Score my SAT essay?

Test Preparation
1

<p>I was wondering what my essay would probably get on the sat. If anyone could try to score and give feedback that would be great! i would gladly try to help if anyone wants me to read their essay too. the prompt is: Is there any value for people to belong only to a group or groups with which they have something in common?</p>

<pre><code> People should not solely belong to coteries in which everyone has something in common. While ostensibly, having things in common within a group would bring harmony, it actually would be detrimental and cause the members to become insular. Opposing views are crucial to maintain balance in a group. Belligerent groups in World War II exhibit the danger of having groups in which the members all have something in common.
During World War II, many parties experienced groupthink. Groupthink occurs in a group of people who share the same views and see only one side of a situation. Any deviation from the group's accepted ideas would be take as disloyalty and a disruption of the group's harmony. This became an issue during the fog of war when many people forgot their morals and committed atrocities. When the United States was affected by group think, the people who dealt with military mattes dropped two devistating atomic bombs on Japan. The result of the groups unanimous desire to win the war was a travesty for hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. Since everyone in the group agreed that drastic measures could be taken if needed to win the war, there were no checks to the action, and the results were deleterious.
Multiple views should be offered in a group to provide checks and balances, and people should not only belong to groups in which all members agree. The tragic results of groupthink show that opposition is needed to maintain balance. With some disagreement, the world can exist in harmony
</code></pre>

2

<p>"People should not solely belong to coteries in which everyone has something in common. (‘something’? As written, you are suggesting they should have nothing in common. The same is true of your use of ‘things’ in the next sentence.) While ostensibly, having things in common within a group would bring harmony, it actually would be detrimental and cause the members to become insular. Opposing views are crucial to maintain balance in a group. Belligerent groups in World War II exhibit the danger of having groups in which the members all have something in common.</p>

<p>Vocab is generally above average, but the use of ‘belligerent’ and ‘insular’, while actually correct, requires the reader to pause to resolve ambiguity caused by a lack of further, more specific information about your intended meaning. (The members become insular among themselves, or the group to which they belong becomes insular within the larger society?) Also, in the next paragraph, ‘travesty’ should be ‘tragedy’. I also noted above the problem with your use of over-generalized words like ‘something’ and ‘things’.</p>

<p>Look again at your opening paragraph. Can you see how you have overstated your case? Must there not be something that they all have in common? Otherwise, how can they be considered to be a group?</p>

<p>During World War II, many parties experienced groupthink. Groupthink occurs in a group of people who share the same views and see only one side of a situation. Any deviation from the group’s accepted ideas would be take as disloyalty and a disruption of the group’s harmony. (Good point and a good job of defining an important term for the reader.)</p>

<p>This became an issue during the fog of war when many people forgot their morals and committed atrocities. When the United States was affected by group think, the people who dealt with military mattes dropped two devistating atomic bombs on Japan. The result of the groups unanimous desire to win the war was a travesty for hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. Since everyone in the group agreed that drastic measures could be taken if needed to win the war, there were no checks to the action, and the results were deleterious.</p>

<p>(‘Deleterious’ is an understatement.) (The example is adequate to support your main point, which is a significant one. However, there are also some places where your reasoning is incomplete. “The result of the groups unanimous desire to win the war…” Are you suggesting some of these military people should have wanted to lose the war?..“Since everyone in the group agreed that drastic measures could be taken (,)if needed (,)to win the war, …” Pretty much any measures taken to win a war are drastic. That is the nature of war. </p>

<p>I hope you can see that my issue is not with the major point that you made, but with the rather superficial analysis of the situation which constitutes your support for that point. This supporting development of ideas is especially important because your essay relies on the single example to illustrate your thesis.</p>

<p>“Multiple views should be offered in a group to provide checks and balances, and people should not only belong to groups in which all members agree. (About all issues.) The tragic results of groupthink show that opposition is needed to maintain balance. With some (!!!) disagreement, the world can exist in harmony.” </p>

<p>Actually, your conclusion has merit. It summarizes the major point, ties it to your example and extends your thesis. These are the elements of an above average conclusion. Going further, though, how does a group reach agreement if there seems to be nothing about which every member thinks the same thing? …(I’m not saying that it cannot be done; I’m saying that your essay would have been more complete if you had dealt with the issue. )</p>

<p>Your essay would score a 4. If the use of your vocabulary were a bit less vague and ambiguous on the occasions I noted, and the development of your thesis were extended by further reasoning into the points you made, you would be well on your way toward a 5.</p>

3

<p>that was really helpful thank you!</p>

4

<p>Hey, I was wondering if anyone could grade by SAT essay. I am practicing for the SAT in May and I want to see what kind of score I am hitting right now. I am willing to do anything back to get a reply or score. </p>

<p><em>Prompt: Sometimes it is necessary to challenge what people in authority claim to be true. Although some respect for authority is, no doubt, necessary in order for any group or organization to function, questioning the people in charge - even if they are experts or leaders in their fields - makes us better thinkers. It forces all concerned the defend old ideas and decisions and to consider new ones. Sometimes it can even correct old errors in thought and put an end to wrong actions.
Assignment: Is it important to question the ideas and decisions of people in authority?</em></p>

<p>Essay:</p>

<p>Freedom! How often art thou taken for granted! How often art thy shackles shattered in vain!
Our authorities may be the people we put in charge and the very citizens we delegate tasks to, but these figures of authority are solely figureheads that we, as people of the democratic United States of America, put in control. Thus, it is not only suggested but compulsory to question the ideas and decisions of people in authoritarian positions so that not only are our best interests represented through the process, but over-reaching government procedures can be curbed and rectified through the process as well.
Time and time again, the maxim “Don’t tread on me” has exemplified its virtue by the annals of history. During the planning of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, President John F. Kennedy vehemently supported his gung-ho plan of invading Cuba to stop a communist missile threat imposed by the Soviet Union. It was a day that was to go into infamy; the day the Bay of Pigs invasion failed. Later, members of Kennedy’s chief of staff and administration went on the record saying that they vehemently believed that the Bay of Pigs invasion was a bad idea. Even Robert Kennedy, the President’s brother and then-senator of Massachusetts, stated that he detested the “failure of a mission” ever since its conceptual origins. Yet, in 1961 the aides of the President showed consensus and validated the President’s soon-to-be botched plan.
It is evident from the aforementioned case that the Kennedy administration fell prey to the error of groupthink [sic], a psychological phenomenon which exemplifies a group following an authority figure simply to obey and not prolong a process, even if the cause were to cause cognitive dissonance. If at least one man, a single man, had stood up and raised his doubts about the poorly-planned invasion, other people would have been more likely to step into the conversation and possible expose some of the other flaws in the President’s planning. Instead, authority was not questioned, causing a reaction of two-fold consequences. In this case, the administration’s best interests were not represented in a democratic setting and an improper decision was made among the authorities. In such a situation, the only logical result would be a trickle-down of negative consequences with dire implications, much like the tense Cold War aftermath of the Bay of Pigs invasion itself.
As Americas, we live in a democracy that puts an emphatic focus on the primacy of the people. By questioning authority and taking on an active political stance, we can not only ensure that our best interests are represented but also that we fulfill our responsibility of ensuring the progress of our democratic country.</p>

<p>What score do you think it will get? This is my essay, as is.</p>