ACT Writing

ACT Writing Samples: 6 Scored Essays with Full Annotations

Six complete ACT Writing essay prompts — each with a score-12 model essay (~550 words) fully annotated, a score-8 comparison essay with specific improvement notes, and the 4-domain rubric applied. Real ACT-style prompts with all three perspectives included.

6 topics · Score 12 and Score 8 samples · 4-domain rubric applied · Annotations

Take a Free ACT Practice Exam →ACT Writing Guide Essay Prompt Bank ACT Scoring Guide

ACT Writing Scoring Rubric Overview

Two trained raters each score your essay on four domains using a 1–6 scale. The two raters' scores are added for each domain (producing 2–12 per domain), and the four domain scores are averaged to produce your final Writing score of 2–12.

Domain	Score 12 (Exemplary)	Score 10 (Skilled)	Score 8 (Adequate)	Score 6 (Developing)
Ideas & Analysis	Generates insightful perspective; examines assumptions and implications of all three views; analyzes the issue from multiple angles with nuance and originality	Develops a clear perspective; engages meaningfully with other views; analysis goes beyond the obvious	States a workable perspective; partially engages with other views; analysis is present but sometimes surface-level	Has a basic perspective but analysis is minimal; engagement with other perspectives is limited or perfunctory
Development & Support	Richly develops the argument with specific, well-chosen examples; reasoning is compelling; evidence is analyzed, not just presented	Develops argument with relevant evidence; reasoning is clear; examples support the argument consistently	Provides supporting detail but development is uneven; some examples are vague or not fully connected to the argument	Development is thin; examples are generic or poorly connected; claims are frequently asserted without support
Organization	Skillfully organized with purposeful introduction and conclusion; paragraphs are unified; transitions create logical flow throughout	Clear organization; paragraphs are generally unified; transitions present and mostly effective	Organization is discernible; paragraphs may lack focus; transitions are present but sometimes formulaic	Structure is attempted but inconsistent; transitions are absent or mechanical ('First... Second...'); introduction and conclusion weak
Language Use & Conventions	Varied and precise vocabulary; varied sentence structures; stylistic choices enhance meaning; few or no errors	Clear and mostly precise language; some syntactic variety; occasional minor errors that do not impede meaning	Adequate but limited vocabulary; sentence structure is mostly simple; errors are present but generally do not impede meaning	Imprecise word choice; monotonous sentence structure; errors are frequent enough to be distracting

How to use these samples effectively:

Read the issue overview and all three perspectives. Spend 2–3 minutes planning your approach before reading the model essay.
Write a brief thesis — one sentence stating your position and why — before reading further.
Read the score-12 essay and its annotations. Identify which analytical moves you made and which you missed.
Read the score-8 essay. Check whether your practice essay shared any of its weaknesses.
Apply the 4-domain rubric to your own practice response. Identify your weakest domain and target it in your next practice session.

The Three Tasks Every ACT Essay Must Accomplish

The ACT essay directions are always the same: analyze the relationship between the perspectives, state and develop your own perspective, and explain the relationship between your perspective and those given. Every score-12 essay does all three explicitly. Most score-8 essays accomplish only one or two.

1. Analyze the relationship between perspectives

Don't just summarize — explain what each perspective gets right and wrong, and why they disagree with each other. What assumption does each perspective make? What does each perspective overlook?

2. State and develop your own perspective

Your position must go beyond any one of the three given perspectives. Use evidence and reasoning to build an argument, not just endorse Perspective 2 or 3. Add something the provided perspectives do not include.

3. Explain the relationship to the given perspectives

Make explicit how your position relates to all three perspectives — which you agree with most and why, which you disagree with and why, and how your argument extends or corrects the ones you find most defensible.

Essay 1 of 6

Social Media and Youth Mental Health

Issue Overview

Over the past decade, research has increasingly linked heavy social media use among teenagers to elevated rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness. At the same time, many young people report that online communities provide connection, support, and a sense of belonging they cannot find in their physical environments. As schools and parents debate whether and how to restrict adolescent social media use, society must ask: what responsibility do social media platforms, families, and governments have for protecting the mental health of young users?

Three Perspectives

Social media companies must be held primarily responsible for adolescent mental health harms because they deliberately design addictive products targeting minors, profit from maximizing engagement regardless of its effects on wellbeing, and have the technical capacity to build safer platforms.

Protecting adolescent mental health is fundamentally a parenting and family responsibility. Parents, not corporations or governments, are best positioned to monitor and guide their children's technology use, and restricting platforms imposes paternalistic overreach on millions of responsible users.

No single actor can address the social media mental health crisis alone. Effective solutions require platforms to redesign engagement-maximizing features for minors, parents to build digital literacy at home, and governments to mandate transparency about the algorithms shaping teenage experience.

Essay Direction: Write a unified, coherent essay about this issue. Be sure to analyze the relationship between the perspectives, state and develop your own perspective, and explain the relationship between your perspective and those given.

