Have technologies that made our lives easier necessarily made our lives better?

  • Testing
  • Thread starter Werg22
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Sat
In summary: So, in summary, the conversation is about the benefits of technology and the internet and how it has made our lives easier and more connected. The speakers discuss how some may criticize the internet and its effects on society, but ultimately it has brought about more good than bad. They also mention how technology and the internet have changed the way we access information and how it has the potential to continue evolving and changing in the future. Additionally, they talk about what motivates people to change, using examples from literature to illustrate the power of positive influence. Finally, the conversation touches on the idea that in order to achieve success, one must be willing to take risks and push themselves forward, rather than waiting for success to come to them.
  • #1
Werg22
1,431
1
I wrote some practice SAT essays. You can just read one and comment on it, I'd be more than happy. If you do, please briefly state what do you see as good points and bad points.

Essay 1

Assignment: Have technologies that made our lives easier necessarily made our lives better?

7:00 Am. Thank goodness my alarm woke me up – I might have been lost in eternal sleep there! It was easy and quick: before I went to bed I set the alarm with two clicks, and done. We all know people who condemn new technologies for being noisome to our society. The most common ground for these people has to be the critic of the internet. I believe they are failing to see the matter with an objective eye because if they did, they would certainly have a different opinion.

Can you imagine a world without ambulances, fire trucks or police cars? We would be stuck in a Victorian-esque era where it would take literarily hours before we come to the rescue of someone in need. Similarly, the internet has made our lives much more secure. A doctor can quickly send medical information on a patient with brain surgery to a neurosurgery clinic. A police officer can send pictures taken on a crime scene to a detective for thorough analysis. Yet, some still insist to ignore those benefits and focus on the more negative aspects of the internet, taking more often than not the youth as their prey.

While it’s true that the bringing of such things as word processing and “chat language” by the internet could have had nothing but a detrimental effect on youth, the good far outweighs the bad. Never did students have access to as much free information as they now do. Looking for information on recent researches on cancer? No problem. Just type write words in a search engine like Google or consult a free internet encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. The sky is the limit. This information “revolution” that is now upon us made it possible for anyone, anywhere, anytime to be connected to a world of knowledge, news and much more. It seems as if people who criticize the internet never took that into consideration. One funny thing is that during the 19th century, novels were often critized for corrupting their readers. Today, we say the opposite. The heresy of yesterday has become today’s orthodoxy. Like Hellen Keller said, “The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next.”

Those who refuse to see the greater good technology brings us never do anything but slow-down Humanity. Like author Stewart Brand “Once a new technology rolls over you, if you're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the road.” Who knows what tomorrow’s technology will look like? Whatever it is, one thing is for sure: the internet will be revered and a new kind of technology will be condemned.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Essay 2

Assignment: What motivates people to change?

What can bring the incorrigible criminal to see the benefits of the path of honesty and virtue? Some will say harsh punishment will do. They are wrong. What really compels us to change are not the consequences of our acts, but rather it is the confrontation with someone who, through his virtues, makes us see our shortcomings.

In the novel Les Miserable by French author Victor Hugo, the protagonist, escaped convict Jean Valjean, is as a man who shamelessly commits larceny for a living. One day, stumbling upon a poor, threadbare Jean Valjean, a priest takes pity on him and invites him into his house. When left alone in a room for a while, Jean Valjean quickens to pilfer anything he can. Suddenly, the priest bursts into the room, catching Jean Valjean red handed. Instead of denouncing him to the authorities, he grabs two silver candle holders from a nearby table and begs him to take them along what he already seized and leave.

This strange incident had a forever lasting effect on Jean Valjean; ashamed by his ways, he mutates from a common thief to a man of great convictions. In the play Hamlet, Hamlet says “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. Being exposed to “good”, made Jean Valjean see the “bad”. What follows then is a change that takes roots both in the outside and the inside; the priest, an external element, triggered this change, but it is untimely Jean Valjean who pursued it.

