are able to build on your strong points and make them more apparent to people who are reading quickly. It would be a shame for the graders to miss what's great about your essays the way I almost did.</p>

4

<p>Elaborate more on the examples. I think you know what to do, you just have to practice.</p>

5

<p>Hi,
Thank you. I appreciate all your comments, especially nontraditional's. However, I'm dead tired so I can't think clearly. I will give you some feedback tomorrow. Anyway, I'm an Asian so perhaps my English is not that good. I'll try harder</p>

6

<p>It may also be that in some places I was just being obtuse. I've got better days and worse days cognitively :) and I usually can't tell which one I'm having until later on.</p>

7

<p>the longer the better, and that was way too short. try at least having 4 paragraphs</p>

8

<p>I don't know about everyone else, but I think that if you want to address the reader, you should address him/her throughout the essay and not in just 1 sentence.</p>

<p>I agree with the other posters; elaborate on the things that Bush and Nixon did that were so evil. You don't need to write "George W. Bush, the present one", instead just write George Bush jr. Both Nixon and Bush did negative things. Maybe you would want to contrast a good president with a bad president in order to further strengthen your argument that profession does not determine character and moral fiber.</p>

<p>It feels to me that you threw in the example about batman and the scarecrow just so you could have an example. The paragraph, in my opinion, does not talk more in depth about batman and the scarecrow, but instead, goes off on a tangent about "Lawyers, doctors, football players or even drivers and sweepers." The last sentence of that paragraph should have been a part of your conclusion.</p>

<p>"To encapsulate" doesn't really strike me as an ending tone. You can either leave that out, or replace it with "In conclusion"</p>

<p>"There is no book to judge, especially on the spiritual side."
I don't really understand the meaning of the sentence.</p>

<p>Sorry if I seem a bit harsh; I didn't really focus on what you did do well (Your introduction's really good and the general idea is solid).</p>

9

<p>First, belly, let me comment that if I had to write in a second or third language (not my native language, which is English), I could not have written an essay that is nearly as good as yours. Your analysis is strong, and you have written some genuinely excellent sentences.</p>

<p>My general advice to you is to write longer essays, but keep the vocabulary somewhat simpler. From what I've read, the CB readers do not seem to require the use of vocabulary at the level that the other sections test. The reason that I suggest that you keep the vocabulary simpler is this: A "high-level" vocabulary word actually gives a negative impression of the writer's skills in English, if it is used imprecisely or incorrectly.</p>

<p>So, here's a more detailed analysis of what you've written:</p>

<p>"Can a doctor be a malicious person?" Excellent opening. Truly excellent. </p>

<p>"Can thug mobs fooling around on streets everyday be docile at heart?"
The word "thug" normally connotes violence, so no, almost by definition, they could not be docile at heart. Also, thug is a noun, hardly ever used correctly as an adjective. The words "fooling around" don't go with the word "mob." Mobs could be "milling around" or "gathering," but there's something slightly ominous about a "mob," which makes the choice of "fooling around" a give-away that English is not your native language. "Gangs" might be "fooling around." The word "docile" comes from "doceo," and therefore has the connotation "teachable." I think you want "gentle" or something similar.</p>

<p>Structurally, the contrast you've established by pairing a high-level profession with a character flaw and a low-level occupation with a virtue is excellent! Addressing the issue from both sides in this way is a distinguishing feature of a good essay. </p>

<p>"They can. All the things happen." First short sentence: excellent. Second one: just delete it. You've only given two examples; so "All" is out of place here. You don't need it. "They can" is punchy. The second sentence just weakens it.</p>

<p>"Therefore, an individual's profession cannot define his or her character and morality."
Strong sentence. I personally think that "does not define" would be better than "cannot define" idiomatically, but that's relatively minor.</p>

