Also, the organization of the paper does not work the way it is. A paper should be organized so that every paragraph gives the reader more and more evidence supporting his claim (even though he doesn't really make one). Like I already said, he seems to just repeat himself throughout the entire paper. When I read it through the first time, I found myself growing more and more frustrated. He kept saying the same thing over and over.
Good- What I liked about this paper was the actual writing itself. Whoever wrote the paper seems to be a very good writer. He is able to write very nicely formed sentences and can make them flow very well. I especially liked his second sentence in his first paragraph.
He also transitions from one paragraph to the next extremely well (even though the content of each paragraph didn't). This also suggests that he was infact a good writer, however, he should have focused on organization a little more.
2 comments:
Bad: I totally agree with you Lucy, that the organization of the paper is all over the place. I mean I know little about writing, but it was easy to recognize that the flow of this paper was very disjointed. For example, the "thesis moment" or thesis statement in the first paragraph is located mid paragraph, and then is followed by about a paragraph of text that isn't necessarily needed. Where the writer says, "Rescue workers... pulmonary disease", is where the paragraph should stop, and have this sentence be the thesis sentence.
It seemed that the writer didn’t know exactly know what he was trying to prove, or how he was going about it. I also agree that he had some great research, but what was his argument? Did he want the workers to be compensated? Did he want to investigate further into this? Or was he trying to support/analyze the documentary Dust to Dust. I think that again, If the writer had better grasp on the organization of the paper, he could have made a much stronger and more clear argument.
Good: Along the same lines as the research, I thought that this student had great quotes, and inserted them at very appropriate times. For example, I loved Christie Todd Whitman’s quote, saying that the air quality was fine, when clearly no one knew yet. I think this paired well with the introduction of the irresponsibility of the White House, trying to turn a blind eye to the dangers, in order to get Walstreet back up and running quickly.
Although the organization needed work, I think the writer’s transition sentences and topic sentences were very good. By describing the morning of September 11th is detail, while sad, it grabbed my attention and immediately got me interested in what the essay was going to be about. I also liked where she transitioned smoothly from the affects of the chemicals in the air into blaming the White House, all within the same facts from the EPA report.
I think its interesting that Michael thinks the writing is good and Ben thinks the writing (on a local level) is bad. Neither is right and neither is wrong. I'm curious about what defines bad and good writing?
Post a Comment