Murphy 1

Unbroken
While not a total failure, my analysis of Laura Hillenbrands Unbroken
was not a strong start to my 11
th
grade writing career. It contains all of the
faws that I hae since !"ed in my prose# in the introduction, it fails to follow
the inerted pyramid structure, proiding no conte"t for the reader. It is
unnecessarily repetitie, and aw$wardly phrased% &'she e"poses the
strength of humans, the wea$ness of humans, and human fallibility(. )he
thesis is wea$, and includes general statements not directly lin$ed to the
assigned prompt. )he general nature of the thesis undermines the rest of the
paper by ma$ing sweeping generali*ation about the writers intent that are
more li$ely my interpretation, and not robustly supported by any cited
+uotations. My lac$ of speci!city early on undermines the whole essay, and
is continued in the !rst paragraph, where there is no cohesie topic
sentence, leaing the paragraph indecisie and rambling% &Human wea$ness
as it is shown in the boo$ is !rst in the realm of the physical, where she uses
imagery and descriptie language to show the wasting of Louies body
aboard the raft(. )he other two body paragraphs are similarly insu,cient.
)he lac$ of properly e"ecuted structural elements is not the only problem#
+uotations are e"cessiely long, poorly lin$ed, and incorrectly cited. )his
leaes the essay not only without clear assertions, but also without eidence.
It is not a complete failure, howeer, despite how poorly written I now see it
to be. It successfully uses commentary to connect the eidence to its claims,
fawed as they are, and uses a dierse ocabulary to ma$e its points. I was
Murphy -.
spoiled by my easy /nglish class the year prior to this one, and the
rela"ation of the summer. I am glad I hae produced no more essays li$e this
one.
Magna0oles
My analysis of the rhetorical strategies used by The Onion in a moc$
press release about Magna0oles does much more right that is does wrong.
)he !rst success of my essay is to reali*e the intent of the article% to satiri*e.
Many others fell into the trap of belieing that the article was utili*ing many
of the mar$eting techni+ues it was actually moc$ing. 0imply writing about
the correct topic can more important than any other single element. In my
introduction paragraph, I successfully implement a closed, speci!c thesis to
set up the arguments I ma$e in the body paragraphs, though bac$ground
information for the reader was somewhat lac$ing. )he phrasing is neat and
decisie% &)he article satiri*es product mar$eting by using oerly comple" or
scienti!c diction, ma$ing totally unsupported scienti!c claims, and by using
obiously fallacious reasoning(. In the body paragraphs, the assertion,
eidence, and commentary are solid and conincing, cutting through the
fa1ade of the article, showing the claims are &false, 2because comfortrons
dont e"ist3( in order to reeal how a falsehood is being used rhetorically.
4espite its strengths, it could be more uni!ed, with an intro paragraph tied
more closely to its conclusion. 5w$ward phasing, and use of long +uotations
detracts from the fow of the essay, though it remains readable.
Murphy -.
6reen Liing
)hough the ideas behind my defense of goernment compulsion of
green energy practices are correct, numerous, and highly nuanced, they are
not done 7ustice by my poor e"planation of them. 8ontrol of resource
e"traction was at the time a ery recent Lincoln#4ouglas debate topic, and I
became too focused on ma$ing as many arguments as possible without in#
depth e"planation, assuming that any reader would automatically be familiar
with the arguments I was ma$ing. My thesis begins ery generally, and
proides all the necessary conte"t with which to approach the issue, een
referencing such schools of thought as 8osmopolitanism, the belief that
&borders are arti!cial, and we are aboe all citi*ens of the /arth(, and
9tilitarianism. In the body, the sheer number of economic impacts I introduce
in the !rst paragraph reduces the +uality of each# to improe I should focus
on less eidence and e"plain them more thoroughly with e"tra commentary.
)he length of the !rst paragraph, gien the time constraint, too$ much away
from the essays balance, leaing one paragraph bloated with too many
Murphy -.
blippy e"amples, 2rambling about the e:ect of global warming on &coastal
properties( threatened by sea leel rise or &rising crop yields( due to carbon
emission3 and the other underdeeloped, without much elaboration.
