Here is an excerpt from WSc's paper. What are its strengths? How could he empower it?
"In 'Apprenticeship,' several antagonists are being interviewed about their history committing genocidal acts. Many of them horrifyingly speak of their actions in a rather off the cuff and informal matter, like killing people is somehow not a big deal. The antagonists make several connections that lead to to their main purpose. One of these is the connection they make between jobs and killing. One of the men interviewed likens cutting men with a machete to cutting firewood, vines, and animals. 'The blade, when you use it to cut branch, animal, or man, it has nothing to say' (Hatzfeld). Another connection is the connection between killing and a skill. The interviewees say that handling a machete is a skill, and that you can be good at senseless killing. Overall, the antagonists' main purpose is to distract from the fact that they are senselessly killing, and make it sound like killing was their duty, a job that they had to do. They also portray it as a skill, something to be valued if you are good at it. They are generally effective at this. When you read accounts of people doing these horrible things so many times, your brain almost accepts it as being okay and normal."
This is a very strong argument, especially in its content. The points made are very good while the errors I saw were in the use of the words 'this' and 'connections.' When using 'this,' you should try to directly say what you are referring to in order to avoid ambiguity. Also, I would attempt to find a synonym for the word connection as it is used multiple times in a few sentences. The only other problems may have been the use of the word 'you' which makes the argument informal. Besides those issues though, the argument itself was strong and had great points.
ReplyDeleteMuch of this argument I have nothing but praise for. I like the points you make early on about the off the cuff manner the antagonists speak with and your quote is effective in solidifying your argument and is well placed. However, be careful with your main purpose. I am not sure if the antagonists' purpose is to distract people from the fact they are "senselessly killing." Keep in mind they were speaking during a time when acts like this were frequently condoned. They may be just trying to establish their ethos in order to seem like better soldiers in an attempt to move up the military ranks. Finally, I thought your comments about the antagonists' portraying killing as a skill as spot on.
ReplyDeleteThe argument is Strong! it starts off with a reference to the story, and then begins his comparing and contrasting. his essay is written with very keen details. they open his argument up to a better structure. the quotes are also well placed. they are very well explained
ReplyDeleteThis paragraph argues the point very well and with minimal errors. The errors noticed are simple and easy to repair. Overuse of words make the argument seem repatative and not as concrete. Also informal diction is a problem, finally the excessive use of periods and neglect of commas makes the paragraph choppy and it ends up taking away from the argument being written about.
ReplyDelete