May 2019 SAT Essay Sample: "Allow Video Cameras in the Supreme Court"

Home > SAT Test > SAT Essay > New SAT Essay Sample

May 2019 SAT Essay Sample: "Allow Video Cameras in the Supreme Court"

Most people are not exposed to trial, so they only resort to news report to know proceedings. In order to enrich the accesses to court, the author Megan McHugh suggests that video cameras should be used in the Supreme Court. She structures the whole passage in a logical progression and fills the framework with facts followed by emotional appeals. Overall, her argument leaves a deep impression on readers and readers, in turn, possibly agree to her proposal.

The author starts off her suggestion with a controversial case that the Supreme Court is going to reach a verdict on King v. Burwell. But she does not introduce context and development within the case; rather, she indicates that only a few audiences are able to view the trial at the scene. Here two contrasts are employed to deepen Megan's strong appeal to video cameras. Forone thing, the public can access the proceedings of Congress via C-SPAN, while are unable to catch the oral arguments of King v. Burwell, although reporters upgraded with "incomplete information." Now that some TV channels air the proceedings of Congress, readers are likely to wonder why trials are only confined to the courtroom. After all, they are entitled to know decisions concerned with personal interests. For another, "public opinion is overwhelmingly supportive of allowing cameras in the Supreme Court," while the Justices oppose to this proposal because "the complex proceedings will be diminished to brief sound bites." In other words, they worry "the media is going to interfere with how they do business." The author cites different attitudes towards video cameras so as to make this issue open to discuss and implicitly reveal the Justice's resistance to place cameras in the Supreme Court. She also tries to eliminate the Justices' concerns by mentioning Canada and Great Britain have permitted cameras but not disturbed by interference. Overall,the use of contrast logically leads to the highlight of her argument and equips the passage with balanced structure.

After showing her preference for video cameras, Megan explains reasons why the Justices should allow video cameras in the Supreme Court. First, the public shows strong solicitude for social affairs and policies which are closely linked with their interests. If they can watch the proceedings via these cameras, they will respond to changes and put forward demands. Second, live streaming cameras offer accurate information, "something the media filter does not always provide." In order to make it clear, the author shows an example "Sibelius v.National Federation of Independent Business" that news agencies competed for disclosing the final announcements. Even though audiences are provided with latest upgrading, the information is distorted and even wrong. Finally, "increased openness by the Court could provide an opportunity for education and engagement." The remark from Justice Kagan is quoted to demonstrate the public's exposure to "the high level" where the government functions. Also, girls tend to be inspired by "the most professionally successful women working at high level." Therefore, the common people are encouraged to work hard and get involved into social issues. Instead of having empty talk, the author analyzes the valid reasons behind her motive one by one. Meanwhile, these reasons come from wide spectrum and readers would recognize them with a comprehensive cognition.

The author has to think over whether installing video cameras is feasible and asks advice from authorities, so she makes full use of hard facts to prove its feasibility. Her suggestion coincides with the authorities' measures to keep open proceedings, just as the statement—"opening the Court to cameras would improve transparency and accountability and is aligned the principles of good government." Specifically, such progress has been reflected in legislation. Legislation was introduced to televise proceedings of the Supreme Court and the Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2015 were also introduced in the House. Although the author admits that "a well-funded and organized campaign" is needed to prioritize the issue, she still mentions the bipartisan support to instill confidence into readers and shows the officials' positive attitudes towards video cameras. Particularly, she talks about the good news "the Supreme Court has made some progress toward greater openness—releasing some-day audio recordings of oral arguments in some high-profile cases." This step, in her opinion, can be acknowledged as a leap toward "greater transparency." So Megan is determined to advocate video cameras in the Supreme Court and these facts are bound to win readers' support.

Through the effective use of rhetorical tools and the mindful arrangement of this essay, the author persuades the audience that the main idea.

More Information