Score 12/12 — Model Essay

~550 words · Fully annotated

The debate over social media's effects on adolescent mental health has become one of the defining public health questions of our era, and it is tempting to assign blame simply — to corporations, to parents, or to technology itself. But the evidence suggests that this is precisely the wrong framing. The crisis is real, documented, and serious; the question is not who is at fault but what set of interventions can actually change outcomes. On that question, Perspective 3 is correct: no single actor has the capacity to solve this problem alone, and a distributed response is both more realistic and more likely to succeed. The case against assigning exclusive responsibility to parents, as Perspective 2 proposes, is not that parents are unimportant — they are crucial — but that the information asymmetry between families and platforms makes individual parental oversight structurally insufficient. When Facebook's internal research (revealed in congressional hearings in 2021) showed that Instagram was worsening body image among teenage girls, and the company elected not to publish that research or change the product, parents had no mechanism to act on information they did not have. Parental responsibility cannot fill institutional voids of that scale. Moreover, the algorithmic amplification of emotionally charged content — what former Google design ethicist Tristan Harris has called "the race to the bottom of the brain stem" — is not a feature that vigilant parenting can undo once a teenager opens an app. Perspective 1's argument for platform accountability is therefore correct in substance, if overstated in assigning exclusive responsibility. Platforms do have unique leverage: they control the algorithms that determine what content teenagers see, the notification systems that interrupt sleep, and the interface designs that make it difficult to disengage. Reforms that are technically feasible — defaulting minor accounts to chronological feeds rather than engagement-optimized ones, eliminating notifications between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. for users under 18, and publishing external-researcher access to algorithmic data — would likely reduce some harms without banning platforms entirely. That these reforms have not been implemented voluntarily tells us something important about the limits of self-regulation. What this analysis reveals is that Perspective 3 is not a vague compromise but an accurate description of where leverage actually exists. Parents shape the household environment and the emotional context in which teenagers use platforms. Platforms control the design of the products themselves. Governments can mandate disclosure and minimum safety standards that neither parents nor platforms will adopt voluntarily. Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge's research on smartphone adoption and adolescent wellbeing trends provides empirical support for the view that this is a structural, population-level phenomenon that requires structural responses — not individual family solutions. The appropriate response to the adolescent mental health crisis is therefore a coordinated one: platforms that redesign for safety rather than engagement, families that build the emotional resilience and media literacy that make young people less vulnerable, and governments that set minimum standards and enforce disclosure. Assigning responsibility to any one of these actors exclusively makes the problem harder to solve, not easier.

Opening move: Reframe the question

Rather than summarizing the three perspectives, the essay immediately reframes the question from 'who is to blame' to 'what interventions work.' This demonstrates Ideas & Analysis skill — the essay is analyzing the issue, not just reporting it.

Perspective engagement: Information asymmetry argument

The Facebook internal research example (Instagram/body image, 2021 congressional hearings) is a specific, documented case that directly demonstrates why Perspective 2 is insufficient. This is what Development & Support looks like at score 12.

Tristan Harris citation: Named source with credibility

Naming Tristan Harris and paraphrasing his specific argument about algorithmic design adds expert credibility without being vague. Score-12 essays use named sources, not 'experts say.'

Specific platform reforms proposed

Listing three specific, technically feasible reforms (chronological feeds, notification restrictions, research access) shows the essay is generating substantive analysis, not just calling for change in the abstract.

Haidt and Twenge: Research cited by name

Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge are researchers whose published work directly supports the argument being made. Citing specific researchers distinguishes a score-12 essay from one that says 'studies show.'

4-Domain Scores — Score-12 Essay

Domain	Score	Analysis
Ideas & Analysis	12	Reframes the blame-assignment question as an intervention question; identifies why each perspective is insufficient alone; generates original insight about information asymmetry.
Development & Support	12	Facebook internal research, Tristan Harris, specific platform reforms, Haidt/Twenge research — each example developed with analysis, not just named.
Organization	12	Introduction reframes question → Perspective 2 critique → Perspective 1 qualified endorsement → synthesis (Perspective 3 as accurate analysis) → distributed response conclusion.
Language Use & Conventions	12	Academic register maintained throughout; varied sentence structure; precise vocabulary (information asymmetry, algorithmic amplification, engagement-optimized); no errors.

Score 8/12 — For Comparison

Annotated with specific improvements

Social media has had significant negative effects on the mental health of teenagers, and something needs to be done about it. The question is who should be responsible for fixing this problem. I think Perspective 3 is the most reasonable because it recognizes that this is a shared problem. Social media companies need to take more responsibility for how their platforms affect young users. At the same time, parents play an important role in monitoring what their children do online. And the government may need to create some regulations. There is evidence that social media causes harm to teenagers. Studies have shown that heavy use of Instagram and other platforms is associated with higher rates of depression and anxiety, especially among girls. This is a serious problem that affects millions of young people. Perspective 1 makes a good point that companies profit from getting teenagers addicted to their platforms. This seems unfair and irresponsible. However, I do not think we should blame only the companies, because parents also have a responsibility to limit their children's screen time. Perspective 2 is partially right that parenting matters, but I think it underestimates how hard it is for parents to control what their children do on their phones, especially as teenagers get older and want more independence. In conclusion, the best approach to protecting teenage mental health is to require social media companies to make their platforms safer, encourage parents to be more involved, and have the government set some basic rules. All three perspectives have some truth in them, and a combined approach is most likely to work.

Specific improvements needed to reach Score 10–12:

The thesis ('Perspective 3 is most reasonable') is too general. Specify what the combined approach actually means — which responsibilities belong to which actor. The score-12 essay argues that actors have different types of leverage, which is a more precise and analytically richer claim.
The evidence paragraph mentions 'studies have shown' without naming any study, researcher, or specific finding. Naming Jonathan Haidt's research, or the Facebook internal Instagram research from 2021, transforms an assertion into a supported argument.
The essay agrees with Perspective 3 but does not explain why Perspectives 1 and 2 fail on their own terms. The score-12 essay identifies information asymmetry as the reason parental oversight is structurally insufficient — this is the kind of analytical specificity that earns higher scores.
Paragraph transitions are additive ('also,' 'at the same time') rather than logical. Each paragraph should advance the argument, not just add more considerations. Try building paragraphs around a claim, evidence, and analysis structure.
The conclusion ('All three perspectives have some truth') is accurate but adds no new insight. A strong conclusion synthesizes — for example, explaining how each actor's role is distinct and complementary, not merely all present.
Sentence structure is uniform and simple. Vary syntax: use relative clauses, appositives, and complex sentences to demonstrate the Language Use & Conventions range that score-12 essays show.

Essay 2 of 6

Automation and the Future of Work

Issue Overview

Advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are automating tasks that were once performed exclusively by human workers — from manufacturing and data entry to legal research and medical diagnosis. Economists disagree about whether automation will create as many jobs as it destroys, and policymakers are debating how to prepare workers for an economy in which the role of human labor is rapidly changing. What obligations do governments, businesses, and educational institutions have to workers displaced by automation?

Three Perspectives

Automation ultimately creates more prosperity and more jobs than it destroys, as it always has throughout history. Governments and businesses should focus on accelerating technological change rather than protecting workers from it, trusting market forces to generate new employment in sectors we cannot yet predict.

