After reading the student essay, I noticed a few things that should be addressed and some strengths. The paper was about a dietary switch to a supplement called Soylent. The paper seemed to be an argumentative or opinion essay with the purpose of providing the reader with the pros and cons of the supplement. The first major thing I noticed was the lack of a thesis statement. A thesis statement is featured at the beginning of the paper and details the argument. It lays out the main message of the essay. The introduction is supposed to introduce the thesis and the main evidence. The introduction has a decent hook about inventions. However, the talk of inventions lasts too long and should move into mentioning Soylent sooner. The introduction does not inform readers as to which side the writer is in favor and lacks the introduction of any evidence. The second paragraph acts as a second introduction and is where you learn the writer is against a complete Soylent diet. The first two paragraphs should be combined but remove some unnecessary information. The other paragraphs go into the reasons why Soylent should not be used in place of food. The evidence includes the statistics as to how it could impact jobs and how it reduces quality time with family. The other paragraph argues for the benefits, which is nice. It is important to have a counterargument, however I would move this paragraph to before the conclusion. The final body paragraph and the conclusion use quotes from another paper this person wrote. I am unsure of exactly what the prompt says, but typically you should avoid personal pronouns and your own quotes in essays. I really enjoy the message of those paragraphs but I think certain words could be changed to sound less personal. There are some strengths in the paper, especially when it comes to evidence. There are certain quotes, statistics, and points that really add a lot to the paper. There are some really good sentences that pack a punch. My favorite sentence is at the end of the second to last paragraph. It talks about the different emotions that certain foods bring us. It is very catchy and plays into the reader’s emotions. Overall, the paper was a good start. Revision should start by organizing the paragraphs. Some paragraphs cover similar themes and could be connected, and other information would make sense in a different spot. A strategy to help with that would be to make an outline. The writer should write down bullets containing evidence for each paragraph. This should help with not including details in more than one spot and for making sure the essay has a clear order.
In the hypothetical essay, John Q.’s “Why Soylent is Not What it Seems,” we were tasked to analyze and facilitate a student’s essay. I found that the heavy usage of direct quotes and supportive evidence that followed were the essay’s biggest strengths, but I also appreciated the smoother transitions between the student’s points. Another mental note I’d taken on something that worked within the essay were the personal anecdotes. The student didn’t delve too deeply into any issues while still getting the point across that food is important because of the connections it brings between people and its grandiose act in sharing joy- which I have also written about before.
However, there were a couple of grammatical errors, and I felt that fully capitalizing “SOME” at the end of the essay was inappropriate when using italics could have conveyed the same message. The student had trouble with punctuation within quotes, capitalizing a couple of proper nouns, and I also felt that the title of the essay itself wasn’t very intriguing.
Some strengths in this essay are: 1) the hook – I think it does a good job of introducing us to the philosophy of Soylent, and draws us in with a broad concept before getting more specific. 2) Proposing the idea of partial integration of Soylent – I think this idea opens the door for some meaningful discussion and a more nuanced perspective for analysis purposes. 3) the transition from the first body paragraph to the second – It felt very natural and flowed nicely, which is something this essay needs more of. 4) The third body paragraph – brings up a very meaningful point about the significance of food in people’s lives. While it could be expanded on further, it shows the potential for this essay to grow into something very thoughtful. 5) the context before the quote in the fourth body paragraph – It set up the quote nicely and gave the proper background needed 6) the counterargument in the conclusion – despite it being misplaced, it gave a very nice balance in perspective
Areas that need work: 1) the intro – it starts to come into focus, then gets off topic a little after the first paragraph of the intro. There is not enough context as to the text that they are forming the essay around. 2) the thesis – it seems incomplete, like there are hints of good ideas but they are not developed enough. There is also very little connection between the ideas in the thesis and the ideas in the body paragraphs (specifically the mention of third-world countries that is never brought up again. 3) textual analysis – the writer starts to delve into some good analysis, but cuts it short and doesn’t go as deep as needed, nor do they connect back to the thesis. 4) the flow into using their an essay as textual evidence – it was very choppy and rushed, and no topic sentence was given. Formatting and flow as a whole left something to be desired. 5) Conclusion – transition phrase that was not needed, and there was no long-lasting statement that pushed the reader to think about things beyond the ideas in the essay. Also, the counterargument was in the wrong spot and took away from the purpose of the conclusion
What I would suggest for improvements: take the prompt and start mapping out ideas of how the student will answer the prompt. This will help streamline their thought process. I would also suggest keeping the thesis and prompt out in front of them while they’re writing, so that they remember to connect back to the thesis in their analysis. I would also recommend, after they think they’re done writing their paragraph, to set a 5 minute timer and just try to keep adding to it. This will help make sure they’ve at least made an effort to fully flesh out their ideas
John Q Student wrote an essay that focused on the protein meal replacement Soylent and argued that going on a full Soylent diet was “not the way to live our best lives” (Student, 2). The student did not state clear reasons for their position in their introduction. However, they mention the food industry, connections that come with food preparation and/or consumption, and the author’s personal experience with food. Finally, the student concluded the essay by saying that Soylent, as a replacement for some meals, can be useful in contexts where a person may be financially burdened.
