The Undiscovered

It always seems impossible until it’s done.

When Maya opened the old wooden gate, she immediately sensed that something unusual had happened. The air felt thick with ancient spirit [k3: awkward collocation / unclear lexical choice] an ancient presence / the spirit of the past, filling her lungs with both anxiety and triumph. This was when Maya knew she won[k4: wrong tense form]had won / would succeed.

‘Stop with[k3: awkward collocation]Stop it with / Stop these your childish fantasies, Maya!’ her classmate told her at lunchtime months ago. ‘It’s impossible to find anything yet undiscovered in all Canada!’

Perhaps,[k5: punctuation- there is usually no comma after this word]Perhaps she was right. Maya, too, found it hard to believe that explorers might have still not examined[k4: wrong word order]still not have examined every inch of earth[k3: less suitable word choice]land in Newfoundland. Even if so [k3: unnatural phrasing] Even so Even if that was true / But even if that was the case / Still, even if it was true, a simple girl like her could barely contribute. Her stubborn personality, however, couldn’t let her give up[k3: awkward phrasing]wouldn’t let her give up on her dream of exploring her homeland and, maybe, discovering new historical sites [k3: less precise word choice] historic sites sites of historical significance / historically important sites. Thus, she decided to start preparing.

In the daytime, Maya trained to climb mountains and walk long distances. At nights[k4: wrong form]At night, she devoured books about vikings’[k5: capitalization]Vikings’ adventures in America, striving for new, yet undiscovered details[k3: awkward collocation / unclear phrasing]searching for new and as yet undiscovered details. [k1: What details? - weak plot development]

Finally, after months of research and training [k1: What did she find out? - weak plot development] , Maya set off. Her path was exhausting; hours of walking brought the girl to her wits’ end. At some point, she was ready to give up and admit failure, but then…

‘Is this… a house?’ she couldn’t help but wonder upon noticing[k3: awkward phrasing]wonder when she noticed / wonder upon seeing mouldering wooden remnants. ‘But it’s not on the map!’ This was when it dawned on Maya: she discovered[k4: wrong tense form]had discovered the ruins of vikings’[k5: capitalization]the Vikings’ first settlements. Her dream came true.

Only later did she realise that the decision the[k5: spelling / typo]she had made that afternoon would shape the rest of her life. The decision to endeavour for[k3: wrong collocation]strive for / pursue her dream would result in Maya becoming a Canadian researcher respected worldwide now that her younger self knew — everything seems impossible until it’s done[k1: logical/cohesive weakness — the ending is phrased awkwardly and the final sentence is not integrated smoothly into the conclusion], and from that moment on, she understood that everything seems impossible until it’s done.The decision to pursue her dream would eventually turn Maya into a Canadian researcher respected worldwide, proving that everything seems impossible until it’s done. / That choice eventually led Maya to become a Canadian researcher respected around the world, and it taught her a lasting truth: everything seems impossible until it’s done.

On the US Class System

There is a belief that the class system in the US is more rigid than it appears. I largely agree with this view as the Americans [k4: article and lexical choice; when speaking about Americans in general, do not use “the” unless you mean a specific group already mentioned +k: out a comma before an extending clause of cause] , as Americans frequently find their opportunities restricted by their social status, although the media has taught the public that all people are treated equally there [k2/k3: logic and wording; “the media has taught” sounds too absolute, as if all media promote one message. The idea should be expressed more cautiously.] popular narratives often suggest that everyone is treated equally there. It is often claimed that social hierarchy in the United States is less flexible than it seems. I mostly share this view, since background and inherited status can still limit access to opportunity, despite the widely promoted ideal of equal chances.

