Liberal Intolerance Pros And Cons

Cassidy paper wrote her paper on “Liberal Intolerance” argued against the author topic due to lack of credibility. What I like best about this paper was, she was able to go into detail about the article, and I was able to understand the article without reading it. What parts that were strongly written was Cassidy introduction paragraph. The hook brought me in, and I could she her thesis stated clearly. What in the paper seemed confusing is what areas the author lacked beside creditability. Did she also lack in pathos and logos? It was hard for me to catch out. Why I was confused cause she through essay she main focus was why the author lack creditability. But she explains what part were good about the author by why certain parts where she could start to lose her audience. The part the writer could clarify a …show more content…
Then all cons. “she could’ve of argued her opinions to why she believes being far left is on the rise, she could have argues why this is something conservatives should be extremely worried about” (Cassidy) is paragraph, Cassidy using the word “could” again doesn’t show what the author of the did and didn’t do. The repeated word “could” only indicates possibility. On the construction side, I think the introduction was strong, there was enough summary of the article in the beginning, I saw her hook, and thesis statement. I wouldn’t make any changes to the introduction. Where the author could improve on the organization is trying to balance out the positives of the articles and the negative. The essay only give me the negatives of the article. She could improve in the beginning by start of like this where the author shows good ethos, logos and pathos. And then next paragraph this where the author lose her credibility an audience in the article. Yes the topic sentences were clear and adequately introduce what each paragraph was going to address.one topic sentence that could be revise is “Another problem I have with this article…” it shows more