Jean Valjean is a fictional character, but he remains a paragon of the repenting man. A single encounter sufficed to make this criminal a magnanimous man. People of all sort can – and they do – change this way. However, two conditions must be met: a good influence from the outside, and a will to change from the inside. In the words of Alice Walker: “No person is your friend who demands your silence, or denies your right to grow”.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Essay 3

Assignment: The door to success is labeled “push”. Discuss.

So you open your cookbook to a random page only to find this: recipe for success. Under the ingredient section: salt, a zest of olive oil, and, most importantly, pushing. Yes, pushing. Successful people all have something in common. They’re not afraid to take risk. They do not hesitate to grab the opportunities that lay before them. They push forward.

In a speech addressed to High School students, Bill Gates said something along the lines of “Don’t refuse to flip burgers because you consider it below your dignity. In your grandparents time, they would call it an opportunity”. Well, Bill, I don’t agree. After all, your just one of the richest on the planet, and the main shareholder in a gigantic company, which you founded yourself – by the way, that was sarcasm. What Bill is trying to tell us here is that just sitting there and expecting success to strike us is a sure way to remain unsuccessful.

Success must be grabbed by the horns. Your success depends – let’s say in general – on you and only you. What would have become Napoleon Bonaparte without his ambition? Before becoming a leader, he was a follower, you know. As in his words, “If you want a thing done well, do it yourself.”

You may want to annex a cliff-note to that recipe: “The key to success is to pounce on every opportunity you are given, and that is why the “push” ingredient is needed”. But please do not go over the border with the amount of “push” you mix in, or you might end up like Bonaparte – exiled! And Bill, would you like fries with that?
 
  • #4
I think essay 3 is very much better than the previous 2, but they all have their problems.

The first paragraph of Essay 3 is engaging which I like, but then the tone changes with that first sentence in the second paragraph. You haven't said who Bill Gates is or why we should consider what he has to say. You added it after what he said, but it seems later than it should be. Also, I don't understand the "by the way, that was sarcasm" remark. As a reader, I would start to feel a little inferior, and I wouldn't want to read something that made me feel that way.

Is Bill trying to tell us something? Not really, he wasn't speaking to us. You quoted him, so it is out of context. I would probably stick to "what I think Bill meant is that...".

"Success must be grabbed by the horns." Is that true? I would think success is a state of becoming, not an endpoint. Perhaps I could understand that one should grab a successful method by the horns. (Is success a successful method?)

"let's say in general" - if the reader doesn't understand that, they will probably feel left out, like you are asking to much of them. And doesn't success depend on what you do more than on you? Or if you equate those two, can you assume the reader does?

Again, no introduction to Napoleon. Who is he? Before becoming a leader he was a follower? Isn't that implied by default?

What is a cliff-note? And also, this is a challenge to the reader. I may want to? But I don't know if I should or not! Let me do something else rather.

And as for the stern warning at the end, I don't think one should be that direct. I would rather have said something like "Of course, too much push can harm as much as help".
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Ok, Essay 2 has serious flaws which I will now address.

"Some will say harsh punishment will do. They are wrong." The reader might agree with them; if that is the case you have just told the reader he or she is wrong. Not a good way to start, it's highly adversarial.

"What really compels us..." No, what you think really compels us. Don't take the reader's opinion for granted; they might disagree with you and ignoring them will only turn them away. What I think most authors tend to do in a situation like this is to express a purpose, something like "I will attempt to justify my contention that what really compels us is...".

In the novel, Valjean does a bunch of stuff but is it really important? I don't think the reader will know why you are reading from this story. Moreover, how is literature telling on real life? Surely the implication runs the other way.

That Valjean is a paragon of the repenting man is merely asserted by you and is unjustified. I don't know that the reader will agree. A telling thing you can do sometimes is after each sentence, say to yourself "says you". For instance: "People of all sort can and do change this way - says you. However, two conditions must be met - says you." I think by doing this it can help to highlight those parts that are unjustified.
 
