Most students approach an analytical essay with a clear structure defined by a thesis and supporting evidence, each piece of which receives attention in its own paragraph. Although this provides for adequate organization and effortless reading, the essay is often bland and fails to captivate or convince the reader of its argument. During my time as a college student, I have recognized that I struggle with this problem when writing analytical or argumentative essays. My writing process consisted of simply reading the prompt then putting ideas to paper. My writing contained the thoughts and facts, but failed to properly support the argument or create an atmosphere of interest for the reader. I now realize that an essay isn’t made exceptional by these thoughts or facts, it is the process by how these thoughts and facts are developed, presented, and expanded upon.

My writing is characterized by a plethora of personal input and descriptive flow of thought. However, these elements often lead my writing astray or won’t connect to the point that is being argued in an effective way. While using extensive description in a paper intended to convey a personal outdoor experience, my descriptive writing accurately creates an image of the event for the reader, but the writing isn’t controlled and can confuse the reader. The descriptions preceding “Our strength was renewed” in the third paragraph followed by “My resolve was renewed” in the fourth paragraph misleads the reader to false climaxes, while the true climax queued by “the sun greeted us once more” is built up to with much less description than the previous paragraphs (“One More Mountain” 3-4). The cause of this incident can be attributed to multiple factors during my writing process. Instead of organizing my thoughts, I simply let them flow into the paper. While I can understand what I was intending to convey, my thoughts put emphasis on the more memorable challenges during the event. This caused the climax of the paper to seem trivial in comparison to these challenges. A well thought out organization to the paper that planned what it intended the reader to feel throughout and after reading the paper would have focused my thoughts, thus achieving effective description and a proper portrayal of the event.

In my research paper on the argument between drones and fighter pilots, I was allotted more time and planning to organize my thoughts. Although I was forced to perform the planning process because of the curriculum for the grade, both my paper and my personal writing process benefitted. Before I had written “One More Mountain”, other than brainstorming to determine the topic of the paper, there was no planning process at all, I simply wrote as I remembered the event. The planning and preparation I did for the research paper allowed me to focus my thoughts on what I wanted the reader to see and think before, during, and after reading it. Instead of writing from memory, I organized the content of the paper to flow with the thesis I was trying to argue. I used “Uncertain” in the title to leave the reader open to my thoughts and evidence as I progressed from the strengths then weaknesses of the drones followed by the strengths then weaknesses of the pilot (“Man vs. Drone” 1). I used the opening sentences of the paragraphs to set the focus of my thought and what I wanted the reader to focus on. “The drone features many functions that make it invaluable” followed by “The drone…is not perfect” allowed the reader to see the strengths then weaknesses of the drone, after which I introduced the strengths and weaknesses of the pilot and how they complimented each other as a team (“Man vs. Drone” 2-3). This was a strategic process during which I planned to give the reader the information they would be interested in, but also the information that would make them question certain aspects of the weapon system. At that point I introduced or reintroduced the opposing platform, not as a complete alternative, but rather as a joint solution where both would serve their primary purpose. Unlike my first paper, through my planning process prior to writing the paper, I was able to devise and practice this strategy then implement it into my argument. This allowed for a smooth flow of reading and an organization that my reader was able to understand. However, while the paper was smooth and easy to understand, the factual evidence used to support my thesis was usually inadequate and most of the substance that the reader had to rely on was my personal input.

Although my personal input was presented well, the reader had no way of knowing the credibility of my statements; therefore evidence from experts was needed. While I presented quotes from experts, they did little to actually aid what I was trying to present. Instead of supporting quotes that confirmed or backed up what I was saying, I merely gave factual quotes. One such example was when I was describing the capabilities of drones and quoted the statement “about 20 to 24 hours” to inform the reader of its approximate time of operation (qtd. in “Man vs. Drone” 2).  . This quote provided almost no direct support to the evidence, unless the reader had prior knowledge of the operational time of a pilot. I should have used a quote that compared this to the pilot’s operational time to directly show the reader the drone’s advantage, thus adding to the points I was making in the paragraph about where the drone excelled. This would have connected my thoughts with the credibility of experts, giving my paper another level of support when trying to convince the reader of my thesis.  However, there were instances in my writing where I was able to effectively relate a quote to the argument I was making.

Although my research paper contained several quotes that did not connect well with my input to support my thesis, it did contain several correct implementations of quotes that supported my points effectively. In my third paragraph, I used the quote “an infinitely more adaptable platform…” to support my argument that in a combat situation, the pilot was more useful (qtd. in “Man vs. Drone” 4). By using this quote, I was able to show that my analysis had similar conclusions to that of two experts in the aviation world. I was aware that this quotation was stronger than the previous quotes, but until I had reflected upon the paper in preparation for my portfolio assignment, I was unaware that the previous quotes were almost completely useless. Again, through reflection I was able to determine that the faults of my paper were due to poor planning and lack of a well thought out writing process. Instead of writing from my thoughts and the research in front of me, I should have organized the research and looked deeper into the sources to pull out key phrases that would have been beneficial to my argument if quoted correctly. I now recognize that the writing process is vital to organizing your ideas and information and how they can be effectively implemented into the paper.

While I am able to create a paper with intellectual insight with plenty of factual input, my writing process is weak and can have an effect on the flow and credibility of my papers. Although I have not perfected my writing process, the portfolio assignment has given me an opportunity to reflect upon my work. I now understand that without an organized writing process, a paper’s effectiveness in conveying its message is extremely limited.

Works Cited

Singh, Drake. “Man vs. Drone: The Uncertain Future of Military Aviation.” VMI. April 2015.

Singh, Drake. “One More Mountain.” VMI. January 2015.