MHS Writing Topics + Essays + Advice XD

[pixelgraphicsful]

Ahah, I know how you feel. I remember during the few months before the test, I lost a lot of motivation along the way.  For motivational tips, it really depends on you, as a person, but considering I didn't really enjoy my time at my current school, I always went to remind myself how much I actually wanted to get in, and what life would be like if I didn't get in.

Occasionally I even slapped myself (lightly, of course, ehe.. ._.') to remind me of how much I wanted it, but I really don't recommend this... xD (God, now I sound insane...)

For myself, I always associated myself with things involving the school/s I was trying for, to continue motivating myself, like with friends who were also trying out for the test, or finding forums online about the test. (Which is why I ended up here, haha )

But really, having lots of people being in the same boat as you are, as well as great expectations from parents is what motivated me most; not only doing this for myself, but for others, too. I know its hard to keep motivation when the test is like, a year away for you, but hang in there; it'll be worth it.

What schools do you plan on trying out for? 

Hi!
For me, motivation mainly comes from imagining what success feels like and indulging on what the school offers me. I sound a little insane myself with the latter.

Anyway, I'm only trying out of MHS. I would prefer so, so much more to get into MHS than the others. To put it in another perspective, if it was out of 100% (100% for most want to get in). Nossal would be 16%, Suzanne Cory 19% and the rest MHS.

LOL, I should really learn how to combine posts, quotes, I think you know what I mean. Combine replies. Yes that's it. 
What about you?

[pixelgraphicsful]

Ahah, I know how you feel. I remember during the few months before the test, I lost a lot of motivation along the way.  For motivational tips, it really depends on you, as a person, but considering I didn't really enjoy my time at my current school, I always went to remind myself how much I actually wanted to get in, and what life would be like if I didn't get in.

Occasionally I even slapped myself (lightly, of course, ehe.. ._.') to remind me of how much I wanted it, but I really don't recommend this... xD (God, now I sound insane...)

For myself, I always associated myself with things involving the school/s I was trying for, to continue motivating myself, like with friends who were also trying out for the test, or finding forums online about the test. (Which is why I ended up here, haha )

But really, having lots of people being in the same boat as you are, as well as great expectations from parents is what motivated me most; not only doing this for myself, but for others, too. I know its hard to keep motivation when the test is like, a year away for you, but hang in there; it'll be worth it.

What schools do you plan on trying out for? 

Hello!

And, why are there SO many people at 9-10pm. LOL, 4 members and 3 guests. Highest it's been for AGES.  Well, I'll take this opportunity to ask. Right now I'm thinking about switching back to the everyday essay schedule. The thing is, I'm beginning to feel really reluctant on writing the essays; and I think it'll help if I get into that rhythm again. To be honest, I have more motivation to write an essay back when I did it everyday compared to now. Which is quite surprising for me. There are always downsides to this, but let me know what you think. Should I switch back, should I keep doing what I'm doing or perhaps I ought to change to a different schedule altogether?

Back to topic, I've finished today's creative pieces! And I'm starting to get kind of a miniature version of writer's block, but this is more specifically plot block. LOL, ignore the cheesy pun.
Just read the essay and you'll know what I mean.

The prompt was sourced from COLORS, so kudos to her for finding such an appropriate one.
http://postimg.org/image/8asjuclw1/
Again, it should be really easy to write about but, I... Ughghara
I know I've asked for it before but I'm going to do it again. Any tips for coming up with good plots?

I wrote this in 16 minutes. Yeh, 16 minutes. I guess it's not that bad but still. 
Oh yes! I wrote this in second person, woo!
Thanks for reading up to here. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A dim light flowed into Brian's eyes, jolting his senses. He stretched his eyelids and wriggled his muscles, as if he was waking them up. The first thing Brian noticed was the kitchen bench. Distant shards of memory flooded back, pleading to be heard. A young boy clumsily building a cake. A teeager slamming his phone onto the bench.

 Brian tried to turn around, only to be restrained by some firmly tied ropes. He stared down at his lap. His hands, arms, fastened tightly to a chair. He had been kidnapped, Brian slowly realised. Out of the blue, a rush of adrenalin stormed through his veins. An ugly thought surfaced into his mind. He hastily turned his head around, looking for evidence to confirm his theory. The pile of books he had treasured. The much loved teddy bear sitting on the carpet. A rusty light bulb suddenly flickered at this point. Brian realised, he had been kidnapped in his own house.

Why? How? When? Lonely questions in search of answers popped into his mind. One question dominated all others. How was he going to escape?