  • #6
Now for Essay 1, although by now I think you could probably critique it pretty well by yourself :).

"I might have been lost in eternal sleep there!" Uh, no. There is no such thing as eternal sleep. Why would he say that, I don't understand. I'm feeling inferior now. Perhaps "I might have been late for work" would do better?

"We all know people who condemn...". Do we? Perhaps "I think there are many who condemn..., perhaps you know such a person."

"I believe they are failing to see the matter with an objective eye because if they did, they would certainly have a different opinion." If the reader doesn't, you have just insulted him or her. Not good.

"Those who refuse to see the greater good technology brings us never do anything but slow-down Humanity." A brazen claim, and surely one which any theist would reject.
 
  • #7
Okay verty, this essay was written before you gave me your feedback so don't be shocked to see the same flaws resurface. One other thing: just out of curiosity, what do you know about the SAT essay? Did you do it? What did you get?

Essay 4


Assignment: Can loss teach us more than a win?

The school’s final chess tournament is being held. All those that I consider threats are out of the competition. Things are looking good - or at least I thought so. I'm in the semi finals and, from previous encounters with my opponent, I knew I was the stronger player.

It seems as if that gave me free access to over-confidence and arrogance. To mock my opponent, I deliberately let him take my two rooks. What a fatal mistake that was. Within a few moves, I was corned, barely resisting, and had no strategy whatsoever. When your chess player, you know that in that kind of situation the only thing that can save you is a miracle. Indeed, not only did I loose the match, but I also lost my chance to win this tournament for the first time.

Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft - one of the most successful companies of our time - once said: “Success is lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can’t loose.” Now, I’m not implying that I’m smart (please don’t read between the lines) but I do feel his statement applies very well to my situation. Had I faced the same opponent on that same match without knowing anything about him, I think I would have won. As matter of fact I faced him again over a friendly match. This time, I didn’t give any gift. I played as if I was playing against the most robust opponent and it bared fruit: I was soon victorious. This is the way I play ever since.

I didn’t win that same tournament the year after. But the reasons where different; I did put my full effort in every match I played. Most importantly, I wasn’t disappointed at all. At that time, I knew that the only thing that would have made me a true looser was if I failed to learn from my loss. Had I won this semi-final match, I would have lost an important lesson.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Werg, don't forget that the essay portion of the SAT is fairly new. Chances are that most people here haven't taken it.
 
  • #9
Well this one is a lot better, I'd even call it good. However, it can still be improved. Let me show by example...

Picture this. It is my school's final chess tournament. All those I consider to be threats are out of the competition. I'm in the semi-finals and from previous encounters I know I am a stronger player than my opponent. Things are looking good - or so I thought.

Feeling confident, I deliberately let my opponent take my two rooks. What a fatal mistake that was! Within a few moves, I am cornered, barely resisting with no strategy in sight. As a chess player I knew that in that type of situation only a miracle could save me. Alas, it was not to be. I lost the match, and in doing so lost the opportunity to win this tournament for the first time. I faltered with the goal in sight...

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft... etc

I'm using this as an example so you can compare those two paragraphs and see how you feel as a reader when you read these different versions. I think you'll see that mine makes no demands on the reader, it leads the reader without being challenging.

I also tried to make it seem emotional without being obvious. Can you feel the confidence when you read the first paragraph? Can you feel the anxiety and frustration in the second? Perhaps I am deluded and I didn't manage to do that but nevertheless the important thing to take from this is that you must work with the reader to have a good result.

Obviously I expect you to continue writing practice essays and being critiqued until you have learned the habit, because it is good to know and you should be looking past this one test.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
And about my experience, I am not in the US so don't know anything about SAT's at all, but what I know is I had to write 500-600 word essays in high school and I typically got about 90% for them, so I must have been doing something right. I don't think my teacher was being overly lenient.
 
