First off I really enjoyed the
quote as an attention grabber for the argument. It really fits with your
argument that we should be able to see real-world images. However, you tend to
lose the reader when you make the statement hoping for a perfect utopia with no
violence. At the end of the introductory paragraph, there is no clear direction
in which you go. From your thesis you believe that real-world images should be shown,
but you never justify this claim with reasons. I suggest that you make an
argument why the public should see the images. Talk about certain principles
that censorship violates and why this is morally problematic.
The
second paragraph offers more of a solution than stating a violation of a
certain principle. This should be included more in the proposal argument. The
paragraph also lacks a criteria that is associated with your thesis. To improve
this, a suggestion could be to layout a principle on why we should not censor,
explain it, and defend it with some research you have found on this issue. You
could also weigh this issue, making your argument that much more effective.
The
criteria in the third paragraph is very ambiguous. I have a tough time seeing
where you are trying to go with this paragraph. It also does not really relate
to your thesis that there should not be any censorship. My suggestion would be
to have a second criteria that defends the public's right to see these violent
images. To bolster this paragraph you could include another piece of evidence
that is pertinent to this criteria.
The
piece of evidence used in the fourth paragraph is one that could be challenged
by a skeptical audience. The biggest problem readers could find in the piece of
evidence is that it does not have anything to really do with your thesis. How
the media covered the Iraq War, from the perspective of the smaller countries
involved compared to that for more prominent countries, does not enhance your argument
that we should see real-world violent images. The analysis of the quote focuses
more on the corruption in the media, which could be a criteria you are trying
to argue; however that criteria is not clearly addressed in the paragraph. If
that is your criteria, you might have to defend it because everyone might not
agree with it.
What
could greatly benefit your argument is an inclusion of the opposing views to
your position. Once doing that, discredit them and your argument would be that
much better. Another improvement could be to also better your conclusion. It is
an abrupt stop to your argument. I think you should wrap everything up succinctly.
If
the thesis is improved, you argument will be that much better. Give an explanation
on why we should not censor violent images for the public. In your body
paragraphs, present certain principles that relate back to your thesis. Use
compelling evidence to argue your thesis. Once this is done, your argument will
be that much more compelling.
For Soudabeh Sabour
No comments:
Post a Comment