5 paragraph essay help!

Discussion in 'The Writer's Corner' started by YourFace, Nov 28, 2011.

  1. YourFace

    YourFace <span style="color:#9C9C9C;"><strong>Runner Up - T

    Ratings:
    +90 / 0 / -0
    So I handed in my essay(formal writing rules apply). I'm in 11th grade and I submitted my essay who is now giving it back for us to revise. I checked and reread my essay twice for errors and made a lot of corrections. To get a really good grade, I was hoping you guys could check for grammar errors. My teacher pointed out that I have
    sentence fragments,
    use of 2nd person(even when asking a question to the reader),
    agreement in number
    agreement of pronoun & antecedent
    punctuation(other than commas)
    commas
    incorrect tense
    tense shift
    incorrect word/usage
    support for thesis faulty
    quoted material presented incorrectly
    content vague/confusing
    insifficient source data
    (despite this she liked the essay)


    The Age of Responsibility
    Driving had become an imperative, dramatic part of every modernized country, especially America. In order to minimize damage and maximize efficiency, many states have instated a wide variety of age restricting driving laws. However, many other states have lagged behind in this effort. For example, states such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida have given licensing procedures to teenagers of fifteen years of age and full licenses to sixteen year olds. Having allowed young teens to drive, however, poses many risks and have set a terrible example for highly populated states, such as New Jersey. Teenagers are generally impulsive, immature, and rash - causing them to not always think in advance of their actions. Often, they text while driving or test their limits by speeding or other reckless actions - endangering everyone around them. Most importantly, a need to permit immature adolescents the privilege of driving no longer exists. Since using motor vehicles at the proper age is vital to ensure the safety of both the driver and all those on the road, teenagers under seventeen should not be given the full privilege of driving.
    Nowadays, teenagers and their cellular devices are inseparable. Texting distracts drivers from focusing on the road for a short period of time. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (September 09, 2007) "Drivers who use hand-held devices are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves." The actual danger is much worse; it is impossible to keep one's eyes on a phone and the road. Essentially, one is blind. In Maryland, the U.S. Department of transportation conducted a driving test with drivers who were asked to text and drive around cones with inflated dolls as people. Normally, they passed fine, but, while texting and driving, they completely failed. Afterwards, the drivers said, "I had thought I could text and drive, but, after the results showed up, I realized just how impossible that would be." Although the results apply to experienced drivers, teenager's inexperience amplify the problem. Additionally, approximately fifty percent of teenagers driver while texting. Through increasing age requirements, teenage drivers are given more time to mature. As a result, they will understand the risks and, more likely, drive responsibly.
    If texting while driving is not dangerous enough, teenagers often have an unrepressed urge for adventure, which, coupled with an underdeveloped sense of danger, drastically increases the chance of an accident. Problems only amplify when a teenager is attempting to impress friends. According to the National Safety Council (NSC), researchers are finding that the area of the brain that controls the ability to weigh the consequences of one’s actions has not yet reached its maturity in a teenager – teenagers do not consider the risks of their actions. Additionally, hormones within the brain decrease control over mood changes, such as excitement. Allstate statistics of 2009 state that 55% of teens exceed the speed limit by at least ten mph, and twenty-six percent of self-identified "aggressive" teen drivers reported speeding by more than twenty mph over the limit. Since many teenagers cannot fully control themselves, state governments should help teenagers manage these hormonal changes until their brains are more fully developed. Some states, such as Maryland, have already begun to by implementing a 3 step process. It is neither restrictive - allowing teens to learn to drive before 16 (with parental supervision) - nor is it dangerous - not allowing teens to receive a full license until after 60 hours of driving, Driving Education, 2 years of experience prior to their road test. The results are staggering. Auto-accidents involving drivers under 21 has fallen by over 30% since implementing this new plan. By empowering young adults to drive, state laws actually end up giving them a task that their brains cannot yet handle - sometimes causing them to surpass their limits. However, by implementing a "level" license program, state governments are able to curtail the powerful urges of a developing mind.
    Now teenagers might argue that, as a young adult, they should be allowed freedom to drive and meet with friends. This, however, is not correct. First of all, teenagers are not yet adults. More importantly, according to Time magazine, three out of four car owners use their cars only once a week to meet with friends. In major cities such as New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia, there are hundreds of buses, taxis, and subway systems - all of which are for public use. Most forms of public transportation stop at malls, theaters, and parks – common areas teenagers enjoy visiting. There is such a multitude of ways to travel both long and short distances within a city that the reason “but I need a car to get there” simply holds no water.
    New Jersey should not adopt a younger driving age requirement due to several reasons. Simply put, adolescents are more likely to text while driving, and, as a result of undeveloped minds, carry out reckless behavior. Furthermore, young teenagers have ample methods of transportation. If New Jersey chooses to lower the age requirement, a long chain of deaths, insurance charges, and economic failures would form and remarkably impact the state's economy and reputation. Moreover, to prevent the loss of a family member, friend, or acquaintance who may fall victim to a reckless teenager's car accident, restrictive driving ages must remain the same.
     
