On the subject of voice and general entertainment, this essay was fascinating. You provide a large amount of external information that very effectively strengthens most of your arguments. You stay on topic every time and I have to point out the fact that each part of Sullivan's article that you attack is perfectly and directly assessed with legitimate evidence.
My only suggestion for this paper is that on some points your evaluations of Sullivan's rhetoric (in my opinion) seem to become "claim-y" themselves. At certain points you break down Sullivan's claims with opposing claims that I feel you can supply better evidence for. Not to say I disagree with your evidence or even that your backing isn't believable, but I feel that your evidence is second-hand knowledge that expects me to believe what you're saying in order to agree or be persuaded. I have to reiterate that it isn't that what you're saying seems false or exaggerated, like when you say, "Children are getting incarcerated in private prisons for spitting out gum...Sullivan has no idea of the prejudice..."I whole-heartedly agree with this, however, I'm not sure many readers would be inclined to do the same. Technically, you're claim here might be just as unprotected as Sullivan's. I do want to point out that you don't do this a lot. Most of your claims are backed with solid evidence. Bringing up the constitution is extremely helpful in persuading the audience.
Your strongest paragraph out of the whole essay has to be when you speak of Sullivan's account of the "two-tiered system."Your language is very clear and your arguments directly break down the subjects you're critiquing.
I really enjoyed reading this mainly because of the strength of your arguments. Only a few moments did I feel like your claims were a bit unstable, but for the most part this essay is very well organized and flawlessly scripted. Nice job. Definitely an A paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment