Please check w/ my essay

belly
Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:35:07 +0000

To QuantMech:
First, belly, let me comment that if I had to write in a second or third language (not my native language, which is English), I could not have written an essay that is nearly as good as yours. Your analysis is strong, and you have written some genuinely excellent sentences.

My general advice to you is to write longer essays, but keep the vocabulary somewhat simpler. From what I’ve read, the CB readers do not seem to require the use of vocabulary at the level that the other sections test. The reason that I suggest that you keep the vocabulary simpler is this: A “high-level” vocabulary word actually gives a negative impression of the writer’s skills in English, if it is used imprecisely or incorrectly.

-----> Thanks for giving me useful tips.

So, here’s a more detailed analysis of what you’ve written:

“Can a doctor be a malicious person?” Excellent opening. Truly excellent.

“Can thug mobs fooling around on streets everyday be docile at heart?”
The word “thug” normally connotes violence, so no, almost by definition, they could not be docile at heart. Also, thug is a noun, hardly ever used correctly as an adjective. The words “fooling around” don’t go with the word “mob.” Mobs could be “milling around” or “gathering,” but there’s something slightly ominous about a “mob,” which makes the choice of “fooling around” a give-away that English is not your native language. “Gangs” might be “fooling around.” The word “docile” comes from “doceo,” and therefore has the connotation “teachable.” I think you want “gentle” or something similar.

----->," but there’s something slightly ominous about a “mob,” which makes the choice of “fooling around” a give-away that English is not your native language. ". I’m not sure what you meant here. Why not?

Structurally, the contrast you’ve established by pairing a high-level profession with a character flaw and a low-level occupation with a virtue is excellent! Addressing the issue from both sides in this way is a distinguishing feature of a good essay.

“They can. All the things happen.” First short sentence: excellent. Second one: just delete it. You’ve only given two examples; so “All” is out of place here. You don’t need it. “They can” is punchy. The second sentence just weakens it.

----->- WHat I mean in this ( the second) sentence is all the thing can happen. Anybody can be evil, anybody can be docile

“Therefore, an individual’s profession cannot define his or her character and morality.”
Strong sentence. I personally think that “does not define” would be better than “cannot define” idiomatically, but that’s relatively minor.

“If knowledge is spared aside, morality is what still left in each person.”
Good thought, expression not so good. Neither abstract nor concrete nouns in English can be “spared aside.” What you mean here is “set aside.” The phrase “morality is what still left in each person” is not grammatical English.
You could say “morality is what remains in each person.” You need a verb in place of the adverb/adjective phrase “still left.” It could be “is still left,” but that’s a bit weak. Also, is it really the case that if you subtract knowledge, what remains is morality? Isn’t there anything else left, too?

“People climb on the ladder of promotion chiefly by their knowledge.”
In English, people “climb ladders;” they do not “climb on” ladders. Also, most American adults believe that people advance through judgment and skillful risk-taking, rather than knowledge.

“Nixon,a former US president, showed his evil intent vehemently in the Vietnam war.”
“President” should be capitalized, even if used in the middle of a sentence. Opinions can be expressed vehemently, but “vehemently” is not normally used in connection with the verb “show.” This is an example of a strong vocabulary word that is used in a way that just sounds “off” to a native English speaker. This sentence is a little risky. Although there are very few fans of Richard Nixon around, and still fewer who grade SAT essays, you do run the risk of encountering a Republican. Also, many people who dislike Nixon intensely would not go all the way to calling him “evil” in intent. Furthermore, the US withdrew from Vietnam under the Nixon administration.

“George W Bush, the present one, have left Iraq citizens leave in fear in the meaning less destruction for over four years.”
W needs a period after it (unless you are the columnist Molly Ivins, in which case “Dubya” will do). The phrase “the present one” should go. The previous President Bush was George H. W. Bush. If you have to put in an appositive phrase here, “the current President” is much better. Bush is singular, so the next word should be “has,” not “have.” The citizens of Iraq are “Iraqi citizens,” not “Iraq citizens,” in English.
The phrase “have left Iraq citizens leave in fear” is a real problem–this is a dead give-away that you do not speak English usually. You want
“have left Iraqi citizens living in fear.” Also, people live in “fear of” rather than “fear in” something. The word “meaningless” does not have any space in the middle of it. The “the” in front of “meaningless destruction” does not belong in the sentence. The Iraqis are living in fear of meaningless destruction.

