<p>Prompt: Do people accomplish more when they are allowed to do things in their own way?</p>
<p>The premise that if people were to do things their way they would accomplish more exhibits a profound degree of verity. A myriad of examples from literary works, history, and current events prove that if people have more freedom for their own pursuits they would achieve so much more. Examples that truly display this premise as an indubitable truth are Hsun - Ching from the Laughing Sutra, Prince Williams on his decision to be homeless for on night, and Beowulf from the Old English heroic Beowulf</p>
<p>The Laughing Sutra, written by Mark Salzman, is about a young man named Hsun-Ching who must retrieve a sutra known as “The Laughing Sutra” for his dying master Wei-Ching. Hsun-Ching must make a journey to America in order to retrieve the Sutra. However, he travels to America on illegal terms by sneaking through the Chinese police and taking a boat to America. If Hsun-Ching did not do thing his way (in this case going to America illegally) he would’ve never fulfilled his dying master’s wish and Hsun-Ching would have failed. Hsun-Ching most certainly exhibits the main idea of this premise</p>
<p>In December 2009, the famed Prince of England (Prince Williams) decided to “become homeless for a day.” Many thought of Prince Williams as a fool, but Williams was simply solving problems on his own terms. Williams teamed up with a homeless charity called Centrepoint and decided to see how it was to be homeless. The next day, Williams was a new man; Williams understood the pain of being homeless and the frigid temperatures homeless people had to endure. After that day, Williams and Centrepoint have begun a successful campaign to end homelessness. If Williams had not done things his way he may of not of truly understood the pains of being homeless. Williams is a clear example of doing things his way.</p>
<p>In the Old English Heroic Beowulf, Beowulf is called by Hrothgar to slay the fiendish demon Grendel. Beowulf, however, boasts that he will slay the demon with his bare arms. The people of Herot thought that this was nonsense. Beowulf later successfully slayed the evil demon with his arms. Beowulf claims to have fought the demon with his arms to “let God choose who would remain victorious.” In the end, the people of Herot cheered and saw that God had favored man. If Beowwulf had not defeated Grendel with his arms then the people of Herot would be less hopeful and less happy. Beowulf truly exemplifies the premise.</p>
<p>As presented from the said examples, people who are allowed to do things their own way will unequivocally accomplish more. If people were not allowed to do things their own way then less would be accomplished and a lesser form of success would be present. People should most certainly do thing their own way since they are the ones achieving the accomplishment.</p>
<p>please forgive me for the typos lol</p>
<p>I’d like to address the style of the essay first and later the substance. </p>
<p>DarkKnightt, it is clear that you’ve memorized your SAT vocab. However, you are not using the words very effectively or confidently. Unless you are 100% sure that a vocab word will add to your writing and not just add fluff, don’t use it. If you have time, I would HIGHLY recommend Strunk and White’s Style Handbook. It is a short, extremely valuable read. </p>
<p>This essay exemplifies bombastic, grandiloquent language. This clunky talk only clouds your good ideas. The worst are phrases like “… a lesser form of success would be present” and “… a profound degree of verity” and “Examples that truly display this premise as an indubitable truth…”. Readers will NOT take a point off for simplifying your language into common speak! Instead of the last phrase, why not “Three examples are…”. You do not need to keep reminding the reader that your truth is true. Rely on your substance for that. </p>
<p>Now, your substance. Your three examples are good, I’m sure, but not the way you wrote them. They sound too short and too rushed. They seem shallow. So many questions are unanswered. Why the hell couldn’t Ching have traveled legally? How did “his own way” work better? What problems was the Prince trying to fix? How exactly did being homeless help? The Beowulf example is better, but still, what was the alternative to fighting with bare hands and how did the bare hands help Beowulf win? How did his own way work better? </p>
<p>I know, there is not enough time to write in so much detail. That is why you must get rid of this 5 paragraph formula you rely on. There is no winning formula. I, for one, suggest 1 single STRONG example that supports your thesis entirely. Lots of details, and each detail in some way supporting your premise. Or, alternatively, 2 examples that complement each other and work well together. An example of this would be using Lord of the Flies and Animal Farm to support that " Utopia can never exist because of the innate dark side of man, including greed and savagery " from the prompt that I once saw that went something like " Is a perfect society ever possible?"</p>
<p>In conclusion, you have some work to do, but you show a lot of promise. Just tame your language a little bit and study IN DETAIL a few solid and versatile examples. Then you can write killer body paragraphs.</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply. I honestly just followed the thread “how to write a 12 essay in 10 days.” THe graders only look at your essay at intervals of 30 seconds. So I HAVE to have enticing language and all. As for unanswered questions, they are not relevant to my argument. If anything I answered these questions, Hsun- Ching went to America illegally (his own way) and successfully retrieved the scroll, Beowulf fought Grendel with his hands and that provided people a sense of hope (his own way), Prince Williams spent a night homeless to see how it felt and that helped shaped the way for the charity (his own way). I really appreciate the reply, but I feel like your grading it under a college essays standard rather than an SAT essay standard, the sat essay is just different.</p>