Ok, to the writer of this paper
Good
Topic: I had no idea just how badly the government screwed everyone (I mean, I knew about most of it, financially and militarily, but not to this extent about health problems). Kudos on bringing this subject to light
Information: You use information, quotes, and testimony well and use it to your benefit, eliciting an emotional reponse from your reader, something it isn't easy to do in a research paper.
Bad
most everything, including Rhetoric: You do a whole lot of romanticizing in your word choice and have sentences essentially comprised of pathos. The actions of both government and worker speak for themselves, You don't need to call anyone Evil or a Patriot every couple of sentences, it just isn't necessary. You're telling us what to think, but really unconvincingly
Evidence: You make a lot of claims you either don't explain or can't explain. You connect things that can't really stand the connection. You veer into the stuff about financial district workers and you don't substantiate it or even really explain what it has to do with your topic. You guess about motives and make it sound like fact. It isn't. It's your opinion. Stop it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I completely agree that this writer makes claims that she does not back-up with quotations or evidence. Can you think of specific ideas that she does not back up?
I agree with the above comments.
What I like:
1. Good choice of topic. It seems like the writer was passionate about it.
2. I liked the part which talked about specific people's experiences and their health problems, it was a great way to connect on an emotional level with the audience.
What I disliked:
1. I felt like the writer may have written this paper at the last minute. I thought there was no organization and that the writer's main points and quotes were all over the place.
2. I also thought that the beginning was confusing. I think the opening paragraph could be less wordy by using less adjective and being more to the point. The first paragraph should be shortened and the thesis moment, which I think comes at the end of the first paragraph, should be in the middle of the paragraph so the reader knows what this reader is trying to argue.
good stuff:
1. Lots of information. It seems like the writer really did his or her homework and was genuinely knowledgeable about the topic. While I think organization was lacking a little bit, most of the quotes were genuinely good and fit nicely within the argument.
2. Like Aly, I really enjoyed reading about the experiences of the volunteers and workers. I would have liked to see more of these emotional anecdotes, especially because at times I felt the paper was a little cold and kind of clinical.
not so good:
1. When writing a research paper, I was always taught that you should assume that your reader knows nothing about the topic and go about your research/analysis/explanations that way. Anyway, I genuinely don't know that much about the negative health effects of September 11th, so I was really confused when the author launched into talking about dioxin and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons right in the introduction. What is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon? Where does it come from? While I do not think that the introduction is an appropriate place to address these questions, I would have liked to know a little bit more about the chemistry stuff. The hydrocarbon thing isn't the only example of places the author sort of skimps on explaining terminology that might be confusing or unfamiliar to the author. What happens when you get granulomatus pulmonary disease? Who is Christine Todd Whitman? In paragraph six, what does the quote by detective Michael Valentin mean? Because I have no freaking idea. It just got really frustrating after a while. I felt like I needed an encyclopedia just to get through the paper.
2. This is sort of a continuation of #1, but I really felt like I was just getting the same information in a different way. Like, I understand that the EPA screwed up, it is not necessary to tell me that in each paragraph. That's your thesis, that's what you're supposed to SHOW me. There were so many more places that the author could have gone with this paper, it was disappointing to see the same information repeated over and over again. Plus, what about the people who messed up themselves? I don't know what Christine Todd Whitman is doing now, but I bet she isn't still head of the EPA. I would have liked to hear about her experiences. Was she punished? Reprimanded? Fired? Also, I would have liked to see the quotes introduced a little bit better. I feel like a lot of them (ESPECIALLY the one in paragraph six. I really don't get that one at all) just sort of hang out there, with no information about the author/source and no explanation. Just because you have a quote doesn't mean that it automatically serves as evidence. Your analysis should PROVE its validity as evidentiary support.
sorry! that was really long. this paper just kinda frustrated me.
Here's what I thought about this paper. I'm going to start with the bad, partly because usually when there's good news and bad news the bad news goes first, and partly just to be different. Anyway...
1. I feel that a persuasive paper like this (by the way, it felt more like a persuasive paper than a research paper to me, but I digress) should present some opposing arguments to the authors original argument. The opposition should then be proven wrong, so the reader doesn't feel like he is getting a one sided view of the topic. As I was reading it I felt myself wanting to know what some of the counterarguments were, not just the writer's view. Since this view wasn't presented, it almost felt like it was being hidden. This took away from the persuasiveness of the text for me.
2. I felt that the writer was a bit pushy in her opinion at some points. She seemed for force feed me her idea, instead of presenting her evidence and allowing me to draw my own conclusions. It is more effective to construct the paper so that the reader will naturally see something by the viewpoint that you want them to, not to flat out tell the reader how to feel. I witnessed this when she wrote "This report explains that the EPA purposely left out material in their statement to make it appear as if everything was safe." (2) The author is delving into the intentions of an organization, which is outside the scope of her research, or anyone's for that matter. There is no way of knowing for sure whether the actions of the EPA were on purpose or not, so this is an opinion of the author's. When I read opinions in this kind of paper I get turned off to the argument, I feel as if something is being forced upon me.
Now, the good. This took some searching (kidding).
1. I did enjoy how blunt and direct the writer was with her presentation of evidence. She doesn't dance around the point; there is a statement, that statement is then backed up with one of her sources, then she makes a decisive conclusion to each argument based on the evidence. This was effective for me because I don't like wading through rhetoric (like you are doing right now) to get to the actual point of the text.
2. The emotional appeals were nice, good use of pathos (yeah, I learned something in class) with the real life stories. It brought it home to the reader. I also thought it was placed well in the text, it appeared near the end which ended it on an emotional note. This added to the power of all the arguments that preceded it.
That was really long, but I don't apologize.
I agree that the writer makes general statements that she does not back up with evidence. Several examples would be when she says 1. "The government wanted to clean up this incident as fast as possible to get the economy back on track and create some comfort after the national tragedy." 2. "The country would not be here today if there were not people like New York State Corrections officer, Greg Quibell..." 3. "The possibility of another attack is real."
Needs Work: I think the major problem with this paper is the organization. The writer seems to touch on the same topics in nearly every paragraph and merely introduces a new idea without backing it up. My suggestion for the organization would be the following: 1. Introduction of the topic 2. Describe the environment/contaminents and dangers 3. Describe EPA's/Gov's press release and instructions for clean up (including their lack of warning) 4. Motives for a quick clean up--with evidence 5. Aftermath of Ilnesses years later 6. Gov's response to illness 7. How the Gov response is inadequate.
The paper was extremely repetitive. I got the impression that the writer was trying to meet a page requirement. She seemed to draw from opinion at times instead of facts. In the last sentence for example, "The people are the basic of democracy, if people fall it is the citizen's job to step up and fight for them"-- has nothing to do with the paper, and is a poor way to finish.
Good- What I did like about the paper was the diction. She immediatley grabbed my attention with the unique discription of 9/11 in the introduction. Her word choices such as "toiled, thunderous, deteriorating" work much better than "worked, loud and decreasing". This was the main reason the writer had my attention throughout the research paper. The writer was clearly passionate about the topic and it showed through the extensive research.
All these comments are good. Jenny, I am glad that you wrote about your frustrations!
Post a Comment