Issue review - first time post (will comment on other!)

[spartaned]

Hi, first time poster - read the instruction and will comment on other essays.

Not sure I've put enough emphasis on the extra instruction - would love feedback.

 

Thanks!

 

Prompt

 

Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

--------------------------------------------

 

Scandals have been part of society from the beginning modern culture, dating back to ancient Greece. Scandals are, in essence, a deviation from society's decorum. They draw public attention, since they have profound impact on society, while, in deep contrast, they are the result of actions of a few. Scandals draw public attention to specific issues, forcing public discussion and immediate action and help cure society ailments in the long run.

 

Scandals are the public manifestation of internal issues of society, public figures or organizations, either within the private or public sectors. Scandals trigger public discussion, regarding the fundamental issue lying within, for which the scandal is only the symptom, or ‘tip of the iceberg’, if you will. The discussion that the scandal incites is beneficial, since public attention is more easily drawn to short term issues which are easier to comprehend, when measured on the vast scale of the entire population and political parties. Nevertheless, by requiring immediate action, they call forth the discussion on the fundamental issue, for which long term solutions are required. Opposed to public speaker and reformers, who try to incite public discussion for long term solutions directly, scandals focus public attention, through the symptom, to the core problem.

 

 

The public’s reaction to scandals can be compared to a body’s reaction to a vaccine. Analogous to a castrated virus of the flu vaccine, the scandal effect is local, though it does take its toll, triggering a weakened response of the body, such as a slight fever or headaches. On the long term, the benefit of addressing the problems caused by the scandal outweigh the harmful effects it may cause. On the other hand, public speakers and reformers can be compared life-quality supplements. For example, one may take vitamin pills, thus improving the overall quality of the body and prevent most illnesses, analogous to a public discussion on minimum wage. Yet, these supplements cannot address ailments, and from time to time, a new, more destructive ailment may present itself. It is through scandals, public discussion and action, society learns how to correct itself,such as the body learns how to deal with once deadly disease.

 

 

Though scandals are beneficial for society social health on the long run and on the public scale, it is important to understand two sides of the coin. Scandals often focuses journalists on the lives of individuals. Those who the scandal was caused by, and their surroundings, causing harm to their families, friends, co-workers, and the organizations they are a part of. Though it is true the fault lies with those who are responsible for the scandal, nonetheless, their surroundings social circles are those who may pay the public price, in the right of public interest.

 

 

 

 

In conclusion, scandals, while unavoidable, can help cure society ailments. While public speakers and reformers, act as in to help shape society, scandals act as a shockwave, forcing deep thinking and actions, giving society new directions, helping shape its moral codes and march into a brighter future.

[dietrying]

5 points - for your complex and insightful position on the issue (namely, scandals cure society's ailments, though sometimes at the cost of private interest), as well as your consistent mastery of the English language. This essay could easily have scored a 6 if you explained several items more thoroughly.

 

First, you kept mentioning that scandals cures society of its diseases, but did not use a single concrete example of such "ailment". This lack of concreteness can make your essay seem drab and unconvincing. If you don't know any specific scandal, you could mention some general ones. For instance, you could say that exposure of accounting frauds to public scrutiny uncovers the financial and moral problems of a company, preventing further damage to society. Or, you could mention that scandals of embezzlement in the government allows the public to objectively judge their elected politicians, and make wiser voting decisions thereafter. Mention a couple of these examples to make your essay more concrete, lively and appealing.

 

Second, outline your thoughts explicitly. By this, I mean you should say whether you agree or disagree with the prompt in your opening paragraph, and list your reasons. Each paragraph should have at least one sentence explicitly mentioning what point you will be addressing (because graders look for clear organization of ideas). This is especially important for your "counterargument" paragraph, which brings us to the next point.

 

Third, pay attention to the specific task instructions. You said it yourself, that you're not sure if you put enough emphasis on the extra instructions. The answer: no, not enough - and that can cost you points. One of the essay score components is task completion. If the prompt says "be sure to address the most compelling reason ...", then you better do what it says. Now, back to your essay. I believe your second last paragraph was intended to present a counterargument, right? The substance is very good, but the style needs change (which is pretty easy). At the beginning of the paragraph, explicitly say that the following idea is from people who may disagree with you. For example, say something like "People who hold opposing views might say that ...". After presenting the counterargument, your still have one more job - to deal with this argument. You can do it in many ways. Most commonly, you either refute it or concede.

 

Finally, make sure your language is formal. You're already doing an excellent job, with just one exception. In paragraph 2, the usage of "if you will' is very colloquial. Try not to use "you", as if you're talking to someone sitting right next to you.

 

Sorry to place so much emphasis on the essay's flaws. It's actually a great response, but I have to delineate the weak points to be helpful. And I hope my reply helps a little. (Kindly critique my essays in the future, if you please.)

[PearlZhang]

Your ideas are great but they don’t link from one to another coherently, from my perspective. Like in the first paragraph, after saying that scandal is action of a few, you immediately mention that is draws public attention to specific issues. The two points are very different – one concerns the doer/ performer of action and another is about the consequences. Maybe you can try using ‘guiding words’ (not sure what’s its formal name) e.g. moreover, on the other hand.

 

The same happens to the second paragraph – I get your point: short-term issues draw attention and allude to more fundamental flaws. But you start by saying that scandals draw people’s attention to fundamental issue followed by its emphasis on immediate problems. I don’t see the connection there at first. I think it’d be better to say scandals make people aware of the short-terms flaws, AND THEN explain how does it lead to people’s realization of the primary causes.

 

I like your metaphor of scandals to vaccine, which makes your argument more vivid. But it would be clearer if you conclude the paragraph with a more direct statement e.g. ‘Scandals cure the root of the problem while minor changes brought by speakers only deal with the surface/ manifestations of a far deeper issue.’

 

Side note: I am not sure about your attack on reformists though, because they can bring structural and fundamental changes to society as well.