He peered closely at the rope binding his hands, looking for a way out. A strange scent appeared and spread through the room. Senses started to fade, feelings began to deteriorate. Then the lights went off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[pixelgraphicsful]

Hello!

WOOO! Exercise book number 3 is finished!
And, to extend the amazingness, I feel like I've written a good essay today. 

I wrote this one in exactly 15 minutes and 54 seconds, which is not in 15 minutes but it's pretty close. 
The topic was:
Should our country have a universal health care program?
This topic was number 23 on the list that I've got. I skipped 22, because I was rather ignorant on the topic. In case you're wondering the topic I skipped was:
Should teenage girls be allowed to get birth control without the permission of their parents?

Without further ado, here it is!
Thanks for everyone's help in letting me get this far!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our country should definitely have an universal health care program because doing so will benefit the economy and discourage crime.

Firstly, establishing an universal health care program will boost the wealth of a country. It is likely that the enormity of absence in work is due to illness. An universal health care program will ensure that common diseases will not greatly affect one's career. Thus, benefiting the citizen by making sure he or she is healthy; and, assisting the nation's economy by increasing general work productivity. Hence, our country ought to own an universal health care program.

In addition, a free health care program will decrease crime rates. It cannot be contested that money is a large motive for offence, Currently, a standard health care program is very expensive. Taxes, fees and bills all contribute to one committing money related crimes to afford them. Therefore, if the economical stress on citizens are eased, there will be less crimes. Thereby, our nation should undoubtedly establish an universal health care program.

The opposition may argue that our country cannot afford such a program. However, the increased work productivity and boosted economy as aforementioned will counter that. Tourism will also benefit from a universal health care program, bringing money to the country. Thus, money will not be an issue for this program.

If our country runs an universal health care program, our economy will boom and money related crimes will drop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[pixelgraphicsful]

Hello!

I'm going to cut straight to the point.
I wrote this creative piece in 15 minutes and the prompt was sourced from page 16 of
http://www.slideshare.net/kevcummins/150-amazing-writing-prompts-pictures

I apologies for the ending being very rushed. Anyway, let me know what you think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The blazing orb is like a welder's flame against the back of his neck. Audie inhales deeply, letting the refreshing summer air rush into him.

He stares pensively at the murky, orange puddle of mud before him. Shards of memory materialises- the dare, the money and, Moss. The name energises him, sending pulses of adrenalin throughout his body. He mentally thanks him for the dare. Audie's thoughts were interupted by the jovial chatter and laughter surrounding him. He hadn't realised the amount of people that had come to watch him. For a brief moment a hint of fear clenches his guts. "No, publicity is good, they're cheering me on. I can do this. Come on," he thinks.

An old man dressed in a quintessential farmer's outfit pushed his way past the crowds. The man sported a worn out face with an impressive beard. "Attention friends and family. Are you ready to see Audie jump into this pile of mud?" the man said. Encouraging cheers and support followed. "Alright Audie, whenever you're ready," he announced proudly.

This was it. All the anticipation had come down to this. Audie took one last look at the massive crowd before him. He bent his knees slowly and jumped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[pixelgraphicsful]

Quick Update

Yes, I know, haven't wrote posted an essay in a while.
I have actually been writing them though. I promise 

I'm just letting it cool down a bit more.
I might upload today's persuasive text. Depends.

Cya

[pixelgraphicsful]

Hello!
Been a while hasn't it? Today, randomly, I decided to post the essay.
I'm not sure. Just had an urge to do it.

Anyway, the topic was:
Should smoking be allowed at parks and other outdoor public venues?
I wrote this in 14 minutes and 40 seconds.

During this 'retire' time I've improved a lot on the speed.
Here it is! As always, feedback will be heavily appreciated. Especially after this long. XD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking should not be allowed at parks and other outdoor public venues because allowing so will promote smoking, pollute the landscape and is a huge risk.

Firstly, permitting the act of smoking on public venue grounds will encourage it. It is undeniable that smoking is harmful to one's health. The air that comes out of the cigarette is known to be addicting. Public venues are often the places with most people. In return, a large amount of people will be exposed to the toxic fuems of a cigarette. Therefore, smoking undoubtedly should be blocked at parks and other outdoor public venues.

In addition, letting people smoke in public places will ruin the landscape. The outdoors is a beautiful place. As aforementioned, public venues usually host lots of people. Thereby, designers will try to make that public space pretty, this process is expensive The sight of black dusty fumes will destroy this scene. Hence, smoking definitely should not be permitted at parks and other public venues.

