I truly liked the composing manner of this paper. In peculiar. I appreciated the straightness of the statements. claim and thesis. Stating them so obviously makes it easy for the reader to understand the point of view. and therefore the grounds that writer will utilize to endorse their claims. There was besides good usage of qualifiers. What do you like least about this paper? How can it be improved? Overall I enjoyed the paper really much. If I could offer any advice. it would be better passage statements between paragraphs and thoughts. and possibly group the point and counterpoints together. Having them separated as they are may confound some readers. Again. overall. good paper.
Other general remarks?
The facts are at that place. and make back up the claim. I would likely urge adding the survey or guideline information from the American Academy of Pediatrics. They are such a strong authorization figure. and can add considerable weight to the author’s point of view. There are a few cases where some of the sentences are excess. Redundancy can be really effectual to drive a point place. but I wasn’t certain if that was the purpose. Specifically the 4th sentence in the 4th paragraph. FOCUS What is your partner’s thesis or claim? Where is it located? Discuss inquiries or ideas about the claim here. The thesis is “Playing violent picture games can increase aggressive behaviour. ideas. and feelings in immature kids and adults” . It is the 2nd sentence in the first paragraph. It is direct. and to the point. and instantly lets the reader know where article will travel. Make you acquire a sense of the paper’s way and concentrate early on? Why or why non?
The paper instantly lets the reader know that the writer believes that there is a strong correlativity between the force depicted in video games. and the aggression and behavioural jobs in kids. The article follows the thesis with grounds of “imitative” behaviour displayed by kids who are exposed to violent behaviour in video games. Have your spouse identified an issue? Does your spouse split his or her large topic/issue into 3 or 4 chief subdivisions to back up the claim? What are they? The writer identified that violent picture games increase violent behaviour in kids. The writer so uses different examples/sections to back up this statement. She besides uses counter points to demo the other side of the statement. The subdivisions she uses are. violent games. violent media. and parental duty.
DEVELOPMENT / STYLE
Has the capable affair been explored and explained exhaustively? Do you hold inquiries about what is traveling on in any of the subdivisions? What sections need more development? I feel that the issue is reasonably covered and offers both positions of the topic. I would wish to see more of what Parental duty should be. and if there were any authorities ordinances that could. or should be enforced. Make the writer usage any good statement schemes ( initiation. tax write-off. statement by authorization. statistics. etc ) ? Name one. The writer twice used authorization to endorse her claim.
Did the writer usage any unsound logic or fly-by-night techniques ( station hoc. ad hominem. headlong generalisations ) ? If so. where?
There were no direct false beliefs. but there was some redundancies that could be interpreted as round logic. Does the writer usage an effectual debut? What is it? Does the debut catch your involvement? Does it put up the remainder of the paper? Is at that place a originative technique that the writer could add to do his or her debut livelier?
The writer instantly states the place they have taken. which is really effectual in set uping the tone of the paper. Sometimes analogies can be used to assist convey the significance on a different degree to reader. and assist them associate to the issue better.
Does the writer usage an effectual decision scheme? What is it? Does it convey the paper to a satisfactory decision? The writer summarizes the major points of their paper efficaciously. Their anterior paragraph provinces possible solutions. which helps the shutting paragraph be more effectual.
Does the organic structure of the paper follow the organisation suggested by the debut? Slightly ; the introductory paragraph is unfastened. so the paper can travel in different waies. Does each organic structure paragraph have a subject sentence or uniting thought? Could you underline each one? If you had to travel back to sketch this paper. could you? Yes. there is a clear subject sentence. and it would be easy to underscore them. Writing an lineation from the paragraphs would non be hard.
Does the paper have smooth passages from paragraph to paragraph? Does the essay flow good from thought to thought? Where can these links be smoother? I would urge more passage statements to link the paragraphs/ thoughts. These can be used when exchanging between point and counter points.
Were you impeded by grammatical or mechanical mistakes?
There are a few grammatical mistakes. and at times. where it seems that the same sentence is repeated. To be just. my reading comprehension is non great. so it may be that the writer was conveying something different that I understood.