  • #11
Thanks a lot verty, I will keep on practicing. I will write about 3 essays tomorrow, so, if you don't mind, come check them. The way you reconstructed those two paragraph is brilliant! Your a good essayist and it shows. I will try to add the kind of vivacity you showed me to my future essays. If I have the time, I will edit the previous essays with what you recommended in mind.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Are you using a study book for these essay topics or are you making them up
 
  • #13
Werg22: I didn't write an essay for the SAT, but I wrote an essay for the SAT II writing section which I understand to be essentially the same thing (I did well). One thing that you may what to consider is that from what I recall they prefer you to use multiple examples or sources of evidence to support your point. It's supposed to be kind of like the classical three body paragraph essay. Your writing in compelling, but the structure could perhaps use some work. Also, I'd definitely check out the tips you can find in an SAT study book or even elsewhere online. They look for specific things in an SAT essay that members of this site may not be familiar with.
 
  • #14
In fact I'm not 1 but 3 study guides. The one that I find the most compelling says it's more about making a point than to stick to a structure. According to it, several creative, out of the ordinary essays have been awarded a 12/12. The most important thing is to get the reader's interest and make the essay a pleasant read. That's what I'm trying to do in my essays, and I find that when I draw from novel or history I have difficulty to accomplish that. That's why I mostly go with the "humanity" path.
 
  • #15
I suppose we can distinguish between the content of an essay and the style of an essay. The skill in writing an essay is being able to write a well-styled essay about any topic. Once you can do that, then certainly knowing what the adjudicator expects of the content is important.

I would say both of these things are important, but I think the style is more noticeable and is a general skill that one can acquire, whereas the content is specific to the situation unless you are writing within a specific domain like perhaps technical reviews or scientific literature or whatever.
 
  • #16
Okay here's another essay. The name Louis Grotzky is invented because I can't find the real name of the person in question.


Essay 5


Assignment: Do we need others to better understand ourselves?

Often, it’s when we get the same remark from different people that we start to question ourselves on our nature. There are good reasons to believe that truth often comes out from other rather than ourselves. My personal experience as well as a thorough analysis from a renowned psychologist both provide support this claim.

My mathematics teacher once told me “You know, you’re quite a lazy person.” I didn’t take this remark for much. To me it was just a one time thing; that he had fallen under the wrong impression. When, two days later, my English teacher made the same remark, I was a little aroused but not enough to take it really seriously. After all, it could be a coincidence, right? Probably, I thought. But when the exact same thing eventually happened with my History teacher and my science teacher, I started to question myself. Could it be that I’m lazy? I went to some friends and my parents. Their answers all confirmed it. But I wasn’t vexed or anything of the sort. Certainly, I had only myself to blame; I was only surprised that others were able to discern my weaknesses better than I.

A recent study conducted by Louis Grotzky, an associate of Harvard University, enlightens us on the matter. In a experiment, Grotzky assembled some people and exposed them to verbal attacks. He then asked them to analyze what was their own reaction. Most had to retreat for while in order to think over it, and came up with hesitant answers. On the other hand, the few that bothered to consult others presented a firm analysis. Grotzky concluded that others are better than ourselves at determining what kind of behavior we have.

As humans, we are often not able to let go of our ego and judge ourselves frankly. For this reason, we are better off if we seek our truth in others. Had I not been told that I was lazy, I would probably still ignore it. As matter of fact, I regularly do the exercise of questioning others on myself. Perfection is not attainable, but to pursue never did me any harm.
 
  • #17
Essay 6

Assignment: Is the world changing for the better?

Mankind has a dark history; one of war, crimes and ruthlessness. Today, we have fallen under the impression, living cozily out of conflict’s way, that we have reached an era of greater peace. Unfortunately, I’m afraid this is nothing but an illusion. We don’t live in peace any more than we ever did.

