9/11 paper

Well constructed idea about what is Good--

The essay does two very important things: it incorporates a lot of research and conveys that the paper is well researched. This may seem redundant, but there is a big difference between finding a lot of sources and knowing how to integrate them so that the writing seems informed. I give credit to the amount of sources that the writer draws from as well as the writer's ability to use those sources effectively. The writer does not stretch any of the quotations to meet his own material, and this gives the essay a strong sense of continuity.

The paper also does a good job of sticking to an audience. The writer avoids scientific terminology when discussing the ailments of the WTC workers while still conveying the seriousness of their symptoms. Though the audience for this paper is broad, I could see it appearing in a publication such as Yahoo! news. In a world that is often overloaded with confusing scientific and political writing, it can be helpful to simplify the details of such a controversy into a more coherent narrative.


Well constructed idea about what is Bad--

Stylistically the paper is lacking. The writer seems to answer the problem of making expository writing engaging by using loaded adjectives as well as informal idioms (example--a double whammy--"These men and women sacrificed their time in a patriotic attempt to get America on its feet as quickly as possible")

The essay also has issues with passive voice and awkward sentence structures, making it hard to understand the content at times; this makes the writing seem very amateurish. Structurally the paper is in the wrong order. The majority of the paper is focused on showing that the EPA withheld valuable public health information during the crisis, and it is not until the end of the paper that the reader learns of the exact consequences of those actions. The condition of the workers today is the paper's strongest evidence and should be used to lead off the rest of the essay.

I think if the writer went in and fixed the awkward sentence structures, got rid of inappropriate qualifiers as well as colloquialisms, and then restructured the paper to seem more like an article in a news periodical (leading off with the strongest and most compelling 'headline' worthy evidence), this essay could be greatly improved

Ben Brewer