<p>This response will focus on your arguments and, more specifically, the way you present them.</p>
<p>SAT scorers are not supposed to debate the writers of essays. That said, the quality of the arguments, especially whether or not they are clearly and coherently expressed, logically consistent and adequately supported with facts, examples and reasons are all points that will be scored. As part of that score, the depth of insight and analysis of the topic is important. Test takers are expected to demonstrate the ability to analyze the prompt and to make mature and educated comments about it. (Again, whether or not the scorer actually agrees with those comments is irrelevant.)</p>
<p>This, I think, is where your essay has problems. In general, you write in almost absolute terms that repeating actions that have worked in the past cannot lead to success “for all but a few (never named) cases.”. </p>
<p>I understand your point is that innovation and progress require original ideas stemming from creative thinking. But in your haste to write, you seem not to have checked to see whether that was actually the idea you were conveying to your reader. It seems to me that you knew what you were trying to say, but you were leaving it up to your reader to make the logical connections between ideas and the inferences that tie your actual statements to your intended meanings.</p>
<p>An example:</p>
<p>“It is often said that the definition of insanity is to repeat the same thing, expecting different results. This definition, for all but a few cases, is spot-on accurate.” (Actually, it’s not; it’s a platitude.)</p>
<p>“We can, in fact, reverse the definition in the contest (sic) of achieving success.” </p>
<p>This is not an effective statement of the idea you are trying to express. What you are trying to do is to introduce a different definition, the definition of ‘success’. Besides, what does ‘reverse the definition’ mean? Does it mean you want me to stop reading, go back to the first sentence, and reread it in reverse order? In order to understand your idea, that’s exactly what I have to do. (So much for the smooth flow of ideas in your essay.) And I must do it “in the context of achieving success”. Exactly how do I do that? I can reread your definition of insanity backwards just fine as it is, but how do I do it “in the context of success”?</p>
<p>“One cannot hope to use similar techniques when facing different problems of vastly varied scope, but one must apply logic and critical thinking to adapt to a changing world and the issues it raises.”</p>
<p>This is a bit of an overstatement. I cannot even ‘hope’ to use similar techniques? And what do you mean by ‘similar’ techniques. Similar to what? You haven’t mentioned any techniques at all up to now, so what techniques are the techniques I cannot hope to use similar to? And finally, I understand your statement applies to those occasions when I am facing “different problems of vastly varied scope”, but even on the edges of human experience, either in space or at the bottom of the ocean or in the microcosmic world of bacteria, don’t scientists use, at least on the analytical level, similar scientific techniques? Aren’t the logic and critical thinking you mention ‘techniques’? Isn’t that called the ‘scientific method’? Is that what we cannot even hope to use?</p>
<p>At this point it may look as if I am starting to debate you, and essay scorers aren’t supposed to do that. But I think I am pointing out a contradiction in your logic, more so at least than contradicting your point of view. The terms ‘logic’ and ‘critical thinking’ have definitions that place them in the category of cognitive ‘techniques’. To say that one cannot use the same techniques repetitively when faced with problems of varied scope, while also recommending that one approach such problems with logic and critical thinking, is, in itself, a contradiction.</p>
<p>A second point deals with disputing facts. A reader is not supposed to penalize a writer for errors of fact or for expressing contrary opinions. Thus, you can express the opinion that Republicrats are infinitely smarter than Demicans, and you may even express it in the form of a fact, and as a reader I must restrain my urge to leap out of my chair and challenge you to a duel. Thus, even though I would regard your statement about Socrates as an error of fact, I must confine myself to deciding whether your erroneous points are clearly presented, logically analyzed and relevant to your larger point.(Not so much. It was a flat assertion and nothing more.)</p>
<p>Finally, your essay adopts an extreme and, in my opinion, seriously unrealistic point of view. Your thesis is that “for all but a few cases” there are seldom times when we should approach problems in way that have succeeded in the past. I understand your idea that creativity, critical thinking , and logic are superior to blind acceptance or unquestioning reliance on tradition or routine. But in your haste to present that idea, you seem to overlook glaring faults in your own argument. Are you suggesting in almost every case we should forget everything we ever knew about the solutions to our problems and to do something different? Actually, that’s not a question. That is what you are suggesting. Shall we throw out science, technology, manufacturing, art, philosophy and approach each new problem with the mind of a young child?</p>
<p>Don’t be in such a hurry to write that you don’t take time to think about what you are really saying.</p>
<p>I will save my opinion of JuniorMint’s advice for another time.</p>