The first essay titled What Would You do to Live has many lacking qualities. Even from just viewing the title, the reader begins to see some of these aspects. The title is not properly capitalized, which is just the first of other spelling and grammatical errors to follow. In only the second line of the essay "David Holcberg" is even spelled incorrectly. This severely diminishes the credibility of the author already, and the reader has only just begun to read the essay. Moving beyond the grammatical aspects, the author of this essay addresses most of the criteria, but does not really go into depth. For example, when giving background, the author barely skims the information, not giving the reader enough information to really understand. In contrast, the author of the second essay gives much better background. They actually give their reader some information, introducing Ayn Rand's philosophy and other relevant information.
Moving on to the second essay, I found this one to be much better, although it could also still use some improvement. The thesis in this essay was better than the previous, but still was not very clear. They allow examination from multiple angles by stating the values of the expected audience and diplomatically suggesting an audience that may not agree with the philosophies suggested. This author clearly addresses Holcberg's use of ethos pathos, and logos. This essay also uses evidence from Holcburg's essay well, even bringing in some outside evidence, while I found that the first essay almost uses too many quotations, not allowing for much individual thought within the essay. So, overall, I would give the second essay a better grade than the first, but both essays have areas in which they can improve.
No comments:
Post a Comment