What follows are top-scoring sample essays for each of the practice tasks. Note how the authors adhere to the Kaplan Method for Analytical Writing.
Perceptions of greatness in national and political leaders are largely determined by the seriousness of the problems that they face during their terms in office. Most national histories principally highlight individuals in the context of significant events in which the leaders played important roles. Most political leaders need to have large stores of inherent skill and ability just in order to become a political leader. However, history remembers those who lived in great times more fondly than those who did not. Examples of this are numerous and include the histories of Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill—all people who are perceived as great leaders largely because of the times in which they lived.
Abraham Lincoln is often considered the greatest of all the American presidents. His image graces two units of the currency, and he has one of the largest monuments built in his honor in Washington, D.C. However, Lincoln is considered great largely because he faced a great challenge—the civil war between the North and the South in the 1860s. Lincoln led the United States to victory over the rebels and reunited the country and is therefore considered an impressive leader. This is not to say that Lincoln was not skilled. Many know that he was born in a log cabin and progressed to law school and eventually to the presidency. He was also a skilled orator. However, another man, James Buchanan, also was born in a log cabin, went to law school, gave good speeches, and ascended to the presidency, yet there are no monuments to Buchanan in the capital or pictures of his face on the five-dollar bill.
Woodrow Wilson was another talented person who ascended to the presidency of the United States. However his talents are not what make his perceived greatness. In this age, few remember whether Wilson was particularly smart, a very good speech maker, or a good arbitrator. Most remember that he led the United States to victory in the first World War and therefore perceive him as an effective leader. At the time, however, Wilson was rather unpopular. In fact, he had so little sway with Congress that he was unable to get the United States to join the League of Nations—a fact that many claim helped lead to the second World War.
Winston Churchill was another person whom history views favorably because of the incredible challenges that he faced. However, Churchill was not very popular with the British public before World War II, nor did he impress a future US president. When Franklin Roosevelt first met Churchill, before either was the leader of his respective country, Roosevelt wrote in his diary that the Englishman was full of himself and far too talkative. Early in his term as prime minister, Churchill even faced a no-confidence vote in Parliament. However, the events of World War II accorded him the perception of greatness in the eyes of history.
Many might argue that these individuals and other men and women were already great before history gave them great challenges. While it is impossible to definitely disprove this assertion and they must in fact have had certain skills and abilities—otherwise, they would not have been political leaders—most examples point to the fact that the times make the man or woman. If the presidencies of Buchanan and Lincoln were switched, we would very likely have the Buchanan memorial instead. In summary, it is true that the perceived greatness of a political leader is more due to great challenges than superior inherent ability. The historical examples of Lincoln, Wilson, and Churchill bear this out. All were talented, but so too are all political leaders. Only the leaders that live in eventful times are remembered as great.
This essay is particularly well constructed; the author begins by discussing the qualities of political leaders and how they are presented in history books. He asserts his position, “people . . . are perceived as great leaders largely because of the times in which they lived” clearly and effectively and previews the three examples he will use to support this idea. He proceeds to support his position with compelling evidence, drawing on his knowledge of three historical figures who are, by consensus, regarded as great. He is particularly effective in contrasting the example of Lincoln with that of Buchanan, who had a similar background but served as president under less trying circumstances. The writing is largely clear and direct, with skillful use of diction and few errors. For all these reasons, this essay receives a score of 6.
Keeping up with global progress is, doubtless, a desirable attribute of any society. However, to purport that the reasons certain societies may not progress at the same rate as “great” societies are their reluctance to break out of their comfort zone and their fear of the unknown is to present an overly simplistic view. Such a view does not take into consideration the set of economic, political, and cultural constraints that affect every society’s ability to progress on a global scale.
Before exploring these constraints, it would be useful to examine the use of the word “great” in the above context. The concept of what makes a society great is highly subjective; some may equate greatness with military might or economic dominance, while others would emphasize cultural achievement or progress in care for less privileged citizens. Whatever one’s definition of greatness, however, it is ludicrous to suggest that any society actively rejects the desire to be great. Many societies face the seemingly insurmountable struggle to maintain societal structure in the face of economic need or political upheaval; the desire for greatness can emerge only when a society’s basic structure is intact.
Societies facing severe economic challenges are virtually unable to progress in areas such as medicine, military power, and agriculture even if they want to do so. Countries like Bolivia use a majority of their limited resources to maintain the status quo of their largely agrarian society. Bolivian farmers are not afraid of the unknown or passively content with their current situation, but are using all of their resources to sustain their families and maintain the social structure of their villages. Given this situation, the luxury of advancements in medicine, technology, and military power is simply not possible.
Also, societies embroiled in political upheaval, such as South Sudan, are unable to send their young and talented members to university where they can spearhead progress; the most vigorous segments of the population are required to serve in the military or to care for their families through difficult economic and political times. Maintaining societal coherence amid chaotic conditions engenders a lack of progress, as it is generally measured, but as we have seen throughout time, episodes of great drama in any given society can yield important works of art. One such example is Albert Camus’ The Stranger, written during the French Resistance. Another, more current example is They Poured Fire on Us from the Sky, Benjamin Ajak’s autobiographical novel about Sudanese boys fleeing that country’s civil war.
Another point to consider is that, in some cases, an entire society’s cultural history, including its artistic contributions, is preserved only through its living members’ rich oral tradition and their active rejection of change in the realms of technology and science. This is evident when considering the Amish, whose motivation for using horse-drawn buggies and refusing access to the Internet lies, not in fear or discomfort, but in a conscious desire to sustain a traditional way of life that they find sometimes difficult but always valuable.
In conclusion, to devalue a society that is not among the most progressive in the world is to discount the contributions a so-called “unprogressive” society can make, such as artistic and cultural expression unique to that society. Progress is a valuable tool for the advancement of a society, but blindly reaching for greatness can lead to a society’s downfall just as much as ignoring it altogether can. The balance between accepting a society’s constraints and highlighting its strengths is what will ultimately lead to a society’s greatness.
This is a particularly insightful essay. The argument developed in this essay asks the reader to question certain presuppositions about what constitutes “greatness” as the term is applied to a society. Instead of merely answering the question of whether the progress of society is hindered by clinging to traditional views and obsolete ways of thinking, the essay forces the reader to reconsider what progress actually entails. Thus, the essay has the potential to elicit the cultural bias of the reader and force him to confront it. The author challenges the received notions of “great” and “progress” as “an overly simplistic view.” From there, she proceeds to defend her position by examining different cultural contexts and how we might understand “greatness” within those contexts. The essay is well constructed; the author begins by providing examples of how greatness must be understood contextually. She then adds several examples, such as French and Sudanese novels, to illustrate greatness produced under conditions that would seem to block progress of any sort. The writing is clear and direct, contains few errors, and reveals skillful use of diction. For all these reasons, this essay receives a score of 6.