Anyone willing to score my essays (synth. and arg.)?

<p>I just wrote two essays for AP English Lang. and I was wondering if I could get some feedback because I'm not sure if my teacher will have time to before the exam on Wednesday. It'd be greatly appreciated if you can!</p>

Prompt: <a href=""&gt;;/a>
My essay: [Synthesis.pdf[/url</a>]
Can't find a scoring rubric since it's just a sample prompt.</p>

Prompt: <a href=""&gt;](&lt;a href=""&gt;;/a> (last page - 13)
My essay: Argumentative.pdf[/url</a>]
Scoring: <a href="">
</a> (next-to-last page)</p>

<p>Thanks in advance. I'll gladly reciprocate the reading/scoring for you if you'd like.</p>

<p>They were both very well-written and responded to the prompt. </p>

<p>Synthesis: 8
Argumentative: 7 </p>

<p>My biggest piece of advice would be to try and remove fillers such as (in your synthesis essay) "They were familiar with..." rather than "They were probably pretty familiar with...." Other than that, both essays were extremely strong. </p>

<p>Could you give me some feedback on an essay I wrote? (Not nearly as well done as yours). </p>

<p>Here is the prompt: [url=<a href=""&gt;]AP&lt;/a> Central - The AP English Language and Composition Exam<a href="It's%20the%20second%20one.">/url</a></p>

They say green is the new black, and enviromentalism is the dinner table discussion topic. The arguments that stem from these debates usually divide people into two groups: those that believe the enviroment comes first and those that believe people come first. Contemporary scientist Edward O. Wilson positions himself in both points of view in his book "The Future of Life." Wilson satirizes these discussions to depict their ineffectiveness by creating two personas- both very different in stance and political wing, but with the same baseless argument and stubborn tone.</p>

<p>Both sides follow a parallel structure. They begin with the "people-first" critic stereotyping the enviromentalists and calling them "greens, enviros, enviromental extremists, or environmental wackos." Similarly, the enviromentalist stereotypes the people-first critics as "anti-enviromentalists and brown lashers." This name-calling that is used to begin both satires sets the scene as each sides' taunts and jeers only get worse. What wilson is attempting to imply here is that both sides have so little argument against each other that they have to resort to stereotyping and labeling the opposition. This type of behavior would be deemed unacceptable in any normal circumstance, especially the use of childish and informal words such as "wackos."</p>

<p>The baseless arguments continue through the rest of the passage. Both sides talk about the other side having a "hidden" or "political agenda" as the real reason behind their motives. One side accuses that the others' aim is to "expand the government" but provides no supporting evidence to back up this claim. As a result, the reader does not trust either sides' argument, which is exactly the point Wilson is trying to get across.
The structure of both critics' arguments also aid wilson in his illustration. The entire essay follows a similar schematic, with the repetition of a few choice words and phrases that makes the reader remember that the same arguments have already been used. For example, both sides call each other "selfish" and accuse the other of having a hidden agenda.</p>

<h2>Using a similar structure, tone, and basis of arguments for both pieces, Wilson creates an effective satire that depicts the unproductive nature of these discussions. One thing's for sure- the reader cannot imagine both these critics sitting down over a cup of coffee, working out their differences.</h2>

<p>Please be as blunt as possible, my class has basically been a joke the entire year and we've written very little essays.</p>

<p>I'd give it a 5 or a 6, but I definitely don't have much experience reviewing peers' essays. </p>

Your opening sentence is a great hook. It isn't boring and it immediately sets the stage for the issue at hand.
At the end of the second paragraph when you mention the resorting to stereotyping, labeling, childish and informal language, I think you should have elaborated as to what exactly that means... and in this case, you should connect back to your thesis (the prompt) that this type of language is ineffective just to make sure your reader knows what your evidence is proving.
Your last sentence is also a very good wrap-up: it creatively summarizes your standpoint and connects back to the thesis.
You could have gone more in-depth and specific about HOW Wilson illustrates the ineffectiveness of the groups of critics by using specific elements of writing, rhetorical strategies, etc... you could have mentioned diction, how Wilson uses several short sentences in the first passage (lines 28-34).</p>

<p>Definitely not a bad essay, especially if you haven't written many this year.</p>

<p>SeekingUni, do you realize that the majority of your argumentative essay was just you story-telling? The actual argument was too shallow; you didn't provide much actual reasoning.</p>