Immaculately ;ictional
If any essay of mine were to be considered a failure, this would be it. It
ma$es many of the errors I thought had been ironed out of my wor$ long
before ;ebruary. )he essay itself is not as bad as its grade might indicate,
though it is still of my own doing. )he primary error I made was to not closely
follow the guidelines of the assignment. It seerely lac$s in two critical areas
that were speci!ed% the analysis of both 7ournalistic and !ctional elements.
)hroughout, the use of commas sometimes ma$es phrases aw$ward or
di,cult to follow organically% &in that, it is a wor$ of <errys infuence, and
8apotes design, but probably not one that is true to life(. )he eidence is
e:ectie at proing the thesis, that 8apote is biased and &focuses
e"cessiely on his own moral commentary(, but the wea$ness of the paper is
Murphy -.
the tenuous lin$ between the topic of the essay 2whether or not he created a
non!ction noel3 and what I spend so long arguing, regardless of whether or
not it is true. 8oupled with my failure to de!ne what a non#!ction noel is in
the !rst place, the essay is left baseless and tangential, missing all the
important issues that needed to be addressed. =ne redeeming +ualities of
the essay is that it contains comple" ocabulary and sentence structure%
&8apotes own personal inolement signi!cantly inhibited his ability to
produce an ob7ectie truth not tainted by personal bias, stylistic fair, or
normatie moral 7udgments(. Had the essay been more topical to the
prompt, it might hae been signi!cantly more persuasie.
5dersity
)he opportunity to introduce outside sources that few of my peers
hae eer heard of, and apply that $nowledge to a modern +uestion they
probably are familiar with is why I am so attracted to the argumentatie
essay aboe all. In particular, my defense of Horaces opinion of adersity
highlights the application of philosophical principles to fundamental
+uestions about the meaning, or meaninglessness of life itself. )he !rst body
paragraph proides a detailed, relatable e"ample in 5ndrew 8arnegie, &a
poor 0cottish boy in 6lasgow(, who comes to power due to the challenges he
Murphy -.
oercomes. )his ma$es the argument accessible to someone with no
detailed prior $nowledge other than high school history. )he ne"t paragraph
ta$es the argument deeper, postulating nihilism as the ineitable result of a
life without adersity, that &it is the depths of su:ering that de!ne how we
e"perience happiness(. )his is an argument that few will probably grasp
fully, but is made with sound reasoning for those familiar with the hedonic
treadmill or >iet*sches wor$. )he pairing of the simple and straightforward
with the philosophical and e"istential here allows the essay to conince a
reader from multiple aenues. )he primary faw is not one of the substance,
but in the conclusion? the essay would be signi!cantly stronger if the themes
and language of the introduction were presented again in the conclusion, to
gie the reader a sense of completion and satisfaction.
4igital 0ureillance% 5 )ool of =ur <reseration
I will ma$e no secret of my pride in my research paper. It is in almost
eery way the culmination of an entire years improement in eery aspect
of argumentatie writing. It is the longest, most e"tensiely researched,
most thoroughly reised, and best showcase of my writing I will probably
create for a ery long time. It begins powerfully% &=n 0eptember 11
th
, .@@1,
1A terrorists hi7ac$ed four planes ' shattering the once#popular image of an
Murphy -.
5merica immune to foreign attac$(. )a$ing a widely unpopular position, it
!rst creates a moral framewor$ for 7udgment of action in the !rst paragraph,
something that is usually lac$ing in scholarly literature not a,liated with
moral philosophy. )his framewor$, that &we must 7udge the moral
responsibilities of a goernment by the harm principle( replaces the ague
and inade+uate feeling of uneasiness that most digital rights actiists cite
with one that can be applied in all cases of goernment action. It then
soundly proes the e,cacy of digital sureillance within the moral
framewor$, and cleanly cuts down constitutional counterarguments, by
illuminating the true nature of modern digital information. Its only faws are
minor errors in grammar, and perhaps not enough time spent on refutation
of the primacy of ciil liberties. 5ltogether, the few faws present do not
detract from the readability or persuasieness of the paper.
