I have decided to take a different approach to this final assignment, but not without good reason for doing so.
The paper simply is not salvageable.
This is certainly pessimistic, yet written in a hopeful tone: that you will accept this stance on your final assignment.
I am going to be totally candid about my feelings toward this paper. It is bad, terrible, awful, no good, and simply wrong. There is nothing I can do to fix it in its current state, without completely rewriting it. I cannot repair it. I can only scrap it and start anew. With that being said, this will be the topic of my reflection. The paper has poor citation, poor structure, poor arguments, and even though I slaved away for hours to try and fix it, poor grammatical structure …show more content…
There is a distinct lack of rhetorical integrity or drive contained within the paper. It speaks of safety but does not ever define safety. It speaks of the benefits of safety but does not support these benefits through statistics. “It can be beneficial to those who apply it properly (following the appropriate safety codes)” - What are the appropriate safety codes? What will happen if I don’t follow them properly? The paper certainly does answer these questions but by the time it does it answers them too much. Paragraphs are dedicated to the listing of multiple safety codes, but not once does it mention the benefits of following them. Not a single time are numbers brought into play throughout this paper. The paper hearkens to the idea that improving workplace safety will lead to an improvement in production efficiency and cost efficiency, but where is this substantialized? What evidence is contained within the paper that de facto justifies the inclusion of these claims and supports them on solid …show more content…
As an example, “Safety and Health Topics” does not particularly support a claim that workers should “concern themselves with their own health and safety.” And neither does this claim support the original notion that employers should be the proprietors of workplace safety. Should a worker look after his own safety? Of course. But when the argument of one’s paper is to say that employers should maintain a safe environment, it is quite wanting to then claim the opposite: that employees are most responsible for themselves. If this is the stance one takes, then clearly it should be emphasized and not brushed under the rug with naught but a single mention in passing, which does not support the initial claim. Rather instead, it would be a better idea to take the conflicting ideas and parade them as your claim and explain how they work in unison, or if they do not, how they should. Conflicting ideologies that can easily be brethren make for a much more interesting and exigent critique of the current situation than a weak claim with evidence that negates
The paper simply is not salvageable.
This is certainly pessimistic, yet written in a hopeful tone: that you will accept this stance on your final assignment.
I am going to be totally candid about my feelings toward this paper. It is bad, terrible, awful, no good, and simply wrong. There is nothing I can do to fix it in its current state, without completely rewriting it. I cannot repair it. I can only scrap it and start anew. With that being said, this will be the topic of my reflection. The paper has poor citation, poor structure, poor arguments, and even though I slaved away for hours to try and fix it, poor grammatical structure …show more content…
There is a distinct lack of rhetorical integrity or drive contained within the paper. It speaks of safety but does not ever define safety. It speaks of the benefits of safety but does not support these benefits through statistics. “It can be beneficial to those who apply it properly (following the appropriate safety codes)” - What are the appropriate safety codes? What will happen if I don’t follow them properly? The paper certainly does answer these questions but by the time it does it answers them too much. Paragraphs are dedicated to the listing of multiple safety codes, but not once does it mention the benefits of following them. Not a single time are numbers brought into play throughout this paper. The paper hearkens to the idea that improving workplace safety will lead to an improvement in production efficiency and cost efficiency, but where is this substantialized? What evidence is contained within the paper that de facto justifies the inclusion of these claims and supports them on solid …show more content…
As an example, “Safety and Health Topics” does not particularly support a claim that workers should “concern themselves with their own health and safety.” And neither does this claim support the original notion that employers should be the proprietors of workplace safety. Should a worker look after his own safety? Of course. But when the argument of one’s paper is to say that employers should maintain a safe environment, it is quite wanting to then claim the opposite: that employees are most responsible for themselves. If this is the stance one takes, then clearly it should be emphasized and not brushed under the rug with naught but a single mention in passing, which does not support the initial claim. Rather instead, it would be a better idea to take the conflicting ideas and parade them as your claim and explain how they work in unison, or if they do not, how they should. Conflicting ideologies that can easily be brethren make for a much more interesting and exigent critique of the current situation than a weak claim with evidence that negates