<p>"If knowledge is spared aside, morality is what still left in each person."
Good thought, expression not so good. Neither abstract nor concrete nouns in English can be "spared aside." What you mean here is "set aside." The phrase "morality is what still left in each person" is not grammatical English.
You could say "morality is what remains in each person." You need a verb in place of the adverb/adjective phrase "still left." It could be "is still left," but that's a bit weak. Also, is it really the case that if you subtract knowledge, what remains is morality? Isn't there anything else left, too?</p>

<p>"People climb on the ladder of promotion chiefly by their knowledge."
In English, people "climb ladders;" they do not "climb on" ladders. Also, most American adults believe that people advance through judgment and skillful risk-taking, rather than knowledge.</p>

<p>"Nixon,a former US president, showed his evil intent vehemently in the Vietnam war."
"President" should be capitalized, even if used in the middle of a sentence. Opinions can be expressed vehemently, but "vehemently" is not normally used in connection with the verb "show." This is an example of a strong vocabulary word that is used in a way that just sounds "off" to a native English speaker. This sentence is a little risky. Although there are very few fans of Richard Nixon around, and still fewer who grade SAT essays, you do run the risk of encountering a Republican. Also, many people who dislike Nixon intensely would not go all the way to calling him "evil" in intent. Furthermore, the US withdrew from Vietnam under the Nixon administration. </p>

<p>"George W Bush, the present one, have left Iraq citizens leave in fear in the meaning less destruction for over four years."
W needs a period after it (unless you are the columnist Molly Ivins, in which case "Dubya" will do). The phrase "the present one" should go. The previous President Bush was George H. W. Bush. If you have to put in an appositive phrase here, "the current President" is much better. Bush is singular, so the next word should be "has," not "have." The citizens of Iraq are "Iraqi citizens," not "Iraq citizens," in English.<br>
The phrase "have left Iraq citizens leave in fear" is a real problem--this is a dead give-away that you do not speak English usually. You want
"have left Iraqi citizens living in fear." Also, people live in "fear of" rather than "fear in" something. The word "meaningless" does not have any space in the middle of it. The "the" in front of "meaningless destruction" does not belong in the sentence. The Iraqis are living in fear of meaningless destruction.</p>

<p>"Though both may achieve high IQ scores, they did not attain very high degrees in their moral success."
Ok, this is a problem. If you ask most Americans about the IQ score of George W. Bush, you probably won't get a high number as the answer. (I suspect that it would be underestimated by most, but even so, Bush is not known for his high IQ.) Nixon's IQ would probably be estimated as somewhat higher, but still, he is not known for his penetrating intellect!<br>
More importantly, Americans attach relatively little significance to IQ. It is not viewed as a valid predictor of professional success. Rather than "attain very high degrees," it would be better to have "attain a very high level." The phrase "attain very high degrees" is acceptable as metaphor. However, in the context in which you are writing, the reader is more likely to regard it as an instance of imprecise English than as a metaphor.</p>

<p>"Have you ever notice the antagonist in most Western comic books come from an upper position, or at least have a so- called "good job"?"
This is a good sentence. The phrase should be "have you ever noticed" (not "notice"). Also, you normally "notice that" when a clause follows it. You can notice an object (without the "that"), but it there's a whole clause, it needs a "that." The antagonist is singular, so the verb should be "comes" not "come." Similarly, "have" should be "has." The word "upper" should be "upper-level." "Upper" by itself can be used with the word "class," but then it should be "the upper class," not "an upper class."</p>

<p>"The scarecrow, Batman's foe, is a lawyer."
Good. Probably "scarecrow" should be capitalized, though.</p>

<p>"He was not by any means, humble, however."
Hmm. The use of "however" suggests that one would expect a lawyer to be humble. Not in the US!</p>

<p>"Instead, he stood up against Batman- the vigilante of Gotham and finally be beaten by our protagonist."
Normally, the phrase "stood up" is used with a favorable connotation. One stands up against oppression. But one doesn't think of the "bad guy" as "standing up against" the "good guy." "Opposed" would be better here. Then, in the second part of the sentence, you need the simple past tense. It should read "finally was beaten" not "finally be beaten." There's a slight problem that you shift from active to passive verbs. </p>

