Derek Tremblay
Major Garriott
ERH 102-11
20 April 2017
My Progressions in Writing This Year at VMI
For me, writing has always been something that I have avoided. In high school I dreaded writing papers and I only took the basic classes so that I wouldn’t have to do the work required to write a decent paper. I was never taught how to write and when I did do one of the few papers I was assigned in high school the teacher never game me constructive criticism that would help me write, or improve, my paper. When I started taking classes at VMI I was still hoping to avoid writing, but once we got the syllabus on the first day it became clear that I would not be able to do that. Taking ERH at VMI has helped me in the writing process tremendously. Before taking, and even while taking, ERH I didn’t know how to write, my papers lacked order, my thesis statements were not always connected to my central argument, my body paragraphs lacked structure and a topic sentence, and the research for my papers was biased and didn’t connect with my audience, I didn’t use sources that my audience saw as credible and it hurt the validity of my papers. Constructive help from my teacher and the Writing Center has not only helped my papers but has turned me into a better writer.
Sources I originally put into my paper were biased and were detrimental to the credibility of my paper to the audience. The first assignment we were given in class was to write an essay arguing against a topic that we were in support of to a lawmaker. I chose Planned Parenthood, a topic that I knew almost nothing about. This was because I wanted to learn more about Planned Parenthood and using it as the topic for my paper would force me to research, and learn more about it. Unfortunately I didn’t research well enough, the sources I used in my paper were mostly straight from the Planned Parenthood website. Major Garroitt pointed out “First, you need to find better, more credible, academic sources. You over rely on planned Parenthood’s sources. Planned Parenthood is going to advocate for itself, it has to (qtd. in “Federal Funding for Women’s Health” 6). These sources, of course, supported my argument well but when writing the paper I didn’t think about my audience. A lawmaker against Planned Parenthood isn’t going to take seriously my argument if it is full of biased sources that are known for supporting Planned Parenthood, of the Planned Parenthood website for that matter. I received a “D” on this assignment, and it was because of the terrible sources I had put to use in my paper. In my revision I eliminated almost all of the sources from Planned Parenthood and I replaced them with unbiased academic sources.
Another problem I had was I would veer off from my central argument and I would add in other points that were not relevant to the point I was trying to make. In the first paper I make the argument that Planned Parenthood should continue to be funded because of the services that they provide not related to abortion. Then, in a body paragraph, I try to explain why abortion is ethical and the right thing to do in some cases. Major Garriott commented “So why are you talking about abortion if you’re focusing on non-abortive services? This hurts your argument (qtd. in “Federal Funding for Women’s Health” 3). My paper was focused on one thing and I wrote a paragraph that wasn’t on topic and that hurt my argument. In my revisions I completely deleted the paragraph so that my argument would be centralized. My audience is entirely against abortion and my whole paper up until that point caters to them and their beliefs. They would not receive my whole paper well because I have a paragraph that is in support of abortion and they are in strong support of banning abortion.
I made many overall improvements in the second paper we did in the class this semester which was a research paper on a topic we were in support of. However, I missed an opportunity in my paper to include examples from people effected by the issue. I explained how the censorship of video games is a hit on the free speech of people within the game industry. This would have been a good time to strengthen my argument by adding examples from developers and people directly in the gaming industry such as game designers or artists. Major Garriott commented “Your argument resonate more if you brought in the voices of people in the game design industry. What do they have to say on the issue of free speech.? (qtd. in “Why Violence Shouldn’t Be Taken out of Video Games” 3). In my revision I found a quote from a game designer explaining his position on the issue and explaining how much of an impact video games plays on his daily life including paying the bills. Including this comment strengthened my argument and allowed for my paper to connect to my audience as to why video games are without a doubt a good thing for people.
With in class lectures, peer reviews, comments from Major Garriott, and help from the writing center my writing skills this semester have improved bigly this year in taking ERH at VMI.