5merica >eeds its >erds Beision
5merica was built by the innoatie, by those willing to e"ercise their
minds to continually imagine and create a better future. 4edication to
learning is as fruitful for those who pursue it as it is fundamental to the
Murphy -.
maintenance of our cities, our families, and our entire +uality of life. In
C5merica >eeds Its >erds, Leonid ;ridman deelops his argument by
identifying the derogatory connotations of terms for the intelligent in popular
culture, the perasieness of anti#intellectual sentiment, and how these
sentiments contrast with those held in the wider world.
;ridman identi!es the derogatory connotations of terms for the
intelligent in popular culture. C6ee$, whose origin is &biting the heads o:
chic$ens( 2A3 is a commonly used insult for somebody smart# it is not the
meaning itself that is presered in our culture today, but instead the way
that such an action was perceied by others when the word originated? only
the perception of a 6ee$ as a frea$ and social outcast lies on. )he way we
de!ne words reeals much about how people react to them? the fact that
common words for intellectuals are so negatiely associated is indicatie of
how people perceie them. 4e!ning the words themseles that label
intellectuals as inferior allows ;ridman to highlight the !rst problem with our
culture# that we can neer esteem intellectualism if the words associated
with it constantly remind us of its undesirability.
>ot only are the words we use insulting to the intellectually serious,
but such anti#intellectual sentiment perades eery aspect of our society
from preschools to uniersities. /en at prestigious academic institutions li$e
Harard, &anti#intellectualism is rampant( 2113. Doung people who dont $now
better are raised into it, and it becomes integral to the psyche of generation
after generation, the perpetuation of an endless cult of ignorance. Ey
Murphy -.
pointing out e"amples of purposeful ignorance and anti#intellectualism
across all age ranges and academic settings, ;ridman illuminates its total
ubi+uity. )his e"poses its aggressie, almost malicious nature, and alienates
the reader from a culture they thought they $new, in order to conince them
that it must change. )he presence of such a forceful aersion to learning in
schools, een among the ery young is meant to illicit an emotional
response? parents instinctually would condemn a system under which their
child was &osctraci*ed for intelligence( 2.F3. )his appeal to emotion greatly
strengthens his argument# many hae surely e"perienced 7udgment or
bullying at some point in their lies, ma$ing his criti+ue broadly appealing,
een to those not intellectually inclined.
Gust as important to ;ridmans argument as the seerity and
uniersality of anti#intellectualism, is the fact that the 9nited 0tates is uni+ue
is haing it at all. In other nations, &a $id who studies hard' is held up as an
e"ample( 2FA3. ;ridman uses this information to highlight that this problem is
not ineitable or fundamental to human nature# it is only us who degrade the
cleer. If such a cultural characteristic can be learned, then it can be
forgotten. )his ma$es his argument one that seems much more
implementable# 7ust li$e we can crac$ down on bullying in schools, we can
put a stop to this problem too. )he hope that we can e:ect change in our
society alone ma$es ;ridmans position much more legitimate, and ma$es
the reader more inclined to entertain the idea that those who we hae
instinctually learned to shame are not desering of it. Moreoer, when
Murphy -.
;ridman asserts the 90 is uni+ue, he also draws the practical conclusion that
the 90 will fall behind technologically as people are discouraged from
pursuing academic careers. 5 country that harbors such negatie attitudes
towards the engine of adancement cannot &be e"pected to compete( 2HI3.
)his creates an urgency that is ery compelling for any who hope for an
5merica with a prosperous future? we need to stop anti#intellectualism now,
before it is too late.
)he importance of those traditionally thought of as outcasts cannot be
oerestimated# only the most intelligent among us has the power to change
the world more than millions of his less gifted countrymen. ;ridman deelops
his argument successfully and persuasiely by blasting away the iy of
obscurity that hangs around intellectuals as a mar$ of shame, and reealing
how negatiely they are truly iewed by society. He is the catalyst for
change# only by reealing how poorly the best of us are treated can he be
the impetus for altering it. It is the future of the nation that hangs in the
balance. Whether we choose to step into the light and embrace our brethren
as our own, or slin$ bac$ into the dar$ness of conenience and familiarity will
determine if 5merica will be in the ne"t century a nation of prosperity or
poerty.
