Writing Feedback /
A little inaccuracy saves a world of explanation; SAT peparatory essay [3]
aneetaHey Aneeta,
This is looking pretty good so far: personally (though I am by no means an SAT grader), I would give this essay around an 7-8. There is still quite a bit of room for improvement; though this may seem like a bit more generic of advice, I would say that the best way to approach the SAT essay is not as one would an "actual essay," as you solely have around 25 minutes to brainstorm, write, and edit it. The SAT graders recognize this fact and expect writing quality approximately on the "first-edit" level. As a result, you have to aim to minimize the amount of time spent thinking and maximizing that spent writing. Also, though this might once again seem somewhat as a flaw for the SAT graders, there is a
very strong correlation between the length of the essay and how well it is looked. Now, I'm not saying to include random words or enlargen your handwriting, since the graders too are aware of such, but to include further details to make it as extensive and strong of an essay as possible. Also, some people say that you need five paragraphs to get a 12: that's not true, as I always write four paragraphs. Making the essay as fleshed out as possible is the key ingredient to success on the SAT. Now, back to my point on minimizing thinking time, you should basically have completely prepared examples to use or even prepared body paragraphs for your purposes. Personally, I used Benjamin Franklin and Galileo: they are applicable to almost every single essay prompt given on the SAT; I've taken the SAT twice and received an 11 the first time and 12 the second time. So, essentially, what I did was retained almost the same exact essay format, but solely change the wording in the intro and a couple sentences elsewhere (bolded below) to make it fit the prompt. Here are a couple examples, the last of which pertains to your particular prompt:
(Insert introduction sentence - examples attached). For example, Galileo Galilei and Benjamin Franklin, both esteemed members of their respective fields, achieved their distinguished feats by
(Insert point of argument here). Only by
(Insert point of argument here) can we hope to pave the path to prominence and success.
The conflict between Galileo and the Church perfectly exemplifies
(Insert point of argument here). Galileo Galilei was a sixteenth-century physicist, philosopher, and astronomer who both discovered and became a strong proponent of the heliocentric model: one in which the Sun lies at the center of the solar system with the planets orbiting about it. Today, this "revelation" barely warrants notice. In the Middle Ages, however, cosmology was greatly intertwined with religion, and Galileo's conjecture, namely that of heliocentricity, was in stark opposition to the ideas advocated by the supreme authority of the Church. As a result, Galileo was forced to recant his ideas and heed the fallacies promoted by the Church. When presented with the same opportunity again, however, Galileo would not err. Instead, he mounted courage and stood up against the Church no matter the repercussions, purging the world of the fallacies perpetuated by the Church with empirical fact. In turn, Galileo Galilei established the precedence of scientific truth over the accepting the common yet, nonetheless, false perpetuated through society, which in turn incited the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, endowing us with much of the technology and scientific knowledge prevalent in our world today.
Similarly, Benjamin Franklin, one of the renowned Founding Fathers of our country, accomplished his distinguished feats due to
(Insert point of argument here). During Franklin's time, when the British were imposing unjust taxes, violating the sanctity of homes, and threating liberty, Franklin originally advocated tolerance. He believed, through "peaceful retaliation", the Americans would be able to levy their rights and attain freedom; this passivity, however, led to the British murder of unarmed citizens at the Boston Massacre. When confronting his adversaries once again, Franklin would not continue along his pacifist footsteps. Instead, he instigated the American citizens to revolt in not only the American Revolution, but the French Revolution as well to expunge the world of the tyrannical rule of monarchs. Only by
(Insert argument here) was Franklin able to perpetuate an era of freedom for Americans.
Some may argue
(State opposite side of argument here). But where would the scientific community been had Galileo not
(Insert argument here) and not incited the Scientific Revolution? What sort of present would we have had Galileo not
(Insert argument here) and defiantly opposed the British, bestowing us with the liberty all of us hold dear? Only by
(Insert argument here) were Galileo and Franklin able to achieve their distinguished statuses. If Galileo and Franklin had not
(Insert argument here), we would live in a dark age, bereft of scientific truth and liberty.
