For Thursday, read the sample student research paper. Make sure you comment ON the paper, giving detailed feedback. I will collect the paper.
For the blog, post underneath this thread. Write about two elements of the paper that are working and why, and two elements that need work, why, and suggestions for improvement. Make sure to be as specific as possible! This will count as a writing log and is one of the most important assignments of the semester!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The sixth paragraph of this paper ("The Sundance Documentary...") I found to be really strong and supportive of the overall argument. The writer includes solid examples of the health problems WTC workers are experiencing after be exposed to the toxins at Ground Zero. By providing more than one example of workers with health issues the writer adds more credibility to the claim and establishes pathos within the argument. When the author wrote "Wolcott broke down in tears during his interview explaining he is worried about what his family will do without him", it makes the reader see that the damage and impacts go beyond just the health concerns and helps support his thesis, in that if the EPA had provided more information regarding the dangers of Ground Zero, the issues the families are now facing would be damaging.
I also found the counter-argument of this paper to be very effective. In paragraph seven ("The hundreds with deteriorating health...") the author addresses that the government has attempted to fix the problems caused by the lack of information presented to the workers. She provides several facts with information on how much money the government had granted those who are now ill due to 9/11. Yet, she strongly argues against these facts with an example that shows why the governments efforts are not enough. "EMT John Graham, who responded to the attacks, is now fighting for compensation. The Dust to Dust documentary profiled him living in his neighbors basement, which is next to his house, that he is forced to rent out to pay for his medical expenses". This use of counter -argument helps to strengthen her own argument by showing that although the government has tried to compensate for its wrong-doings, it hasn't done nearly enough.
The thesis of the paper I think could use a little work. I don't think that a majority of the paragraphs work to support the thesis, so it would be necessary either to revise these paragraphs or revise the thesis. The first four paragraphs following the introduction seem to focus mainly on what the government had done wrong and why they acted the way they did. For example, the second paragraph comments on how "the monetary motives of reviving the financial district pushed the EPA to produce the press releases, which deluded the public and led public workers not to think twice about what they were breathing in". Although this is a very strong argument, it doesn't address the issue presented in the thesis and explain how providing cautionary warnings would have prevented future consequences. Since the opening paragraphs make many solid, research based claims - that the EPA purposely left out material from their report, that the White House encouraged the EPA to delete information, and that the EPA exploited the trust of the American people - I think it would be better to reword the thesis to work with this information, instead of trying to edit the information to work with the thesis. If the thesis addressed how monetary and political gains led the EPA to hide valuable information from the public and how it is the public's duty as a democracy to call for a change, the paragraphs and research would fit better and result in a stronger paper.
Personally, I don't agree with having facts and sources in the introduction paragraph. I think the introduction should be used to give a general background on the issue and present the reader with a thesis, but the rest of the paper should provide the facts and evidence to support the claims made in the intro. The influx of figures in the intro paragraph weigh it down and draw away from more important points the author could be making. Although its important to note that "the burning jet fuel from the crash produced 2,500 containments to circulate in the air" and "in one sample of dust, lead, titanium, barium, dioxin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were found", these facts would be better suited in a paragraph following the introduction that could fully explain what these things are and why they're harmful. This would open up more room for the author to present some important points made in the final paragraphs of the paper, such as the public calling for a change and assuming a responsibility to solve the issue of the health problems after 9/11. I felt that these points presented the main purpose of the argument but weren't as strong coming at the end. By restructuring the introductory paragraph, the author could present these points with their thesis and present a solid foundation to build upon throughout the rest of the paper.
I completely agree with Megan, particularly regarding the comments on the introduction. How else could the introduction be improved?
I had trouble getting into the intro after the first sentence. I think if it was shorter, concise and more poignant. This is such an emotional topic. I think using some of that in the beginning would have been a great way to catch my attention.
Paragraph two through five was a tad bit yoyo like. I felt like I was being pulled between thinking the EPA was bad and the government was bad. I think if the author opened with paragraph five and then spent maybe two paragraphs describing why both were in the wrong it would have been more than sufficient.
I liked the story about Greg Quibell in the 9th paragraph. I felt like i finally saw a face to all of these numbers. It really made the emotional plea without asking for pity.
I was impressed with the amount of research and technical terms over all in the paper. The first paragraph had a condensed version of all of these terms and facts. Nothing came across as too intelligent or scientific. I felt like I understood what was happening with the air after reading it. I heard that the air was toxic, but no one had ever explained it that well.
This paper touches on a topic that is very important to discuss, but as it wraps up its argument I wish there was a little more.
Reading this story of heros, both fallen and injured, I wish the author played a little more with the idea of what a hero actually is. This could have been a creative and captivating way to change the denotation of the word... perhaps even the connotation.
In the closing paragraph, this could be good chance to reexamine the injuries suffered by this new breed of hero, but also show the emotional side of the argument once more. We can ask, what has really been destroyed here? The lives of so many Americans, the trust of the American people to the EPA, and not only that, but the trust to the American Government. Wasn't enough damage done?