  2. Ninva

    Ninva Анна Ахматова

    Ratings:
    +375 / 0 / -0
    Fuck! So long and so little time. :(

    I'm in exam week right now, and I'd love to help you. I really would, but I'm busy scribbling outlines for Hum1. After this week, I will have time to commit a full 20 minutes or more to your essays. Did any of corrections posted on my site help you? I'm assuming it did since you're asking me for help again. Hopefully posting it here will help you.
     
  3. Fatmankev

    Fatmankev Chef, Writer, and Midnight Toker

    Ratings:
    +237 / 0 / -0
    Let me begin by saying that I haven't written a formal essay in almost four years, so my memory of the essay's structure may be a bit off. Let me begin by suggesting you rewrite the paper. It's pretty decent, but your voice in the paper is far too personal imo. I think it would be better if you presented both the pros and cons of teens driving, as opposed to trying to convince the readers of your opinion. You should instead present the reader with both sides of the argument, leaving your perspective out of the paper as best you can, and allow them to decide for themselves whether they believe the teen driving age should be altered or not. I mostly suggest this because the way you illustrate your points is, to put it plainly, wrong. Yeah, teenagers pose more threats when driving than adults... but that's because they're learning how to drive. In my eyes, the age is irrelevant; we should probably be getting them on the roads earlier, while they still actually listen to people, than later, when they've decided that they know what's best in every situation, like a 17-year old. As far as the texting-while-driving is concerned, well, what you construed from the study and what the study actually shows are two completely different things. Obviously, texting impairs driving. Obviously, it's difficult to maneuver around a driving course while texting continuously. But to say that texting while driving is impossible, that it's akin to driving blind, well... that's an outright lie. I would bet the life of my children than I could drive circles around anyone while I'm texting and they've got their eyes shit. Fuckin' circles, man. Also, the statistic about 50% of teenagers texting-while-driving, henceforth known as t-w-d, seems completely made up. Unfortunately, your source work is poor (took me about 10 minutes per quoted line to find them online, when I actually did find them), so I can't know for sure if it's fact or fiction.

    Then, you make the mistake of suggesting a seventeen year-old to be more mature. Let me tell you know, that's the age of experimentation, when you move on from just weed and alcohol to try crazy shit like acid, ecstasy, mushrooms, or coke and that nasty shit. I promise you that you'd rather have a 16 year-old t-w-d than a 17 year-old tripping on acid driving like he's being chased by a nine-tailed fox or some shit. Although obviously, in both cases, this is not relevant to everyone, it is still something to keep in mind. The older you get, the more you think you know. Seventeen is just a dangerous age, is all, and the only thing keeping them safer than the 16 year-old kids is that they've got another year of driving experience on them. But that's just devil's advocate, right there.

    In the 3rd? (or 4th) paragraph, you blatantly state, "teenagers do not consider the risks of their actions." That is another 100% lie; the data suggests it's not fully developed, not that it's absent from their minds. Teenagers weigh the risk, and it just so happens that a teenager's sense of fun and excitement is a little heavier on that scale than the rest of ours. I also disagree that the government has given the young a "task" that their brains cannot handle. First off, driving is a privilege, not a task. Second, I cannot see how you can say their brains can't handle it because they're young. Do you not stand witness to the plethora of bad drivers of all ages on a daily basis? Do you not realize that the vast majority of drivers, young and old, don't understand that they're operating a powerful weapon on a daily basis? That, at any point, one little slip could ruin families' lives? This is not an issue restricted to the youth.

    Your TIME magazine quote is bologna. It is a study done on drivers of all ages, not teenagers, and thus does not represent the sort of information relevant to your paper. In addition, you conclude that altering these laws would save lives and money and what not. This could possibly be true. At the same time, it could be completely wrong. Did you, by chance, peruse the other articles on the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety? They went on to show that, since implementing the law forbidding motorists from t-w-d, there has been an increase in texting-related motor vehicle crashes. Just goes to show, sometimes the best intentions have bad results.