Automation poses unprecedented risks to workers, particularly those in low-skill and middle-skill jobs, and requires an unprecedented policy response: universal basic income, retraining programs, shortened work weeks, and stronger social safety nets to distribute the gains of automation more broadly.

The obligation to workers displaced by automation is not best framed as a government benefit but as a shared investment in adaptability. Businesses that profit from automation should fund worker retraining, and educational institutions should redesign curricula to build the human skills — creativity, social intelligence, cross-domain reasoning — that automation cannot replicate.

Score 12/12 — Model Essay

~550 words · Fully annotated

The historical optimism of Perspective 1 — that technological disruption always, in the end, creates more jobs than it destroys — rests on genuine evidence from the Industrial Revolution, the mechanization of agriculture, and the computerization of offices. But historical precedent is not historical guarantee, and there are structural reasons to believe that the current wave of automation may differ from its predecessors in ways that matter for policy. The key difference is speed and scope. Previous technological transitions occurred over decades, giving labor markets time to absorb displaced workers and allowing educational institutions to realign. The mechanization of agricultural labor, for instance, moved roughly over a century, and the workers who could not transition were in many cases absorbed by the expanding manufacturing sector. The current wave of AI-driven automation threatens white-collar, knowledge-work tasks — legal document review, radiological interpretation, financial analysis — simultaneously with the manual tasks being automated by robotics. When both the manufacturing sector and the professional sector face disruption in the same decade, the historical pattern of sector-by-sector reabsorption does not apply in the same way. This does not make Perspective 2's proposal for universal basic income the obvious solution. The evidence on UBI from pilot programs (Finland, Stockton, California) is genuinely mixed: participants report improved wellbeing and some return to education, but critics correctly note that city- or country-level pilots cannot replicate the macroeconomic effects of a full national program. More fundamentally, cash transfers do not address the deeper problem — which is not that workers lack money but that they lack pathways to meaningful, adaptable employment in a changing economy. Perspective 3 therefore captures the most actionable insight: the question is not redistribution of automation's proceeds, but investment in the human capacities that automation cannot replicate. The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs reports consistently find that the skills most resistant to automation are those that require emotional intelligence, cross-domain synthesis, and judgment under genuine uncertainty — precisely the skills that most formal educational institutions systematically underemphasize in favor of narrow procedural knowledge. A policy response that required businesses automating significant portions of their workforce to fund retraining partnerships with community colleges, and that rewrote K-12 and higher education curricula toward these high-autonomy skills, would be more durable than either blind faith in markets or cash-based safety nets. The obligation to displaced workers is therefore best understood not as compensation for disruption but as investment in adaptability. This requires shared responsibility: businesses that benefit most directly from automation funding retraining, governments setting standards and ensuring access for workers who cannot access employer programs, and educational institutions redesigning curricula before displacement makes redesign urgent. The workers most at risk are those who will be hardest to reach once disruption occurs — which means the time to act is before automation displaces them, not after.

Historical evidence acknowledged, then qualified

Opening with genuine credit for Perspective 1's historical argument earns analytical credibility before challenging it. The essay does not dismiss the optimist view — it explains why its historical basis may not apply now.

Speed and scope: The structural distinction

Identifying why this wave of automation differs from previous ones (speed, scope of sector impact) is an original analytical contribution. This is what 'developing your own perspective' means — not just endorsing a provided perspective but building on it.

Finland and Stockton UBI pilots: Named evidence

Naming specific UBI pilots rather than saying 'research suggests' gives the argument verifiable specificity. The essay also honestly characterizes the evidence as 'mixed,' which demonstrates intellectual honesty rather than cherry-picking.

World Economic Forum: Named authority on future skills

The WEF Future of Jobs report is a credible, named source that directly supports the argument about which skills resist automation. Using named institutional sources distinguishes score-12 essays.

Conclusion: Investment in adaptability, not compensation

The 'adaptability vs. compensation' distinction is an original conceptual contribution that goes beyond the three provided perspectives. This is Ideas & Analysis at its highest level — the essay is generating insight, not summarizing options.

4-Domain Scores — Score-12 Essay

Domain	Score	Analysis
Ideas & Analysis	12	Original structural argument about speed/scope difference; 'investment in adaptability vs. compensation' framing is genuinely insightful; all three perspectives engaged critically.
Development & Support	12	Agricultural mechanization timeline, Finland/Stockton UBI data, WEF Future of Jobs reports — each developed into an argument, not just referenced.
Organization	12	Perspective 1 qualified → Perspective 2 critiqued → Perspective 3 extended → own synthesis (pre-displacement investment) → conclusion.
Language Use & Conventions	12	Precise vocabulary (macroeconomic effects, sector-by-sector reabsorption, high-autonomy skills); varied sentence length; no grammatical or mechanical errors.

Score 8/12 — For Comparison

Annotated with specific improvements

Automation is changing the economy very quickly, and workers who lose their jobs due to technology deserve support. This essay will discuss the obligations that governments, businesses, and schools have to help these workers. I agree most with Perspective 2, because I think automation could hurt many workers and that we need policies to help them. Many jobs in manufacturing and services are at risk of being automated. Without support, these workers could fall into poverty. Universal basic income is one possible solution. Finland and some U.S. cities have tested this idea, and the results seem to show that it can help people. However, it is very expensive, and not everyone agrees it is the best approach. Perspective 1 is too optimistic. While it is true that new technologies have created jobs in the past, there is no guarantee this will always happen. The current wave of AI and robotics is much more powerful than previous technologies. We should not assume that the economy will automatically adjust. Perspective 3 also has merit. Retraining workers is a good idea, and businesses that profit from automation should help pay for it. Schools should also teach skills that cannot be automated. In conclusion, addressing the impact of automation on workers requires government programs, business investment in retraining, and changes to education. No single solution is enough on its own, and a comprehensive approach is needed.

