Consider this statement:

In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above
statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does
not resemble the ordinary citizen. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the successful
politician resembles the ordinary citizen.
Sample Essay #1
A successful politician does resemble an ordinary citizen. The ordinary citizen voted
the politician in office. Ordinary citizens do not want a politician in office who is
different from them, like in moral, ethics and viewpoints. A politician would not be
successful, if the politician does not have the support of the ordinary citizen.
A situation in which a successful politician does not resemble the ordinary citizen, is
when a politician were to take a bribe, or go against his ethics and morals. An ordinary
would not take a bribe, or go against what he stands for. Politician has to do good work
for the ordinary citizen, instead of himself. A bribe would only benefit the politician
and not for the ordinary citizen.
A good politician resembles the ordinary citizens, because his success lies in the hands
of the ordinary citizens. If a politician does not do his job, or does something against
the ordinary citizens, they will vote him out of office. Most ordinary citizens have good
character, and a successful politician must have good character.
SCORE = 1
Explanation of score:
This writer demonstrates only a tenuous understanding of the rhetorical assignment. There is a kernel
of an idea in the first paragraph, but the writer makes no attempt to develop or defend it. The second
paragraphs failure to connect its assertions to the prompt undercuts the essays clarity and focus; the
bribes example is an unproductive tangent that leads the essay off course.
The final paragraph fails to identify a determining factor or offer an opinion regarding whether or not
a politician should resemble an ordinary citizen. Language use is quite basic throughout, with many
repetitions and missteps in mechanics. The low score is ensured by the essays wandering focus,
failure to address all three tasks, and the writers inability to fully grasp the underlying concerns of the
prompt.
Sample Essay #2
A democracy is a government in which all citizens take part in determining how they are
governed. A representative democracy is a government in which the citizens elect a

single person to represent their beliefs. A good politician could be defined as an electee
that conforms with these citizens beliefs. When it is said that in a democracy, the
successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen, it means the representative is a
person who conforms to the majority. Ordinary citizens are the average citizens who
collectively agree on a majority of issues, so when a politician resembles these people,
there is a better representation of the citizens as a whole. This, in turn, creates a true
democracy.
There is, however, instances in which a politician is successful without displaying the
average characteristics of an ordinary citizen. For example, a politician may have
knowledge about the economy that an ordinary citizen may not have because he/she
needs to make decisions about the governments budget. The more knowledge he has,
the better decision hell be able to make, and the better politician he will be.
Personally, I think that a politicians ability to speak to the people in a way they can
understand is key to assessing his likeness to them. Another key factor is the
consistency of his decisions (ie. voting) with the peoples opinions. Lastly, his credibility
is key to identifying him as an ordinary citizen.
SCORE = 3
Explanation of score:
This essay manages to briefly address all three tasks, but depends on definitions in the first paragraph
for much of its length. While it is sometimes helpful to explicitly define ones terms in order to set the
table for ones argument, here it comes at the cost of adequately dealing with the substance of the
prompt.
This reliance on definitions undercuts the essays unity and coherence, as the first paragraph does very
little to set up the second. The second paragraph is moderately more successful than the first, as it
provides an instance in which a politician must differentiate himself from the ordinary citizen. A
more detailed discussion of politicians superior access to information, and the significance of this
factor in making a politician successful, might have pushed this essays development toward
adequacy.
The closing paragraph is the essays weakest. It does very little to resolve the issues brought up in the
previous paragraphs. Instead, it makes disconnected and inadequately explained assertions that do
little to further the writers argument or draw it successfully to a close. Language use is competent and
clear, but overall, this essay is only somewhat successful in responding to the prompt.
Sample Essay #3
The fundamental doctrine of democracy is creating government that is representative
of the people. If a politician lies within the fringe of society, he or she may be

incapable of making decisions for the whole of society, as ones opinions are slanted due
to a particular standpoint in society. Undoubtedly, a politicians need to be led by what
the ordinary person needs when making laws. However, who the ordinary person is
and what they want is less well defined.
In recent years, America has seen the rise of many common man politicians; Jimmy
Carter, with his rural upbringing, and George Bush, with his colloquial speech, are just a
few examples. In contradiction to these men, a few extraordinary politicians have given
rise to great democracy and achieved the goals of the ordinary citizen. Ted Kennedy is
certainly not of an ordinary American lineage, yet he has consistently voted for
legislation that benefits those in lower tax brackets and even on welfare. He has voted
against racial discrimination on all levels, as well as sexual, despite have the privilege of
being a wealthy white man in a patriarchy. While his standpoint is not that of the
majority and he would certainly not experience any discrimination nor financial woes, he
has maintained a policy towards incorporating all types of American people with all
types of ordinary problems that he has never experienced first hand.
This commitment to his constituents would indicate a great deal of understanding and
empathy for the plight of the common person, despite being one of the wealthiest
members of the Senate. Many sociologists see standpoint theory as having a greater
importance for those belonging to the lower classes. This individual needs to understand
those who hold power over him. However, in this case of the non-ordinary politician, to
be successful he or she needs to understand those in the lower statuses because these
are the very individuals who will be voting, thus holding power over the politician. It is
really an amazing system of checks-and-balances, as long as those individuals are willing
to participate in this process.
Ordinary citizens like to see politicians that resemble themselves, so they dont feel
disenfranchised. This often works well because the politician is well aware of the
problems of the people. However, this seems to work better on a local level, where
there are fewer types that one has to please. Also, temptations at higher levels of
government would tend to be more attractive options to the ordinary citizen politician
than to the politician who has already achieved greater status.
One can conclude that an ordinary or not-so-ordinary politician can be successful as long
as ones principles and focus on the needs of the people are not diminished. A politician
needs to be able to separate self-preservation and the desires of the people. One must
always keep that in perspective.

SCORE = 5
Explanation of score:
This writer begins by noting both the theoretical importance and the practical difficulties that surround
the idea of serving the ordinary citizen. This broadening and contextualization of the prompt topic is
a hallmark of many high-scoring essays. The second paragraph astutely calls attention the everyman
politician phenomena as embodied by Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, but doesnt pursue the
idea with the requisite depth and clarity expected of a 6. The transition to the extended examination of
Ted Kennedys fight for the rights of ordinary citizens despite his privileged upbringing is abrupt,
which undercuts the overall unity of the paper. Nonetheless, this writer provides a great deal of
persuasive detail in support of the Kennedy example, developing and explaining its relevance to the
idea of a politician resembling his or her constituency in third paragraph. The point about
standpoint theory, on the other hand, is not given the explanation and analysis it needs.
Substantially developed, with enough depth and complexity to make the major ideas rhetorically
effective, this essay is clearly above adequate. Language use, for the most part, is fluent and engaging.
Had the essay been more skillfully constructed and consistent in the explanation and synthesis of its
ideas, it might have received a score of 6. As it stands, it fits neatly into the 5 score point.

Save

Copy

Cut

Paste