Please grade this essay out of 6

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Our cherished notions of what is equal and what is fair frequently conflict. Democracy presumes that we are all created equal; competition proves we are not, or else every contest would end in a tie. We talk about a level playing field, but it is difficult to make conditions equal for everyone without being unfair to some.</p>

<p>Assignment: Is it possible for a society to be fair to everyone?</p>

<p>Although, it could be said that a society should practise democracy to the fullest, it is easier said than done. It is not possible for a society to be fair to everyone because different people have their own views on what is fair and what is not. Various examples from literary works and life experiences support this fact.</p>

<p>In George Orwell's "1984", the actions of the society towards the people and their views pertaining to this shows that it is quite impossible for a society to be fair to everyone. In the novel, only those that were part if the inner party benefited from luxuries such as good wine, chocolate, and coffee to name a few while those in the outer party were deprived of such luxuries. However, because the society had used the concept of 'double think' to brainwash them, they never found any fault with Big Brother, the society or the way they were treated. This shows that is rather impossible for there to be complete fairness in a society but it also depends on what the society views as fair.</p>

<p>The next case that proves that a society cannot be fair to everyone is shown through the leadership of Ralph in William Golding's "Lord of the Flies". When Ralph was elected the leader by the stranded boys on the island, he was able to lead them in the right direction by constantly reminding them what was most important: to keep the fire burning on the mountain so that that they could be rescued. Although this was the right thing to do, some of the other boys especially Jack thought that it was unfair that Ralph never let them have fun and hunt all day. This was why the boys split up and everything went downhill from there. From the murder of Simon and Piggy to the setting of the island on fire. This story also supports the simple truth that it is impossible for a society to be fair to everyone because no one is ever truly satisfied.</p>

<p>Likewise, a decision made by everyone in my class to go for extra physics lessons with the teacher also proves this truth. In order for us to complete our curriculum in physics, my class decided to schedule extra lessons with the teacher. We finally agreed on a date and time but not everyone was available at that particular time - like me-because we had other extra curricular activities to do. Unfortunately, the decision was already made despite our protests but there was nothing we could do; the majority had won. In the end, we missed the class which would have been otherwise beneficial to us. I knew from then on how impossible it was for a society to be fair to everyone. </p>

<p>To summarise, these three instances have shown that it is indeed impossible for there to be complete democracy. People will never be fully satisfied with any decision made because everyone has their separate opinions on all matters.</p>

<p>**I know i repeated the phrase 'impossible for a society to be fair to everyone' but I was trying to think of a way to rephrase but I couldn't and time was running out so I just had to write it like that. Could you also give me other examples I could have used instead of these ones and how I could have made my conclusion stronger because I didn't know what else to write? Could you also explain what my mistakes were and how I could prevent them next time? I would really appreciate it. Thank you.</p>

2

<p>???</p>

3

<p>I would probably rate this a 5 or a 6 depending on the grader. So expect a 10 or a 11.</p>

4

<p>Thank you independentstudy. Does anyone have any other opinions, critics, suggestions??</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>Why would you want to “rephrase” something you’ve already said?</p>

6

<p>I would give it a 10/12</p>

7

<p>jkjeremy because I thought that its not advisable to use a word or phrase too much in an essay. Is that wrong?</p>

8

<p>I don’t know what I would give it over 12, but I would say this:
The examples you gave are not so strong and concrete. They do not respond fully to the question. All your examples seem to indicate that there is a lack of fairness and justice in society sometimes, but they disregard the keyword “possibility”. Sure, we all know society is unfair, but is it possible for it to be fair? Better examples would’ve been those that began with an attempt to make society fair, but failed. Given the paucity of examples that could answer this question fully, I’d suggest you’d be fine with only 2 examples. E.g Napoleon, who at first revolted in support of democracy and with the aim of establishing equality (equal amounts of food for all animals), ended up enforcing a despotic rule tainted by government corruption. Another example: pioneers of America who envisioned liberty/equality to all were racist (3/5 compromise).
It is inevitable that society is malevolent in some respects, in my opinion.</p>

9

<p>Superficially your format is fine. It presents as an essay with solid length with literary references. </p>

<p>I do have a lot of problems with the logic though. I am not sure if you ever really figured out what your position was, and I thought the 2 sentences the CB gave as background for the question gave a lot more philosophical illumination that you did in the 5 paragraphs. </p>

<p>Your opening takes the position that its not possible for society to be fair because there is no consensus definition of what we mean by fairness. That’s an ok position to adopt (the other being that even under a common definition its not possible to be “fair” because of variations of people’s abilities and circumstances), but I dont really see your examples trying to defend that position. </p>

<p>You note that in “1984” all the perquisites went to the Inner Party. Was anyone really saying that was “fair”? It was more the case that the Inner Party enjoyed it and everyone else was brainwashed into obeying the status quo. There was no conflict in the definition of fairness. Your LotF examples has a similar defect- the dispute in leadership was over the correct strategy, not the definition of fairness. </p>

<p>When you schedule the supplementary physic classes is a good example (in general) but would needed more work given your thesis. As far as I can gather everyone thought that “fair” was to agree by majority on an off hour time. The fact that you had a conflict didnt change that metric. Maybe your could have said something like “everyone tacitly thought that what was fair was that the class should be scheduled for what was most convenient to <em>them</em>”. Then you have delineated a conflict. </p>

<p>I also have a quibble about ‘Democracy’. Democracy is just a method of establishing group decisions- people decide among a group of alternatives by a majority vote. When you say “these three instances have shown that it is indeed impossible for there to be complete democracy” it falls completely flat for me. Lets suppose you had proven your point about different types of ‘fairness’; how does that invalidate a majority vote on, say, building a canal? There is noting broken about determining who has the majority. </p>

<p>You had asked about different examples you could use, and I think CB gave you a big hint. A lot of society’s rewards go to the big, strong and handsome, and some members are just congenitally not going to be that and are hence barred for many positions of fame and wealth. </p>

<p>For a more concrete example related to Democracy, consider the inherent physical differences impinge on democratic selection. The 1960 election between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon was very close and was commonly assumed to have turned on a single debate that was both televised and broadcast on radio. Nixon was the more cerebral candidate and was assumed by the radio listeners to have won the debate. Kennedy was taller, younger and better looking and was assumed by the tv watchers to have won the debate. How do you level that playing field? Its not fair to Kennedy to take away his good looks and its not fair to Nixon to limit his ability to make the more intellectual points without visual distractions introduced by tv cameras panning around.</p>