The First World War was said to be the “war to end all wars”. The ones advocating that claim must have been quite in shock, then, when not 20 years later Europe entered into a yet more bloody, more devastating conflict. Albert Einstein once said “As long as there will be men, there will be war”. Nearly a 100 years after the “war to end all wars”, are compelled to think that he was right.

In today’s world, Crusades have evolved into what is called terrorism. The model of an evil despot who must be removed that was defined by figures such as Hitler is still carried in people’s mind, often in a far too simplistic manner. Rather than evaluating its modern problems with a new perspective, Humanity prefers to look into the past and thus comes up with solutions from the past. Truly, we may live in an era where we can contact a person oversees within a few seconds, or travel across the Atlantic ocean in a few hours, but Humanity isn’t much different than it was 10 000, a 1000 or a 100 years ago.

Four billions out of the 6 billions human beings live in conditions of poverty, hunger, malnutrition and disease. The remaining 4 billions seem to shelter themselves in their own bubble and pretend there is no such thing. Like George Bernard Shaw, a famous Irish playwright once said: “we learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”
 
Last edited:
  • #18
When I write essays I try to use language that flows nicely, is combined in a fashion that doesn't look familiar (the words and combinations of words you use is unique, isn't forced and is elegant), includes interesting information that relates but would not normally be contained in the essay (philosophical perspectives or critiques), etc.

I try to create original essays that are not congruent to the typical model people use to write essays. Then again, I am better at writing than I am at mathematics so I might just be weird. I feel if someone reads something completely fresh and different than what the usually recieve, they are more inclined to read your essay and possibly pursue your effort in assisting them.

EDIT: I will write two sample paragraphs to the question you most recently posted, demonstrating my opinion on writing.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
I am at work so I only had enough time on my 10 minute break to write an introductory paragraph. I wrote this in about ten minutes, using nothing other than my brain. I think your style is too concrete and perhaps extending your essay further might benefit you. My style is no better than yours, I am just offering something a little different. If you do not like the way I write, that's definitely understandable.

Is the World changing for the better?

As one begins to explore and analyze their perceptions of the external World, a retrospective model of antecedent events begins to emerge. Deep introspection leads to a natural extrapolation of particular aspects of the past, which one can subjectively apply to the external world through the construction of a particular, independent paradigm of reality, which allows for the potential acquisition of important insight. When one is asked the question, “Is the World changing for the better?”, it might be reasonable to inquire as to what aspect(s) of the World, one should consider. While today’s society appears to be dynamic, evolving exponentially, towards the development of technology, from which globalization and industry has emerged, it is a non sequitur to assert that this trend is to be regarded strictly as a positive change. The worldwide integration of humanity and the increased compression of spatial and temporal distances between countries, functions as a catalyst for the gapped expansion between underdeveloped nations and the inextricable, interconnected relationship they share with the world’s hyper economy.

I bolded my thesis statement, which I like to include at the end of my introductory paragraph so it sticks in their head. You want to structure the architecture of your essay around your thesis then proceed to prove it through out your essay.

Instead of writing out essays for each topic, get familiar with how to think about a topic, construct some kind of argument for or against it and defend it. The questions are so vague that you can honestly answer it anyway you want, so long as you can stay consistent with what the question is asking.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
complexPHILOSOPHY, your style would be best fit for a long term assignment, where you have ample of time and space to clarify your stance. The SAT essay however is bounded by a 25 minutes time limit, and the examiner will read it in a few minutes before he gives it a score. Hiding the meaning in cleverness or trying to give a deep philosophical dimension to the essay might not be the best choice because the examiner simply won't bother to reflect on it. Two of my study guides recommend to be as concrete as possible in order to avoid this issue. I appreciate your feedback very much though; I am quite an abstract writer myself so I understand very well your point of view.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Werg22 said:
complexPHILOSOPHY, your style would be best fit for a long term assignment, where you ample of time and space to clarify your stance. The SAT essay however is bounded by a 25 minutes time limit, and the examiner will read it in a few minutes and give it a score. Hiding the meaning in cleverness or trying to give a deep philosophical dimension to the essay might not be the best choice because the examiner simply won't bother to get into reflection as he has to correct thousands of essays. Two of my study guides recommend to be as concrete as possible in order to avoid this issue. I appreciate your feedback very much though; I am quite an abstract writer myself so I understand very well your point of view.

