Alright, so there are a lot of people on CC with better ACTs than mine, and I accept that, but I figured I’d try to offer some tips on what I did to get a 36 writing with the new format and all. Thankfully, my school was asked to sample the new essay format over a year ago for ACT, so I have experience writing 2 ACT essays with the new format.
Alright, so all of you intense test takers know that the format of the new ACT involves evaluating an issue given three perspectives. What you need to do is address the topic like a synthesis essay, but avoid limiting the complexity of the issue to the three perspectives given.
An important thing to note is that one perspective will support opinion A, another will support opinion B, and the third will qualify A and B.
As I stated a little earlier, don’t approach the essay writing three paragraphs, each one simply restating one of the given perspectives and saying why it’s “good” or “bad”. Try beginning each paragraph like the essay is a non-synthesis argument, and include the given perspective toward the end to reinforce that your position on the issue is not restricted by the three perspectives, but is much broader–indicating that you realize how complex the issue is.
With these things in mind, let’s say our topic is, for example, whether capital punishment is justified. Here are our three perspectives:
- Capital punishment is justified in the case that someone murders someone else per "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth".
- Capital punishment is never justified because it's wrong to take someone else's life.
- Capital punishment is inferior to life imprisonment because in the latter's case, one doesn't get "the easy way out".
In your three body paragraphs, you’ll integrate one perspective. However, don’t let the perspective be the focus of each paragraph, because that limits capital punishment to only three opinions. What about people who argue against it for its expenses, or those who claim that capital punishment is justified only for heinous murders (terrorism/treason)? By simply addressing each issue, you fail to acknowledge how complex this issue is and how many other perspectives exist. If you can think of another perspective not listed and have time to discuss it, do!!!
When I wrote my essay, I disagreed with the first perspective, qualified the second perspective, and agreed with the last perspective. In the case of this essay, let’s say that you are of the opinion that capital punishment is justified only for heinous murders (terrorism/treason). I like to start with the perspective I disagree with first (sometimes there are two). In this case, we will start with perspective two. Don’t simply state your disagreement, list an example that proves why this perspective is disagreeable. You can even throw out a hypothetical. “If Hitler were caught by the Allies, would it still be unjustified to take the man who was responsible for millions of deaths?” Though this is not a terrific example (it relies on emotional appeal, not objectivity), I’m simply giving a hypothetical example. Go ahead and dismiss this perspective.
In this case, you also disagree with perspective 3, to an extent. Both your perspective and perspective three agree that for certain crimes, punishment should be as harsh as constitutionally possible. However, you disagree over whether the death penalty is more harsh than life incarceration. You can attack this issue two ways, so do both! First, perspective three fails to realize the horrific pain of lethal injection, the common execution method today, which has been compared to “burning alive form the inside”. Second, perspective three avoids the question of whether the death penalty is justified. It doesn’t answer this, but simply provides what it views as “a superior alternative”. Both ways, you can dismiss perspective three’s conclusion but agree with its intent.
Next, go to the perspective you agree with. In this case, you are almost in complete agreement with perspective one, but will qualify it somewhat. Both you and perspective one agree that capital punishment is justified, but you think only mass murder and treason are worthy of death penalty, while perspective one includes murder as well. Say that you don’t think murder is worthy of the death penalty because murder is less extreme and because murderers can be far more easily convicted falsely. Put a restriction on perspective one and provide evidence as to why it should be there.
Feel free to discuss all the perspectives briefly in the conclusion and why they are acceptable or dismissible. In the thesis, you don’t have to say which positions you support/challenge and provide reasons why, just acknowledge the complexity of the issue and the number of perspectives on it.
Alright, so that’s how I’d suggest that you approach the content (sorry if I seemed like I was rambling). As far as lower concerns, try to use nice vocab every other sentence or so. Good vocab words applicable to every essay are things like quintessential, epitome, detriment, unsubstantiated, etc. Study these! In addition, political jargon can also help, so learn political lexicon to sprinkle, not soak, your essay with.
Alright, I hope this helps people hoping to get a 36 on the October Writing!