The Review by a Public Peer of the Essay that is the 3rd Written During the Spring 2013 Semester of a Mr. William Zandler ! This is a very well written essay so far. You seem to have a very good understanding of the prompt as well as a unique topic. You have done a smart job at splitting up the answers into three major categories and then elaborating on each of them. Cleaver title. I knew what your essay was a bout immediately, but not because your title was overly formal. Based on your title and having read your essay, I would say that your question is “How do we, as human beings, ? d happiness in our lives? ” If your question in which you had in mind was not this or close to this, you need to do one of two things. One, change your essay. Figure out where you started to deviate from your main question. Fix that point. Two, change your question. Look at your essay again with this new question and see what you would add or what language would change to make it ? t your interpretation better. I bet, however, that you are ? ne and the your question and my interpretation are pretty well alined. ! I though you would be hard presses to be able to write a research paper on the topic of ? ding happiness. You did achieve this well. I believe that you need to ? nd sources better suited to your topic. From what I see you only have one source so far. Now, writing a paper with the intention of ? nding sources later is smart, but be wary. You don’t want to manipulate source interpretation to ? t a pre-written essay. Hopefully you already have some sources in mind and are just ? nalizing their placement. Be open to changing your essay based on what relevant sources you do ? nd. ! One last note. Your transitions. The change between wealth and life style regularity I found too burled.
After ? nishing the essay, I thought you had only talked about two of your topics and not all three. Though we strive for ? uidity, make sure that there is still distinction between the parts. The change you your ? nal topic was a bit hokey. Just ? gure out some way to not say ”the ? nal way”. That is all. Good luck! Cameron Behning Ms. Burstrem ENGL 109H The Review by a Public Peer of the Essay that is the 3rd Written During the Spring 2013 Semester of a Mr. Timothy Ni ! What I hope you understand is that this is really just a start of an essay and only a basic outline.
I like your question. I think that you have a grasp of what that means and where too look. You have also been very lucky to ? nd relevant sources. I know that that is something I am having dif? culty with. You have found two sides of your question that are very different. I like them. I think you need to be careful though. You begin to argue a side and instead of just presenting a side, you instead present a side and argue for it. Remember that this is supposed to be an unbiased paper. Taking a side and its opposite does not make an argument unbiased. That just means that you switch biases.
That being said, I think that you sides or the question that you present are strong. You still need a third side. On further inspection of the ? rst side, I believe that you can split that into two different questions. That might have been your original intention in fact. You could go on the side that people should be required to help if they are not part of the problem, and that those people who can should be required to help regardless on their desire or relation to the problem. I am having dif? culty really seeing your essay here because it is so short.
I wish you the best of luck in ? eshing out your ideas. Cameron Behning Ms. Burstrem ENGL 109H The Review by a Public Peer of the Essay that is the 3rd Written During the Spring 2013 Semester of a Mr. Ethan Beyak ! I can see you obviously care about this topic. Your passions is everywhere in it but this is the part that becomes the downfall of the essay as is. When we are passionate about something, we tend to jump around the various subtopics along with the assumption that they know much about the topic. You need to ? rst begin by focusing the essay.
From your introduction, I am not sure about what exactly is your question. Is it “Is climate change real” or is it “what is causing climate change”? This is something that can be changed by either focusing on scienti? c evidence that proves and disproves climate change or focus on data that shows different causes for the change. Also, introduce a grabber. That one right now is very blah/ stereotypical. Make it exciting, but don’t over exaggerate it with some pessimistic view of the world with climate change. Your essay doesn’t have that tone and that is too melodramatic anyways. ! This ? st sources you use is one of the parts contributing to the unfocused nature and the two focusing question dilemma. This sources from what I have read can be used for both the proof of climate change as well as the cause (humans). I personally think that this sources is more appropriate for the ? rst. The examples he gives that you then sight are more so justi? cations of whether or not climate change is real. He argues for sighting some very logical points. However, the parts and justi? cation starting after “the phrase like, ‘we can…” leads more towards why scientist might not be trusted or not really explaining themselves.
I like how you say that climate change may not be real or at least society may not believe it to be real, because they are not explained about what is happening. At least split this into a new paragraph if not redo it all together. ! Remember that in this essay, you do not discuss the effectiveness of the argument of your sources. You simply state the argument as a side. You could do something like this in you synthesis. Those questions you have listed at the end are perfect things to address here. Good luck.