Specific improvements needed to reach Score 10–12:

The essay announces it will 'discuss obligations' rather than taking an analytical position from the start. Replace the roadmap sentence with a thesis that makes a specific claim about which actor has which obligation and why.
UBI evidence ('the results seem to show that it can help') is too vague. Name specific findings from the Finland or Stockton pilots — what did participants report? What were the limitations? The score-12 essay characterizes the evidence as mixed, which is both more honest and more analytically sophisticated.
The critique of Perspective 1 ('no guarantee this will always happen') is correct but too brief. Explain the specific structural reason why this wave may differ — the score-12 essay uses speed and scope of sector impact, which is a concrete analytical claim.
Paragraph 5 says Perspective 3 'has merit' without explaining why it is better than the alternatives. The entire purpose of the essay is to explain this — which approach has the best claim to priority and why.
Sentence structure is almost entirely subject-verb-object with no variation. Incorporate subordinate clauses, relative clauses, and appositives to demonstrate Language Use range.
The conclusion uses 'comprehensive approach' without specifying what that looks like. A stronger conclusion would describe the distinct role of each actor — businesses fund retraining, governments ensure access, schools redesign curricula — rather than just saying all three matter.

Essay 3 of 6

Individual Privacy vs. National Security

Issue Overview

In the years since the September 11 attacks, governments around the world have expanded surveillance programs, data collection, and intelligence-sharing in the name of national security. Revelations by whistleblowers like Edward Snowden in 2013 disclosed the scope of these programs, sparking intense debate about the trade-off between individual privacy and collective safety. As technology makes mass surveillance both cheaper and more comprehensive, societies must decide how to balance the rights of individuals against the security needs of the state.

Three Perspectives

National security must take priority in a world of credible terrorist threats. Citizens benefit from the safety that intelligence capabilities provide, and most have nothing to fear from surveillance if they have nothing to hide. Limiting security agencies' access to data makes everyone less safe.

Mass surveillance by governments represents an unprecedented threat to civil liberties, democratic accountability, and individual autonomy. A society that sacrifices privacy for security ends up losing both — as surveillance powers inevitably expand and target political dissidents, journalists, and minority communities rather than genuine threats.

The privacy-security trade-off is not a binary choice. Targeted, court-supervised surveillance of specific suspects with demonstrated connections to threats is both effective and compatible with civil liberties. Mass collection of data on millions of uninvolved citizens is neither necessary for security nor acceptable in a democracy.

Score 12/12 — Model Essay

~550 words · Fully annotated

The framing of privacy versus security as a trade-off — as though more of one necessarily means less of the other — is the conceptual error that makes this debate harder than it needs to be. Perspective 3 is correct that this is a false dichotomy, and its reasoning is supported by both civil liberties principles and empirical evidence about what actually makes counterterrorism effective. The "nothing to hide" argument in Perspective 1 deserves a direct response, because it is the most commonly made and the most persistently flawed. The argument assumes that the relevant question is whether a specific citizen has committed a crime. But privacy is not only protection against prosecution; it is the condition under which political dissent, journalistic inquiry, legal advice, medical treatment, and religious practice can occur without the chilling effect of state observation. The legal scholar Daniel Solove has documented extensively how even innocent people suffer concrete harms from surveillance: they self-censor, they alter relationships, they avoid associations that might attract scrutiny. These harms are real, even for the innocent. The question is not "do you have something to hide" but "does a state with access to everything about everyone remain a democracy over time?" The empirical record of mass surveillance's effectiveness also undermines Perspective 1. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's 2014 review of the NSA's bulk telephone metadata program — the program disclosed by Snowden — found that it had not been "essential to preventing attacks" and could identify no case in which it provided unique intelligence unavailable through targeted means. What does work — as the 9/11 Commission itself found — is the coordination of specific, targeted intelligence about known suspects. Mass collection of data on millions of uninvolved people introduces noise, overwhelms analysts, and has historically been used to target not terrorists but civil rights leaders, antiwar activists, and political opponents, as the COINTELPRO files documented. Perspective 2's concern is therefore empirically grounded, not merely theoretical. The history of surveillance programs in the United States — from COINTELPRO to post-9/11 Muslim community mapping by the NYPD — shows that expanded powers authorized for one purpose are consistently used for others. This is not speculation about hypothetical abuse; it is documented institutional history. The most defensible position, as Perspective 3 argues, is that targeted, court-supervised surveillance of specific, demonstrated threats is both more effective and more compatible with democratic governance than mass collection. This requires strong judicial oversight of surveillance warrants, meaningful legislative review of intelligence programs, and robust whistleblower protections that make institutional accountability possible without requiring individuals to break the law to expose illegal programs. Security and liberty are not opposites; they are both better served by a surveillance regime that is targeted, accountable, and subject to democratic oversight.

Opening: Identify the false dichotomy in the framing

Naming the 'trade-off' framing as the problem rather than one of the perspectives is a sophisticated analytical move. It signals that the essay will challenge the premise of the question, not just pick a side.

Solove reference: Privacy as social condition, not just legal protection

Daniel Solove is a named legal scholar whose actual work argues exactly this point. Using a named expert with a specific argument — not 'experts say' — is a hallmark of score-12 Development & Support.

PCLOB 2014 review: Specific government finding

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's finding that bulk metadata collection was not essential to preventing attacks is a documented, named government report. This is a factual claim that directly refutes Perspective 1's core premise.

COINTELPRO: Named historical program, not vague 'history'

Citing COINTELPRO by name, and the NYPD Muslim community mapping program specifically, transforms a vague claim about 'abuse of power' into a documented historical argument. Specificity is the difference between score 8 and score 12.

4-Domain Scores — Score-12 Essay

Domain	Score	Analysis
Ideas & Analysis	12	Identifies the false dichotomy in the prompt framing; directly responds to 'nothing to hide'; uses empirical evidence to test Perspective 1's factual premise.
Development & Support	12	PCLOB review, COINTELPRO, Solove's scholarship, 9/11 Commission — each used to make a specific argumentative point rather than as decoration.
Organization	12	False dichotomy identification → 'nothing to hide' direct rebuttal → empirical effectiveness argument → historical abuse documentation → synthesis.
Language Use & Conventions	12	Precise legal and political vocabulary (chilling effect, judicial oversight, whistleblower protections, bulk metadata collection); no errors; varied sentence architecture.

