<p>Should people change their decisions when circumstances change, or is it best for them to stick with their original decisions?
Changing decisions when circumstances change is essential to advance mankind. Original decisions are almost always wrong in situations, especially major decisions like slavery and game plans. While attempting to pass the 13th Amendment Lincoln needed votes from democratic representatives in order to pass it, and their second decision changed because of the Civil War. From my personal experiences in sports game plans and strategies change from their original counterparts immensely. Examples from history and sports prove my view point to be pervasive.
Lincolns endeavors to pass the 13th Amendment seemed futile at first because it was rejected in the House before. The Republican party had the majority in the Senate while Democrats owned the house. They parties collided on a key issueslavery, and in order to pass the Amendment Republicans needed to sway Democratic voters. Without bipartisan support slavery may exist today; thus proving that the original decision of the house needed to be changed in order to halt the war. Changing circumstances proved to be an influential part of the decisions of representatives for the better.
In football, baseball, and basketball circumstances change the plans delineated before games change completely from mid-game strategies. For example, my special teams coach noticed that the front line on kickoff return left early to block. He then changed the call on the field to kick it deep and chose to squib kick the ball and my team recovered the ball. The circumstances changed therefore it was necessary to change the original plan of a normal kickoff and try a more daring gambit. Changing the plan proved to be the right decision because we got the ball back.
Staying with original decisions is a cantankerous idea. As circumstances change decisions must also change to fulfill their duties. Abolitionists and pro-slavery activists alike needed to join hands and outlaw slavery to end the Civil War. The latter changed their decisions not because they believed in the abolition of slavery but because the circumstances called for it. Sports require changing decisions in a split second. My special teams coach made an educated decision that varied from the original and we prospered because of it. Adjusting decisions to fit the circumstance is indeed a better option than sticking with the original decision.</p>
<p>Changing decisions when circumstances change is essential to advance mankind. Original decisions are almost always wrong in situations, especially major decisions like slavery and game plans.
Now, given that I think this is your thesis.
- Your introduction is a bit confusing, it might help to put your thesis towards the end, (after the summary of the two points that you will be making), or simply take out the summary in general.
- You should try to make a claim, a point in the opening sentence of each paragraph. Okay, so one paragraph you are talking about the HOR’s choice against 13th amendment, make a point in the first sentence relating back to your thesis.
- You explained a bit of how the original decisions are wrong, but I feel that you can always elaborate a little more, and be sure to explain HOW that change in decision ADVANCED MANKIND(does the football example prove your point about advancing mankind?). That will sure earn you extra points. </p>
<p>Overall though, in 25 minutes, it’s a solid essay.
So I would say an 8-9/12? </p>
<p>*My teacher just says to write my SAT essay like an AP essay, so I’m looking at your essay in that perspective. :)</p>