Lastly, legalising smoking in public areas is a risk. If in a hurry, smokers may be tempted to leave their cigarette on the ground. The half extinguished flames of a cigarette may hurt a unsuspecting child or even start a fire! Thus, smoking ought not be allowed at parks and other outdoor public venues.

Smoking unequivocally should not be permitted at outdoor public venues because letting such action will publicise smoking, letting such action will publicise smoking, wreck the landscape and is extremely risky.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<3

[heids]

Hello!
Been a while hasn't it? Today, randomly, I decided to post the essay.
I'm not sure. Just had an urge to do it.

Anyway, the topic was:
Should smoking be allowed at parks and other outdoor public venues?
I wrote this in 14 minutes and 40 seconds.

During this 'retire' time I've improved a lot on the speed.
Here it is! As always, feedback will be heavily appreciated. Especially after this long. XD

Great to hear of your improvement in speed and to see you back here again!   Hope you're enjoying your holidays As always, I'm slamming you with a bit too much here, I just struggle to curb my enthusiasm in essay marking

Smoking should not be allowed at parks and other outdoor public venues because allowing so will promote smoking seems a slightly weird or roundabout argument - allowing smoking will promote smoking? could clarify your argument a little, e.g. seeing other people smoking so much will encourage more young people to take up smoking, or something, pollute the landscape and is be a huge risk Really like the nice concise intro , but still I'd probably expand on the type of risk - e.g. fire risk, health hazard..

Firstly, permitting the act of smoking on public venue grounds will encourage it. It is undeniable that smoking is harmful to one's health. The air that comes out of the cigarette is known to be addicting. Public venues are often the places with most people. In return, a large amount of people will be exposed to the toxic fuems of a cigarette. Therefore, smoking undoubtedly should be blocked at parks and other outdoor public venues. The paragraph's structure and flow of argument isn't the greatest.
1. The para content doesn't match the topic sentence - the TS says that it will encourage smoking, and then the rest just says that people will be harmed/exposed by it, which isn't to do with the TS. 
2.  Lots of short sentences - could be joined together to improve flow; e.g. As public venues are the places with the most people, a large number of people will be exposed to the toxic fumes of a cigarette.  Practise going through your pieces you've written and trying to combine short choppy sentences to longer, more flowing and linked ones!
3.  The order of your arguments/sentences seems a bit random.  Could be rearranged to flow/build better: public places have lots of people --> lots of people exposed to smoke --> smoke is dangerous --> harms people's health --> shouldn't allow smoking.  Mapping out your argument like this (with arrows) is a great way to make sure that your argument flows smoothly and makes sense.

In addition, letting people smoke in public places will ruin the landscape. The outdoors is a beautiful place. As aforementioned, public venues usually host lots of people. ideal place to join two very short sentences with a conjunction: Outdoor public venues can be beautiful, and usually host many people.  Anyway, great to see you really trying to explain out your argument and leave no gaps! Thereby, designers will try to make that public space pretty, this process is expensive and drive the point home, therefore it costs a lot of money to the public (as they fund design and maintenance of public places through tax) - don't just leave it to the reader to fill in this, explain how it's relevant to them The sight of black dusty fumes will destroy this scene could drive this home further with an emotional appeal to the reader: why should we destroy everyone's environment (could even put this in first or second person, 'our environment' or 'your environment') just for the sake of a few smokers?  No fair!. Hence, smoking definitely should not be permitted at parks and other public venues.

Lastly, legalising smoking in public areas is a risk. If in a hurry, smokers may be tempted to leave their cigarette on the ground. The half extinguished flames of a cigarette may hurt a unsuspecting child or even start a fire! Thus, smoking ought not be allowed at parks and other outdoor public venues.

You could make your arguments more solid - some felt a trifle far-fetched (your second and third arguments).  You could expand instead on how it's a health hazard (since that's the main reason people are wanting to make this rule against smoking in public places), or how it'll encourage more people to smoke.  It's okay to have one longer paragraph because you have a stronger argument there, or even split one argument into two paragraphs.

Smoking unequivocally should not be permitted at outdoor public venues because letting such action will publicise smoking, letting such action will publicise smoking, wreck the landscape and is be extremely risky. Concise!

Overall, decent, especially for the time frame you managed it in!  You've explained your arguments in more depth than you used to, and written concisely.  (though not as good as some of yours I've seen, notably this)

To improve:
- think about the flow of your arguments (e.g. with arrows)
- combine short sentences to improve flow
- choose more solid arguments
- relate it to how it'll impact the reader

[pixelgraphicsful]

Hey bangali_lok,

Glad to 'see' you again!