Score 8/12 — For Comparison

Annotated with specific improvements

The debate over privacy versus national security is one of the most important issues in modern democracy. I believe that Perspective 3 is correct: we do not have to choose between safety and privacy if we design our laws and institutions carefully. Perspective 1 argues that national security should come first and that people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from surveillance. I disagree with this because privacy is a fundamental right, and governments should not be able to collect data on citizens without good reason. Also, history shows that surveillance powers have been abused in the past, targeting innocent people and political opponents. Perspective 2 goes too far by suggesting that all surveillance is bad. Some surveillance is clearly necessary. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies need tools to investigate genuine threats. The question is whether those tools are properly limited and overseen. Perspective 3 offers the best solution: targeted, court-supervised surveillance of specific suspects is both more effective and more respectful of civil liberties than mass data collection. If intelligence agencies have to show a judge that there is a real reason to investigate someone before they can collect data, this protects citizens while still allowing legitimate security work. In conclusion, a society can protect both security and privacy by requiring that surveillance be targeted, supervised, and accountable. This is not a compromise between two values but a way of achieving both at the same time.

Specific improvements needed to reach Score 10–12:

The opening sentence ('one of the most important issues') is a cliche that wastes the introduction. Use the opening to make an analytical point — like naming the false dichotomy in the framing — not to announce the topic's importance.
The response to Perspective 1's 'nothing to hide' argument ('privacy is a fundamental right') is an assertion without analytical depth. The score-12 essay explains why privacy is a social condition — the chilling effect on dissent, journalism, and religious practice — which is a more powerful response.
'History shows that surveillance powers have been abused' is vague. Name COINTELPRO or the NYPD Muslim mapping program specifically. Concrete historical examples earn points that vague references to 'history' do not.
The claim that targeted surveillance is 'more effective' than mass collection is asserted but not supported. The PCLOB 2014 finding — that the NSA bulk metadata program identified no case unavailable through targeted means — directly supports this claim.
The conclusion introduces 'not a compromise between two values but a way of achieving both' — this is actually a good insight that should be developed earlier in the essay, not saved for the final paragraph.

Essay 4 of 6

Arts Education in Public Schools

Issue Overview

Budget pressures, high-stakes standardized testing, and growing demand for STEM skills have led many school districts to reduce arts education — music, visual art, theater, and creative writing — in favor of subjects with clearer connections to college readiness and career outcomes. Advocates for arts education argue that these cuts undermine students' creative development and emotional intelligence. Critics argue that schools must prioritize the measurable skills that determine students' economic futures. What role should arts education play in public schools?

Three Perspectives

Arts education should be protected and expanded in public schools because it develops creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence — capacities that are increasingly in demand in the modern economy and that STEM education alone cannot cultivate.

In an economy where access to quality STEM education determines career outcomes, requiring arts education diverts time and resources from the skills that most directly benefit students — particularly those from underserved communities who have the most to gain from rigorous academic preparation.

Rather than treating arts and STEM as competing curriculum priorities, schools should integrate creative and design thinking across all subjects. Analytical skills and creative skills are mutually reinforcing, and the best education develops both simultaneously rather than in isolation.

Score 12/12 — Model Essay

~550 words · Fully annotated

The framing of arts versus STEM education as a competition for scarce curricular time contains a genuine constraint — school days are limited, and every hour spent on one subject is an hour not spent on another — but it misrepresents the educational question at stake. The competition framing assumes that arts and STEM develop entirely separate capacities. The more accurate view is that creative and analytical thinking are mutually reinforcing, and that the evidence base for integration, as Perspective 3 suggests, is stronger than either the arts-only or STEM-only position. Perspective 2's equity concern deserves a direct and serious response. The argument that arts education diverts resources from the rigorous academic preparation that matters most for students from underserved communities is not a cynical position — it reflects a real tension. Students from low-income families often have less access to enrichment outside of school, which means that whether they receive arts exposure may depend entirely on whether their school provides it. The question is whether arts education competes with or complements the rigorous academic preparation Perspective 2 cares about. The research evidence suggests complementarity rather than competition. Longitudinal studies by researchers at the Dana Foundation found consistent correlations between sustained music education and improved reading and mathematics performance, with stronger effects among low-income students. These findings are not entirely surprising: reading music requires mathematical pattern recognition; sustained instrumental practice develops the executive function skills — attention control, working memory, goal-directed persistence — that predict academic success across subjects. The equity argument for arts education may be stronger than the equity argument against it. Perspective 1 is correct that creativity and emotional intelligence are valuable capacities, but it is at its weakest when it defends arts as a separate, parallel curriculum. The strongest version of the arts education case is Perspective 3's integration argument: that design thinking in science classes, narrative reasoning in mathematics, and aesthetic analysis in history classes produce more transfer of skills than segregated arts time. The Stanford d.school's work on design thinking in K-12 education demonstrates that integrating creative problem-solving into STEM instruction produces better STEM outcomes as well as developing creative capacities. This is the version of arts education that most directly addresses Perspective 2's equity concern — not arts as a separate add-on, but as an approach to rigorous instruction in every subject. The role of arts education in public schools should therefore be understood not as an allocation question — how many periods per week? — but as a pedagogical one: how do we develop the full range of human capacities that rigorous, relevant education requires? The answer is integration: creative and analytical skills developed together, across the curriculum, for all students.

Acknowledging the real constraint before challenging the framing

The essay opens by acknowledging that the competition framing reflects a real constraint (limited school days), then argues that it misrepresents the educational question. This earn-then-challenge approach is analytically more credible than simply rejecting Perspective 2.

Equity argument taken seriously and reversed

The essay spends a full paragraph taking Perspective 2's equity concern seriously before presenting evidence that reverses it. This is what 'analyzing the relationship between perspectives' means — engaging with their strongest form, not dismissing them.

Dana Foundation research: Named longitudinal study

Citing the Dana Foundation music education research provides specific empirical support for the claim that arts and academic performance are complementary. The additional detail that effects were stronger for low-income students directly addresses Perspective 2's equity argument.

Stanford d.school: Institutional evidence for integration

The Stanford d.school's documented work on design thinking in K-12 education provides a concrete institutional example of Perspective 3's integration model. This demonstrates that the integration approach is not theoretical but practiced.

