Thane Rolston
Reflective Essay
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 arguing data and sources to show their relevance rather than summarizing them and by 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 made 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. A typical paragraph of mine 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. My professor noted that one of the biggest problems of this paragraph and my writing over all is that I give lots of data, but do not do much to explain it to the audience. I have come to learn that I should not do this because it allows my reader to develop their own conclusion that could potentially go against what I am trying to use the data to explain. when I started to go into detail about what my evidence means and why it is relevant, it allows me to control the narrative, I have3 the ability to tell you why something is important and what it really means.
When I was writing my second paper, I decided to come in and meet with my professor more than I did with my first paper. Throughout my sessions with my professor, I really began to understand the problems with my writing and ways to fix those problems. 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. In my first paper, I was making topic sentences for paragraphs, for example, “While the world knows about the Four Asian Tigers, countries with explosive economic growth, many have never heard of the Three Baltic Tigers, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania (“Department of State Budget Cuts”, Page 2).” The problem with this topic sentence is that there it is not an argument. It leaves me as a writer nothing to argue in the paragraph, and tells the reader nothing as to what they are reading about. In my second paper, a typical topic sentence is, “If the project fails, it could have disastrous consequences with regards to America’s fight against extremists (“Department of State Budget Cuts”, Page 2)”. What improved in this topic sentence is that unlike in previous topic sentences is that it tells the reader what they are about to read, which makes the paragraph simpler for them. Also, I have a claim to be argued. In a paper that is persuasive, I as a writer need to be able to make claims and support them to validate my argument.
While identifying problems in my writing is important, developing solutions matters just as much. I started to not write introductions to my paragraphs until I was done with the paragraph. Because I did this, I could go through what I had written and develop an introduction that I know would be representative of what my paragraph would be about. When I put in evidence, I would wait a bit reread what I have written and ask myself, “is there a chance that I can draw my own conclusion from what is written?” After doing this I would think if about if there were any holes in my argument, and fill them. Doing this also prevented me from simply summarizing data and evidence.
Over the course of English 102, I have progressed as a writer when it comes to writing arguments. I have gone from not making arguments in my papers and only summarizing data to developing and sustaining arguments throughout the essay, and arguing to the reader why the data I present is relevant and how it supports my argument.
Works Cited
Garriott, Diedre “Department of State Budget Cuts.” ERH-102. Comments, VMI, 2017.
Garriott, Diedre “Fixing the American Economy by Implementing a Flat Tax Policy.” ERH-102. Comments, VMI, 2017.
Rolston, Thane “Department of State Budget Cuts.” ERH-102. Paper, VMI, 2017.
Rolston, Thane “Fixing the American Economy by Implementing a Flat Tax Policy.” ERH-102. Paper, VMI, 2017.