Firstly, with the 'our environment' suggestion other people notably 'pi' have said that I shouldn't use first person. Although I do remember countless teachers telling me to use emotive language. What I'm thinking right now is that I should use emotive language but keep it to a minimal. What do you think? XD

On the subject of the health hazard expansion, I was trying to go for a devil's advocate sort of thing, on the terms that if that topic showed up in the MHS test, the examiner would probably have read hundreds of health hazard arguments and therefore won't mark it as high. Although I do see how expanding as a health hazard would improve the overall flow of things.

Also, with the
wreck the landscape and is be extremely risky
It's 'be'!!! I didn't know that!
Actually?!?!
Guess you learn something new everyday. 

On a final note, its absolutely, 100% fine to be a bit mean in correcting. No need to explain yourself. 

Thanks!

[Alter]

Just to chime in, there's a distinction between using inclusive language and putting forward your opinion with personal pronouns. The former generally involves the use of 'our' and 'we' to bring the audience on the same side as the writer and is something you should definitely try to employ. The latter is something you want to avoid for reasons you might already know.

For instance, if you described smoking as damaging our environment, you position the reader to consider how the act is of detriment to something that they have ownership over, prompting them to want to take a defensive stance.

On the other hand, if you said "I think that smoking can be pretty bad and makes nature look ugly", your argument is weakened as it seems like you're trying to force your opinion down other people's throat. Similarly, if you said "my family never smokes because it can lead to lung cancer", you are not offering any material that can actually persuade someone that is reading your work. Put simply, you are not appealing to logic nor to emotion, and simply putting forward your opinion without having the goal of persuasion.

Hopefully this clears up the difference between the two for you.

[pixelgraphicsful]

Hi!

I'll be quick with this one.
The prompt was:
The lights and sounds of the big city have always excited me.

I wrote this in 14 mintues and 59 seconds.
The ending was a rushed but overall I think it wasn't too bad XD.

Feel more the welcome to give me feedback, I really value it. 
Here it is!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The moon bloomed in the sky, showering the Earth with light. Henry gazed upon the city, listening, watching... Skyscrapers as high as the clouds dominated the landscape. A familiar panel of white lights illuminated the sides of the. The worn out streets were littered with cars, shining incessantly.

A loud noise jolted Henry's attention. It was the sound of a horn, followed by a stream of laughter. Energised chatter painted the atmosphere. The occasional wail of a newborn whereupon a startled coaxing would take place. Henry loved the city, it made him feel safe, secure.

He started to walk towards a building at a leisurely pace. out of the blue, he felt something was following him. Henry turned his head backwards. He was faced with a large dog running excitedly towards him. A feeling of panic materialised, and Henry broke off into a sprint. The dog followed, unwavered, while barking eagerly.

After a solid thirty seconds of sprinting, Henry finally arrived at his doorstep. He fumbled furiously for his keys, while the dog easily caught up to him. Nothing... Yes. Henry ferociously shoved the key into the lock and jerked the door open.

Before Henry could close the door, the dog bounded in, not even panting. Henry slumped down into the couch and sighed in resignation. "You win Buster," he said, and handed the dog a slab of meat.

Home, he thought, home.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really random plot, now that I've read it again. 

[pixelgraphicsful]

Just to chime in, there's a distinction between using inclusive language and putting forward your opinion with personal pronouns. The former generally involves the use of 'our' and 'we' to bring the audience on the same side as the writer and is something you should definitely try to employ. The latter is something you want to avoid for reasons you might already know.

For instance, if you described smoking as damaging our environment, you position the reader to consider how the act is of detriment to something that they have ownership over, prompting them to want to take a defensive stance.

On the other hand, if you said "I think that smoking can be pretty bad and makes nature look ugly", your argument is weakened as it seems like you're trying to force your opinion down other people's throat. Similarly, if you said "my family never smokes because it can lead to lung cancer", you are not offering any material that can actually persuade someone that is reading your work. Put simply, you are not appealing to logic nor to emotion, and simply putting forward your opinion without having the goal of persuasion.

Hopefully this clears up the difference between the two for you.

Hey Alter,

Yay, an explanation that makes sense. Lol
That definitely cleared it up. Other reasons I've heard were a bit on the edge.
Will keep it in mind next time I write persuasive.   

Thanks!