-------> I’m sorry, silly mistakes lol. Good words anyway. But what did you mean by “The word “meaningless” does not have any space in the middle of it.”?

“Though both may achieve high IQ scores, they did not attain very high degrees in their moral success.”
Ok, this is a problem. If you ask most Americans about the IQ score of George W. Bush, you probably won’t get a high number as the answer. (I suspect that it would be underestimated by most, but even so, Bush is not known for his high IQ.) Nixon’s IQ would probably be estimated as somewhat higher, but still, he is not known for his penetrating intellect!
More importantly, Americans attach relatively little significance to IQ. It is not viewed as a valid predictor of professional success. Rather than “attain very high degrees,” it would be better to have “attain a very high level.” The phrase “attain very high degrees” is acceptable as metaphor. However, in the context in which you are writing, the reader is more likely to regard it as an instance of imprecise English than as a metaphor.

-----------------> IQ and EQ I think necessary to demonstrate their leader skills and the abilities to handle work of a country. Perhaps I was wrong here to translate an acceptable idea in my language to English

“Have you ever notice the antagonist in most Western comic books come from an upper position, or at least have a so- called “good job”?”
This is a good sentence. The phrase should be “have you ever noticed” (not “notice”). Also, you normally “notice that” when a clause follows it. You can notice an object (without the “that”), but it there’s a whole clause, it needs a “that.” The antagonist is singular, so the verb should be “comes” not “come.” Similarly, “have” should be “has.” The word “upper” should be “upper-level.” “Upper” by itself can be used with the word “class,” but then it should be “the upper class,” not “an upper class.”

“The scarecrow, Batman’s foe, is a lawyer.”
Good. Probably “scarecrow” should be capitalized, though.

“He was not by any means, humble, however.”
Hmm. The use of “however” suggests that one would expect a lawyer to be humble. Not in the US!

“Instead, he stood up against Batman- the vigilante of Gotham and finally be beaten by our protagonist.”
Normally, the phrase “stood up” is used with a favorable connotation. One stands up against oppression. But one doesn’t think of the “bad guy” as “standing up against” the “good guy.” “Opposed” would be better here. Then, in the second part of the sentence, you need the simple past tense. It should read “finally was beaten” not “finally be beaten.” There’s a slight problem that you shift from active to passive verbs.

-----------> Thanks

“Lawyers, doctors, football players or even drivers and sweepers, all can be complacent or kind at heart.”
This sentence calls for a contrast at the end. The phrase “kind at heart” is great. The word “complacent” suggests that someone is satisfied with the “staus quo,” but it’s not really the opposite of “kind at heart.” You want a word with a touch of villainy.

-------> So what’s your suggestion?

“That is why we have the word “snob” in the English language to insinuate pretentious folks.”
The thought here is excellent.
The execution is not so good.
One “insinuates that” something is true. “Insinuate” means “implies,” usually with a negative or malicious connotation. This is another instance of a great vocabulary word being misused in a way that hurts your essay.

------> OK

“To encapsulate, profession can only define a person’s knowledge yet fail to do so with virtue. This holds true through history, animation, movies and almost every aspect that reflects the nature of society. There is no book to judge, especially on the spiritual side.”
The word “encapsulate” requires an object. You could say “To summarize,” but you don’t actually need to use such a phrase at all. The word “profession” needs to be “a profession.”
You should omit “only,” if you are following the phrase with “yet fail.” The sentence would be stronger if you repeated “define” rather than shifting to “to do so”
The word “through” should be “throughout.” “Animation” usually refers to cartoons. What did you have in mind? Perhaps “literature” should be on your list. The word “aspect” is not quite right here. “Element” would be better, I think. Your concluding sentence is strong, but it needs to be made a little more precise. The entire essay is about judging based on a person’s profession. The word “book” is out of place. It would be better to restate your thesis in a different way.

--------> Yeah, animation is one of the various elements that reflect life. But I don’t know why “element” is better than “aspect” here?

I realize that this is a very lengthy post! But I thought that the detailed commentary might be of use to you. Hope it helps!

---------->(Last sentence) it does. Thanks a bunch