Thane Rolston
Reflective Essay DRAFT
ERH-102-11
26APR2017
HR: Works cited, bibme.com
My career as a writer could be summed up as average. I have always been able to get the assignment done, but it is nothing more than me putting data down on a paper and leaving its meaning up for interpretation of the audience. This semester, I have been working to develop “better ways of attacking the problem of writing” by sustaining my argument throughout the paper, arguing data rather than summarizing, and making better topic sentences. By tackling these three problems with my writing, I have gone from a 69% on my first paper to an 85% on my second.
In my first paper, I had to argue why a certain law should be implemented and argue the benefits that come along with it. I will be honest, it did not go well. Towards the beginning of the second paragraph, Major Garriott noted, “Is this a theory or a fact?” (“Fixing the American Economy by Implementing a Flat Tax Policy”, Page 1). I made a statement on how as taxes go up, tax revenue will eventually go down, because people have less of an incentive to work. When I put that sentence in there, I knew it to be a fact, so I did not explain it. looking back, I can see how that hurt my credibility as a writer. I just maid claims, but there was no explanation or reason. I did this not only once, but 13 times in total. My third through fifth paragraphs did not contain arguments at all. I thought it would be alright to make a paragraph (or three) summarizing flat taxes in other countries, but again, I did not argue anything at all. One paragraph goes like this:
In 2001, President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation implemented a flat tax on consumer income at 14%, as well as lowered corporate taxes from 35% of revenues to 24% (Heritage Foundation). While many in the United States may disagree with the actions of President Putin, it should be noted that President George W. Bush said, “I am impressed by the fact that [Putin] has instituted tax reform — a flat tax. And as he pointed out to me, it is one of the lowest tax rates in Europe. He and I share something in common: We both proudly stand here as tax reformers.”. Until the global recession of 2008, causing a decline of oil revenues, Russia averaged 7% economic growth annually, and is still the 6th largest economy and the second most powerful country behind the U.S. (US News). (“Fixing the American Economy by Implementing a Flat Tax Policy”, Page 2).
The paragraph is problematic. The topic sentence does nothing to argue why flat taxes should be implemented, but rather states that it happened, which did not sustain my argument. I said how Russia had 7% annual growth, but I did not even compare it to the growth of the U.S., which would not help my audience understand my argument. For the Bush quote, If I had said how he is known for tax reforms, I would have developed his credibility with the audience better, because they would think that if someone who is known for fixing taxes and supports flat taxes, my overall argument would have more credibility.
Compared to my first paper, the second paper was a relative success. I would say that it was above average. Major Garriott said, “THIS IS SUCH AN IMPROVEMENT OVER PAPER 1!” (“Department of State Budget Cuts, Page 7). In the first essay, my professor wrote 22 comments on things that needed to be fixed. On the second paper, she wrote only three (two if you don’t count one for grammar). This shows I improved because she did not find any parts where I was lacking an argument or confusing my audience.