Anexamples: (Collegeboard Essay Prompt): Are firmly held opinions reasonable?
Introductory Sentence (the only real thing you need to change for the essay topic): Firmly help opinions, rather than inhibiting further progress of society, solely acts to incite its overall progress.
Wherever it says "(Insert point of argument here)": advocating the firmness of opinions (or some derivative of such)
Wherever it says "opposite side of argument": maintaining firm opinions solely acts to inhibit progress
Now, for your particular case, I would say the following: Is it always essential to tell the truth, or are there circumstances in which it is better to lie?
Introductory Sentence (never base this on your true opinions: it's always easier to fit them to facts than to find facts that fit your thoughts): Truths, by revealing the underlying nature of nature itself, seeks to incite society to progress forward rather than retrogressing, as is the case when lies perpetuate and become the mainstream form of thought.
Point of argument: advocating the significance of truth to progress
Opposite side: advocating fallacies to quell turmoil amidst the general public
Thus, my final essay for your particular prompt would be:
Truths, by revealing the underlying nature of nature itself, seeks to incite society to progress forward rather than retrogressing, as is the case when lies perpetuate and become the mainstream form of thought. For example, Galileo Galilei and Benjamin Franklin, both esteemed members of their respective fields, achieved their distinguished feats by advocating the significance of truth to progress. Only by recognizing the significance of the truth in our world can we hope to pave the path to prominence and success.
The conflict between Galileo and the Church perfectly exemplifies how leaders should be regard the truth as an impetus for progress, rather than one that impedes it. Galileo Galilei was a sixteenth-century physicist, philosopher, and astronomer who both discovered and became a strong proponent of the heliocentric model: one in which the Sun lies at the center of the solar system with the planets orbiting about it. Today, this "revelation" barely warrants notice. In the Middle Ages, however, cosmology was greatly intertwined with religion, and Galileo's conjecture, namely that of heliocentricity, was in stark opposition to the ideas advocated by the supreme authority of the Church. As a result, Galileo was forced to recant his ideas and heed the fallacies promoted by the Church. When presented with the same opportunity again, however, Galileo would not err. Instead, he mounted courage and stood up against the Church no matter the repercussions, purging the world of the fallacies perpetuated by the Church with empirical fact. In turn, Galileo Galilei established the precedence of scientific truth over the accepting the common yet, nonetheless, false perpetuated through society, which in turn incited the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, endowing us with much of the technology and scientific knowledge prevalent in our world today.
Similarly, Benjamin Franklin, one of the renowned Founding Fathers of our country, accomplished his distinguished feats due to his obstinate mindset to recognizing the truth. During Franklin's time, when the British were imposing unjust taxes, violating the sanctity of homes, and threating liberty, Franklin originally advocated tolerance. He believed, through "peaceful retaliation", the Americans would be able to levy their rights and attain freedom; this passivity, however, led to the British murder of unarmed citizens at the Boston Massacre. When confronting his adversaries once again, Franklin would not continue along his pacifist footsteps. Instead, he instigated the American citizens to revolt in not only the American Revolution, but the French Revolution as well to expunge the world of the tyrannical rule of monarchs. Only by exposing the truth of the British was Franklin able to perpetuate an era of freedom for Americans.
Some may argue that some instances call for advocating fallacies to quell turmoil amidst the general public. But where would the scientific community been had Galileo not disregarded the Church's opinions and revealed the truth, inciting the Scientific Revolution? What sort of present would we have had Galileo not remained exposed the truth and remained defiantly opposed the British, bestowing us with the liberty all of us hold dear? Only by disregarding the opinions of others and perpetuating the trumping capabilities of the truth were Galileo and Franklin able to achieve their distinguished statuses. If Galileo and Franklin had not advocated the truth, we would live in a dark age, bereft of scientific truth and liberty.
Hope that helped!