<p>I'm curious to know the relevance of the passage that they always give you before the question. The overall message of the passage was that we are losing civility in society, but that people who want change must risk violating politeness. The prompt simply asked whether there was ever necessity to be impolite. </p>
<p>Though I usually don't do this, I framed my argument against the passage. It began like this:</p>
<p>Intro
1. Liberalism certainly overrules "old-fashioned" politeness, but certain standards are always maintained
2. While liberalism is an strong movement, it has been demonstrated that success in reform is not exclusive to civility.</p>
<p>Body
1. Reform requires a large body of followers
2. Alienation of the opposition through uncivil acts is weaker than the power of society's sentiment
3. Reference Gandi, Martin Luther as examples of those who maintained both success and civility
4. Suggested that by learning from those people, it becomes apparent that you can achieve success while maintaining said civility</p>
<p>Conclusion
One must support and respect the liberal movement, but it has been proven that there is never any necessity to violate society's standards. </p>
<p>The overall word choice was good and I'd consider the essay to be very fluid. The length was slightly short for my standards, over a page, but not at the 1 3/4+ I shoot for. My main question is, will they dock me for relevance? The essay focuses more upon the power of civility in reform, not necessarily the common definition of "politeness"</p>