Critique my SAT Essay

<p>I’m less interested in the score than I am in your comments on how to improve my SAT essays or fix problems present in them.</p>

<p>Anyways, here is the prompt:
Many people believe that “closed doors make us creative.” These people argue that obstacles and restrictions are necessary, for without them we would never be forced to come up with new solutions. But “closed doors,” either in the form of specific obstacles or a lack of opportunities, often prevent people from reaching their full creative potential.</p>

<p>Assignment:
Do closed doors make us creative? Plan and write… bla bla</p>

<p>Essay:</p>

<pre><code> From impediments and closed doors emerge innovation and creativity. The struggles presented by various obstacles offer opportunities for revolutionary reform and augmentations. The invention of the concept of covalent bonds by G.N. Lewis, the concept of evolution and “survival of the fittest,” as well as the concept of complimentary counting in combinatorics each point to the powerful solutions that can result from obstacles.

In 1918, G.N. Lewis observed that ionic bonds, those in which all bond strength is derived from one molecule of a compound assuming a positive charge and the other a negative one, did not adequately elucidate the formation of hydrogen-hydrogen bonds in hydrogen gas or other similar gases. This issue created a confounding hole in the understanding of bonding in chemistry. However, Lewis, even in the presence of such a challenge, formulated the idea of the covalent bond, that these hydrogen-hydrogen bonds “share” their electrons in hydrogen gas. Lewis’s revolutionary contribution, which was awarded the Nobel Prize, stemmed from his ability to form an innovative solution given a pestering counterexample.

Similarly, the theory of evolution,that genetic mutations have permitted only the “fittest” to reproduce and flourish, epitomizes how from obstacles, novel and augmented beings come into existence. The adaptation of, for instance, a bird, to the dearth of fruits and above-ground nourishment might lead its species to eventually develop a finer, larger beak capable of prying insects out of the ground or water. This bird has shown that an initial hurdle can lead to a revolutionary solution; a bird not equipped with the tools for survival in its changing environment has adapted and found a creative, pragmatic solution.

Math, too, points to the benefits of using the bounds that restrictions confine us to in order to improve an existing solution or formulate a new one entirely. Consider the concept of complimentary counting, that is, the counting of combinations of certain restrictions, and the subtraction of said quantities from the total number of combinations. This method of counting not only sidesteps the challenge that restrictions in a problem offer, but the method also capitalizes on these restrictions to simplify the solution of the problem. From the struggle in counting with restriction, a novel and creative way of counting is born.

Although obstacles and closed doors may be frustrating to encounter, the creativity and innovation that said obstacles engender has served as much of the basis of many principles and ideas that have become fundamental to our understanding of the world. From the way animals evolve to the formulation of the idea of covalent bonds, as well as the principle of complementary counting, initial hindrances can often lead to future innovations and breakthroughs.
</code></pre>

<p>I think this is a great essay, given the time constraints. Good intro, three well-developed examples, and a conclusion that summarizes the content reasonably effectively.</p>

<p>A few minor suggestions:</p>

<p>1) Watch your noun/verb pair choice. Struggles can be caused by obstacles, but they are not generally presented by obstacles.
2) I think the preferable construction when you have a list is “A, B, and C” or “A and B, as well as C” as opposed to “A, B, as well as C.” This might be a personal preference, though.
3) Watch the use of intensifiers, such as “even.” You write, "Lewis, even in the presence of such a challenge, formulated . . . " But your thesis is that the challenge is beneficial, because it promotes innovation. If you drop the word “even,” your statement agrees more clearly with your thesis.
4) You might want to clarify when “bird” refers to an individual bird, vs. when it refers to a particular species taken as a whole (but not to an individual).
5) I think it’s better to limit your concluding paragraph to ideas that you have supported in the body of the essay. You say that the “principles and ideas . . . have become fundamental to our understanding of the world.” I’d say that you have shown this sufficiently for the idea of covalent bonding. The principle of complementary counting is not really “fundamental to our understanding of the world,” though, in my opinion. The idea that species adapt to their environments is “fundamental to our understanding of the world,” but technically, it’s the idea, rather than the adaptation itself that is fundamental to understanding. You have shown that the adaptations occur in response to environmental challenges, but not that the idea of evolution by natural selection itself arose in response to a challenge. Hope this distinction is clear.</p>

<p>Then there are a few minor glitches of fact, which would not count against you, but you might avoid in writing where accuracy matters. For example, you refer to “hydrogen-hydrogen bonds in hydrogen or other similar gases.” I think that you might mean to refer to covalent bonds in nonpolar diatomics, when you mention “other similar gases,” but as it’s written, technically you are referring to a case where an H-H bond forms in a gas other than hydrogen. Not sure what you have in mind for that. Also, some people would use “molecule” to denote Cl or Cl- in NaCl, but I think most would not. “Chemical species” would probably be a better choice. Or you could use “moiety.”</p>

<p>A well-handed and strong essay :slight_smile:
i like the introduction as well as the 1st and 2nd body paragraph , the 3rd body paragraph is somehow confusing !!
The conclusion is so damn concise :slight_smile:
GOOD WORK :D</p>

<p>Thanks, QuantMech, that was a quality analysis.</p>