학원을 추천하는 학생:
- 편입 전반적인 이해도를 설립하고 싶다 (1~2달)
- 시간관리가 혼자서 안된다, 다른 사람들과 스터디룸에서 공부하면 집중이 잘된다
- 등수를 알고 싶다 (개인적으로는 등수는 별로 중요치 않습니다. 당일날 잘해야해서)
이 외는 별로 추천하지 않습니다
고려사항
또한 요강이 늦게 나오기에 작년 요강들 모두 (제발) 꼼꼼히 읽는 것이 아주 중요합니다. 서류 기간 놓쳐서 떨어지는 학생들이 그렇게 많습니다..
가면 학교별 기출 문제가 정말 많은데 싹 다 뽑아서 하나씩 풀고 오답 고치고 하면 6시간 정도는 가더라고요. 오답 문제 노트는 따로 없고 단어 틀리는 거는 싹 다 정리해서 외웠습니다. 이렇게 매일마다 풀다 보면 나중에 1달 정도 전에는 어려운 세트는 9개, 쉬운 세트는 다 맞는 등 조금 왔다 갔다 하지만 평균적으로 4~6개 정도 틀리면 되는 것 같아요.
이후 참석도 잘 받고 더 어려운 주제들을 쓸 준비가 되면 구글에 “SAT essay prompts” 또는 한양대학교 입학처에서
수시모집 >> 기출문제 자료실 >> 논술 (에세이) >> 논술 / 모의논술 >> 글로벌인재 (어학)
http://site.hanyang.ac.kr/web/go/-3?p_p_id=board_WAR_bbsportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=2&_board_WAR_bbsportlet_action=view 에 들어가서 영어 에세이들을 Question들을 보지 말고 쓸 수 있는 다양한 에세이들을 써보세요. SAT와 한양대 prompt들은 정확히 정해져 있어서 오히려 보지 않고 본문만 읽고 쓰다 보면 여러 논점을 정리할 수 있었던 것 같습니다.
한달 정도 남았을 때는 기출들을 3일에 하나씩 써보고 계속 고치고 쓰는게 좋을 것 같습니다.
개인적인 팁은 글을 쓴 후 1주일 뒤에 다시 보면서 다시 고쳐 보는 것을 추천 드립니다. 1주일 뒤에 다시 보면 놓친 부분들이 많이 보일 것입니다.
Passage 1
He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will anyone say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him.
Passage 2
The earth is given to men in common for the purposes of life, by the bounty of Heaven. But to divide it, and appropriate one part of its produce to one, another part to another, must be the work of men who have power and understanding given them, by which every man may accommodate himself, without hurt to any other. This common right of every man to what the earth produces, before it be occupied and appropriated by others, was, by ancient moralists, very properly compared to the right which every citizen had to the public theatre, where every man that came might occupy an empty seat, and thereby acquire a right to it while the entertainment lasted; but no man had a right to dispossess another. The earth is a great theatre, furnished by the Almighty, with perfect wisdom and goodness, for the entertainment and employment of all mankind. Here every man has a right to accommodate himself as a spectator, and to perform his part as an actor; but without hurt to others.
Instructions
Write an essay first to justify the ownership of the property and second to criticize the unequal ownership of residual property. You have to use the idea from the passages to verify your idea.
Text
While there is only speculation about how humor developed in early humans, we know that by the late 6th century BCE the Greeks had institutionalized it in the ritual known as comedy, and that it was performed with a contrasting dramatic form known as tragedy. Both were based on the violation of mental patterns and expectations, and in both the world is a tangle of conflicting systems where humans live in the shadow of failure, folly, and death. Like tragedy, comedy represents life as full of tension, danger, and struggle, with success or failure often depending on chance factors. Where they differ is in the responses of the lead characters to life’s incongruities. Identifying with these characters, audiences at comedies and tragedies have contrasting responses to events in the dramas. And because these responses carry over to similar situations in life, comedy and tragedy embody contrasting responses to the incongruities in life.
Tragedy valorizes serious, emotional engagement with life’s problems, even struggle to the death. Along with epic, it is part of the Western heroic tradition that extols ideals, the willingness to fight for them, and honor. The tragic ethos is linked to patriarchy and militarism—many of its heroes are kings and conquerors—and it valorizes what Conrad Hyers (1996) calls Warrior Virtues—blind obedience, the willingness to kill or die on command, unquestioning loyalty, single-mindedness, resoluteness of purpose, and pride.