    Past all that, now, it's not a bad paper. Grammar and punctuation is pretty decent, and you have a lot of pertinent information to allow for a good paper. I'd suggest that you look at these bits of information and try to analyze them a bit better, looking at the upside and downside of every situation. Your first sentence has a tense issue... should be "has" instead of "had". 2nd or 3rd sentence... should be age "restrictive"; you're in past-tense, so you need to write in past-tense. Check the comma after NC in 3rd sentence; I think it needs to be there, since it's a list, but English teachers make mistakes sometimes so make sure to explain that to her if it comes up as a problem. Later in that line... "given licensing procedures to teenagers of fifteen years of age and full licenses to sixteen year olds"... should probably just write "...procedures to fifteen year-olds and full..."

    I'm afraid I've gotta get goin' for now so I probably won't finish this, but just remember: remain un-biased. Allow your reader to view the facts for themselves, without the influence of your opinion leading them in one direction or the other, and to make their own decisions on the situation based off the information you've given them. Let them decide for themselves that teenagers shouldn't be allowed to drive. If you get your voice out of your paper, I promise you it will be better.

    Not that you've got a bad voice or anything... ya know.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. YourFace

    YourFace <span style="color:#9C9C9C;"><strong>Runner Up - T

    Ratings:
    +90 / 0 / -0
    It's actually suppose to be a persuasive essay(5 paragraphs) where I have to persuade people to support my side of the argument. Of course, I can choose either side, so I chose the side with the easiest reasons to use.(Kind of like an SAT essay)If I talked about both sides, I wouldn't be persuading anyone - I would just be explaining it.

    Also, I see how being unbiased can help, but it's highly not recommended to present an argument of the opposing side without refuting it. I do tend to make unfounded, broad statements like "teenagers do not consider the risks of their actions" Most of my information comes from outdated sources or random internet statistics. The actually assignment is on random topics, and the teacher(high school, not professor) doesn't particularly care if it's real or true as long as it's believable and supports my argument.

    I don't particularly believe in some of my arguments. For example, the "teens are rash and impulsive" argument is just a generalization I made up to support my essay. It doesn't apply to every teen, but I emphasized this trait to support my essay.

    Overall, thanks for the help. Grammar is my worst enemy, and if you have any tips on learning every rule, you have to tell me!

    Yes it was very informative. I primarily want grammar help, but my writing style is very important too.
     
  5. Fatmankev

    Fatmankev Chef, Writer, and Midnight Toker

    Ratings:
    +237 / 0 / -0
    A brief addition: I believe that in formal writing you're supposed to write out the number if it's under 1,000. Don't hold me to that, but that's what I remember from school. Also, you seem to go a little heavy on the commas in some points, but by the majority your grammar isn't bad. Make sure you use your commas properly when doing citations, and a solid comprehension of independent and dependent clauses could help you with the extra commas. Every time in your paper where you've written "has" (maybe not every time, but at a sweeping glance it appears so) it should be "have", as your writing is in the past tense. Just a little more work, and it'd be ship-shape.

    Sorry if I sounded like a bit of an ass. It really is a pretty good paper, considering it's a persuasive essay; I'm sorry, I didn't realize at first. And your grammar is a far cry better than a lot of kids your age in our country, so don't feel too bad. Hell, when I first moved to this place in Virginia, three people I worked with didn't know where the capital of our country is, and you better believe their grammar was in the same spot. Don't count it as your worst enemy, just try to learn from it as best you can. Good luck with your paper.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. YourFace

    YourFace <span style="color:#9C9C9C;"><strong>Runner Up - T

    Ratings:
    +90 / 0 / -0
    Here is another Essay that I need help with! It's only 400 words(about one page), and the topic is "Who is worse? A good man who sins or an evil man who does not?" I have to persuade the audience that the evil man who does not sin is worse(i chose that side), and I have to reference to The Scarlet Letter and some real life examples.(The essay has to be concise, 400 words no more)


