I feel like the following point was the muddiest for me: “The point of this paper is not to argue for or against a position (such as abortion, immigration, the death penalty, etc.), but rather to select something from which there are a range of similar choices.” Doing this post now after actually doing my assignment, I’m especially not sure I understood this correctly. Some of the papers I was reading for the peer review used topics that I didn’t think were appropriate to use after reading this. Maybe I made this paper much more difficult for me than it really was supposed to be??? Maybe some examples with different type of topics would have made it clearer. For example, comparing dogs to cats and other pets was being used by someone I reviewed. I didn’t think this would have been okay to use as the other animals are not that similar. Or did I make it more complicated than it was? You could have put examples, like comparing different computers with similar options, phones, TV’s, compare animals to see which one makes best pet.
The guidelines on what was expected in regards to transitions, margins, conclusion,… were very clear. Also the deadlines were very clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment