Critical Reflective Essay on the Problems with Writing
Critical Reflective Essay on the Problems with Writing
How writers encounter and overcome their issue with writing is what makes good writers. They decisions they make when writing surrounding the problems, they face is what makes good writers. Most of the issue I face surrounding writing involve how I write surrounding the needs of the audience. Some problems that I have commonly encountered with writing are having clear writing so my reader can understand, writing simply for entry level readers, being too brief with my writing, and generally thinking about how my readers will receive my writing. In my writing I have strengthened my writing through observing more professional writing than my own as well as listening to the reviews of my peers and instructors.
Writing clearly so that my audience can understand my arguments is difficult for me. Often my audience is unable to follow my arguments in my writing although all the elements of a cohesive and comprehensive essay. My peers and instructors have advised me to lay out my arguments more clearly especially even more clearly than I think I need to. I also started writing more than I needed to and cutting down what isn’t necessary in my argument to make a more cohesive argument. In my first paper Rhetorical Analysis of The Impact of Ethanol and Ethanol Subsidies on Corn Prices: Revisiting History I have a very loose set of ideas that are not nearly as cohesive as they could be. I continually branched off making side claims that did not pertain to my main argument. In my paper I wrote, “The authors attempt to expand the understanding of the reader through precise language and the use of graphs.” I did not set this information up in any way or use it to support my argument very well. While side arguments could be a useful tool in other argumentative writing it did not serve me well within the purview of ERH-102. This is also because I also lacked concrete examples. The ideas I present in my body paragraphs especially in my third body paragraph lack clarity. In comparison to my third essay The Vices and Virtues of Corn Subsidies: A Look into Corn Subsidy Reform my previous work pales in comparison. I wrote, “One bushel of corn can produce 2 gallons of ethanol at a cost of $ 2.50 a gallon for a total cost of $5.00 per bushel. This leaves ethanol producers with a hardy $.80 profit margin” which not only used more direct language, but also became an important claim in my argument. In my third essay I have a very clear process so my readers can understand my arguments I present. By presenting my arguments in a very clear manner because of the feedback from my instructor and peers I was able to improve my writing’s clarity.
Another issue I face is writing in a manner that may be too complicated or complex for my readers and skip critical background information. In my first paper Rhetorical Analysis of The Impact of Ethanol and Ethanol Subsidies on Corn Prices: Revisiting History, I jump straight into my analysis without giving any background information or details that an entry level reader would need to not only comprehend my paper but fully understand and retain my argument within the essay. I took it for granted that my audience would have an understanding of the subject matter and as a writer neglected to clearly layout critical background knowledge. To confront this issue, I truly began looking at what an entry level reader would know about the subject of my paper. This semester I primarily wrote about corn subsidies and their relationship to ethanol production. I took it for granted that my audience had read some literature on the subject, when in fact my audience knew very little, which is something that I had not previously considered. In my first paper I said, “. The authors present their findings in a very methodical and thought-out way”, and then failed to give any textual examples or even paraphrase the text because I assumed my audience would have already known what I was referring to in the text. I realized that as my writing gets more professional my audience may not have the same knowledge that I do, and as a writer it is therefore my responsibility to present factual evidence to get them the knowledge they need to understand my writing. resolve this issue, I discussed corn subsidies with my peers in a casual setting to get a better understanding of what my audience may be familiar with. Taking into consideration what my audience may know, in my second paper Exploring the Merits and Societal Cost of Corn Subsidies I made an effort to give the reader a cursory history of corn subsidies as well as basic background knowledge they would need to understand my paper. In my second paper, I used more factual evidence and gave more commentary than I thought I needed so that I could give the reader a better understanding of the subject matter. In my third paper, I made sure to further clarify the type of government corn subsidy I was referring to and give a concreate definition as well as the history and background I thought were necessary to understand the subject matter of my paper.