Murphy -.
America Needs Its Nerds Beision Gusti!cation
With the reision, my essay about how Leonid ;ridman deelops his
argument in America Needs Its Nerds becomes in!nitely more powerful. )he
reision is stronger from the !rst sentence to the last, beginning generally
with a much more articulate introduction and more logical thesis, following
the inerted pyramid correctly. While the main points in each body
paragraph were retained, entire sections were re#written to eliminate the
terrible writing that was done the !rst time. )he !rst sentence in the original%
&;ridman opens with a disturbing etymology( was replaced with &;ridman
identi!es the derogatory connotations of terms for the intelligent in popular
culture(, an actual topic sentence, instead of a useless summary of part of
the article. )he other two paragraphs also contained useless summary to
begin, but now hae strong topic sentences lin$ing directly to the thesis, with
interesting transitions to maintain ariety and persuasieness. )he lengths of
the paragraphs hae been balanced to reasonably similar dimensions, a ast
improement oer the near#estigial !rst body paragraph of the original.
Murphy -.
;urther, this balance was created by the addition of substance and +uality
analysis that was totally missed the !rst time, such as the insight in the
reised third paragraph that &if such a cultural characteristic can be learned,
then it can be forgotten(. )hese new insights bolster the oerall strength of
the essay and ma$es it much easier, and more conincing to read 2it was a
cringe#!lled slog to read the original3. Misinterpretations and irreleant
claims were eliminated in the reision, and replaced with more mature and
accurate ones% before where I claimed ;ridman used connotations to &shoc$(
readers, he actually uses them to show us &that we can neer esteem
intellectualism if the words associated with it constantly remind us of its
undesirability(. 8itations now are correct with double +uotes, and the
conclusion lin$s bac$ to the thesis without needless repetition. 5ltogether it
is almost a completely di:erent paper, and !nally a piece of wor$ I feel
con!dent a,"ing my name to.
Murphy -.
Humorists
In defense of 5lain de Eottons claim that humorists play a ital
societal role, my essay proides robust and releant e"amples present in the
actiities of humorists today. It tac$les an issue that few but the li$es of Eill
Mahar are willing to tal$ about% the 5merican stigma &against the re7ection of
god(. )his uni+ue focus in the !rst body paragraph sets it apart, and
immediately draws the readers attention, whether they support or oppose
my claims of religious &hypocrisy and dogma(. 0ophisticated diction and
numerous pieces of supporting bac$ground information ma$e the essay ery
readable, with 7usti!cations for all logical steps, though some may dierge
slightly from the prompt. )he inclusion of both a historical basis for
Murphy -.
goernment persecution, li$e the &8atalans in 0pain(, and referencing
modern atheist writers who write about it today ma$es its premises ery
broad and conincing. )he choice to ma$e two ery well deeloped body
paragraphs instead of three less detailed ones allowed the points that were
made to be coneyed fully, and the essay is stronger for it. =erall, it is
rigorous and thorough, su:ering only from my usual mista$es of rambling,
comple" multi#claused sentences, and grammatical errors.
In+uisitor
Literary analysis essays are the most di,cult of all. My strong aersion
to them, and my relatie ine"perience writing them together created an
essay rife with errors. )he introduction beings with the thesis statement# and
ends, all in one sentence, lac$ing diersity or conte"t, and leaing the reader
bewildered at the speed at which I hae concluded it. ;rom there the
structural defects only get worse? one of my +uotations was formatted
incorrectly, a heresy of the highest order and punishable by death. 4ue to
Murphy -.
my crude thesis, and the time constraint, I included in my !rst body
paragraph an argument not preiously mentioned, that the in+uisitor utili*ed
&personal testimony( to conince the court. )his disconnect robs the essay of
a singular tone, ma$ing it choppy and di,cult to follow. My +uotes are once
again used poorly in the third paragraph, where their positioning disrupts the
logical fow of claim, warrant and impact by ending the paragraph simply
with &nothing is so cruel as the toleration of heresy(, without commentary
following it. )he essay does, howeer, ma$e its point, if not in the most
direct or e,cient way. It proides alid and conincing eidence where te"t
is cited correctly, which proes the thesis sentence with confused elo+uence.
