Opinions wanted

[CezeN]

Edit

[Jayelle]

Temptation is an issue that humankind has been struggling to overcome. Sometimes it’s the temptation to fight, other times it’s the temptation to steal. Emotions tempt us into irrational actions. Due to advancements in society, food is plentiful. As a result, we Americans have been losing to the temptation to eat tasty unhealthy food. Stereotypically Americans are known for being fat and unhealthy. Statistically over 400,000 premature deaths are attributed to obesity. From this, I’ve concluded that most individuals fail those private mental battles against temptation, and then just decide to stuff their faces. That is why I think the government has a responsibility to make healthy food a public issue.

First off, a little language/history lesson: Essay means "attempt", so in an essay what you're doing is trying on an opinion- you are attempting to prove something. It doesn't matter whether or not you've decided in your mind that the government has a responsibility to make healthy food a public issue - you are arguing that is is.

Therefore, make your first sentence your thesis (and some people may argue with this, but I think you should). Take out the "I think", state it like it's fact: The government has a responsibility to make healthy food a public issue.

Secondly, every single one of your sentences is a simple sentence. Every single one only contains one thought, sometimes not even one thought. Read it out loud to yourself, coming to a full stop at every period. Sounds weird doesn't it?

Thirdly, the whole part at the beginning about temptation is kind of you talking out of your ass.

Fourthly, "stuff their faces" is not really a phrase you should put in an essay.

Without rewriting the whole thing for you or going over every sentence bit by bit, that's my best advice.

[CezeN]

Thanks.
I was taught the start vague then get specific approach. And I know one of my teachers say we should give background info before we get to the thesis.

[powerfulcheese04]

You can still start vague and get specific without sounding like BS.

However, it is hard, in my opinion, to write a good intro before you write a paper. So, you could weave the temptation angle through your paper, but right now, it just sounds like filler.

Another good tip is to read everything out loud. Better, have it read to you. If it sounds stilted and unnatural, that's because it is.

I also don't like personal references in essays. And saying you "think" something really weakens your position.


ETA: an example of mine that is pretty short, got an A and goes from general to specific. Explainatory comments in italics.

"Nearly everyone in our contemporary society watches television at some point in their lives, whether it’s catching their favorite show once a week or watching the news every day as they get ready for their day or playing the television in the background as they do something else. In addition to television, people are bombarded with stimuli from the radio, movies, magazines, newspapers, and the internet.
The above is really general, and sets up the rest of what I'm talking about. IT also links the paper to the here and now. The next sentence gets more specific, introducing the novel the paper is talking about.
This omnipresence of the media is one of the central concerns Don DeLillo addresses in his media-centric novel White Noise. DeLillo’s characters fall into O’Day’s description of a postmodern television viewer as one who is generally “unconcerned with narrative, coherence or rational understanding.” (O’Day 107)
This got even more specific, bringing in a cited source, and introducing the critical theory being used.
Despite the seeming negativity of this characterization of society and DeLillo’s characters, the media in White Noise functions as both an insidious force—through the effects of the coverage of the “airborne toxic event” and the reading of the tabloids—and as a comforting force through the coverage of disasters. This last sentence was the thesis of the paper."

Does that help it make more sense?[/i]

[Eddie Pinz]

I have never considered myself a great writer, but I always did very well on essays for one reason: Organization. I am not very good at critiquing writing, but I'll give you some general rules that I used to follow while writing a paper.

1. Know what your thesis is. The intro can wait, the thesis is the important part. I almost always had the thesis as the last sentence in the intro. But,regardless of where you put the thesis, it needs to be strong, clear and concise. If the thesis is not well thought out or cannot really be supported, the paper never really has a chance.

2. Organize. Come up with ideas(ideas that can be supported with evidence!) of why your thesis is truth. Basically, how I write, each idea and its support becomes its own paragraph in the essay.

