Here is an excerpt from JD's paper. What are its strengths? How could he empower it?
"Fulghum's approach on the idea of perspective differs in mode of discourse and appeal. Fulghum writes in a narration. he creates two characters with very different perspectives. He characterizes a grandparents and a grandchild with different perspectives to the same situation. The two characters; interaction in the narration is how Fulghum incorporates perspectives When the grandchild speaks of death to a stranger, the two different perspectives are seen: 'Her husband was hit by a truck.' The grandfather said this to his wife when referring to why the grandchild was crying. His perspective differed from the grandchild as he found it quite funny how she worried about such absurd ideas. She, on the other hand, was very emotional. She cried because of something that didn't happen. This emotion that she shows is deliberative in Fulghum's purpose. The emotional appeal through the grandchild is pathos. This pathos is very different from friedman's ethos. This pathos is successful in eliciting emotion and pity from the audience. It causes the audience to sympathize with the author and his grandchild."
The sentence structure in this paragraph is a little weird and i think because of the structure and its oddness, it actually takes away from the purpose and the argument. That is really the only major suggestion obviously there could always be some diction improvement and other adjustments but all in all, apart from the sentences this paragraph is really good.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Conor. The wording of the paragraph took away from the overall point in my opinion.
DeleteI'm really confused as to how i could fix this, as this is how i always write. The sentence structure is not KR smooth i admit, but i dont quite get how it is bad. Please help me understand because i really want to fix this.
DeleteThis passage is OK, but not Joe's best. Some of the ideas he develops make sense and I agree that Fulghum created two perspectives, but he needs to lead in to his quote better and use briefer, simpler sentences.
ReplyDeleteJoe makes a strong argument and I loved the way he created an antithesis effect. He was able to analyze two topics by contrasting them which is quite skillful. In terms of improvements, he could work a little on some grammar/usage things and I would avoid writing that it was the pathos that was successful. He could simply reword it to say that by using pathos, the author was successful... Besides that though, teh argument itself was strong.
ReplyDelete