That stipulation does put a particular rigid restraint on how and what you can write, so I can see why you are doing what you are doing. Although, I fail to see the point in asking students to write an essay as fast as they can and as concrete and boring as possible.

I know you have no choice but to follow the instructions but it looks frustrating.

I am glad I never took my SAT's or any AP tests, those things irritated me. Far to rigid for my liking (the writing portions, that is).
 
  • #22
I agree that it's best when we have full liberty. But what can you do...
 
  • #23
Werg22 said:
I agree that it's best when we have full liberty. But what can you do...

Not a damn thing, lol, except what they ask you to do.
 
  • #24
Assignment: Do we need others to better understand ourselves?

I have written my own essay answering this question. I won't post the whole of it but I think it will show a good contrast because it is written in a more serious style. One thing that annoyed me when I was writing essays is that we were never told how to write them, it was like we should just come to understand how to do it.

Now being in the position to help someone write essays, I find that I don't know how to present that knowledge. Therefore I will post the first bit of my essay and hope that by seeing what I think is probably a pretty good essay, it will help in some way.

I'll not write any more in the future, I'll try to give meaningful comments instead. Later tonight I'll try to give some comments on these two essays.

Do we need others to better understand ourselves? I would say yes, we do, for reasons I will discuss shortly.

In thinking about this question, it strikes me that it is related to a similar question: "How might we come to understand ourselves?" Without knowing how we come to know ourselves, we could hardly know whether we should need others to do that or not. So the approach we must follow is first to answer this more elementary question, and only having done that may we proceed to the final answer.

Well what does this more elementary question entail? If I know myself, I believe I should know 3 things: I should know how I should act, I should know how I might react, and I should know how I might feel in certain situations. Let's take each of these in turn.

Knowing how I should act does seem to me to be somewhat contingent on others, because others will react to what I do. If I choose to be a thief, I might get thrown in prison which certainly seems relevant to the question of what I should do, as I don't wish to be stuck in prison. On the other hand, I think that what I should do is to some degree contingent on my independent nature. If I am lactose intolerant, I certainly shouldn't consume dairy products, even if the people I know do or even should.

So the answer to this first question is one of probability. Is what one should do more contingent on one's surroundings or on one's independent nature? I don't think we must choose. I think it would depend on the individual how much each of these factors determines the answer.

...
 
  • #25
verty said:
I have written my own essay answering this question. I won't post the whole of it but I think it will show a good contrast because it is written in a more serious style. One thing that annoyed me when I was writing essays is that we were never told how to write them, it was like we should just come to understand how to do it.

Now being in the position to help someone write essays, I find that I don't know how to present that knowledge. Therefore I will post the first bit of my essay and hope that by seeing what I think is probably a pretty good essay, it will help in some way.

I'll not write any more in the future, I'll try to give meaningful comments instead. Later tonight I'll try to give some comments on these two essays.

Does the SAT instruct you to write in first-person narrative? If it doesn't, I would try my best to refrain from using first-person narrative, if possible.
 
  • #26
What one should do really depends on how it will be marked. Personally, I find third-person discussion to work very well for fiction but not too well for nonfiction. With fiction, you are the author and so can make whatever claim you wish, however with nonfiction facts must be justified.

Well there are two remedies which I'll call the philosophical and the scientific. I think my way would be the philosophical approach, which is where you identify opinions where they are opinions, qualifying them with "I think" and "I believe" or perhaps "It seems to me". The scientific approach is to appeal to some other source of authority, like some respected author or whatever.