4-Domain Scores — Score-12 Essay

Domain	Score	Analysis
Ideas & Analysis	12	Reframes the question from allocation to pedagogy; reverses Perspective 2's equity argument using its own criteria; integrates all three perspectives into an original synthesis.
Development & Support	12	Dana Foundation research, executive function connection to music, Stanford d.school design thinking — each piece of evidence analyzed and connected to the argument.
Organization	12	Framing critique → Perspective 2 equity concern (taken seriously) → complementarity evidence → Perspective 3 integrated → reframe the question as pedagogical.
Language Use & Conventions	12	Sophisticated vocabulary (executive function, design thinking, longitudinal studies, mutually reinforcing); complex sentences; no errors.

Score 8/12 — For Comparison

Annotated with specific improvements

Arts education is an important part of a complete education and should not be cut from public schools. While STEM subjects are very important in today's economy, arts education develops skills that STEM alone cannot provide. Perspective 1 is mostly right. Music, art, and theater help students develop creativity, emotional intelligence, and critical thinking. These skills are valuable in many careers, not just in artistic fields. Employers in all industries say they want workers who can think creatively and communicate well. Arts education helps develop these skills. However, Perspective 2 raises a fair concern. Not all students have the same opportunities outside of school, and schools in low-income areas especially need to focus on making sure students have strong foundational academic skills. If arts education takes time away from reading and math, that could hurt students who are already behind. I think the best solution is what Perspective 3 suggests: integrating arts and creative thinking into all subjects rather than treating them as separate. Science can incorporate design thinking. History can involve storytelling and narrative. Math can connect to music and pattern. This way, students develop both analytical and creative skills at the same time. In conclusion, arts education is valuable, but it should not come at the expense of academic rigor. Integration is the best approach: developing creative and analytical skills together across the curriculum, so that no student has to choose between them.

Specific improvements needed to reach Score 10–12:

The opening argument for arts education ('employers say they want creativity') cites a vague source. The Dana Foundation research on music education and academic performance would be a much stronger piece of evidence — it directly addresses the concern that arts time competes with academic preparation.
The essay says Perspective 2 'raises a fair concern' but does not engage with it at the level of evidence. Does arts education actually take time away from reading and math, or do schools with strong arts programs have better academic outcomes? The distinction matters.
The integration examples (design thinking in science, storytelling in history) are good ideas but underdeveloped. The Stanford d.school's documented work in K-12 settings would provide institutional evidence for why this approach works, not just why it seems reasonable.
The conclusion replicates the thesis ('integration is the best approach') without adding new insight. A stronger conclusion might explain what the integration model means for school policy — what would a school with genuine arts integration look like differently from one with separate arts classes?
Language Use could be elevated by using more precise vocabulary: 'executive function,' 'transfer of skills,' 'longitudinal research,' 'complementarity' — these terms from the score-12 essay demonstrate a more sophisticated analytical register.

Essay 5 of 6

Space Exploration Funding

Issue Overview

Government space agencies and private companies are investing billions of dollars annually in space exploration, with ambitious plans for missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Proponents argue that space exploration drives scientific progress, inspires future generations, and is essential to humanity's long-term survival. Critics contend that these resources would be better spent addressing urgent problems on Earth — poverty, climate change, and access to healthcare. As governments decide how to allocate public funds, the question of whether space exploration deserves priority investment has become increasingly urgent.

Three Perspectives

Space exploration is one of humanity's most important investments. Beyond its direct scientific contributions — satellite communications, GPS, medical imaging technology — it represents a long-term insurance policy for the species and an irreplaceable source of the scientific and engineering talent that drives economic progress.

The billions spent on space exploration represent a moral failure while millions of people on Earth lack clean water, adequate food, and basic healthcare. Humanity should solve the problems of the planet it already inhabits before spending resources on the exploration of others.

The choice between space exploration and addressing Earth's urgent problems is a false dilemma. The real challenge is developing the international governance structures that allow humanity to pursue both simultaneously — sharing the cost and benefit of space investment across nations while ensuring that domestic social programs are not crowdfunded by borrowing against the future.

Score 12/12 — Model Essay

~550 words · Fully annotated

The moral weight of Perspective 2 — that it is wrong to explore space while people lack clean water — is one that deserves serious engagement, not dismissal. Its emotional force is real. But the argument, examined carefully, contains an implicit premise that is worth making explicit: that public spending is a zero-sum competition in which a dollar for NASA is necessarily a dollar taken from a child's nutrition. This premise is empirically false in most cases, and the policy implication Perspective 2 draws from it does not follow. NASA's annual budget is approximately $25 billion — roughly 0.3% of the federal budget. The programs that most directly address domestic poverty and hunger receive orders of magnitude more funding: Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance together account for hundreds of billions annually. The choice is not, in practice, between space exploration and feeding hungry children. The actual allocation decisions that determine how much goes to social programs are driven by tax policy, defense spending, and entitlement program design — not by the space budget. Defunding NASA would not, in any realistic political scenario, redirect those funds to poverty alleviation. Moreover, Perspective 1 is correct that space exploration generates technological benefits whose value extends far beyond the missions themselves. The spinoff technologies from the Apollo program — memory foam, water filtration, CAT scanners, scratch-resistant lenses, and the integrated circuit miniaturization that enabled personal computing — were not incidental byproducts but predictable consequences of doing hard engineering at the frontier of technical possibility. GPS alone, which originated as a military satellite system, has generated economic value estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars annually through transportation efficiency, precision agriculture, and emergency services. The objection that this money could do more good spent directly on poverty programs requires showing that direct antipoverty spending generates comparable long-term multiplier effects, which is a much harder argument to make. Where Perspective 3 adds genuine analytical value is in recognizing that the governance of space exploration is a different question from whether space exploration has value. The current arrangement — in which space benefits are disproportionately enjoyed by wealthy nations while launch vehicle debris, orbital congestion, and satellite communication spectrum are treated as open-access commons — is neither equitable nor sustainable. The Outer Space Treaty framework, designed in 1967, needs substantial updating for an era of private space companies, commercial lunar resource extraction, and mega-constellations of satellites that affect all users of low earth orbit. The most defensible position is therefore: space exploration is worth funding as a public investment, its moral standing relative to domestic social spending is frequently overstated, and the international governance of space exploration requires urgent reform to ensure that its benefits are shared and its commons are protected. These are not separate questions but components of a coherent space policy.