<p>"Lawyers, doctors, football players or even drivers and sweepers, all can be complacent or kind at heart."
This sentence calls for a contrast at the end. The phrase "kind at heart" is great. The word "complacent" suggests that someone is satisfied with the "staus quo," but it's not really the opposite of "kind at heart." You want a word with a touch of villainy.</p>

<p>"That is why we have the word "snob" in the English language to insinuate pretentious folks."
The thought here is excellent.
The execution is not so good.
One "insinuates that" something is true. "Insinuate" means "implies," usually with a negative or malicious connotation. This is another instance of a great vocabulary word being misused in a way that hurts your essay.</p>

<p>"To encapsulate, profession can only define a person's knowledge yet fail to do so with virtue. This holds true through history, animation, movies and almost every aspect that reflects the nature of society. There is no book to judge, especially on the spiritual side."
The word "encapsulate" requires an object. You could say "To summarize," but you don't actually need to use such a phrase at all. The word "profession" needs to be "a profession."
You should omit "only," if you are following the phrase with "yet fail." The sentence would be stronger if you repeated "define" rather than shifting to "to do so"
The word "through" should be "throughout." "Animation" usually refers to cartoons. What did you have in mind? Perhaps "literature" should be on your list. The word "aspect" is not quite right here. "Element" would be better, I think. Your concluding sentence is strong, but it needs to be made a little more precise. The entire essay is about judging based on a person's profession. The word "book" is out of place. It would be better to restate your thesis in a different way.</p>

<p>I realize that this is a very lengthy post! But I thought that the detailed commentary might be of use to you. Hope it helps!</p>

10

<p>To nontraditional:</p>

<p>"All the things happen."
---------------> WHat I mean in this sentence is all the thing can happen. Anybody can be evil, anybody can be docile</p>

<p>"Therefore, an individual's profession cannot define his or her character and morality."</p>

<p>I really like this, too. If you dropped "All the things happen" I think you'd have a very striking opening paragraph.</p>

<p>"If knowledge is spared aside, morality is what still left in each person. People climb on the ladder of promotion chiefly by their knowledge."</p>

<p>So you're saying that a person is knowledge plus morality? I'm not sure I would go that far. But I do think that your underlying point, which I take to be that knowledge and morality are different things, is a good one to start with. The idea that people will do what is good so long as they know what is good is a longstanding one in Western civilization. You're challenging that idea. What if you said, "If knowledge is set aside" -- that's more idiomatic than "spared aside" -- "morality is still lef in each person. People climb the ladder of promotion" -- again, idiomatic -- "chiefly by their knowledge"?</p>

<p>"Nixon,a former US president, showed his evil intent vehemently in the Vietnam war. George W Bush, the present one, have left Iraq citizens leave in fear in the meaning less destruction for over four years."</p>

<p>What strikes me about this paragraph is that it's not clear what you think is evidence of Nixon's and Bush's immorality: with Nixon it seems to be intent, but with Bush it seems to be the outcome. Would Nixon be as immoral, in your view, if he intended to do the right thing? Would Bush be as immoral if someone else had intervened and the people in Iraq hadn't suffered so much? And while Bush both started and directed the war in Iraq, Nixon inherited the situation in Viet Nam -- why do you choose Nixon here instead of Johnson?
---------------> I didn't choose Johnson because I didn't know who he is. With Bush's "leaving Iraqi citizen leaving in fear", I demonstrate the "evil intent" of him (same as Nixon). I don't know why you did not know why I wrote that (In my language that sentence could be understood, so maybe I'm wrong here)</p>

<p>It's not that I think you ought to explain all these things in the essay, but that I want to trust that they are clear in your mind. I'm not sure whether they aren't clear in your mind or whether you are having trouble communicating that clarity, but it just seems odd. Anyway, let's suppose we just edit what you have here: "Nixon, a former US president, vehemently showed his evil intent in the Viet Nam War. George W. Bush, the present one, has left Iraqi citizens to live in fear in the meaningless destruction for over four years."</p>