The problem I see with appealing to authority is that you inevitably must make your own contentions or else the discussion is pretty much worthless. Moreover, if an opinion is well justified, presenting it as an opinion should not detract much from it because the justification is there to see.

The problem is justification, but if you have justified what you have said then I don't see a great deal of difference between presenting opinions or calling them facts. Perhaps it depends on the environment; certainly I would imagine that scientific people would follow the norms as defined by scientific literature. My background is philosophical and so I would expect to see it from a different point of view.

As usual, know your audience, or in this case, know your context.

PS: And if you present facts you might quickly find yourself in the grey area about whether a theory is a fact, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
verty said:
What one should do really depends on how it will be marked. Personally, I find third-person discussion to work very well for fiction but not too well for nonfiction. With fiction, you are the author and so can make whatever claim you wish, however with nonfiction facts must be justified.

Well there are two remedies which I'll call the philosophical and the scientific. I think my way would be the philosophical approach, which is where you identify opinions where they are opinions, qualifying them with "I think" and "I believe" or perhaps "It seems to me". The scientific approach is to appeal to some other source of authority, like some respected author or whatever.

The problem I see with appealing to authority is that you inevitably must make your own contentions or else the discussion is pretty much worthless. Moreover, if an opinion is well justified, presenting it as an opinion should not detract much from it because the justification is there to see.

The problem is justification, but if you have justified what you have said then I don't see a great deal of difference between presenting opinions or calling them facts. Perhaps it depends on the environment; certainly I would imagine that scientific people would follow the norms as defined by scientific literature. My background is philosophical and so I would expect to see it from a different point of view.

As usual, know your audience, or in this case, know your context.

PS: And if you present facts you might quickly find yourself in the grey area about whether a theory is a fact, etc.

My post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1224367&postcount=19", is an example of what I think a good essay should look like. It is third person and informative. It is merely an introduction paragraph but you get the idea.

I do understand though, that my style is not applicable to the SAT as you have no time to write and no time for the grader to read.

What one should do really depends on how it will be marked. Personally, I find third-person discussion to work very well for fiction but not too well for nonfiction. With fiction, you are the author and so can make whatever claim you wish, however with nonfiction facts must be justified.

This doesn't make sense to me. Often in fiction, the narrative is in both third and first person, depending on the context of the story. Usually, the author oscillates back forth, either for conversations or for story-telling.

When you write non-fiction, unless you personally did the research, writing in first person detracts from the credibility. You are only credible if you refer to a credible source. Now, in the case of an expository essay, where you are answering a question, it's generally not correct to use first person narrative unless the question ask specifically, what your opinion is. It is still, often correct to write in formal third person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Comments on Essay 5.

"Often it's when we get..." Are you telling the reader what is often the case with them? Seems rather assertive.

"My personal experience as well as a thorough analysis..." You have personal experience about what is the case with me?

"A recent study enlightens us" Hardly, since the reader most likely doesn't know anything about it so can't have been enlightened by it or can't be being enlightened by it at the time you said that because they haven't read about it yet.

"the few that bothered to consult others" Is consulting others a bother generally?

"As humans, we are often not able to let go of our ego and judge ourselves frankly." I can't get over how I dislike this language, but I think I am probably biased. I don't like to be told stuff, I like stuff to be highlighted so that I may think about it. Probably just me; get a second opinion.

"Perfection is not attainable" Unjustified.
 
  • #29
My post #19, is an example of what I think a good essay should look like.

Sorry to be blunt but I thought it was quite bad. I think the main problem with that type of writing is that there is too much jargon. For instance, what on Earth is a hyper economy? I have never heard of such a thing. Independent paradigm? Not everyone is a philosopher of science, you know. I think your style demands too much from the reader.

