Hey so I recently took a Princeton exam and had my essays marked - whilst I didn't expect a great score as my emphasis has been on the Q/ V (I'm applying for an MS in biochemistry so really Q has been where I've been devoting most of my time but I'm definitely seeing good improvement for both) I didn't expect a 2.5. :') TBH I think I get the feedback for the argument section and can see why I didn't score great but I'm definitely a bit lost for the issue as it seemed all positive feedback. If someone would be so kind as to give me less vague feedback then that would be really, really appreciated as I hadn't even given this section a thought as I was told by everyone that a 3.0 would be guaranteed without any revision by anyone with English as a first language.

Issue

The first step to self-knowledge is rejection of the familiar.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

The notion that one must reject what is familiar in order to initiate the path to developing a greater understanding about one's self holds a great degree of merit. Undoubtedly, the inevitable complaicancy that we humans have as we age and become more set in our ways hinders our ability to think outside of the box and truly see ourselves as others may and allow us to begin to formulate how we matured into what we are now. Despite this, however, it is important to note that there is the risk that as we reject what we are accustomed to; as we reject the familiar, this can push us down an untreaded path and mire our understanding as we evolve into someone new.

A commonplace idea is that many go travelling in order to "find themselves", a phrase many are mocked for with many decrying that one does not have to go to warmer climes in order to find what theoretically should be easily found in the mirror. For many however, the ability to excise oneself from their repetitive quotidian activities and completely replace all that they have grown accustomed to provides a great opportunity of self-reflection. When one cannot eat the food of which they are used to, cannot travel by the same means, are not able to communicate clearly with everyone, one is not used to the change in climate and where the culture is starkly different from their own, it allows them to see what is truly important. It is common for many, that when they leave what they have always known that they are able to reprioritise what is improtant to them: someone who thought that they were hindered by their family's mitherings, grow to miss having someone who cares; they may learn that they are not as independent as they once thought; or they might discover that they are able to see that they were meant for more than what they once thought. It can therefore be easily seen that through the rejection of one's everyday by leaving through travel that people are able to being the first step on the road to self-knowledge.

Additionally, people often discover a lot about themselves in times of crisis with many beliving in the notion that "one is made in the fire". For some the trauma associated with these crisises reshape and redefine them in a way that changes who they are however for others it is in this 'fire' that they are truly able to begin to understand their own mettle and what defines them. For example, for many the loss associated with a familial bereavement marks the end of a chapter, away from someone they have known for many years and with whom they share a strong bond. This loss though not deliberate, is a departure from the familiar and goes in part to support the argument. This loss would likely force the person to reconsider many factors, such as who they might now turn to as an emotional crutch, who might provide advise when necessary, who they can spend their time with and for many this loss acts as an important catalyst in forcing the individual to re-evaluate what is important as they can see that life is ultimately finite. For many, this is what propels them into quitting the job they disliked and pursuing a long repressed ambition, to taking the time to see things they had put on a back burner or taking the time out to spend time with those they care for. These changes are only brought about as the person begins to look inside themselves and determine who they are and develop a greater self-knowledge about themselves. For some however the grief period can be so overwhelming that they are not always able to achieve this introspection and instead wallow in the turbid emotions stirred up. These changes can be triggered by many high stakes events, such as being the victim of crime, losing a job, breaking up with a partner or falling pregnant. For many without being forced to leave what is familiar and safe, they would not be successful in developing any degree of self-knowledge and enact changes.

In spite of all that has been outlined above, however, it is essential to note that for some they do not require to leave the ordinary and are exceptionally self aware. For some, leaving their homeland or enduring a hardship only cements in their mind who they are and what they know of themselves. For many, however, it is possible to argue that one only thinks they know who they are but it is not until they are taken away from what they know that they are truly able to know this and that this in itself is a period of self-knowledge even if it is merely confimatory - this is not however the first step but the final stage.

Overall, whilst there are clearly arguments to be had against the statement "the first step to self-knowledge is rejection of the familiar", it is clear that for many this statement is apt and true. For many the deliberate or accidental departure from what they are accustomed triggers are period of self-reflection which in turn allows them to look inward in a unique way. Whilst some people have a very good grasp of who they are without the need to reject the norms, for many this is a pivitol step.