First and foremost, the given text suggests that in spite of how hard people try [k3: style; the phrase is understandable, but “no matter how hard people try” is more idiomatic.] no matter how hard people try, it is typically impossible to improve their position in society. One reason for that is the higher circles’ prejudice [k3: lexical choice/collocation; “higher circles” is not a natural phrase here. “Established elites” is more precise.] the established elites’ prejudice against the newly rich. This idea is illustrated by the fact that, in spite of one’s self-created wealth and reputability [k3: lexical choice; “self-created wealth” and “reputability” sound unnatural. The usual phrases are “self-made wealth” and “respectability”.] their self-made wealth and respectability, he or she is [k3: style/cohesion; “he or she” is grammatically possible but heavy. Since the sentence begins with “one’s”, the structure is already awkward, so it is better to rewrite the reference in the plural.] such people are mostly unable to blend in with the upper class due to their humble origins, repellent to the ‘old rich’ [k3/k5: collocation and punctuation; “repellent to” sounds too physical and harsh here. Also, the idea needs a full clause.] which the “old rich” may regard with contempt. Thus, a person’s roots affect their range of opportunities more greatly than it is usually acknowledged [k3/k4: awkward comparative structure; “to a greater extent than is usually acknowledged” is more natural.] to a greater extent than is usually acknowledged. The text first implies that social mobility remains severely limited, however much effort individuals make. This is partly because long-established elites may still look down on newcomers whose money has not been inherited. As a result, even wealth and public respect do not always grant entry into privileged circles, since family background can continue to shape a person’s prospects.

Another compelling reason why I support this stance is that women, typically associated with lower classes, often struggle to receive decent career prospects and worthy payment in the US [k2/k3: logic and lexical choice; women should not be presented as “typically associated with lower classes”. Gender inequality and class inequality may overlap, but they are not the same thing. Also, people “receive fair pay” or “have access to career opportunities”, not “receive career prospects and worthy payment”.] gender inequality can overlap with class inequality, as women from less privileged backgrounds often struggle to access strong career opportunities and fair pay in the US. The case in point [k4/k3: article and phrase; the standard expression is “A case in point is...”.] A case in point is that employers are more likely to hire a male candidate than a female one even if both are equally qualified. This shows that class divisions, including the gender based ones [k2/k3/k5: logic, word choice and hyphenation; gender-based discrimination is not a “class division” in the strict sense. It can reinforce social inequality, but it should not be equated with class itself.] social inequalities, including gender-based discrimination, remain prominent even in a progressive society. A further point is that social disadvantage is often intensified by gender. For example, women from working-class or otherwise less privileged communities may face both economic barriers and discrimination in the labour market, even when their qualifications match those of male applicants. This suggests that inequality in the United States is not limited to wealth alone but is reinforced by several overlapping forms of exclusion.

To conclude, I believe that the US class system is far more strict [k3: lexical choice; “strict” is usually used about rules, teachers or discipline. A class system is more naturally described as “rigid”.] rigid than it is usually admitted [k3: collocation; “admitted” is possible, but “recognised” or “acknowledged” sounds more natural here.] is usually recognised. While it may seem pliable on the first sight [k3/k4: preposition/article; the fixed phrase is “at first sight”.] at first sight, it still strongly affects the Americans’ [k4: article; do not use “the” when referring to Americans in general.] Americans’ daily lives and narrows their life opportunities, which is certainly highly unfair to the lower classes. In conclusion, the American social order may appear open and meritocratic, yet inherited status still shapes people’s everyday realities and limits upward mobility. For those born into disadvantaged communities, this hidden rigidity makes the promise of equal opportunity far less convincing.

On Exupery's Quote

A famous writer Antoine de Saint-Exupery [k3/k5: article/punctuation and spelling; when the name identifies the writer, use “the”, and the surname is usually written “Saint-Exupéry”.] The famous writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said, ‘Language is the source of misunderstandings.’ I largely agree with this view as communication itself often paradoxically tears people apart [k3: lexical choice/register; the phrase is expressive, but slightly dramatic and informal for this type of essay.] drives people apart. I will elaborate on that topic [k3: reference; “that topic” sounds slightly vague. Refer directly to the idea in the quotation.] this idea on the basis of some daily cases [k3: collocation; the natural phrase is “everyday situations”.] everyday situations and literary texts. The French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once observed that language is the source of misunderstandings. I mostly share this view, since even ordinary conversation can distort intentions, create distance between people and turn simple messages into conflict. This issue can be explored through both literature and everyday communication.

