ORLI ]a10_t19

Prévia do material em texto

STUDY MORE: 
 
Read carefully the texts below. Make up a point of view on the quality of 
argumentation worked. Check the teacher evaluation and reviews and 
compares with yours 
 
Essay 1: 
General Assessment 
This is, quite frankly, an awful essay, and it is only our charitable nature that 
moves it up from an F to a D. It is a long essay, but length does not make up 
for a lack of a central thesis or organization. Neither does showing that you 
have read the subject. The author includes many economic terms, evidently 
to prove some knowledge on the subject. But, the essay never gets around to 
answering the question posed. In our assessment the author did not take the 
time to think about the question and develop her own ideas and answer. 
That’s a major flaw. 
The technical aspects are also horrendous; the formatting is awful; the essay 
lacks a title and a name. (We can understand why the author didn’t want her 
name on it.) The margins are too small. There are many grammatical 
mistakes. 
 
Specific Comments 
1. There is no thesis statement. What’s the answer to the question? In the first 
paragraph she moves from one position to another, contradicting her previous 
arguments. 
2. There are logical problems: “I think the self-serving reason ... is more 
important...and thus, the self serving reason is more important.” doesn’t 
work logically. 
3. The sentences are too long; there is much redundancy and ambiguity, and 
there are too few paragraphs. 
4. The sentence “...then everyone can understand them, and they can 
understand each other” is totally confusing. Who can understand whom? 
5. The sentences are wordy. For example, in paragraph 2 it would be sufficient 
for the author to say “open dialogue.” Use of “clear” and “complete” is 
ridiculous and borderline redundant. “Insurmountable difficulties” is an 
exaggeration, and “sufficiently acceptable” is redundant. 
6. There are sentence fragments and run-on sentences. For example in 
paragraph 2, “The whole theory of the principle of rational choice theory 
which says that one should do that which yields the maximum utility 
according to your self interest which is to say that selfishness is the thing that 
drives most people” may be long, but it is not a complete sentence. The 
sentence second from the bottom of this paragraph is a run-on. “economics 
terminology can’t really...” should be separated from the preceding sentence 
by a semicolon or a period rather than a comma. The first sentence of the last 
paragraph is a fragment. 
7. In paragraph 2, “Marginal utility” of what is “low”? 
8. The author’s listing of the three important barriers to entry did nothing to 
further her argument. Develop only those points that matter. 
9. The author uses “also” to tack on a sentence about the free rider problem 
that did not belong in that paragraph at all. 
 
 
10. Paragraph 3 begins with a sentence fragment. 
11. In paragraph 3, the second sentence is useless. Obviously, “this” will “cause” 
a “consequence.” All consequences are caused. 
12. In paragraph 3 there is a problem of subject pronoun agreement. “Each” 
should be followed by “his” or “her,” never “they.” 
13. There are many more mistakes but the above list gives you a good idea of why 
the paper received GRADE –D. 
 
 
Essay 1 
The Difference between Physics and Economics 
by N. Otime 
I don’t think the Hiesenberg principle can be relevent to economics because 
its a phisics principal. Phisics and economics are two different subjects, 
phisics being a natural science, and economics being a social science. 
I don’t think that economic predictions have anything to do with the events 
that they predict. The article compares economists to meteoroligists. 
Meterologists’ predictions don’t change the whether, so economists 
predictions don’t change the economy. This means that the Hieisenburg isn’t 
appliable. 
 
General Assessment 
It is quite clear that the textbook author believes that the Heisenberg 
principle is a general principle that may apply to all academic disciplines, not 
just for physics. It is not wrong to answer the question in the opposite way, 
but it is a much more complicated argument to make. Generally, if you’re 
contradicting the answer the book or your teacher is leading you to, you 
should construct your argument carefully. 
The argument in this essay is not constructed carefully; it argues that because 
the article compares economists to meteorologists, that they are the same in 
all aspects. That is highly questionable. The economy is influenced by 
people’s decisions in a much more direct way than the weather is. 
Expectations are of central importance in the economy, and all things that 
affect expectations can affect the economy. If one is answering this question 
negatively, one would have to address this obvious connection and explain 
why it is relevant. The essay itself is probably too short. There are short and 
sweet answers, and there are just plain short answers. This is just plain short. 
The author obviously did not spend much time thinking about this question or 
writing this essay. 
A consideration of the technical aspects of the essay makes it clear that the 
author did not put in any time or thought into this essay. There are 
innumerable grammatical and spelling errors. 
 
Specific comments 
1. The first two sentences start with “I don’t think.” The phrases are 
unnecessary and lead the reader to suspect that perhaps, you haven’t 
“thought.” In this case that suspicion is probably correct. 
2. The second sentence of the first paragraph is horrendous. The author should 
have used semicolons or made them three separate sentences. 
 
 
3. Spelling. You should always at least use a spell check, but also remember that 
that isn’t enough. This author misspelled “physics”, “relevant”, “principle”, 
“whether” and “Heisenberg” in two different ways. (The spell check would 
only have caught “relevant” and “physics”.) 
Three paragraphs is too many for this short of an essay. And, moreover, the 
paragraphing doesn’t have any logic behind it. 
GRADE F