<p>"Though both may achieve high IQ scores, they did not attain very high degrees in their moral success."</p>

<p>IQ scores, in theory, give us an idea of aptitude, not knowledge. (Like the SAT, they test aptitude by testing knowledge under the theory that the knowledge they're looking for is freely available to all of us in our environments. But that's another story.) Since you say knowledge, not aptitude, allows us to "climb the ladder of promotion," you don't want to use IQ here. I'd suggest something like "Though both acquired a great deal of knowledge, we can see by their actions that their morality did not keep up with their intellect." That's obviously a major change to that sentence, and it may not be the way you would want to go, so please understand that it's just a suggestion.</p>

<p>---> IQ and EQ I think necessary to demonstrate their leader skills and the abilities to handle work of a country. Perhaps I was wrong here to translate an acceptable idea in my language to English</p>

<p>"Have you ever notice the antagonist in most Western comic books come from an upper position, or at least have a so- called "good job"? The scarecrow, Batman's foe, is a lawyer. He was not by any means, humble, however. Instead, he stood up against Batman- the vigilante of Gotham and finally be beaten by our protagonist."</p>

<p>I think this is great. I love this shift. I would just edit it for things like language: "Have you ever noticed that the antagonists in most Western comic books come from upper positions, or at least have "good jobs"? The Scarecrow, Batman's foe, is a lawyer. He was not at all humble. Instead, he stood up against Batman - the vigilante of Gotham - and finally was defeated by our protagonist."</p>

<p>"Lawyers, doctors, football players or even drivers and sweepers, all can be complacent or kind at heart. That is why we have the word "snob" in the English language to insinuate pretentious folks."</p>

<p>I would probably expand this section. You're bringing in the idea that people who haven't climbed very far up the ladder of success may be moral or immoral, and that people who have climbed may also be moral. Until here, you've focused mainly on the idea that people with a lot of knowledge may not have a lot of virtue.</p>

<p>---> I don't understand what you mean here :"Until here, you've focused mainly on the idea that people with a lot of knowledge may not have a lot of virtue.". I don't remember mention it. But I wanted to say that everyone could be complacent, or could be kind. Therefore we cannot define one's morality by looking into their job. Perhaps I went off on a tangent with the last sentence</p>

<p>Actually, I might go back and start bringing this idea in in the previous section: am I correct that Bruce Wayne himself is a rich and successful man? (I'm just going to confess here: I've seen some of the episodes of the old live-action TV show, and that's about it.)</p>

<p>-----------> I don't understand what you mean here, either</p>

<p>But in this section I might make reference to people like John Gotti and Tookie Williams, or possibly your family members. I have an aunt I might bring up here if it were my essay.</p>

<p>"To encapsulate, profession can only define a person's knowledge yet fail to do so with virtue. This holds true through history, animation, movies and almost every aspect that reflects the nature of society. There is no book to judge, especially on the spiritual side."</p>

<p>Again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean in the last sentence, but I think the rest of this paragraph is great. It says exactly what you've been arguing for.</p>

<p>------------------> I based the last sentence upon the old adage" You cannot judge a book by his appearance". I was, perhaps, going off on tangent by using " book" but not "appearance" here. But I think even if I did you would not understand what I meant, either. Lol</p>

<p>As I've said repeatedly, I don't know how they score these kinds of essays on the SAT. I don't think the essay the way you wrote it is likely to score all that well, though. You've got some problems with the language, and it wasn't easy for me to follow when I read it fast, which I know is how the SAT graders are going to be reading.</p>

<p>But when I go through it slowly, there are some real strengths here that aren't immediately obvious. I especially like your introduction and conclusion: they're very strong and with the possible exception of one sentence in each (I was confused about those) they say exactly what you want them to say.</p>

