2007 Question 3: Develop a Position on the Ethics of Offering Incentives for Charitable Acts
Outline: My Response
Intro - Humans by nature are selfish creatures that generally act only in their best interest. Those who donate expect to receive some sort of payment whether it is a religious, emotional or financial payout. Adding additional and relatively small incentives enhances charitable contributions rather than corrupting the process.
P1 - Religious benefits to those who are charitable (Buddhist belief in Karma, Catholic church and the charitable indulgences)
P2 - People often donate to feel better (social popularity, thinking that they are positively contributing to the world; donate a dollar to poor African children justify buying luxurious hundred dollar shoes)
P3 - Frequent financial/tangible benefits (donating boxtops for education donation in kindergarten led to pizza party, funding a new building at a college named after them)
Conclusion: Charity can be enormously helpful to beneficiaries but the reason most people contribute to charity is for enhancing their own well being.
Sample Answers:
A. The student wrote an very complete essay with apt examples. The negated counterexamples strengthen his position and argument. He also used a nice variety of simple everyday examples to theoretical analysis. (Score 9)
B The student had a solid thesis and examples but was oftentimes repetitive. She also limited her tangible examples to those that seemed simplistic and almost irrelevant Rather than analyzing human nature, she focused more on the glossy finish of the purpose of charity. The lack of counterexamples weakened her argument. (Score 6)
C. Although this paper started out with a strong thesis, the subsequent paragraphs did little to support his points. The mishmash of cliches and seemingly arbitrary examples made this essay disjointed and at times incoherent. The length and initial sense of structure helps the author create a sense of organization but it truly is a shamble of half-thoughts. (Score 4)
Comparison:
My essay would have been more like Student A's essay (hopefully). Like Student A, I would have argued that incentives for charitable acts were ethical and then provided apt examples to support my point. In my outline I did not provide a counterexample but I hoped I would have included it as I progressed in my essay and mulled over this controversial question. My essay most likely would have had decent organization and in depth analysis of charity and human nature. I would have tried to avoid cliches - by mentioning Karma as a religious practice and belief rather than its pop culture connotation. Also I would use appropriate tone and avoid teenage colloquialisms. Bring on the SAT words.
Self-Analysis:
I think I would have been fairly successful on this particular essay. In my outline I had a clear thesis and provided apt examples and different flavor for each paragraph (to avoid seeming repetitive). However, I need to remember to include counterexamples in my outline. By addressing and then negating a differing viewpoint, my essay would have been stronger (Score: 7/8)