3. Flow. You have to be able to transition to your next point. You need a logical progression in the support of your thesis. If you have a strong thesis and good support, the paper can still fail if it doesn't flow nicely.

4. Intro/Conclusion. This is strictly how I worked, so I am not saying it will work for you. I usually start with some type of imagery or symbol in the intro. Looks like you might be trying to use temptation. They key is to build on the symbol, weave it into the body of the essay and come back to it in the conclusion.

Depending on how long the essay is, I would like to get my thoughts organized and then write a draft in one sitting. Then get away from it. Let it sit there for a day or two, then come back to it. That always helped me see what is working and what isn't.

[CezeN]

Thanks for the helpful criticism.

[CezeN]

EDIT

[lyons24000]

To me your sentences are too short and choppy. I tend to do that, too, when I write and so I read over it to see how I did. Most of the time I add commas are semicolons and remove some of the periods. Watch out, though, if you're like me I can overdo it with the commas!

[Oliver Dale]

Be careful of simply joining two sentences by replacing a period with a comma. That may lead to a spliced sentence which is worse than two simplistic, but correct, sentences.

[CezeN]

EDIT

[human.]

I haven't read your paper but for the intro and a few sentences here and there, but I wanted to suggest that you refrain from using terms such as "I" and "We", and I didn't see this one, but "You" as well. This sounds informal.

When you write, "By analyzing the history of our government, we can see that the regulation of unhealthy practices date back to our colonial life under British rule," instead of using "We can see that," using a phrase such as "it is evident that" sounds stronger. (Of course, if you do that, you would have to change "our" as well, to fit the sentence.)

I'm not a teacher, but I am in a fairly academics-driven high school that has a good AP English department, which states in its grading criteria that a paper that receives a C "represents average college level work." This specific rule (of not using "I" or "We" or "You") is overly stressed in every level of English at my high school, though.

Edit: I just read the paragraph after the introduction. In it, you present your topic sentence, fact, fact, fact, then end with a conclusion drawn from these facts. It would be wise to input analysis between these facts, slowly building up the point you are making in this paragraph.

Edit, again: Looking back at past research papers, I realized that "We" is okay to use, when it can increase your emotional appeal to your audience. If it makes your statement seem informal, though, it is still better to change it.

[human.]

.............................Without Help Temptation Triumphs


...............Temptation is an issue that humankind has been struggling to
overcome. Sometimes it’s the temptation to fight, other times it’s the temptation to steal. Temptation can be found in any aspect of our lives, as a factor that influences us despite what logic might say otherwise. Due to advancements in society, food is more plentiful and easier to access than it was in the past. As a result, we Americans have been falling under the temptation to eat favorable, unhealthy food and have been prone to overindulge. Consequently, serious health problems have developed, such as obesity, diabetes, and high cholesterol; all of which are dangerous and potentially deadly. Americans are stereotyped as being fat and unhealthy, while statistically over 400,000 premature deaths are attributed to obesity annually. From these facts and generalizations, I’ve observed that most individuals fail those private mental battles against temptation in favor of satisfying their taste buds, or addictions due to them being fought in the individual’s domain. The government has a responsibility to make healthy food a public issue, since the individuals have obviously failed to overcome temptation time and time again.

As a general rule, I would refrain from using conjunctions in essays.

Some parts of this introduction make broad generalizations, such as, " As a result, we Americans have been falling under the temptation to eat favorable, unhealthy food and have been prone to overindulge. "
If you are trying to persuade your audience in this paper, then it is probably unwise to tell them that they can't control their urges (supposing your audience is Americans, which I suspect that your teacher is). Also, as I previously posted, the "we" doesn't really help in this case, though this is more because your audience could feel insulted by your insinuation that they have no control over their temptations. (See, how I insinuated that you wrote that sentence that way on purpose?) This happens again when you write, "From these facts and generalizations, I..."

