I’m working on a writing question and need an explanation to help me learn.


This is my essay, need revision.

Here is the writing requirement:

This is the ‘final’ draft of your Argumentative Essay, in which you rethink, revise, and polish your essay 2.1 draft. This draft 2.2 should be a complete argument involving a clearly stated question at issue, a complete enthymeme (shared term + conclusion because + reason), and a complete counterargument (objection + rebuttal), AND should show substantial revisions compared to the draft 2.1 (at least 50% revised).

*Note: this is not a research course, so you should not be seeking out supporting evidence outside of course materials.

*Your essay should have a compelling title, should follow MLA formatting, and should include an accurately organized Works Cited page (not part of the word count).

Criteria for Completion (100 points*):

  • Title
  • Question at issue + original argument/claim (both must be clearly presented in the first or second paragraph and must be your original question + claim)
  • Counterargument (objection + rebuttal in 1-2 paragraphs)
  • No fewer than 4 pieces of evidence from assigned reading(s)
    • 3+ from the assigned essays by Cole, Horning, and/or Whitty
    • 1+ from the assigned essay by Massey
  • Optional: 1 (or more) piece of evidence from personal knowledge, experience, or anecdotes—see the Types of Evidence handout in Week 4 module for details on what constitutes acceptable sources. Remember: this is not a research course.
  • Draft shows significant revisions from 2.1 draft (no less than 50% rewritten between drafts)
  • Works Cited page (MLA format)—review the MLA guide on Purdue OWL for specific guidelines on how to properly cite your sources, as well as the handouts in the week 4 module for help with crafting your list. Your list will be assessed for MLA accuracy.
  • Proper length (approx. 1500 words), formatting (MLA), and submission file type (docx/pdf)

Four reading Reading list, need to use all these four readings, don’t use outside resources:

  • Whitty, Julia. “All the Disappearing Islands.” Globalization: A Reader for Writers. Ed. Maria Jerskey. New York: Oxford UP, 2014. 62-74. [Identity + Place]
  • Cole, Teju. “The White Savior Industrial Complex.” Globalization: A Reader for Writers. Ed. Maria Jerskey. New York: Oxford UP, 2014. 210-218. [Communication + Tech.]
  • Horning, Rob. “The Accidental Bricoleurs.” Globalization: A Reader for Writers. Ed. Maria Jerskey. New York: Oxford UP, 2014. 229-239. [Communication + Tech.]
  • 1+ from the assigned essay by Massey (see attached file)
  • The rest three readings can all find online.

Here is overall comment:

this is an okay start. I appreciate the clarity and focus of your writing, generally, however there are a number of major issues with the way you use (or don’t use) your evidence (your sources). For your revisions, I recommend that you focus on: 1) Evidence/explanations: for each body paragraph, be sure that you only present one single idea (make on single point). That point then must be proven through showing evidence to your reader, and that evidence needs to be in the form of direct quotes from the assigned essays. What you present here is confusing and concerning: you seem to throw out the names of the authors of these essays with no regard for what their work actually argues or what their findings actually do (or not) to support your claim. You will need to significantly revise the way that you use evidence, beginning with quoting your sources directly—this is how you prove a claim in argumentative writing. Your intro and claim start out strong, but the body paragraphs do not evidence your claim and do not reflect ethical argumentation. Then, for each quote, take the space to set it up for your reader, give the quote, then summarize, analyze, and explain the quote for your reader—tell your reader exactly how this evidence proves the claim that you are arguing. Overall, your writing is good but this does not reflect the assigned work for this class and is need of significant revisions.