<p>I hope that as you continue to practice, you are able to build on your strong points and make them more apparent to people who are reading quickly. It would be a shame for the graders to miss what's great about your essays the way I almost did.</p>

<p>------> I appreciate all your comments, thank you</p>

11

<p>To woami:
I don't know about everyone else, but I think that if you want to address the reader, you should address him/her throughout the essay and not in just 1 sentence.
-------> Examples, please?</p>

<p>I agree with the other posters; elaborate on the things that Bush and Nixon did that were so evil. You don't need to write "George W. Bush, the present one", instead just write George Bush jr. Both Nixon and Bush did negative things. Maybe you would want to contrast a good president with a bad president in order to further strengthen your argument that profession does not determine character and moral fiber.</p>

<p>------------> I would, but I just could not find a well known one. No way I'm going to use my country's political leader to give that as an example b/c he/she 's not well-known outside the country. But with Bush, the present one, I meant "the present president"</p>

<p>It feels to me that you threw in the example about batman and the scarecrow just so you could have an example.</p>

<p>----> it's OK to feel that way. I could not given examples from my country's reading because they are not wellknown</p>

<p>The paragraph, in my opinion, does not talk more in depth about batman and the scarecrow, but instead, goes off on a tangent about "Lawyers, doctors, football players or even drivers and sweepers." The last sentence of that paragraph should have been a part of your conclusion.</p>

<p>-----> Batman, scarecrow are just examples. So are lawyers, doctors etc. </p>

<p>"To encapsulate" doesn't really strike me as an ending tone. You can either leave that out, or replace it with "In conclusion"</p>

<p>"There is no book to judge, especially on the spiritual side."
I don't really understand the meaning of the sentence.</p>

<p>--->------------------> I based the last sentence upon the old adage" You cannot judge a book by his appearance". I was, perhaps, going off on tangent by using " book" but not "appearance" here. But I think even if I did you would not understand what I meant, either. Lol</p>

<p>Sorry if I seem a bit harsh; I didn't really focus on what you did do well (Your introduction's really good and the general idea is solid).</p>

12

<p>To QuantMech:
First, belly, let me comment that if I had to write in a second or third language (not my native language, which is English), I could not have written an essay that is nearly as good as yours. Your analysis is strong, and you have written some genuinely excellent sentences.</p>

<p>My general advice to you is to write longer essays, but keep the vocabulary somewhat simpler. From what I've read, the CB readers do not seem to require the use of vocabulary at the level that the other sections test. The reason that I suggest that you keep the vocabulary simpler is this: A "high-level" vocabulary word actually gives a negative impression of the writer's skills in English, if it is used imprecisely or incorrectly.</p>

<p>-----> Thanks for giving me useful tips. </p>

<p>So, here's a more detailed analysis of what you've written:</p>

<p>"Can a doctor be a malicious person?" Excellent opening. Truly excellent.</p>

<p>"Can thug mobs fooling around on streets everyday be docile at heart?"
The word "thug" normally connotes violence, so no, almost by definition, they could not be docile at heart. Also, thug is a noun, hardly ever used correctly as an adjective. The words "fooling around" don't go with the word "mob." Mobs could be "milling around" or "gathering," but there's something slightly ominous about a "mob," which makes the choice of "fooling around" a give-away that English is not your native language. "Gangs" might be "fooling around." The word "docile" comes from "doceo," and therefore has the connotation "teachable." I think you want "gentle" or something similar.</p>

<p>----->," but there's something slightly ominous about a "mob," which makes the choice of "fooling around" a give-away that English is not your native language. ". I'm not sure what you meant here. Why not?</p>

<p>Structurally, the contrast you've established by pairing a high-level profession with a character flaw and a low-level occupation with a virtue is excellent! Addressing the issue from both sides in this way is a distinguishing feature of a good essay.</p>

<p>"They can. All the things happen." First short sentence: excellent. Second one: just delete it. You've only given two examples; so "All" is out of place here. You don't need it. "They can" is punchy. The second sentence just weakens it.</p>