Mark: 3.0

Feedback:
Leave a little time to proofread.

A good antithesis paragraph and example shows when the prompt is false.

A good thesis paragraph and example shows when the prompt is true.

The overall length of your essay supports your points.

Argument

The following argument was made in a newspaper editorial: “The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders; if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangered. Because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every effort must be made to return them to their country of origin.”

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

The argument that illegal migration should be curbed in order to preserve a country's national identity and economy is one that appears unsubstantiated and is reliant on many assumptions that are capable of discrediting the thesis.

The inial statement that a country's autonomy is based on the strength of it's borders is one that is not supported by any evidence. Whilst it can be argued that a strong government will have the funds required to tackle the problem of illegal immigration, society has also demonstrated that this is not a fundamental truth. It is widely agreed that the United States of America is one of the greatest nations in the world and yet as of the time of writing this a, albeit controversial, declaration has been made that there is a national crisis due to ongoing problems with millions of illegal immigrants flooding the border each year; conversely one of the most despotic and impoverished countries, North Korea, has very tight border controls that sees no illegal immigration. The assumption made by the argument would suggest that based on this metric that North Korea, due to it's ability to halt illegal immigration makes it an autonomous country with a strong economy and that the United States is likely ranked at the bottom of the world rankings however this is not a statement supported by any rational person. As such the argument is clearly ill founded upon this.

Conversely this assumption does hold some degree of truth when addressing the topic of super blocks, such as the European Union (EU). In many European countries, they fall within the Schengen zone which lacks manned borders and allows freedom of movement for all whom are within the area. As a result of this, during times of mass illegal migration, such as those seen by following the Syrian crisis despite some countries wishing to close their borders, their power had been relinquished to the EU and as such they were unable to curb the tide due to the lack of autonomy. Whilst this desmonstates how the assumption can support this, the assertion can also be clearly disproven and as such is not a credible statement.

Furthermore there is a heavy implication that illegal immigrants can lead to a major hit on the country's economy, again no evidence has been provided in support of this. In order for this statement to be used in support of the argument, various studies would need to be performed to examine how much illegal immigrants cost a country by means of resources such as policing and healthcare versus their contribution to the economy either through taxes or by spending within their resident economy. Undoubtedly within several countries, though not all, illegal immigration can lead to a net positive effect to the nationwide economy and lead to an increase in GDP which completely disproves in some cases a definitive statement made within the argument. In many countries where illegal immigrants disproportionatly commit crimes, where there is a publically funded healthcare system, such as the NHS in the UK and where benefits can be easily accessed, those abusing the system can quickly outpace the contributions made by those who are putting into the economy. This should be a matter that can be easily quantified and a large sample of many countries could add further credibility to this statement or go towards demonstrating it's falsehood.

In addition to this, there is an assumption that the national identity will be lost as illegal immigration contributes, thus implying that immigrants are less inclined to adopt their host country's customs whilst continuing to propel their own both within their home and communities. In many country's, the loyalty of many immigrants to their motherland can be seen multifarious ways, such as in chosing to raise their children to also speak the mother tongue, continuing to celebrate their former country's national holidays and in the emergence of places such as "China Town" and "Little Germany" in many major cities. It is highly important to note that such pride is indicative of legal immigrants as much as it is illegal and that there is already potentially a dilution of the "national identity" coming from those whom are migrating naturally. Whilst undoubtedly many migrate illegally and fail to assimilate into the country, without concrete evidence it is an assumption that cannot be used to carry the weight of the argument.

The cornerstones of this argument, that country's that can control their borders are automonous, that illegal immigrants are a net beneficiary of the country they move to and that they fail to assimilate to their nation's cultures and customs, are all unsubstantiated with evidence to both support and rebuke each notion. Unless all of these can be successfully reinforced it is reckless to assert that "every effort must be made to return them to their country of origin".

Mark: 2.0

Feedback:
Explain how the argument's reasoning could be criticized.

Discuss how the argument is reasoned rather than its topic.

Explain how the argument's reasoning could be improved.

Leave a little time to proofread.