<p>Didn’t see a thread so I just wanted a little discussion about what you guys wrote</p>
<p>For my first paragraph I did a quick story of a guy who drank too much caffeine</p>
<p>Counter argument was, I said teenagers would argue that they would get caffeine anyways, and I said if it could prevent a lot of teenagers from access to caffeine the law would be good.</p>
<p>3rd para was the benefits of caffeine don’t outweigh the negatives.</p>
<p>4th para was there are other alternatives to caffeine</p>
<p>And a really dumb conclusion, 3 short-medium sentences :(</p>
<p>Anyone else?</p>
<p>Note: I couldn’t care less about the prompt, can’t have caffeine under 18? seriously? I just picked a side as fast as possible</p>
<ol>
<li>Teens will get caffeine other ways and turn to other products (sugar from candy/chocolate)</li>
<li>It could decrease money that schools make. My student store sells monsters for $2.50, and we make a lot. I extended this a bit to local economy, which kind of sucked.</li>
<li>I talked about how caffeine isn’t the cause, it’s the effect. Lawmakers should resort to fixing underlying problems, blah blah blah.</li>
</ol>
<p>I took a constitutional/legal/historical approach.</p>
<p>(1) Attributed a quote to “noted nineteenth-century author and philosopher Henry David Thoreau”: The government that governs the least governs the best.
(2) Although the Constitution states that one of the purposes of government is to “promote the general welfare,” legislation of this type is nanny-statish, obtrusive, and over-reaching–especially given a lack of overwhelming scientific evidence to the deleterious effects of such beverages on youths.
(3) Prohibition shows such bans, when lacking popular support–as this one would–encourage lawbreaking, which is a far worse side effect than anything the caffeine could cause.
(4) It is impossible to legislate morality.
(5) Education and ad campaigns would be much more effective and in line with a free society.</p>
<p>I hoped that it would be a unique approach. I hope that I didn’t go too far afield.</p>
<p>Classics: I love that kind of argumentation (I’m an LD debater). However, in my experience, the ACT doesn’t. I got a 6 (I know, ***?) when I did that strategy and a 10 when I was basic and argued from a basic teenage perspective. Take this with a grain of salt because I’m obviously no expert.</p>
<p>This essay was one of the biggest wastes of time I ever engaged in. An incredibly crappy and insignificant prompt. However, I’m pretty sure I did well on it: almost three whole pages, counterarguments, multiple points, quotes (albeit made up), statistics (albeit made up) and a proposed alternate solution for the money that would have gone to enforcing this law.</p>
<p>Ehh, didn’t feel like writing today. But, I did manage to crank out 3.5 pages and then I stopped. Usually finish out to the 4 mark, but this essay topic was just blah.</p>
<p>Seriously that prompt was horrible. I thought the SAT October prompt was horrible, but…omg.</p>
<p>I THOUGHT I was a fast writer but I was only on the beginning of my 4th paragraph when she called 5 minutes, so like…scribble scribble scribble. And it was only 2 pages and then a little on the 3rd…I write kinda small though.</p>
<p>1st- Um, i forget, it sucked.<br>
2nd- Caffeine and energy drinks are everywhere, much easier to access than other banned substances
3rd- How the negative affects of caffeine are not alleviated(dammit I could NOT remember that word when writing) when you get older. I was like, oh well alcohol is banned to people under 21 because the brain is still developing, but the heart is done pretty early…And then I think I talked about Four Loko. <3
4th- ■■■■■ I was like “Its in other foods too, would those have to be regulated?” I gave an example of that energy gum, there was so much bs here, 5 minutes left so I just SCRIBBLED.
5th- Not enough time to restate, some bs, said how I probably would not be awake if I didn’t have a cup of coffee before this…</p>
<p>I liked this prompt. I drink a lot of soda, and i was in my AP Psych class yesterday, saw that caffeine takes 8 hours to metabolize, used that. Also used that calcium intake is reduced with caffeine. Also said that pounds of sugar are consumed by students each year who consume energy drinks.</p>
<p>just wondering, I only had 1 counter argument in a body paragraph. is that correct to do? and when I’m forced to retake ACT in april, am i allowed to use first person? thanks.</p>
<p>I gave up on attempting a five paragraph answer. My opening sentence was something along the lines of, “At what point did it become acceptable for the government to intrude on one’s personal life and infringe their rights?” This led, obviously, to a highly historical essay.</p>
<p>My second paragraph basically defined my thesis. It explained why it’s unconstitutional to pass this as a law, what the founding fathers (particularly prominent anti-federalists such as Thomas Jefferson) would think about it, and then fairly incoherently linked it to 1984. </p>
<p>My third paragraph attempted to respond to counterarguments. I began by saying that it’s reasonable to propose a caffeinated beverage prohibition due to health concerns, but the pros do not outweigh the cons. I mentioned that major fast food franchises such as McDonalds and Burger King must can be as much, if not more, detrimental to one’s health as caffeinated beverages. I also mentioned the 18th amendment, passed in 1917. I then narrated the events leading up to the repeal of the 18th amendment (with the 21st) several years later. Finally, I linked the alcohol prohibition to a caffeine one; although not quite as extreme, it still could have great consequences. </p>
<p>Then I concluded it, nothing really special here.</p>
<ol>
<li>Intro, saying that I didn’t think there should be a ban.</li>
<li>I talked about other drugs, and how caffeine may be addicting but it is beneficial.</li>
<li>I then talked about how if caffeine is deemed unhealthy and is banned, then all other manufactured foods should be banned too. But it wasn’t serious. It was a snarky tone, kind of, and I said along the lines that we’d resort to being hunters and gatherers again. Basically I said it was unrealistic considering the times, and that the goods outweigh the bads.</li>
<li>Just brought everything together. My final conclusion was that the goods outweigh the bads.</li>
</ol>
<p>The overall tone was a bit satirical and snarky, especially in the middle two paragraphs, but overall my points were pretty clear.</p>
<p>I expect a 9, because that’s what I always get. Every single freakin’ time. Even on the SAT. I can’t figure out the secret. I don’t really care, though. I love English, and I can’t write well on some stupid predetermined topic in 25-30 minutes. </p>
<p>Well, from my experience with both the ACT and SAT, here is the secret:</p>
<p>For ACT:</p>
<ol>
<li>Start off with a quote</li>
<li>Talk about the general situation and what the problem is</li>
<li>Address both sides and form a thesis statement (like the ones you do in APUSH)</li>
</ol>
<p>4.Strong topic sentences for all 3 paragraphs
5. Have transition statements</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Address the other side, and then prove (logically) why it is wrong, and propose a new, better solution the problem at hand</p></li>
<li><p>End with a memorable quote, perhaps how this could change the future.</p></li>
<li><p>Appeal to logic and emotion, and perhaps establish your credibility</p></li>
</ol>
<p>9.Right 3-4 pages</p>
<p>Do all of those things and you will be guaranteed a 11/12.</p>
<p>At least that’s what I’ve done, and it’s gotten me a 11/12 each time I’ve done those things.</p>