<p>the prompt: Can success be disastrous? (i write out the whole prompt if you guys need it)</p>
<p>Human's intrinsic behavior includes the need to propel themselves toward the achievement of a goal. Later claiming their achievement as success. However the same can not hold true for all people. The idea of success is a subjective term which can mean multiple things for different people. In this case success can be disastrous and actually a failure.
Take for example Abraham Lincoln's "victory" which he claimed as a success. Midway through the Civil War the Union's premptive strikes proved successful for Lincoln. However Lincoln claimed that subjugating slavery to a limited area as a sucess. However this proved disastrous for Lincoln, soon Lincoln's success turned its back on him. Lincoln advocated end of slavery yet when he successfully claimed slavery land he reached a dilemma. At this point Lincoln's sucess was early issued thus he had to drawback. This not only proves sucess as disastrous at times, but also undefined goals as disastrous.
The same concept is also present when Britain sat on its sucess of the world's greatest nation during colonial times. The kingdom of Britain measured their sucess by how many colonies they produce. British became so sucessful that the popular phrase was coined that "the sun never sets in Britain" which implies the expansion of the Britain empire. However like all great endeavors Britains sucess was short lived. The colonies rebelled which raised a frenzy among the British. Wars broke out and the British drewback and their sucess was a disastrous. Not only did Britain became the musted hated nation, but Britain also lost much of its control.
Sucess turning into disastrous events is a theme which is also present in Charles Dickinson's Great Expectations. In the novel the central character Pip at first achieves no sucess however with a stroke of luck Pip achieves much sucess which is met with confusion. Pip yearning for sucess once achieved realized the price he had to pay. Pip had placed scuess above his family. Thus at the end of it all Pip's sucess was just a faliure.
In the case of Abraham Lincoln, Britain, and Pip sucess turned out to be disastrous events. Abraham Lincoln's early civil war victories were devastating for his idealogy on slavery. Britain's expansion once gave them power had the reverse effect once lost. Also Pip's sucess is shortlived once he realized the significance of family. In all these cases sucess was actually a faliure. </p>
<p>Can you guys plz leave some feedback. And also the grammar mistakes are left as i wrote it. thanks for the feedback.</p>
<p>From a "12" scorer here is my honest advice:</p>
<p>Your passage sounds forced and awkward. Some of your diction (the "fancier" words) detracts from the fluency. Try working on making your response flow better; also, make sure to proofread your grammar.</p>
<p>There's a lot of grammar and basic writing problems in here. it almost seems as if you wrote this shorthand, notes-style, rather than essay-style. You need to form more coherent sentences as a first step to raising your score. probably a 7/12ish right now, but I think it's better than a 7 content-wise.</p>
<p>My advice: don't make it awkward with all those fancy words. It makes your intro confusing and boring. A boring intro will make the readers speed through your essay.</p>
<p>Ok so less fancy words? u guys are tough u guys give me a 7. I wrote same essay at SAT prep and grader gave me a 5-. which basically means 9-10.</p>
<p>So if i had less grammar mistakes and better flow? I would score 10+</p>
<p>Free choice is a relatively new form of idea which has gained more popularity as education among people has increased. The freedom of choice is a right many countries have worked hard to gain, however today remote parts of the world still struggles with the idea of free choice. Human nature calls for the freedom to choose, all human societies have some form of free choice. The rules of society are not made to restrict free choice but rather to regulate it.
Free choice is not only a relatively new form of idea but also relatively applied. As the popular saying goes "Your freedom ends where my nose starts" the statement applies that even though humans are granted freedom of choice they are regulated b rules and laws. Not just rules and laws of society but also personal moral help regulate the degree of freedom. However to say there is no such thing as free choice is incorrect because it does exist.<br>
Freedom of choice can not be bound by the rules of society. In essence the rules of society are based on human morals. For example when United States first attempted to pass censorship law restricting the freedom of media. The law was not met with an outcry but rather acceptance because of laws sound arguments are based on human morals.
The human mind decides the extent of freedom and where it stops, thus people do free choice. Another example would be recent attempt of Turkey to band religious symbols. The law Turkey was attempting to pass was fiercely opposed by the global community. Here freedom of choice transcends the law of society. Freedom of choice given to the people of Turkey is a right of every thinking mind. The ability to think is the first form of free choice. Thoughts and opinions can not be restricted and the people of Turkey did not let the government pass the law.
Freedom of choice is in the nature of every thinking mind. As i write I have the freedom to choose what to write. All works of art justify the freedom of the human mind. Novels, poems, play, and short stories all exhibit the natural process of free choice regulated by morals. In the same train of thought United Sates law of censorship and Turkey's attempt to from law where both influence by human morals. Thus free choice thus exist.</p>
<p>I'd answer the prompt right off the bat in your introduction, rather than introducing a variety of very complex concepts that aren't directly related--then shoe-horning in your answer at the end of the first paragraph.</p>
<p>You are obviously a bright person---as mentioned, I'd try to simplify and go for clarity and strength of organization. </p>
<p>Good luck!</p>
<p>Edit--I was referencing your first essay. :-)</p>
<p>Hi, Jinks,
I guess I just had trouble understanding the first few sentences. And (sorry) they seemed self-contradictory (humans instrisically move toward achievement of a goal...but the same is not true for all people -- does that mean that all don't drive toward goals? Or, the goals are different? It's a little confusing.). Maybe the confusion arises because the second sentence is not a grammatically complete sentence.</p>
<p>Your juggling some big ideas here. I just wouldn't sacrifice clarity for the injection of complex concepts. </p>
<p>I think it's a redundent to mention your examples in your intro (it's a short essay), however. I'd just make sure your intro is clear, grammatically accurate and answers the question. You don't want to confuse anyone at the get-go. Best of luck.</p>