A challenge I face when writing is being to brief with my writing. When writing I try to be extremely concise with my writing and do not elaborate on my ideas as much as I should. This could be the root of the problem I previously mentioned with having my audience understand my claims in my arguments and omitting background information. Some ways I have started to combat this problem is trying to structure my paragraphs in my argumentative essays so that I have to expand on the claims I am making. In my third essay The Vices and Virtues of Corn Subsidies: A Look into Corn Subsidy Reform, I structure my body paragraphs so that I was progressively building my claim through the paragraph as opposed to making my claim in the topic sentence and defending it throughout the body paragraph. By structuring my body paragraphs differently I am able to better express my opinions in my argument as well as present factual evidence in in a way that is more conducive to my argument.
In my writing I also began thinking about how my readers will receive my writing. At the beginning of the semester I wrote in my introductory critical reflection about how I wanted to be less confrontational while still presenting an effective argument. Before making an effort to be less confrontation in my arguments, I often demonized the opposing view of my argument because I didn’t know any other way to create my argument. Throughout this semester I have talked very little about the opposing views to my own arguments and focused on forming my own argument before addressing counter arguments if at all. After focusing more on my own argument I also found I was able to better address opposing views to my own argument. Additionally, I considered how my reader might receive my expertise. One aspect of an effective argument I considered was expert power, which is your own appeal to your experience with the subject matter. I used expert power very well in my third paper when I wrote about the most common corn subsidies, price loss coverage, in my second page of my third paper. I use my expertise on the subject of corn subsides and price loss coverage to narrow in my argument and make my writing more refined and professional. Before writing at the college level, I had been told to avoid presenting my self as an expert or authority in the subject field I was writing about, but after my first year of college I am encouraged to present myself as an expert having authority on the subject, especially in classes outside the English department. This skill of appealing to my own expertise is something I had to develop. Especially in World History and Naval Science I had to work on how I thought about organizing my work, writing, and presenting my work. When writing in history, I had to use what I knew from English class to present my opinions as professional and my work as the work of an expert. In naval science, when giving a presentation I had to appear as an expert on any the subject matter even when I was not. This was very difficult for me, especially first semester because I was expected to not only deliver a professional presentation but also be able to answer questions in a professional manner as well even without knowing everything about the subject. I overcame this issue with writing in both history and naval science by considering what question my audience may have after reading my work and trying to clarify them within my work.
Some problems that I have commonly encountered with writing are having clear writing so my reader can understand, writing simply for entry level readers, and generally thinking about how my readers will receive my writing. In my writing I have strengthened my writing through observing more professional writing than my own as well as listening to the reviews of my peers and instructors.
Works Cited
Gild,Adam. “Critical Reflective Essay” Virginia Military Institute, January 24, 2021
Gild,Adam. “Exploring the Merits and Societal Cost of Corn Subsidies” Virginia Military Institute, January 24, 2021
Gild,Adam. “Rhetorical Analysis of The Impact of Ethanol and Ethanol Subsidies on Corn Prices: Revisiting History” Virginia Military Institute, January 24, 2021
Gild,Adam. “The Vices and Virtues of Corn Subsidies: A Look into Corn Subsidy Reform” Virginia Military Institute, January 24, 2021
In the fourth essay, the reflective essay for the semester, I thought I did an excellent job evaluating my own work. The prompt of how we encounter the issue with writing was a unique prompt to work with. before writing this paper I had never thought about how I encountered the issue of writing. after writing this paper I realized dad evaluating not only one’s own work but also how they overcame certain issues within their writing is extremely important. For example, in my first two papers in this course I had many issues with writing surrounding how I addressed the issue of audience and how they would receive my writing. Because I was able to reflect on my work this semester in an informal setting I was able to fix those issues and overcome them. In the future I would also like to continue evaluating my work in an informal setting so that I can improve my writing bye distinguishing my success is in my writing from my shortcomings and then play to my strengths wow still working on my shortcomings to become a better writer. A lot of what I focused on this semester was how I formulated my arguments which is why I believe many of the issues I encountered with writing this semester surrounded the issue of how my audience would receive my writing. I also believe that arguing what some would consider a boring topic forced me to focus on my writing rather than the subject at hand and almost forced me to become a better writer. I believe many writers my age use appeals to emotion too often to make their arguments, and because I used corn subsidies as my topic I was unable to use appeals to emotion which forced me to formulate my argument around other rhetorical themes.