[heids]

On the subject of the health hazard expansion, I was trying to go for a devil's advocate sort of thing, on the terms that if that topic showed up in the MHS test, the examiner would probably have read hundreds of health hazard arguments and therefore won't mark it as high. Although I do see how expanding as a health hazard would improve the overall flow of things.

Originality is a great idea - do strive for it, but not at the expense of a strong argument.  A strong but cliche argument is better than a weak but unusual argument.  Maybe it's unusual for a reason!

Also, with the
wreck the landscape and is be extremely risky
It's 'be'!!! I didn't know that!
Actually?!?!
Guess you learn something new everyday. 

Sorry for picking on a fine grammar point, I rarely do

Unintelligible discourse on grammar

... because allowing so will promote smoking, pollute the landscape and is a huge risk.

So you've said there are three things doing this will cause, right?
1. will promote smoking
2. will pollute landscape
3. is/will be a huge risk

You can then either have:
will promote smoking, pollute the landscape and be a huge risk - the first 'will' covers all three of your chunks
OR
will promote smoking, will pollute the landscape, and is/will be a huge risk - each individual chunk has their own 'verb'

So if you have the first, shorter version, each 'chunk' would have to make sense if it was put directly after the 'will', since the 'will' kinda 'covers' that chunk.  If you're putting multiple chunks under the umbrella of that 'will', you should be able to swap them round in any order.  So imagine you switched the order of your three chunks, and put 'is a huge risk' directly after 'will' - you'd get 'will is a huge risk'.  Wonky, right?  But 'will BE a huge risk' works.

[pixelgraphicsful]

Originality is a great idea - do strive for it, but not at the expense of a strong argument.  A strong but cliche argument is better than a weak but unusual argument.  Maybe it's unusual for a reason!

Sorry for picking on a fine grammar point, I rarely do

Unintelligible discourse on grammar

... because allowing so will promote smoking, pollute the landscape and is a huge risk.

So you've said there are three things doing this will cause, right?
1. will promote smoking
2. will pollute landscape
3. is/will be a huge risk

You can then either have:
will promote smoking, pollute the landscape and be a huge risk - the first 'will' covers all three of your chunks
OR
will promote smoking, will pollute the landscape, and is/will be a huge risk - each individual chunk has their own 'verb'

So if you have the first, shorter version, each 'chunk' would have to make sense if it was put directly after the 'will', since the 'will' kinda 'covers' that chunk.  If you're putting multiple chunks under the umbrella of that 'will', you should be able to swap them round in any order.  So imagine you switched the order of your three chunks, and put 'is a huge risk' directly after 'will' - you'd get 'will is a huge risk'.  Wonky, right?  But 'will BE a huge risk' works.

I GET IT!
lol, yeh that was pretty confusing to me.
Actually, I think I've heard about it somewhere, I think it was called, "parallelism".

Anyway, thanks for teaching me that! XD

[pixelgraphicsful]

Hello!

Here is today's persuasive writing!
The topic was actually quite interesting to think about. Anyway, it was:
Should the government place a tax on junk food and fatty snacks?

I wrote this in 14 minutes and 56 seconds. Clutch, ikr.
Here it is! Please leave a comment or a suggestion!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governments should place a tax on junk food and fatty snacks because doing so will ultimately increase the quality of snacks, expand the government's budget and boost the general health of citizens.

Firstly, governments undoubtedly ought to organise a tax on junk food because such a law will provide us with better snacks. If fatty snacks increase in price, less people will buy such foods. To counter this, companies would have to spend more time making sure snacks are tastier and overall ensuring better quality in terms of quality and price. Therefore, a law to add tax on fatty snacks definitely should be added.

In addition, placing a tax on junk food and fatty snacks will assist in the wellbeing of citizens. As aforementioned, if snacks are more expensive, less people will purchase unhealthy junk food and will prefer healthier and cheaper alternatives. In return, the general public will be healthier and obesity will decline. Thereby, governments should put a tax on junk food and fatty snacks.

Lastly, governments ought to place a tax on junk foods and fatty snacks because if such action is taken, the nation's economy will improve. Junk food is undeniably a large business, as countless people purchase such goods. If a tax is added, governments will acquire a lot of money. This additional fund will be used to benefit the country, in ways like funding for better education and medical research. Thus, governments unambiguously should put a tax on junk foods.

A tax unequivocally should be added on junk food because doing so will increase the general health of the nation's citizens, lead to higher quality snacks and expand the country's budget.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for reading!

[pi]

I don't like your use of "quality snacks". Why not say "more appealing healthy snacks" is that's what you mean? (I'm not sure what you mean by "quality")