Garcia 1

Maria Garcia
Professor Beatty
English 2010
1 May 2016

English 2010 has proven successful in introducing a wide variety of writing platforms,
allowing students to become involved with real, topical discussions through a developed rhetoric
while emphasizing the importance of credible information and thought-out arguments. In
choosing a topic that applies to the current climate, I was able to contribute to the discussion
surrounding physician assisted suicide and Alzheimers disease as a well-informed participant
with a sound argument. It is through the written works and learned process of research regarding
databases and other resources, that this class armed me with a well-rounded background that has
served me in my other general education classes. It seems a greater appreciation and focus for
the class comes with the fact that its learned outcomes are applicable to almost all other courses
in some respect.
An expected learning outcome was that, with completion of the course, the student will
be able to collaborate with other writers during the writing process. Through several experiences
with peer review, I found that this classs approach was particularly effective. By expressing
specific components to look for in fellow classmates work, I found that my editing eye was
more focused, and retaining corrections that could apply to my own paper came with greater
ease. Peer review provided more than just another technical perspective on my written work, as
many of the corrections I received allowed me to expand on my ideasnew concepts I was
attempting to introduce with a clear execution. Peer review also made me more aware of my

Garcia 2
fragmented sentences, as a fresh set of eyes didnt draw the same conclusions I originally had
when reading through my own work. There is only so much to be found and dissected by the
original creator of the work, and I found that peer review, although at times intimidating, is
crucial to the writing process. This proved to be especially true during the construction of a work
that aims to inform, and assume a position in a topic that generally isnt known about in depth.
A second, equally important expectation of the class is that the student would be able to
be an active participant and engage in civic conversations. In the past, Ive found that research
alone doesnt mean an articulate argument is guaranteed. The research activities were
instrumental in translating facts and supporting evidence into a fluent piece of writing. This form
of organized articulation allowed me to better retain details that strengthened my points which I
could revisit in verbal conversation, where the focus is often more scattered and influenced by
pathos/tone/gestures more so than in academic writing. This has been an obstacle in my personal
experience that research and a method of organization have noticeably improved.
In choosing my issue of concern for this past semester, I was drawn to physician-assisted
suicide and Alzheimers disease because the conversational taboos associated with suicide
intrigued me, and, while Alzheimers has recently been named the sixth leading cause of death in
the United States, it seemed that there was not enough coverage for the epidemic that it was
(x,y). Through my writing, I wanted to achieve a more informed position as it concerned the end
of life options for these patients, and present an argument for a wider legal availability of
physician-assisted suicide, while acknowledging the common misconceptions and
counterarguments made against a highly controversial subject of conversation that seems to be
known about so little with opinions that are decided so quickly.

Garcia 3
As previously stated, I found peer review to be an especially important tool in revisiting
my work, because Id made conclusions that lead to some understandably unclear points for
those that had not investigated the matter, and when I was reading other works, I was reminded
of small, but important details that I forgot to incorporate in my own writing. A larger concept I
realized I needed to pay more attention to was the allowance of my thesis to exist as a thread that
unified the piece, rather than a separate statement. I think the most helpful comments were ones
that suggested I maintain the idea, but move away from overwriting the concept. When reading
my peers work, I can remember suggesting that the writer might want to streamline their
examples to relate more closely with the intended focus of the paper as a whole, and reading the
paper out loud to hear awkward phrasing in some of the transition sentences. This was one of the
critiques I realize I should have applied more with my own writing. I believe my greatest
strength as a peer reviewer has been suggesting alternatives that keep the ideas integrity, while
working to remove a disjointed quality from the selection, although it has been more difficult to
suggest said alternatives for myself.
As I revised the included documents, I concentrated on the fluidity of the work, paying
special attention to my transitions and the continuity of the thesis statement throughout the whole
composition. I also reconstructed my openings, so they werent as jarring, but more general, so
as to ease the reader into the discussion, rather than entering straight away without the
background that is necessary for my chosen issue of concern. In my first paper, I inserted a more
general opening sentence to introduce the reader to my topic and restructured my thesis so it took
a clear side on the discussion. I also explained the beta-amyloid proteins that tangle to create the
side effects in the brain, put my counterargument at the beginning of the paper, and gave reason
to one of my examples as to how it supported my position. I made similar changes to my second

Garcia 4
selection, most notably my efforts in being direct with the reader. I restructured my thesis in this
paper to do just that, and used counterarguments to be clearer on my stance, as well. Addressing
the counterarguments rather than just presenting them created a more developed argument on my
side, as well, and I worked to tie several points back to my thesis, as instructed.
As I put together my final portfolio, I recognized a more developed eye for continuity and
also a more vigilant watch for inconsistencies in my points, looking for non sequiturs, false
analogies, or oversimplifications. I think the greatest strength in my writing is what I lack in my
regular conversations, building on previous ideas to create an argument or take a stance on an
issue. In my portfolio, I revised my work to come across as a stronger supporter of my thoughts,
when in reality, I often approach conversation with a lack of confidence and a tendency for
eggshell-walking. If I went through this process again, I would spend more time on my papers
from the start, and focus on a smaller number of issues rather than attempting to address every
possible point imaginable. Looking back on my previous semester, I find myself reading essays
and discussion responses that could be massively improved. I enjoy creating the portfolio for this
reason, although the stress that is accompanied with final submissions accompanies that
appreciation.