These questions are things that will stick with the reader as they finnish the paper and perhaps send them out seeking some more answers.
My second issue has to do with the "alternative motives" of the government. I have the strangest feeling this might have had something to do with the economy...anyone else?
This is a good chance to diverge from the main issue for a moment to examine an equally important issue that seem to be weaved together with a bit of corruption.
With the financial distract in disarray, sure there will be fear of an economic crisis, not to mention, the amount of panic running ramped through American citizens. Perhaps the situation wasn't being dealt with properly, but merely pacified and hoping that consequences would go unseen.
I feel as if these elements of this paper would greatly add to the validity of the overall work.
Things I liked about this paper would be the structure. I feel as if the information was presented in a linear manor which helped the reader relive the events as they happened.
Also, I found myself asking a lot of questions that were then answered. While some were not, a majority of the bases were covered... for ex:
the types of contaminates
quotes from actual victims
how things are being made right
I see what you are saying about the intro. I didn't really mind it all that much though. I think if a reader had never heard of 9/11 this is a great little summary of information. Sure, it isn't as graceful as it could be, but it could be worse.
a better distribution of this information would have been more effective though. In the defense of the author, they do introduce all the key players somewhat successfully... but I can possibly see some seeing it as slightly overwhelming.
The first thing that worked well in this paper was the author’s purpose. It is set up early in the introductory paragraph where the author states, “The EPA’s press releases after the attack misleadingly allowed people back into the area without sufficient information on the pollutants in the air.” I thought it also set up the tone for the paper, arguing that it wasn’t right to let people near Ground Zero so soon, and the author stands by that notion. As a result, the argument throughout the rest of the paper is consistent and very clear, and the people featured about the Dust to Dust film work to gain sympathy from the audience and get behind the author’s reasoning.
Another aspect that worked well was the organization. It wasn’t without its flaws, as I thought the fourth paragraph (“In the same report by the Office of the Inspector General…”) should be placed after the second (“The unraveling of events…”) in order to be more cohesive in the argument. However, I made an outline to go along with the paper, and it was very easy to discern each paragraph’s topic and how well they connected with one another. I liked the balance of finger wagging at the EPA and White House, how it shifted with ease into the suffering of volunteer workers, and how the EPA should have been more cautious. It made the argument concrete and understandable.
What didn’t work for me was a counterargument. I did not see one there. The author goes on and on about the EPA’s monetary motives, the collaboration between the EPA and the White House to rush cleanup, and the lack of concern for the sickened volunteer workers. What about the EPA? What’s their stance on how quickly the cleanup took place? I’m not saying that the author would have to agree with any defense they had to provide, but at least conceding to another position on the matter would make the author’s argument more well-rounded. Instead, the paper makes it as if the EPA is a huge organization with no concern for human life, never noting any distress the health problems could be causing the EPA itself.
I also felt that there was a lack of logos in the paper. There were many quotations from victims, but that established more pathos within the paper. The seventh paragraph displays a lot of statistical information, stating that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention provided money to the NYPD, the NY State Department of Health, Mt. Sinai School’s Center of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, etc. In the conclusion, the author also mentions that Ground Zero was “filled with 400 tons of asbestos and 90,000 liters of Benzene that causes cancers.” Yet, I’m not sure if any of that information was enough to set up any authorial inflection within the paper.
One thing that worked particularly well with this paper is that it contained an ample amount of pathos. In fact, this paper would not be at all effective if the pathos was removed. In almost every paragraph, we are reminded that these courageous heroes are being bamboozled by New York officials. The use of apostrophe magnified the pathos in the paper, as the author gave specific examples of workers who are sick to this day. Putting a name to the statistic always tugs on heartstrings.
Another effective technique used by the author is the use of statistics. It is difficult to argue against statistics, unless they are ambiguous. "30% of fire fighters working on the site wore any protection" and "70% of the 40,000 workers have respiratory problems." Admittedly, the introduction is not the best place to put statistics, but it remains incredibly effective.
The counterargument was quite weak in this paper. This paper failed to explain the reasons why these New York officials were keeping this information from the public. The author neglects the thought that if the officials were honest, New Yorkers would most definitely go into a panic, and no one would clean up the disaster, and this would just lead to an extended amount filthy air quality. The line "This information reveals that the misleading statements were either fueled by their political connection to the White House or their lack of scientific confirmation of the purity of the air," is too "either/or". There are many possibilities.
I also did not feel like the conclusion paragraph fit well with the rest of the essay. The start of the conclusion, "The possibility of another attack is real" is never brought up prior, and there is no information given to support his claim. Then, another position of the people taking control and not letting another air pollution disaster happen is proposed in the conclusion. This has nothing to do with anything brought up prior. It does not, essentially, connect to the thesis statement.