To highlight the strengths first, the student had a strong use of evidence throughout the paper. When the author claimed that a full Soylent switch would impact the food industry, they used statistics from the US Department of Labor, a reliable source, to support their claims. Second, the author can keep a consistent tone in their writing, even if it isn’t necessarily formal. I think this in itself is a strength. When the student learns to write more with their audience in mind, they will be able to maintain that style of writing going forward.
I would first recommend that the author reconsider what their thesis is and what arguments they want to make against Soylent as a replacement for all meals. In the initial introduction paragraphs, they mention how it could be used to save money or benefit third-world countries. Only one of these points is mentioned in the concluding paragraph. This reconsideration could occur in either the form of a traditional outline or in clustering. Second, I would have the author look into a few sources that support each of their new arguments that are not their own work. Typically, self-citing most often occurs in papers that conduct research and build upon their previous findings.
Overall, I think the student has an okay beginning for their paper. They understand how an argumentative paper should be structured, and that they may need some guidance on how they can change to a more formal tone for their writing and a general outline to help prepare sources they can use to support their arguments.
4 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 2”
After reading the student essay, I noticed a few things that should be addressed and some strengths. The paper was about a dietary switch to a supplement called Soylent. The paper seemed to be an argumentative or opinion essay with the purpose of providing the reader with the pros and cons of the supplement. The first major thing I noticed was the lack of a thesis statement. A thesis statement is featured at the beginning of the paper and details the argument. It lays out the main message of the essay. The introduction is supposed to introduce the thesis and the main evidence. The introduction has a decent hook about inventions. However, the talk of inventions lasts too long and should move into mentioning Soylent sooner. The introduction does not inform readers as to which side the writer is in favor and lacks the introduction of any evidence. The second paragraph acts as a second introduction and is where you learn the writer is against a complete Soylent diet. The first two paragraphs should be combined but remove some unnecessary information. The other paragraphs go into the reasons why Soylent should not be used in place of food. The evidence includes the statistics as to how it could impact jobs and how it reduces quality time with family. The other paragraph argues for the benefits, which is nice. It is important to have a counterargument, however I would move this paragraph to before the conclusion. The final body paragraph and the conclusion use quotes from another paper this person wrote. I am unsure of exactly what the prompt says, but typically you should avoid personal pronouns and your own quotes in essays. I really enjoy the message of those paragraphs but I think certain words could be changed to sound less personal. There are some strengths in the paper, especially when it comes to evidence. There are certain quotes, statistics, and points that really add a lot to the paper. There are some really good sentences that pack a punch. My favorite sentence is at the end of the second to last paragraph. It talks about the different emotions that certain foods bring us. It is very catchy and plays into the reader’s emotions. Overall, the paper was a good start. Revision should start by organizing the paragraphs. Some paragraphs cover similar themes and could be connected, and other information would make sense in a different spot. A strategy to help with that would be to make an outline. The writer should write down bullets containing evidence for each paragraph. This should help with not including details in more than one spot and for making sure the essay has a clear order.
