<p>This is the first time I have ever had to write an essay and not use literary examples.</p>
<p>I was wondering whether anyone could please critique this and maybe give me a score or something so I know whether I’m going in the right direction. If you want to do some sort of peer review thing in exchange, don’t hesitate to put your essay up here.</p>
<p>Assignment: </p>
<p>It is easy to imagine that events and experiences in our lives will be perfect, but no matter how good something turns out to be, it can never live up to our expectations. Reality never matches our imaginations. For that reason, we should make sure our plans and goals are modest and attainable. We are much better off when reality surpasses our expectations and something turns out better than we thought it would.
Adapted from Baltasar Graci</p>
<p>I don’t know if screwing up examples gets you points off, but just so you know, the goal of reaching the moon started in the early 1960s with Kennedy’s speech. The goal was to land a man on the moon within the decade (hence you know it was the 60s). I then think he said, “Not because it is easy, but because it is hard.” If you dropped that quote, you get a massive points upgrade.</p>
<p>Continuing on specific comments, you made a completely unfounded generalization at the very end of your first body paragraph. You gave nothing to support that claim.</p>
<p>I like the non-literary examples. I think that with this prompt, historical examples offer the best proof. However, your logic is somewhat flawed. You write about how people/organizations achieve success by setting lofty goals, but you never really explain why lofty goals are necessary to success. You never really give evidence that setting modest goals leads to failure, which I think is crucial in this essay. And it would not have been very hard, as you could have added some simple hypotheticals in there (what if Kennedy didn’t give that proclamation, what if Lincoln didn’t have such high aspirations, etc.). </p>
<p>Besides those things, I thought the essay was well structured, easy to read, and overall pretty solid. Your examples were pertinent and decently analyzed (you didn’t just have plot/historical outline). I’d give it a 10-11 (but my scale is harsher than the SAT graders, from what I understand).</p>
<p>Understood except for one thing- I was trying to prove that setting high goals can lead to grand success and give the goal setter the opportunity to leave his bounds. So why do I need to prove that setting modest goals entails failure? </p>
<p>In my first paragraph, i wrote:</p>
<p>“Despite a high success rate, modest goals cannot reveal one’s true capabilities.”</p>
<p>^But what evidence do you have to support that claim? That is a huge generalization, and you need to back it up. And also, how do you know that we would never have gotten to the moon in the 1960s if the administration never set that lofty goal, but instead set a goal to orbit the earth a dozen times? How do you know that Lincoln would have never became president if his goal was only to become a small town lawyer? It seems pretty self-evident that their achievements would not be reached if they didn’t set lofty goals, but you still need to explicate it somewhat. You argue that lofty goals are necessary to achieve grand success, but what makes you sure that modest goals can’t lead to the same kind of success. </p>
<p>Say, hypothetically, that you are arguing the opposite case. Somewhere in your essay, you say that “setting lofty goals leads to repetitive failure and discouragement, thus destroying the confidence one needs to succeed” and leaving it at that. As a skeptical reader, would you feel satisfied with that? No, you would want the writer to support that broad claim. </p>
<p>Your above claim is like a whole new thesis. You MUST support it. So, in these types of essays, you basically have to prove two things: you (who argues that success can be achieved with lofty goals) are right and your opponents (who will argue that success can also be achieved with modest goals) are wrong. You only gave evidence for the former. But you must cover both bases. </p>
<p>If you still don’t get what I’m saying, I’ll give you an analogy: You say 4x4 is the best way to equal 16. Your friend thinks 16x1 is the best way to equal 16. In your argument, you say: “4x4 is good because you are multiplying the same number” (which is entirely valid). Your friend asks “What’s wrong with 16x1?” You respond “because it sucks” (and leave it at that). That was your essay in a nutshell. This is what should have been your essay: “4x4 is good because you are multiplying the same number. It is better than 16x1 because it’s unoriginal to find a product by just multiplying the number times one. Although you didn’t argue for 8x2, I believe 4x4 is better than that because again, it’s pretty unoriginal to multiply something by 2. And all the non-integer numbers are just gross to multiply with, so those are eliminated. And two negative integers is kind of redundant, so those are off the table. That leaves 4x4 as the best way to equal 16, as I have shown that all other possibilities are worse.”</p>
<p>Maybe I’m just being anal, especially for an SAT essay, but when you get to bigger papers you will need to support every single claim you give.</p>
<p>A few grammar errors here and there, but overall I think it’s a strong essay. 10-12.</p>
<p>Yes, the argument is not airtight, but it’s unreasonable to expect a perfect proof in a two-page, twenty-five minute essay. As long as you offer some relevant examples and tie them to your thesis, you should be fine.</p>