<p>----->- WHat I mean in this ( the second) sentence is all the thing can happen. Anybody can be evil, anybody can be docile</p>

<p>"Therefore, an individual's profession cannot define his or her character and morality."
Strong sentence. I personally think that "does not define" would be better than "cannot define" idiomatically, but that's relatively minor.</p>

<p>"If knowledge is spared aside, morality is what still left in each person."
Good thought, expression not so good. Neither abstract nor concrete nouns in English can be "spared aside." What you mean here is "set aside." The phrase "morality is what still left in each person" is not grammatical English.
You could say "morality is what remains in each person." You need a verb in place of the adverb/adjective phrase "still left." It could be "is still left," but that's a bit weak. Also, is it really the case that if you subtract knowledge, what remains is morality? Isn't there anything else left, too?</p>

<p>"People climb on the ladder of promotion chiefly by their knowledge."
In English, people "climb ladders;" they do not "climb on" ladders. Also, most American adults believe that people advance through judgment and skillful risk-taking, rather than knowledge.</p>

<p>"Nixon,a former US president, showed his evil intent vehemently in the Vietnam war."
"President" should be capitalized, even if used in the middle of a sentence. Opinions can be expressed vehemently, but "vehemently" is not normally used in connection with the verb "show." This is an example of a strong vocabulary word that is used in a way that just sounds "off" to a native English speaker. This sentence is a little risky. Although there are very few fans of Richard Nixon around, and still fewer who grade SAT essays, you do run the risk of encountering a Republican. Also, many people who dislike Nixon intensely would not go all the way to calling him "evil" in intent. Furthermore, the US withdrew from Vietnam under the Nixon administration.</p>

<p>"George W Bush, the present one, have left Iraq citizens leave in fear in the meaning less destruction for over four years."
W needs a period after it (unless you are the columnist Molly Ivins, in which case "Dubya" will do). The phrase "the present one" should go. The previous President Bush was George H. W. Bush. If you have to put in an appositive phrase here, "the current President" is much better. Bush is singular, so the next word should be "has," not "have." The citizens of Iraq are "Iraqi citizens," not "Iraq citizens," in English.
The phrase "have left Iraq citizens leave in fear" is a real problem--this is a dead give-away that you do not speak English usually. You want
"have left Iraqi citizens living in fear." Also, people live in "fear of" rather than "fear in" something. The word "meaningless" does not have any space in the middle of it. The "the" in front of "meaningless destruction" does not belong in the sentence. The Iraqis are living in fear of meaningless destruction.</p>

<p>-------> I'm sorry, silly mistakes lol. Good words anyway. But what did you mean by "The word "meaningless" does not have any space in the middle of it."?</p>

<p>"Though both may achieve high IQ scores, they did not attain very high degrees in their moral success."
Ok, this is a problem. If you ask most Americans about the IQ score of George W. Bush, you probably won't get a high number as the answer. (I suspect that it would be underestimated by most, but even so, Bush is not known for his high IQ.) Nixon's IQ would probably be estimated as somewhat higher, but still, he is not known for his penetrating intellect!
More importantly, Americans attach relatively little significance to IQ. It is not viewed as a valid predictor of professional success. Rather than "attain very high degrees," it would be better to have "attain a very high level." The phrase "attain very high degrees" is acceptable as metaphor. However, in the context in which you are writing, the reader is more likely to regard it as an instance of imprecise English than as a metaphor.</p>

<p>-----------------> IQ and EQ I think necessary to demonstrate their leader skills and the abilities to handle work of a country. Perhaps I was wrong here to translate an acceptable idea in my language to English</p>

<p>"Have you ever notice the antagonist in most Western comic books come from an upper position, or at least have a so- called "good job"?"
This is a good sentence. The phrase should be "have you ever noticed" (not "notice"). Also, you normally "notice that" when a clause follows it. You can notice an object (without the "that"), but it there's a whole clause, it needs a "that." The antagonist is singular, so the verb should be "comes" not "come." Similarly, "have" should be "has." The word "upper" should be "upper-level." "Upper" by itself can be used with the word "class," but then it should be "the upper class," not "an upper class."</p>