In the hypothetical essay, John Q.’s “Why Soylent is Not What it Seems,” we were tasked to analyze and facilitate a student’s essay. I found that the heavy usage of direct quotes and supportive evidence that followed were the essay’s biggest strengths, but I also appreciated the smoother transitions between the student’s points. Another mental note I’d taken on something that worked within the essay were the personal anecdotes. The student didn’t delve too deeply into any issues while still getting the point across that food is important because of the connections it brings between people and its grandiose act in sharing joy- which I have also written about before.
However, there were a couple of grammatical errors, and I felt that fully capitalizing “SOME” at the end of the essay was inappropriate when using italics could have conveyed the same message. The student had trouble with punctuation within quotes, capitalizing a couple of proper nouns, and I also felt that the title of the essay itself wasn’t very intriguing.
Some strengths in this essay are: 1) the hook – I think it does a good job of introducing us to the philosophy of Soylent, and draws us in with a broad concept before getting more specific. 2) Proposing the idea of partial integration of Soylent – I think this idea opens the door for some meaningful discussion and a more nuanced perspective for analysis purposes. 3) the transition from the first body paragraph to the second – It felt very natural and flowed nicely, which is something this essay needs more of. 4) The third body paragraph – brings up a very meaningful point about the significance of food in people’s lives. While it could be expanded on further, it shows the potential for this essay to grow into something very thoughtful. 5) the context before the quote in the fourth body paragraph – It set up the quote nicely and gave the proper background needed 6) the counterargument in the conclusion – despite it being misplaced, it gave a very nice balance in perspective
Areas that need work: 1) the intro – it starts to come into focus, then gets off topic a little after the first paragraph of the intro. There is not enough context as to the text that they are forming the essay around. 2) the thesis – it seems incomplete, like there are hints of good ideas but they are not developed enough. There is also very little connection between the ideas in the thesis and the ideas in the body paragraphs (specifically the mention of third-world countries that is never brought up again. 3) textual analysis – the writer starts to delve into some good analysis, but cuts it short and doesn’t go as deep as needed, nor do they connect back to the thesis. 4) the flow into using their an essay as textual evidence – it was very choppy and rushed, and no topic sentence was given. Formatting and flow as a whole left something to be desired. 5) Conclusion – transition phrase that was not needed, and there was no long-lasting statement that pushed the reader to think about things beyond the ideas in the essay. Also, the counterargument was in the wrong spot and took away from the purpose of the conclusion
What I would suggest for improvements: take the prompt and start mapping out ideas of how the student will answer the prompt. This will help streamline their thought process. I would also suggest keeping the thesis and prompt out in front of them while they’re writing, so that they remember to connect back to the thesis in their analysis. I would also recommend, after they think they’re done writing their paragraph, to set a 5 minute timer and just try to keep adding to it. This will help make sure they’ve at least made an effort to fully flesh out their ideas
John Q Student wrote an essay that focused on the protein meal replacement Soylent and argued that going on a full Soylent diet was “not the way to live our best lives” (Student, 2). The student did not state clear reasons for their position in their introduction. However, they mention the food industry, connections that come with food preparation and/or consumption, and the author’s personal experience with food. Finally, the student concluded the essay by saying that Soylent, as a replacement for some meals, can be useful in contexts where a person may be financially burdened.
To highlight the strengths first, the student had a strong use of evidence throughout the paper. When the author claimed that a full Soylent switch would impact the food industry, they used statistics from the US Department of Labor, a reliable source, to support their claims. Second, the author can keep a consistent tone in their writing, even if it isn’t necessarily formal. I think this in itself is a strength. When the student learns to write more with their audience in mind, they will be able to maintain that style of writing going forward.
I would first recommend that the author reconsider what their thesis is and what arguments they want to make against Soylent as a replacement for all meals. In the initial introduction paragraphs, they mention how it could be used to save money or benefit third-world countries. Only one of these points is mentioned in the concluding paragraph. This reconsideration could occur in either the form of a traditional outline or in clustering. Second, I would have the author look into a few sources that support each of their new arguments that are not their own work. Typically, self-citing most often occurs in papers that conduct research and build upon their previous findings.
Overall, I think the student has an okay beginning for their paper. They understand how an argumentative paper should be structured, and that they may need some guidance on how they can change to a more formal tone for their writing and a general outline to help prepare sources they can use to support their arguments.