This paper had great logos and pathos. The logos is found through out the paper hidden in the quotes. I found there to be lots of numbers and facts. By using these facts it really supported your overall argument. The pathos is found mainly in paragraph 7 where you give an example of Detective Michael Valentin and John Wolcott. You go into detail of there respiratory problems. With using phrases such as, "eventually coughing up blood" gives us a feeling of pity. Good job.
Another good thing about this paper is the obvious research that was put into it. Like stated before, the number of quotes and facts, supports how much research you did. Each fact was there for a point and helped prove your over all argument. By using these facts, your own points become stronger and therefor making your ethos stronger.
What i found bad about this paper is definitely the organization of it. The first paragraph seems unnecessarily long. The writer could split it into two. One paragraph being about sept. 11th and how the EPA lied to Americans and the next being about amount of rescue workers and volunteers that were affected. You seem to repeat the same "thought" in every paragraph, which was blaming the EPA and the government for betraying the Americans. If each paragraph had a clear purpose with an opening statement (transition), middle, and closing statement, the whole paper would have flowed better.
The other thing i found that needs improvement are the transitions, which also have to do with the flow. The entire paper had no real clear line in which it was introducing its points. It seemed to jump from one idea to the next with no connection to why they followed one another. What the writer needed to do was to make an outline of the paper and make sure to make the direction of the paper clear. One paragraph about the EPA, one about the government, one about the volunteers, one about the affects, and one summing it up.
Overall this paper had great ideas and information.
The first thing I had a problem with was the author not addressing some underlying questions I had surrounding the EPA in the intro. Though the intro mentions the EPA "misleadingly allowed people back into the area without sufficient information on the pollutants in the air," the writer never specifically says it was INTENTIONAL or DELIBERATE.
The first paragraph also fails to mention the reason the EPA would deliberately lie to people, instead including very detailed facts and figures that could be brought up later in the paper. Likewise the conclusion seems to be totally unrelated. It out of nowhere talks about the necessity for the American people to do something...but never mentioned anything along those lines earlier.
The thesis seemed out of line with what the paragraphs he had following it were arguing. It seemed that the thesis lacked mention of several important factors. The writer argued the EPA should have provided warning to the workers but this paper was more concentrated on the fact that the EPA SHOULDN'T have issued statements the air was safe. The writer also only mentions the EPA in the thesis when in the paper he blames the government and The National Security Council as well.
I didn't completely hate this paper. I really liked his use of pathos. He used pathos really effectively when he cited personal examples of individuals. When I read about the man who had mentioned not knowing what his family would do after he was gone I definitely had an emotional response being both angry and sad.
Along with using pathos effectively this author uses research effectively. It's clear they did a lot of research and went through the trouble of getting all the information about what the dust contained, even citing specific pollutants. I liked how the author used data about the number of people affected and then used personal examples to further get the point across that the decision to lie to these people had consequences.
I found that there is a level of evidence lacking in the paper. Throughout, a topic would be discussed and there would be evidence to back it up, but the writer would make a claim in talking about it that had nothing to back it up. For example, on page three, the author mentions that the “federal system…was already under attack,” yet this is never explained or explored. Even more often the writer’s claims were completely unfounded. On page four the author claims, “there is no possible way they had enough scientific evidence,” and on page six, “the country would not be here today.” These claims are never explained. It detracts from the writer’s credibility, so I would suggest providing more evidence.
I also felt like I had read several conclusions throughout the paper. Instead of transitions I felt the author attempted to remind readers what the paper is about. Give readers more credit than that. Reiterating your thesis and main points is only necessary at the end of the paper. Halfway down page five is an example of this. At the end of the paragraph readers are retold what the paper is about before switching topics. The writer should consider concluding paragraphs and beginning new ones with transitional phrases.
What I liked about the paper was that the argument was made clear by the pathos of the writer. Choosing this topic is going to bring about an emotional response before the audience even begins reading. The writer draws on this emotion and contributes to it through the first hands accounts from the documentary. Once the audience is pulled into their stories it is easier to make the argument.
I liked the variety of the research that was done. From the Health and Human Services website to the documentary, I thought there was a wealth of good information. At times it was utilized really well, though there were some things that seemed a bit out of place. Claims that the writer did back up were backed up with quality statistics and quotations.
The two things I liked most about this paper was the use of pathos (if I might utilize a key word). After reading it I felt like I understood what the writer was going for in consistently referring to the "heroes" who "risked their lives". I could see that they were showing that these individuals are now suffering for their benevolence.
I also liked the use of facts to back up statements. It seems like everything was supported with some quote or at least some citation to prove that this was founded on something.
Now, having said that, I felt like sometimes the space between quotes and citations wasn't utilized. Sometimes I almost was looking for a little more editorializing. I don't mean inserting more of the authors opinion because I felt that was done in spades, but more of relating each fact on a personal (but not melodramatic) level.
I also felt as Riley sort of mentioned, that a counterargument as to why everyone was so anxious to get the city functioning as normal again. Not only because of the economy as Riley said (which I assume was a major motive) but also the general morale needed to be picked up fast.
Post a Comment