Murphy -.
Befectie /ssay
We are de!ned by our writing. We are 7udged by it, molded by it, and
learn by the writing of others. It is constantly eoling as we are, arying
with our mood and reading habits. )hose who cannot persuasiely write are
disadantaged in a world dominated by written information. 5s a writer, I
hae improed immensely this year. I began in 0eptember with Hs and Js on
my essays, and steadily climbed to consistently score in the I#K range,
though I neer achieed the elusie A. 0ome of this is the shift in types of
essays we wrote. I am best at the argumentatie, second best at the
synthesis, and worst at literary analysis, so as the year progressed the types
of essays became increasingly faorable to me. )he increase, though, can
primarily be attributed to re!ning of my s$ills that are applicable across all
types of essays% utili*ing the reerse pyramid in the introduction, haing a
speci!c closed thesis, following assertion, eidence, commentary, etc.
5nother portion of my improement is organi*ational# I now $now
neer to begin a conclusion paragraph with &in conclusion( 2my most
consistently occurring mista$e3 or to begin an introduction with my thesis, as
we were taught to in 5< World. My ocabulary is largely the same, but gien
the proper framewor$ and organi*ation, it can add a lot more to an essay
now than it eer could before. Where before I rambled on, getting caught up
in my own thoughts for grand phrases to throw in, I now write with purpose,
neer losing sight of e"actly what I need to proe. 5nd !nally, by Gune, I
Murphy -.
!gured out how to write transitions for my body paragraphs, greatly
enhancing the fow of the paragraphs from one to another.
5s a writer, my purpose is solely to be persuasie. 5nalysis of
rhetorical deices may hae some alue as an academic e"ercise, but it has
little worth as a practical tool in eeryday life. I !nd literary criticism articles
strange, useless creatures. )he ability to persuade, howeer, is perhaps the
most aluable +uality that can possibly be possessed. )he power to sway
someones faor, in ones home, classroom, or place of business will pay
diidends no matter what the profession or pursuit. Mountains are moed
and fortunes made by the well#formed phrase. My purpose for writing
persuasiely is more immediately for application to debate# to write and
rewrite cases to be readable at high speed, to be simple and memorable,
and to draw the approal of the 7udge. )his is why I actually en7oyed writing
the research paper# it was a detailed argumentation of a current issue in
5merica. 0hould I eer need resources in an argument about digital priacy
rights, I hae a paper to fall bac$ on 2not that I necessarily agree with the
position I wrote on, now I wish I had done *ero tolerance policies in schools3.
My writing, unfortunately, is not always conducie to debating. ;or
whateer reason, I !nd myself always writing with e"treme formality and
comple"ity, as if I were writing a doctoral thesis. )hat is the largest downside
to my writing I can thin$ of. 0ome may not li$e it, and they might een be
right, but my writing has always sered me well, though it has made !tting in
all I need to say under a time constraint di,cult sometimes. 4espite some
Murphy -.
faws, a strength of my writing is a dierse ocabulary, particularly of words
used in persuasion li$e &thus(, &therefore(, or &conse+uently(, and by ability
to ary transition words continuously so as to not repeat any. I also use
punctuation such as semicolons to help better the fow and cadence of a
piece, though sometimes I ma$e sentences too complicated and not easily
read the !rst time through. I almost neer hae choppy, short sentences? if I
err, I usually do so on the side of lengthiness and confusion. 9ltimately, this
has been a great year for my writing. I learned so much more than I
e"pected to, and though most of the writing wasnt fun at the time, I now
thin$ bac$ upon it fondly.
1K
Murphy -.