Good
Sentence structure: the writer of this research paper has a knack at making his/her sentences flow. She/He is very good with punctuation, transition and word choice contributing to the paper's fluidity.
Research: I could tell that the writer spent a good deal of time researching his/her topic. The information was thorough and he/she used statistics, quotes, and facts in a very persuasive way, which really supported the argument. As said above, the research was worked into the sentences in a very natural, fluid way, educating the readers without distracting them.
Bad
Clarity: The major problem with this essay is the lack of a clear moment outlining the essays over all objective. He/she loses his/her main point - the betrayal and mistakes of the government after 9/11 - in the jumbled, unclear organization of the paper.
Right away the reader is confused. There is no intro or thesis explaining what is going to be discussed in the rest of the essay; he/she just jumps right into facts about health and the EPA when that's not what the essay is truly about. There are also no topic sentences. The job of topic sentences are to clearly and concisely describe the content of the following paragraph. Instead the writer disregards the need for topic sentences, completely confusing the reader and making the essay extremely hard to follow.
Repetition: Another down fall of the essay is the repetition. It seems as though many of the same points are made throughout numerous paragraphs. Paragraphs one and six and seven discuss the health detriments caused by 9/11, the lack of scientific information, and the governments attempt to hide the truth from the public. It seems as though these paragraphs, and many others, could be combined and compacted, increasing their overall effectiveness.
Basically, what the hell is this writer's point?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yup. The writer is lacking motive. Why should we listen to him/her? Why is this important and what is the overall persuasive argument?
Post a Comment