    A sin is an act that goes against a principle which divine command has set. Religious men tend to view sin as an immoral deed, and some, who committed the vilest of sins, may spend their life in penance. Vile men who are unbounded by religion, however, have committed nefarious deeds without disobeying religious principles. Perhaps they cause others to go bankrupt as part of their "business plan," or they refuse to help others for fear of increasing competition. Although corrupt men may not view their actions as a "sin," they are still unethical.
    Men whose moral characters outshine their erroneous natures are more likely to benefit society and set themselves as pure, integral examples than corrupt others who commit unethical deeds for their own benefits. Thus, an evil man is worse than a good man who committed a grave sin. Integral men have an urge to repent for sins with good deeds to society. In The Scarlet Letter, after Reverend Dimmesdale violated the tenth commandment, he regretted it and put forth more energy and empathy into his sermons, which greatly inspired his audience to be faithful followers of God. On the other hand, evil men are narrow-minded: they focus on their own benefits despite any cost they may have on others. Chillingworth sought vengeance against Dimmesdale and became a fiend in order to torture him. Moreover, evil men do not regret any misdeeds they have committed. In the movie Seven Blocks, the owner of a meat packing industry bribes state senators to pass a bill which will direct less money to impoverished people and more to large corporations(via tax cuts) . The owner despised the poor and continued to bribe senators for over a decade without any guilt on his conscience. Overall, evil men do not view their actions as unethical or immoral; they are merely following their own beliefs for their own benefits.
    Men can commit unethical deeds without violating a religious law. Therefore, evil men who do not sin can easily create more misfortunes than moral men who feel remorse for their sin. Good men often repent for their crimes while evil men are narrow-minded and willing to sacrifice others without feeling a shred of remorse. In the end, sins are only confined to the laws set by people's own divine; they do not condemn all forms of evil. Thus, evil exists while still being accepted by religion.


    if you guys could check the logic of the essay as well as the grammar, I'd really appreciate it!
     
  7. thewrongvine

    thewrongvine The Evolved Panda Commandant Staff Member

    Ratings:
    +505 / 1 / -0
    ...as pure, integral examples rather than corrupt others...

    I feel that if you should say "an evil man who does not sin", since you wrote the whole side out for the good man who committed a sin.

    ***I don't know if my grammarz and correctionz are right so...

    I see your point in the essay, but I don't think the examples back it up too well. While you say that something that isn't a sin can be unethical and therefore still bad, I feel like the examples you gave - bribing and Chillingworth - would still be considered evil and sinful. I mean, it might be not be black and white 10 Commandment sin, it still goes against religion, even if it's in a loophole kind of way. But that's just my opinion. I agree with your side, though I would go with how an evil person who doesn't sin still harms the world, by not doing anything at all, like ignoring the troubles of the world. Even if they don't directly sin or do something evil, by letting evil go by, it's just as bad.

    I don't know. Your introduction and conclusions are good, but I think the examples, at least for me, don't back it up too well. But don't just take my opinion, heh.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Ninva

    Ninva Анна Ахматова

    Ratings:
    +375 / 0 / -0
    Dimmesdale broke the seventh commandment. And do you really think Dimmesdale's remorse drove him?

    According to Calvinist theology, to be part of the elect (the few who go to heaven), a person must live a holy life consistently. Dimmesdale was unable to, and this damned him. Unlike Lutheranism and Catholicism, Dimmesdale had no chance of repentance. His reaction to his damnation is interesting. He puts forth more effort to maybe "save" his congregation. But for some reason, I doubt your English teacher would know any of this.

    Your argument doesn't hold up. You've yet to explain what you mean by immoral men. If they are immoral yet can not sin because they are immoral, then what makes them immoral? You may say they lack principal, but you can not say they are immoral when you also say they are sinless. The "bad" stuff you mention immoral men doing are all religious sins, most probably extending behind Christianity.

    This needs serious revision. It seems that you either didn't enjoy the book or just have too many thoughts that you can't write them all down in a few paragraphs. But keep trying.

    ... Also, I think the question is prompting for hypocrisy since that's what all high school teachers love to point out in this book, which ruins its true philosophical value. You should consider a hypothetical character who is pre-determined "evil" but does not sin while another hypothetical character who is pre-determined "good" but does sin.

    Let's say both characters are forever consistent, (the evil) not sinning and (the good) sinning forever. What does this say about social standards? What does this say about morality? What does this say about religion and philosophy?
     
  9. thewrongvine

    thewrongvine The Evolved Panda Commandant Staff Member

    Ratings:
    +505 / 1 / -0
    I didn't enjoy the book either, :)
     
  10. YourFace

    YourFace <span style="color:#9C9C9C;"><strong>Runner Up - T

    Ratings:
    +90 / 0 / -0
    Well, I don't know how "evil men" can be sinless if they're evil, so I read it in the context of breaking the ten commandments. That' was my main argument, but I pretty much hated the book. I honestly don't give a crap about Puritans, and the book's wording is so sophisticated and verbose that I barely understand the profound points put into it.
     
  11. Ninva

    Ninva Анна Ахматова

    Ratings:
    +375 / 0 / -0
    I used to feel that all answers are equally true, but that's not how things work in academia -- maybe in life outside of academia it does because you can surround yourself with people who don't check facts nor care about accurateness. All I can say is that I know what I'm talking about, and I care about it.
     

Share This Page