Engage Perspective 2 seriously before challenging it

The essay explicitly acknowledges the moral weight of the poverty objection before challenging its empirical premise. This demonstrates intellectual honesty and prevents the essay from seeming dismissive of a legitimate concern.

Budget specifics: The zero-sum premise is false

Citing NASA's approximate budget ($25B, ~0.3% of federal spending) directly challenges Perspective 2's implicit premise. Using specific numbers rather than vague claims about relative spending turns an assertion into an argument.

Apollo spinoffs: Named specific technologies

Listing specific Apollo spinoffs — memory foam, water filtration, CAT scanners, scratch-resistant lenses, integrated circuit miniaturization — is more persuasive than the generic 'technology benefits society' claim. The GPS economic value estimate adds quantitative specificity.

Outer Space Treaty and governance reform: Genuinely novel insight

Moving the discussion from 'should we fund space exploration' to 'how should space exploration be governed' is an original analytical contribution that goes beyond all three provided perspectives. This is what top-scoring Ideas & Analysis looks like.

4-Domain Scores — Score-12 Essay

Domain	Score	Analysis
Ideas & Analysis	12	Identifies the false zero-sum premise; introduces space governance as a separate and important question; all three perspectives analyzed critically and built upon.
Development & Support	12	NASA budget figure, Apollo spinoff technologies, GPS economic value, Outer Space Treaty framework — each developed as an argument, not a list.
Organization	12	Acknowledge Perspective 2's moral force → challenge its empirical premise → affirm Perspective 1's technological argument → extend Perspective 3 into governance reform → synthesis.
Language Use & Conventions	12	Sophisticated vocabulary (implicit premise, zero-sum competition, multiplier effects, open-access commons); varied sentence structure; no mechanical errors.

Score 8/12 — For Comparison

Annotated with specific improvements

Space exploration is an important investment for humanity, but the concerns raised about poverty and urgent problems on Earth are also valid. I believe that both are important, and that we can pursue space exploration while also addressing problems on Earth. Perspective 1 makes good points about the benefits of space exploration. Satellite technology, GPS, and other technologies that came from space programs have improved everyday life. The long-term goal of making humans a multi-planet species is also important for our survival as a civilization. Perspective 2 is right that poverty and lack of healthcare are serious problems that need attention. However, I do not think that cutting space budgets would actually solve these problems. The money would not automatically go to helping poor people, and the political will to fund social programs exists or does not exist regardless of what we spend on space. Perspective 3 provides the best framework: this does not have to be an either/or choice. Countries can invest in both space exploration and social programs. International cooperation can spread the costs of space exploration and make it more affordable for individual nations. The problem is not that we are spending money on space, but that we are not spending enough on the problems that need urgent attention. In conclusion, space exploration should continue to receive funding because its benefits are real and its long-term importance is significant. At the same time, governments must do more to address urgent problems on Earth. With good governance and international cooperation, both goals can be achieved.

Specific improvements needed to reach Score 10–12:

The essay correctly notes that cutting space budgets would not automatically fund social programs, but does not support this with the kind of specific evidence the score-12 essay uses (NASA's ~0.3% budget share). Quantifying the argument is the difference between an assertion and a supported claim.
The Apollo spinoff argument is mentioned but not developed. Listing specific technologies (GPS, CAT scanners, water filtration) and their economic and social impact would demonstrate the depth of analysis that score-12 essays show.
Perspective 3 is endorsed ('provides the best framework') without being extended. The score-12 essay adds an original contribution: that the Outer Space Treaty framework needs updating for the era of private space companies and commercial resource extraction. Extend Perspective 3 rather than just endorsing it.
The conclusion adds no new insight — it simply reasserts that both goals are achievable. A stronger conclusion would specify what 'good governance and international cooperation' means concretely, as the score-12 essay does with its governance reform argument.
The essay uses 'important' five times in different forms. Replace with more precise vocabulary: 'significant,' 'consequential,' 'essential,' 'strategically valuable,' 'instrumentally and intrinsically valuable' — varied word choice is a marker of Language Use quality.

Essay 6 of 6

Standardized Testing in College Admissions

Issue Overview

The SAT and ACT have long served as central tools in college admissions, providing a common academic benchmark across applicants from schools with vastly different grading standards. In the years since the COVID-19 pandemic, however, hundreds of colleges and universities have moved to test-optional or test-free admissions, citing concerns about socioeconomic bias, the limits of what standardized tests measure, and the stress they impose on applicants. As higher education reassesses its admissions criteria, the question of whether standardized tests should remain part of the process has never been more contested.

Three Perspectives

Standardized tests provide an objective, comparable measure of academic preparation that is essential in a system where high school grades are dramatically inflated and vary wildly in rigor. Without test scores, admissions offices are left to rely even more heavily on subjective factors like essays, interviews, and extracurricular activities that favor wealthy, well-coached applicants.

Standardized tests are among the most accurate predictors of family income in college admissions — students whose parents can afford private tutors and multiple test prep courses consistently outscore equally talented students from lower-income families. Test-optional policies allow colleges to use a more holistic set of criteria that better identifies students who will thrive academically.

Neither requiring nor banning standardized tests addresses the real problem: that the information they provide about student ability is contaminated by the information they provide about family income. A better system would invest in high-quality, free test preparation accessible to all students, and use scores as one signal among many rather than as a threshold filter.