To begin with, using language is the foremost way to exchange information. As communication is bound to raise disagreements between people at some point, language can be considered a source of those [k2: unclear reference; “those” refers back to disagreements, but the connection sounds abrupt and imprecise.] such conflicts. For instance, Romeo and Juliet’s story, described in William Shakespeare’s novel [k1/k3: factual and lexical mistake; Romeo and Juliet is a play/tragedy, not a novel.] play, can prove this point. Notoriously [k3: lexical choice; “notoriously” means “known for something bad” and sounds unnatural here. Use “famously” when referring to a well-known literary episode.] Famously, the lovers had a fatal misconception [k3: lexical choice; “misconception” means a wrong belief about a general idea. Here the problem is a mistaken interpretation of a situation.] misunderstanding. When Juliet tried to only portray death [k3/k4: word order and lexical choice; “portray death” means represent death artistically, not pretend to be dead.] pretend to be dead, Romeo, due to a servant’s wrong report, took it for real [k3/k1: collocation; the natural phrase is “took it as real” or, more clearly, “believed she was really dead”; your vaiant is too informal for this essay.] believed she was really dead and committed suicide. In this situation, poor communication led to tragic deaths of both Romeo and Juliet [k4/k3: article and phrasing; use “the tragic deaths of...” or a more concise phrase.] the tragic deaths of both Romeo and Juliet, which indicates that even speaking the same language doesn’t [k3: register; contractions are usually avoided in formal essays.] does not guarantee complete mutual understanding. First, shared words do not necessarily produce shared meaning. Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet provides a powerful example: Juliet’s staged death is misreported, and Romeo interprets the message literally, with disastrous consequences. The episode shows that a failed message can be as dangerous as open hostility, even when the characters belong to the same linguistic community.

Another reason why I support this stance is that the multitude of languages spoken worldwide complicates communication even more. This can be attributed to the fact that when one is talking to a foreigner [k3: style/lexical choice; “foreigner” can sound slightly distancing, and “one is talking to...” is heavy. A more neutral phrase is preferable.] people communicate with someone from another country, not only a language barrier, [k5: punctuation; no comma is needed between the paired elements “not only... but also...”.] but also a cultural gap can lead to confusion. A case in point is, in Japan calling someone just by their first name is considered very impolite [k5/k4: punctuation and sentence structure; the example needs a colon or a “that”-clause after “A case in point is”.] A case in point is that, in Japan, calling someone only by their first name is considered very impolite and can be done only by the closest friends, unlike in many other countries. If an uneducated [k3: lexical choice; “uneducated” suggests a general lack of education. The intended meaning is that the tourist does not know this cultural rule.] uninformed tourist does so, a misconception [k3: lexical choice; “misunderstanding” is the correct word for confusion between people in a particular situation.] misunderstanding is likely to emerge. Therefore, the intersection of languages [k3: lexical choice; languages do not literally “intersect” in this context. The intended idea is communication across linguistic and cultural boundaries.] cross-cultural communication is even more likely to raise misunderstandings [k3: collocation; we say “cause misunderstandings” or “give rise to misunderstandings”.] give rise to misunderstandings. The problem becomes even sharper in intercultural contexts. A speaker may know the vocabulary of another tongue but still miss the social rules attached to it. In Japan, for example, addressing a person by their first name can sound overly familiar unless there is a close relationship. A traveller unaware of this convention may therefore offend someone without intending to, which proves that miscommunication is often cultural as well as verbal.

To conclude, the famous quote, obviously, implies that  language cannot but leads [k4: verb form; after “cannot but”, use the bare infinitive. However, the whole phrase sounds old-fashioned and heavy.] lead people to confusion in many ways. Although it often appears troublesome, it is something we cannot erase. We can only accept it and learn to overcome such obstacles. In conclusion, speech is indispensable, yet it can never be perfectly transparent. Since words are filtered through personal experience, social convention and cultural background, misunderstanding cannot be removed completely; it can only be reduced through greater awareness and empathy.