Comedy, by contrast, embodies an anti-heroic, pragmatic attitude toward life’s incongruities. From Aristophanes’ Lysistrata to Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, comedy has mocked the irrationality of militarism and blind respect for authority. Its own methods of handling conflict include deal-making, trickery, getting an enemy drunk, and running away. As the Irish saying goes, you’re only a coward for a moment, but you’re dead for the rest of your life. In place of Warrior Virtues, it extols critical thinking, cleverness, adaptability, and an appreciation of physical pleasures like eating, drinking, and sex.
Along with the idealism of tragedy goes elitism. The people who matter are kings, queens, and generals. In comedy there are more characters and more kinds of characters, women are more prominent, and many protagonists come from lower classes. Everybody counts for one. That shows in the language of comedy, which, unlike the elevated language of tragedy, is common speech. The basic unit in tragedy is the individual, in comedy it is the family, group of friends, or bunch of co-workers.
While tragic heroes are emotionally engaged with their problems, comic protagonists show emotional disengagement. They think, rather than feel, their way through difficulties. By presenting such characters as role models, comedy has implicitly valorized the benefits of humor that are now being empirically verified, such as that it is psychologically and physically healthy, it fosters mental flexibility, and it serves as a social lubricant. With a few exceptions like Aquinas, philosophers have ignored these benefits.
If philosophers wanted to undo the traditional prejudices against humor, they might consider the affinities between one contemporary genre of comedy—standup comedy—and philosophy itself. There are at least seven. First, standup comedy and philosophy are conversational: like the dialogue format that started with Plato, standup routines are interactive. Second, both reflect on familiar experiences, especially puzzling ones. We wake from a vivid dream, for example, not sure what has happened and what is happening. Third, like philosophers, standup comics often approach puzzling experiences with questions. “If I thought that dream was real, how do I know that I’m not dreaming right now?” The most basic starting point in both philosophy and standup comedy is “X—what’s up with that?” Fourth, as they think about familiar experiences, both philosophers and comics step back emotionally from them. Henri Bergson spoke of the “momentary anesthesia of the heart” in laughter. Emotional disengagement long ago became a meaning of “philosophical”—“rational, sensibly composed, calm, as in a difficult situation.” Fifth, philosophers and standup comics think critically. They ask whether familiar ideas make sense, and they refuse to defer to authority and tradition. It was for his critical thinking that Socrates was executed. So were cabaret comics in Germany who mocked the Third Reich. Sixth, in thinking critically, philosophers and standup comics pay careful attention to language. Attacking sloppy and illogical uses of words is standard in both, and so is finding exactly the right words to express an idea. Seventh, the pleasure of standup comedy is often like the pleasure of doing philosophy. In both we relish new ways of looking at things and delight in surprising thoughts. Cleverness is prized. William James said that philosophy “sees the familiar as if it were strange, and the strange as if it were familiar.” The same is true of standup comedy. Simon Critchley has written that both ask us to “look at things as if you had just landed from another planet”
Prompt
- To what extent do you dis/agree with the author’s characterization of the distinction between comedy and tragedy? Articulate with a thorough example / How do you approach your life thorough comedic / tragic way?
- Using the passage or others, analyze how the diagram can have comedic effects. Fill in the space of the diagram by composing your own lines or make your diagram of similar feature.
1. Introduction
- Hook: 1 sentence: The controversy between religion and science has troubled the minds of many scientists.
- Summary of given paragraphs: 2-3 sentences: The author of passage 1 also elaborates on such controversy by arguing that (summary), Continuing upon such notion, the author of passage 1 asserting that christianity has hindered the development of human cloning, as it violates human rights. He goes on to ….
- Thesis + reason 1, reason 2. (In such notion / Thus,) The government must enforce the limitation on science as ___Reason 1___ (science brings ultimate truth to the society), and ___Reason 2___
- Thesis restatement + reason 1
- Example (2-3): specific examples, including specific events, cases, theorist’s interviews, economic phenomenon, :: a specific and credible example (do not use examples like "people do this usually..")
- Analysis (3-4) why? Why does my example fit exactly with my thesis? Analyze my thesis. (Bottom up analysis)
- Thesis restatement + reason 1 : make sure to paraphrase
전반적 코멘트