Score 12/12 — Model Essay

~550 words · Fully annotated

The standardized testing debate has been sharpened by the COVID-era shift to test-optional policies, which created a natural experiment in higher education. Early evidence from that experiment is instructive: several selective universities that went test-optional reported rising application numbers but faced difficulty identifying whether admitted students without test scores were equivalently prepared to those who submitted scores. This practical challenge reveals that the issue is not simply whether tests are fair — both Perspective 1 and Perspective 2 are partially right about this — but whether the alternatives to test scores are more or less fair, and more or less predictive of academic success. Perspective 1's argument about grade inflation is empirically well-supported. A study by researchers at Harvard and Brown found that the correlation between high school GPA and college performance is lower and less comparable across high schools than the correlation between SAT scores and college performance, precisely because grading standards vary enormously. A student with a 4.0 from a rigorous private school and a student with a 4.0 from an underfunded rural school are not comparably prepared for college, but their GPAs look identical. In a test-optional system, these students are evaluated primarily on their essays, extracurricular records, and recommendation letters — criteria that are, as Perspective 1 notes, highly vulnerable to wealth-based advantages in coaching and opportunity creation. Perspective 2's income-correlation argument is also empirically true and cannot be dismissed. The College Board's own data show that average SAT scores increase linearly with family income, and that students from families earning over $200,000 per year score on average more than 300 points higher than students from families earning under $20,000. This is not primarily a test validity problem — it is a preparation access problem. Students with more resources receive more test preparation, and better-prepared students score higher. The test is measuring both aptitude and preparation, and these are difficult to disentangle. This is precisely the insight that Perspective 3 captures: the problem with standardized tests is not that they provide inaccurate information but that the information they provide is contaminated by the inequality of access to preparation. This is a solvable problem through investment — in free, high-quality test preparation accessible to all students; in earlier intervention in the educational pipeline; and in the use of scores in context, comparing students to peers from similar educational circumstances rather than to a universal benchmark. Several states' "percent plan" admissions systems — guaranteeing college admission to the top percentage of graduates from each high school — represent an attempt to use relative performance rather than absolute scores, with real equity effects. The most defensible position is therefore neither test-required nor test-free but test-with-equity-investment: make preparation universally accessible, use scores as one contextual data point among several, and invest in the structural reforms that would make scores more equitable rather than abandoning the information they provide.

COVID natural experiment: Historical context grounding the analysis

Opening with the practical challenge of test-optional admissions — the difficulty of comparing prepared and unprepared students without scores — grounds the analysis in recent institutional experience. This is a more sophisticated opening than 'standardized testing is a controversial topic.'

Harvard/Brown GPA study: Named research on grade comparability

The study on GPA-to-college-performance correlation versus SAT-to-college-performance correlation provides specific empirical support for Perspective 1's argument about grade inflation. Named universities and specific research claims are hallmarks of score-12 Development & Support.

College Board data: Using the test-maker's own evidence against simple pro-test position

Citing College Board data showing the income-test score correlation — that students from $200K+ families score 300+ points higher than those from under $20K families — is intellectually honest. Using the test-maker's own statistics against simple pro-test advocacy demonstrates analytical independence.

Percent plans: Specific policy alternative

Texas's and other states' 'percent plan' admissions systems are a named, operating policy response to the problem being analyzed. Citing existing policy solutions demonstrates that the essay is generating actionable insight, not just raising concerns.

4-Domain Scores — Score-12 Essay

Domain	Score	Analysis
Ideas & Analysis	12	Grounds analysis in the COVID natural experiment; correctly identifies that the question is not just 'are tests fair' but 'are the alternatives fairer'; generates 'test-with-equity-investment' as an original synthesis.
Development & Support	12	Harvard/Brown GPA correlation study, College Board income data, percent plan policy examples — each developed into an argument with analysis connecting evidence to claim.
Organization	12	Natural experiment framing → Perspective 1 evidence → Perspective 2 evidence → Perspective 3 synthesis → own position with policy specifics.
Language Use & Conventions	12	Precise vocabulary (natural experiment, income-correlation, preparation access problem, contextual data point); no repetition; varied complex sentence structures; no errors.

Score 8/12 — For Comparison

Annotated with specific improvements

Standardized tests have been a controversial topic in education for a long time, and the debate about whether they should be required for college admission has grown in recent years. I believe that the test-optional approach is the best solution, because it gives students the flexibility to decide whether to submit scores. Perspective 1 argues that tests provide an objective measure. This is partly true — test scores do give colleges one consistent way to compare students. But the problem is that the test is not equally accessible to all students. Students whose families can afford expensive test prep courses have an unfair advantage. Perspective 2 is right that tests are correlated with family income. This is a real problem because it means colleges are partly selecting for wealth, not just academic ability. Test-optional policies let colleges look at a fuller picture of each student. However, Perspective 3 also has a point. Simply going test-optional does not solve the problem of educational inequality. If students who cannot afford test prep don't submit scores, they may be compared unfavorably to students who do submit scores. A better system would invest in making high-quality test preparation available to all students, so the scores actually reflect ability rather than wealth. In conclusion, the best solution combines elements of all three perspectives: allow students to choose whether to submit scores, invest in free test preparation, and use scores as one factor among many rather than as the primary criterion. This approach is fairer and more comprehensive than simply requiring or banning tests.

Specific improvements needed to reach Score 10–12:

The opening ('standardized tests have been a controversial topic') is a cliche that wastes the introduction. Use the opening to make a substantive analytical point — such as noting that the COVID test-optional period created a natural experiment whose results inform the debate.
The assertion that test prep courses give wealthy students 'an unfair advantage' is true but unsupported. The College Board's own data showing a 300+ point income-correlated gap is a specific, authoritative statistic that makes this argument far more compelling.
The conclusion ('allow students to choose, invest in preparation, use as one factor') combines all three perspectives into a list without explaining which is primary or how they fit together. The score-12 essay's 'test-with-equity-investment' formulation is more precise and actionable.
The essay never addresses the practical question: how would test-optional admissions work if some students submit scores and others don't? The score-12 essay addresses this as the natural experiment reveals a genuine challenge. Engaging with this practical difficulty would demonstrate analytical depth.
Paragraph structure is: claim → concede → add more. Stronger structure would be: claim → evidence → analysis → implication. Each paragraph should build rather than balance.

Practice these writing skills on a full ACT exam

Take a full-length ACT practice exam to apply your writing preparation alongside English, Math, Reading, and Science.

Take a Free ACT Practice Exam →

More Essay Prompts ACT Writing Guide