Actually, I have an idea. Let me try to rework your introductory paragraph; perhaps you will like it or perhaps you won't.

Edit: I'll not rewrite it because I see the subject matter is of a high level so the reader may be expected to understand terms like "retrospective model". In that case, dumbing it down would probably not be worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Verty, I will probably write two or more essays tonight. Please verify them as today is my last day before the actual examination. About the dictating nature of my essays, they reflect my opinion rather than truths. Is it really necessary to constantly remind the reader that it's my opinion? I think it's already assumed...
 
  • #31
verty said:
Sorry to be blunt but I thought it was quite bad. I think the main problem with that type of writing is that there is too much jargon. For instance, what on Earth is a hyper economy?

A hyper economy is one that is increasing exponentially, at an extremely large rate. Another example of the term hyper, relates to hyperpowers. The U.S. can be considered a world military hyperpower because it invests an extremely large or exaggerated amount of resources into it. The term hyper economy is quite common as well as hyperpower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpower

You are familiar with the term abstraction and the ability to use words in different ways, correct?

I have never heard of such a thing. Independent paradigm? Not everyone is a philosopher of science, you know.

Granted, the term paradigm was first introduced by Kuhn with his philosophy of science, it is now a colloquialism. It is used quite often and defined either by a model, set of rules, set of principals, set of observations, etc. An independent paradigm is one that does not rely on other people's beliefs or opinions, constructed subjectively.
I think your style demands too much from the reader.

If the reader is being asked to much by me, then perhaps they aren't my targeted audience?

Actually, I have an idea. Let me try to rework your introductory paragraph; perhaps you will like it or perhaps you won't.

I was an English and Philosophy major before I switched to physics and mathematics, so I am not completely retarded about writing.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Are you familiar with etymology?
 
  • #33
Comments on Essay 6.

The first paragraph sounds to me like preaching, like something I would read in a Michael Moore book, although having said that, I think this is your best essay yet. I can hardly find anything to complain about, so that must be good.

However one thing that did draw my attention was "the war was said to be ...". This is a statement about what happened historically, and history is very difficult to justify because historians are known to distort the truth. I think when discussing history, one really should quote sources.

Actually, there is one caveat. I don't mind this style of writing. For instance, when you say "crusades have evolved into what is called terrorism", I know it is just your opinion and that it is unqualified in this case, but I try to give it a charitable reading because I happen to agree what what you have said or think that there is still the potential for reading it to be beneficial to me. Unfortunately, usually the purpose of writing is to reach people who disagree with you and not all of them think that way, so even though some statements seem agreeable, they probably still need to be justified. If the crusades and terrorism share some common nature, perhaps you should talk about it rather than asserting it.

Obviously the task is to judge which statements should be justified and which not, depending on the target audience. With complexPhilosophy's introductory paragraph, the subject matter is very technical so his jargon is generally acceptable, although I still disagree with 'hyper economy'.
 
  • #34
@complexPhilosophy,

Well since I was not in your target audience, I'll not worry about the applicability of such terms as 'hyper economy'. Since you contend that it is common, I accept that.

I am indeed familiar with abstraction and with the ability to use words in different ways. I was not aware that hyper economy was a well-defined term. It sounded to me like an ad hoc use of hyper to mean superlative.

I said I would attempt to rewrite it because I had formed the opinion that what you had said was overly technical, and without having read it too closely, I thought I could make it less technical. I was indeed mistaken, as those who would understand the subject can rightly be expected to understand the jargon. My beef with hyper economy was simply because I didn't think it was well defined, as I have said.

Lastly, I am not familiar with etymology although I have read both about linguistics and the philosophy of language. Etymology is ontological whereas I was more interested in the general nature of those subjects.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Ok, no more critiquing from me because you know my perspective by now and I can see there is disagreement, and I don't deny that I am giving my own point of view with little concern of how others judge it.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
24
Views
691
  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Engineering
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
Back
Top