Please score, Really quickly, I'm taking the Actual one tomorrow so PLz

Test Preparation
1

<p>Prompt: Do we need knowledge of the past to fully understand the present?</p>

<p>As the old adage goes, "those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it." The past is more than just a part of an identity. It is an encyclopedia. Knowing the past offers valuble insight on what road is best taken and what is not a good option. The past has already been analyzed and the best solution has already been selected. Why should one reanalyze the same situation when it occurs in the present. Other times, events of the present are repurcussions of the events of the past, and knowing the reasons of the past will elucidate one's mind about the present. Thus knowledge of the past is imperative to understand the present. </p>

<p>Consider the life of Harrison Webster in the novel "Is This Why?" Harrison was an arsonophobic. For years, Harrison lived a secluded life, without the comfort of a wife, family or friends. He would become deranged at even the slightest sight of fire. Thus, Webster's doctor, Mr. Davis, took it upon himself to figure out why Mr. Webster was a recluse. After years of therapy, Dr. Davis, along with the help of other therapists, was able to elicit why Webster could never be gregarious. Webster's father, as an act of good deed, brings home a poor man on the brink of death. Webster's parents provide him shelter and treat him as their own. The man does odd jobs around the house like a servant. One day the man betrays the family, without any feeling of gratitude. He pilfers as much as he can and sets the house, along with webster's parents, on fire. Since then, Webster had never been able to bring himself to trust anyone. With this new found information, Webster's doctors were slowly able to rehabilitate him by building trust and rapport. They assured him, that they are not the same man that betrayed his family. Thus in due time, Webster surrounded himself with friends and family lived a happy life. </p>

<p>Therefore, knowledge of the past is paramount in understanding the present. The past has been analyzed and our job is made easier, for we just have to apply it. The past also clarifies the reasons of the events of the present. Webster would have never recieved help had his doctors not found out about his child hood trauma. A person's past can speak volumes of his charater.</p>

2

<p>Grammatically, the essay is fine. However, there’s little insight. In fact, the essay reads like a very brief synopsis of the novel (but the thesis looks good). For this reason, I’d grade it an 8 (3/4 or 4/4).
But, of course, we all know you did not write the essay, as inferior as it is. How do we know this? because while the essay is punctually correct, your introductory thread title on this forum has capitalization errors all over the place! Therefore, you did not write the essay. And even if you did (after having sent it through MS Word to correct grammatical/punctuation errors), you did not abide by the 20-minute rule.
I sense fraud here. If you want to do well on the SAT essay, then quit trying to impress, and start learning to write these essays quickly and correctly! You only get one chance on the SAT.</p>

3

<p>Actually i really did write the essay and no I did not use any electronic or oustide help to correct my essay. But your are write, i didn’t abide by the 20 min rule, i abided by the 25 min rule. Your are wrong that i used fraud, because that grammer was a result of my knowledge. The title has errors, because it is not a matter of interest to me, only something to attract the interests of people like you, who have “kindly” offered insight. But it would have been better if you explained how I was lacking in insight, but I will take what I can get.</p>

4

<p>This essay’s pretty bomb for 25 mins. But subjectivity plays a huge role so you’re either getting full marks or maybe -1</p>