<p>This essay has inspirations from the logic of the Day 2 Plan by sat1111. It demonstrates the capacity of a good lie (very fitting given my use of Machiavelli). After the essay itself, I’ll present my parenthetical thought process.</p>
<p>Prompt 1 (March 2010)</p>
<p>Think carefully about the issue presented in the following excerpt and the assignment below.</p>
<p>Many powerful leaders throughout history have considered themselves above the law and acted in ways that violated the laws or guidelines of their own country or group. People are quick to condemn these leaders, but shouldnt leaders be held to different standards? If what a leader is doing benefits the majority of the people in a country or group, it does not matter if a law or guideline is violated.</p>
<p>Assignment: Should leaders of a country or group be judged by different standards? Plan and write an essay in which you develop your point of view on this issue. Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations.</p>
<p>Leaders should be treated differently from their followers because men of power hold a significant responsibility and dedication compared to those below them. The historical and literary evidence supporting this notion is exceedingly valid.</p>
<p>The political treatise, The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli, expands upon the concept by presenting several examples. The most appropriate of such is the story of Junéve Cuvier, an aspiring young soldier. Cuvier is sent with his fellow countrymen into a ferocious, miscalculated battle. The costs are high, and Cuvier is one of the only men to return from the defeat. When the prince arrives in front of the army, he does not admonish Cuvier or the other survivors though. Instead, in a decision of supreme logic, he exiles the general in charge of the campaign into an icy wasteland (possibly Siberia), and rewards the soldiers with a feast before formally returning their attention to the war at hand. But why?</p>
<p>After the illustrations have been presented, Machiavelli elaborates upon the duty of a leader to properly act, especially in such dangerous situations as war. However, the soldiers, who were generally novice and uneducated, were theoretically nothing more than pawns following orders. Thus, those who governed them were to blame for any failure. The general of Junéve had made faulty decisions resulting in the death of the princes men and military equipment, the loss of the princes battle, and the humiliation of the prince himself. Although those such as Junéve carried out the plan, the princes ultimate fury went upon the general who created it.</p>
<p>To reiterate, the follower and the leader have a primary difference in the responsibility that they possess. Thus, any judgment between the two should be heavily distinguished.</p>
<p>Leaders should be treated differently from their followers because men of power hold a significant responsibility and dedication compared to those below them (“what” AND “why” in one brilliantly crafted sentence). The logic and literary evidence supporting this notion is exceedingly valid (smooth flow connecting thesis statement and body; note the use of “notion” and “valid”). (there we have it! a nice two-sentence intro)</p>
<p>The political treatise (words bound to make a good impression on the reader), The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli (popular historical figure and book that not much people have gone in depth to, which provides excellent “fake story” background), expands upon the concept (convenient synonym of “notion”) by presenting several examples. The most appropriate of such is the story of Junéve Cuvier (hooray! quickly made-up, believable, euphonious name), an aspiring (ah yes, a positive adjective for fun) young soldier. Cuvier is sent with his fellow countrymen into a ferocious battle horrendously outnumbered and unprepared (impromptu story time!). The costs are high, and Cuvier is one of the only men to return from the defeat. When the prince arrives in front of the army, he does not admonish Cuvier or the other survivors though (relate the last two or few sentences back to the “what”). Instead, in a decision of supreme logic, he exiles the general in charge of the campaign into an icy wasteland (possibly Siberia; this was an original parenthetical remark), and rewards the soldiers with a feast before formally returning their attention to the war at hand. But why? (presents path for “why”…obviously)</p>
<p>After the illustrations have been presented, Machiavelli elaborates upon the duty of a leader to properly act, especially in such dangerous situations as war (brings us back to reality and the prompt). However, the soldiers, who were generally novice and uneducated, were theoretically nothing more than pawns following orders. Thus, those who governed them were to blame for any failure (logical explanations). The general of Junéve had made faulty decisions resulting in the death of the princes men and military equipment, the loss of the princes battle, (Oxford comma, because that’s how I roll) and the humiliation of the prince himself. Although those such as Junéve carried out the plan, the princes ultimate fury went upon the general who created it. (conclusion of the paragraph)</p>
<p>To reiterate (straight from sat1111’s original example; rather effective indeed!), the follower and the leader have a primary difference in the responsibility that they possess (“why”). Thus, any judgment between the two should be heavily distinguished (and finish it off with “what”!). (precisely timed essay at STP and other standard conditions; strong elaboration using just one example)</p>
<p>Comment on score (personally scored as 6; and don’t comment anything above 6 because no; you are no longer made of two people as the Greeks originally believed) and style; I’m feeling confident for the Jan 25 SAT!</p>
<p>I remember this list of examples, although I innovate on Machiavelli’s “The Prince” (other then the fact that it’s a great source, because if he were alive he would respect it) or Nazi Germany (because…well, I don’t think we should give much respect to them) if I need to:
Ratatouille - focuses on all the independence, cooperation, success, and decision issues, as well as a few more if you can make it work
Unleashed - haven’t seen it? WELL WATCH IT!!! Or just go to Wikipedia. You’ll get my point; also exceedingly (because this word beats the fruloompas out of “extremely”, or “very”) versatile.
Fahrenheit 451 - another great example
Attila the Hun - definitely on the list; the guy’s one of the fathers of epic cooperation and bloodthirsty violence! (other than the more commonplace Hitler…too boring)</p>