<p>Hey, as the topic says... tear this essay apart. Since this is the first essay i've written in quite a while, tell me about any mistake(s) that i've made. Thanks.</p>
<p>Prompt:
While some people promote competition as the only way to achieve success, others emphasize the power of cooperation.</p>
<p>Assignment: Do people achieve more success by cooperation than by competition?</p>
<p>I believe that people achieve more success by competition. Competition and rivalry spur one to do the best he can. Although cooperation also helps people on towards achieving their goals, often people have differing goals and ambitions. Hence, success for one might mean failure for another.</p>
<p>I have first-hand experience of how competition helps one to succeed. During my first year of high school, I was the best student in my class and always had the highest marks. But when I took the end of year exams, I ended up getting 4 As and 2 Bs. Even then I had the best result. But in the sophomore year, a new student transferred to our class who had been the valedictorian at her previous school. The new competition spurred me into studying harder. That year my test grades were much higher than those I had gotten last year. When I took the end of year exam, I ended up getting St. As. The new student also got similar grades. This shows the value of rivalry. Eager to retain my status as the best student in class, I put in a lot of hard work. Competition provided me the motivation of being the best I could.</p>
<p>On a much larger scale, we can see the examples of India and Pakistan. Both countries are neighbours and declared enemies of each other. To shift the balance of power in South Asia in their favour, both these countries put a lot of money and effort into acquiring state of the art weaponry. When India started work on her nuclear capabilities, Pakistan did too. The end result of all this has been that both countries are among the few nuclear powers in the world. Their armies are among the largest in the world and are capable of self-defence against almost any country in the world. This drive for the upper hand in the balance of power was what enabled these countries to have such military capabilities. </p>
<p>Ill conclude by saying that while cooperation is also beneficial, it doesnt provide enough motivation to succeed.</p>
<p>I believe that people achieve more success by competition. Competition and rivalry spur one to do the best ONE can. Although cooperation also helps people ACHIEVE their goals, people OFTEN have differing goals and ambitions. Hence, success for one might mean failure for another.</p>
<p>I have first-hand experience of how competition helps one to succeed. During my first year of high school, I was the best student in my class and always had the highest marks. But when I took the end of year exams, I ended up getting 4 A’s and 2 B’s. Even then I had the best results. But in my sophomore year, a new student transferred to our class who had been the valedictorian at her previous school. The new competition spurred me into studying harder. That year my test grades were much higher than those I had gotten last year. When I took the end of year exam, I ended up getting St. A’s. The new student also got similar grades. This shows the value of rivalry. Eager to retain my status as the best student in class, I put in a lot of hard work. Competition provided me WITH the motivation TO BE the best I could.</p>
<p>On a much larger scale, we can see the examples of India and Pakistan. Both countries are neighbours and declared enemies of each other. To shift the balance of power in South Asia in their favour, both these countries put a lot of money and effort into acquiring state of the art weaponry. When India started work on her nuclear capabilities, Pakistan did too. The end result of all this has been that both countries are among the few nuclear powers in the world. Their armies are among the largest in the world and are capable of self-defence against almost any country in the world. This drive for the upper hand in the balance of power was what enabled these countries to have such military capabilities. </p>
<p>I’ll conclude by saying that while cooperation is also beneficial, it doesn’t provide enough motivation to succeed.</p>
<p>You have alot of grammatical errors which I've changed around a bit with CAPS. I feel that you're topics were a bit eh, they could've been better. More historical or factual or from books. </p>
<p>I would give it an 8</p>
<p>And try to make your conclusion longer and a bit more stronger. End it strong!</p>
<p>As xdaaaaan points out, you're using a more casual, conversational style of writing than is expected in academic discussions. Your writing could also be a lot tighter. Since xdaaaaan didn't touch your third paragraph, I'll show you how I would probably edit it (I'm not saying that you ought to adopt the same style of writing I did):</p>
<p>"On a larger scale, consider India and Pakistan. The two countries are neighbours and declared enemies. Both acquired state-of-the-art weaponry in order to shift the balance of power in South Asia in their favor. When India began to develop nuclear capability, Pakistan did too. The end result is that both countries are among the few nuclear powers in the world. They have two of the largest armies in the world and could repel almost any invader. Mutual competition has produced defensive excellence."</p>
<p>I'm not sure why, after stating your conclusion, your first paragraph veers off into an acknowledgement of people having different goals. Does the fact that different people have different goals support your argument that people achieve more using competition than cooperation? How?</p>
<p>In your second paragraph, I assume that "St. A's" is an abbreviation for "straight As" but I've never encountered it before. Is it a common abbreviation that I've missed, or is it something that should be spelled out?</p>
<p>Your conclusion isn't a conclusion: it's an assertion for which you haven't provided any evidence. How do you know that cooperation doesn't provide enough motivation? You've hinted at it in your second paragraph: without the competition of the new student in your freshman year, you did not do as well as you did with the competition, but you didn't really have cooperation as an alternative. What do you think would have happened if you'd gone to her and said, "Let's work hard together and not only be the top 2 students in our grade, but also the best students in the whole school," or the whole county, or the whole state? Can you think of any other examples of times that you have cooperated with other students rather than competing against them? Were you willing to stop and call something "good enough" even though, in a competitive situation, you would have pushed on and achieved more? On the other hand, have you ever done better in a cooperative effort because someone else helped you with the bits that were hardest for you, and you helped other people with the bits that were easiest for you?</p>