<p>"The scarecrow, Batman's foe, is a lawyer."
Good. Probably "scarecrow" should be capitalized, though.</p>

<p>"He was not by any means, humble, however."
Hmm. The use of "however" suggests that one would expect a lawyer to be humble. Not in the US!</p>

<p>"Instead, he stood up against Batman- the vigilante of Gotham and finally be beaten by our protagonist."
Normally, the phrase "stood up" is used with a favorable connotation. One stands up against oppression. But one doesn't think of the "bad guy" as "standing up against" the "good guy." "Opposed" would be better here. Then, in the second part of the sentence, you need the simple past tense. It should read "finally was beaten" not "finally be beaten." There's a slight problem that you shift from active to passive verbs.</p>

<p>-----------> Thanks</p>

<p>"Lawyers, doctors, football players or even drivers and sweepers, all can be complacent or kind at heart."
This sentence calls for a contrast at the end. The phrase "kind at heart" is great. The word "complacent" suggests that someone is satisfied with the "staus quo," but it's not really the opposite of "kind at heart." You want a word with a touch of villainy.</p>

<p>-------> So what's your suggestion?</p>

<p>"That is why we have the word "snob" in the English language to insinuate pretentious folks."
The thought here is excellent.
The execution is not so good.
One "insinuates that" something is true. "Insinuate" means "implies," usually with a negative or malicious connotation. This is another instance of a great vocabulary word being misused in a way that hurts your essay.</p>

<p>------> OK</p>

<p>"To encapsulate, profession can only define a person's knowledge yet fail to do so with virtue. This holds true through history, animation, movies and almost every aspect that reflects the nature of society. There is no book to judge, especially on the spiritual side."
The word "encapsulate" requires an object. You could say "To summarize," but you don't actually need to use such a phrase at all. The word "profession" needs to be "a profession."
You should omit "only," if you are following the phrase with "yet fail." The sentence would be stronger if you repeated "define" rather than shifting to "to do so"
The word "through" should be "throughout." "Animation" usually refers to cartoons. What did you have in mind? Perhaps "literature" should be on your list. The word "aspect" is not quite right here. "Element" would be better, I think. Your concluding sentence is strong, but it needs to be made a little more precise. The entire essay is about judging based on a person's profession. The word "book" is out of place. It would be better to restate your thesis in a different way.</p>

<p>--------> Yeah, animation is one of the various elements that reflect life. But I don't know why "element" is better than "aspect" here?</p>

<p>I realize that this is a very lengthy post! But I thought that the detailed commentary might be of use to you. Hope it helps!</p>

<p>---------->(Last sentence) it does. Thanks a bunch</p>

13

<p>I'll reply in more detail later, but here is a quick comment: It is perfectly acceptable for you to refer to the literature of your own country in the essay, even if the authors and their books are largely unknown in the US. In fact, it would be a definite advantage!</p>

<p>After the essay-scorers have read the 37,685th essay that refers to The Scarlet Letter and The Great Gatsby, they will welcome the change! Most educated Americans are quite interested in the literature of foreign countries, so they would enjoy the material in your essay that is new to them. In the essay, you could provide the relevant background information about the characters and plot of the book(s), to make the connection to the essay topic clearer for the reader. In case you do not know this, the scorers of SAT essays are not supposed to consider the accuracy of facts in the essay (odd, but true). So, the scorers do not need to be familiar with the example you cite, because they do not need to evaluate your comments for accuracy, just for writing quality.</p>

<p>Also, I'd advise you to stay away from adages in English. The one about the book normally goes, "You can't judge a book by its cover." Here's the problem: The adage might sound fresh to you, because you haven't heard it thousands of times. (I enjoy adages in the foreign languages I know, because they are new to me.) But, to the scorers, the adages will seem trite and over-used. They won't be of any benefit. If there is an adage in your own country that does not have a common English counterpart, that's in an entirely different category, and it would be a definite plus to use it, translated.</p>

