If someone would be kind enough to critique my essay. Thank You.

[nischalm]

Hello,

This is my very first essay. Do not be gently. Do comment and rate. Thank you.

 

In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.

 

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

 

 

 

All modern discussions and assemblies, that discuss topics of great importance – economic welfare, education, etcetera are a gathering of literate people who have opposing views. As in, one party is in favor of the discussion and the other, contradicts the discussion. Such discussions are important for progress in any field. Progress always requires discussion among people who have contrasting or contradicting views.

 

Firstly, the topic of discussion is screwtinized more throughly in such situation. Lets take a hypothetical example, a discussion on wheather genetically modified babies should be a “thing” or not. In a discussion of such great importance, the group in favor of the discussion would put forth their point. The opposing or contrasting group would put forth contradicting views and opinions, enforcing each group to rethink and research. This further leads to a better and deeper analysis and makes progress efficacious and painless.

 

Furthermore, consider a discussion with people who have the same views and opinions. Everyone is happy! No one would bother analysing the points put forth to find flaws in the system. Lets consider the same example, genetically modified babies. If there are no contrasting view, the discussion ends quickly without any deterrence. The dicision may have been bad, but this will only be reflected in the future, when even healthy babies die due to mutations which were not analysed throughly before passing the bill. This can be totally prevented!

 

Sometimes, this dichotomy of people can lead to fights and protests in the society. “Terrorism” is one such topic. Terrorists think of themselves working for a better cause and obeying the almighty in his plan for humanity. But, the society strongly disagrees with this view! The contrasting views cause friction between the two groups, costing innocent lives in the process. But these are only the extreme edge cases and are rare.

 

To conclude, the opinions and view of a contrasting person makes you reanalyse and research with ardor, helping bring out the flaws that might have been accidently overlooked. The progress of any society is only possible with a dichotomy of people.

 

 

--end--

 

Please do comment and inform me of what might be wrong. Thank you once again.

Edited December 26, 2015 by nischalm

[betun]

Ok I will try to be as objective as possible and remember I critique my essays the same way, though I wote very few. I scored 5/6 in Oct 15, my primary weaknesses being slow typing speed and proclivity for typos. It is hard to get 6 without doing a 650+ word essay.

Yours is a fair essay and would merit 4 most probably. The structure is good and what ETS wants. It is too short though, inside 400 words. There are some spelling mistakes which aren't typos and need to be corrected. Run the essay on spellcheck and you will see.

The high scoring essays are ones with insight and topic development. This is missing here. You could have given more examples. Even in the example you mentioned, you could have further clarified what you meant by contrasting viewpoints. The terrorism example is way too short and poorly developed. Insight means thinking more about the issue in greater depth.  

You are also making unwarranted assumptions in your essay. For eg. 'The dicision may have been bad, but this will only be reflected in the future, when even healthy babies die due to mutations which were not analysed throughly before passing the bill. This can be totally prevented!'

This statement is stated as fact, not conjecture. You are also calling something preventable without presenting supporting evidence. Something wrong can get through after analysis as well.  You could have instead made the same point with 'this may only be...., when even...may die...the bill.Such a happening could have been prevented/could be preventable.

'This dichotomy' is not following from the previous para. It made better sense if it followed from the para before that in which a dichotomy was actually pointed out.

I could analyze this essay in greater depth if you want but another essay would be better practice. That's what I did.