14

<p>"All the things happen."
---------------> WHat I mean in this sentence is all the thing can happen. Anybody can be evil, anybody can be docile</p>

<p>In English, this would usually be phrased as, "Anything can happen."</p>

<p>---------------> I didn't choose Johnson because I didn't know who he is. With Bush's "leaving Iraqi citizen leaving in fear", I demonstrate the "evil intent" of him (same as Nixon). I don't know why you did not know why I wrote that (In my language that sentence could be understood, so maybe I'm wrong here)</p>

<p>Lyndon Johnson was the American president who first sent American troops to Viet Nam. </p>

<p>I think the sentence may be the result of a spelling error: "leaving Iraq's citizens living in fear" makes sense in English. </p>

<p>My question is: do we measure who is evil based on what they intended to do, or based on what they did do?</p>

<p>For example, if a man takes a small child to the circus, hoping that the child will have a day of fun, and an animal gets loose and kills the child, was the man's action evil? If the outcome of an act makes it evil, then the man's action is evil. If the intended outcome of an act makes it evil, then the man's action is not evil. Alternately, suppose a woman decides she wants to be a murderer, buys a gun, picks a man at random, and shoots him but doesn't kill him. Suppose that the man hadn't been paying attention and was about to walk into the path of a truck, which would certainly have resulted in his immediate death, but the one thing that stopped him was the would-be murderer's act. Is the woman's act evil? If we judge the act based on her intent, then it was evil; but if we judge it based on the outcome, we note that she has saved the man's life, and so her shooting him was good.</p>

<p>You have two examples. In one, you focus on evil intent. In the other, you focus on an evil outcome. It's a short essay and I wouldn't expect you to be held responsible for this on the test itself. But it makes it a bit unclear what you think makes an act (or a person) evil: the intent to do evil, or the outcome of evil.</p>

<p>---> IQ and EQ I think necessary to demonstrate their leader skills and the abilities to handle work of a country. Perhaps I was wrong here to translate an acceptable idea in my language to English</p>

<p>Maybe. </p>

<p>---> I don't understand what you mean here :"Until here, you've focused mainly on the idea that people with a lot of knowledge may not have a lot of virtue.". I don't remember mention it. But I wanted to say that everyone could be complacent, or could be kind. Therefore we cannot define one's morality by looking into their job. Perhaps I went off on a tangent with the last sentence</p>

<p>Actually, I might go back and start bringing this idea in in the previous section: am I correct that Bruce Wayne himself is a rich and successful man? (I'm just going to confess here: I've seen some of the episodes of the old live-action TV show, and that's about it.)</p>

<p>-----------> I don't understand what you mean here, either</p>

<p>It was clear to me that you were saying that people's intelligence, their knowledge, and their success in life don't determine whether or not they are moral people. But all your examples are about well-educated successful people who do evil. At first I was saying that maybe you should include an example of someone isn't well-educated and successful and/or doesn't do evil.</p>

<p>But then it occurred to me that Bruce Wayne (Batman's alter ego) is a rich and successful man, at least in the TV show I've seen. But he's also a good man. So maybe you could just expand the Batman example to show that it includes successful men who do evil <em>and</em> successful men who do good.</p>

<p>Again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean in the last sentence, but I think the rest of this paragraph is great. It says exactly what you've been arguing for.</p>

<p>------------------> I based the last sentence upon the old adage" You cannot judge a book by his appearance". I was, perhaps, going off on tangent by using " book" but not "appearance" here. But I think even if I did you would not understand what I meant, either. Lol</p>

<p>The English version of that adage (or at least the American English version) is "You can't judge a book by its cover." I think I might have done better if you'd stuck "cover" in there. :) I hope so. Of course, I'd like to think I would have figured it out the way it was.</p>

<p>Thank you for your graciousness in responding to everyone.</p>