Also, for your thesis statement, the first half is good, but the second half again implies something that could be considered slightly offensive by the person reading this. Maybe try something like, "in order to aid Americans in becoming a healthier people." Try something that promotes a better person, but does not blame the person for the problem (even if it is their fault).

This sentence, "Americans are stereotyped as being fat and unhealthy, while statistically over 400,000 premature deaths are attributed to obesity annually," doesn't actually make sense. Generally, "while" (in this situation) will present something contradictory to the first clause. Yet, in this sentence, you simply state something that shares new, different information.

.............By analyzing the history of our government, we can see that the regulation of unhealthy practices date back to our colonial life under British rule. In 1646, Massachusetts issued the first recorded smoking regulation, on U.S. soil. The General Court banned smoking for all citizens within a five mile radius of town, making it one of the earliest recorded forms of health regulation in the United States. A year later, Connecticut limited smoking to one stick a day for all citizens. Then, the state of North Dakota banned the cigarette trade in 1895. A total ban of cigarettes was implemented in Tennessee in 1898. By the twentieth century, the sale of cigarettes was outlawed in Iowa, Tennessee, North Dakota, and Washington. The first American anti-smoking organization was formed in 1899, called The Anti-Cigarette League. In 1920, the United States passed the Eighteenth Amendment, which attempted to prohibit the importing, exporting, selling, and manufacturing of intoxicating beverages. This law survived for thirteen years, until 1933. Based on statistics, trans-fat causes tens of thousands of premature deaths every year, therefore on July 11, 2003 the Food and Drug Administration passed a law requiring manufacturers to list trans-fats on the nutrition label. Considering all this information, I think we can already draw one conclusion: Americans have had a history with forced health regulations. They have been with us throughout American history, and thus a tax on unhealthy food would be considered a continuation of age-old ideas.

I already commented on this paragraph, but consider cutting out a few facts and replacing them with well-reasoned commentary as to how doing these things to prevent an unhealthy practice is effective and why the government should repeat their actions in order to make Americans healthier.

Also, what point are you making with this paper? Is it that the government should make the consumption of unhealthy food a public issue? Or is it that government should regulate it, or provide incentives for eating healthier food?

For each paragraph, make sure what you're saying has a point, and that that point builds upon your original thesis statement.

Er, and do you need to cite your sources? I don't know what your teacher or school's policy is, but I'm just wondering because not citing references can result in plagiarism charges..

...........Wendy McElroy stated, “The ban continues a growing movement for greater regulation of the food Americans eat”(The Independent Institute). With this increased demand for regulation comes an increased amount of opposition. Some that oppose government intervention argue that obesity is similar to high-risk sports such as sky-diving and football, as one of those pleasurable dangerous lifestyles. Therefore, where would we draw the line at health regulations? Would we start levying taxes for playing dangerous sports? However, as Jacob Rheuban claimed, Americans generally accept certain behavioral regulations, such as smoking. Though in the same unhealthy lifestyle category, it is considered different from other risky activities. The obesity health issue is more comparable to smoking, and thus can be included on the list of accepted behavioral regulations. Others say that taxing unhealthy food would be an economical attack on those industries. On the other hand, the taxes will produce badly needed revenues that could be used to fight the obesity problem through education and treatment. “The economic cost of obesity in the United States was about $117 billion in 2000”(jacobrheuban.com). We could possibly save billions of dollars by lowering the amount of unhealthy food sold in America. Some parents may think that they can stuff whatever food they want down their children’s throat. Harming the health of their children, however, could be considered bad parenting and even health negligence. “It won’t have any effect. Look at smoking; the government tax smoking, but people still smoke. Tax on petrol has not stopped people driving”(Economics Help). Though this point is true, the tax isn’t overestimated as being able to stop obesity in its entirety. It is designed to put off unhealthy eaters from buying as much junk food as they already do, in order to decrease their obesity. Although the healthy food tax would be passed to help the obese, some citizens think that it is just another scheme to raise government revenue. Is that really a bad thing though? Government revenues, if applied to the right areas, could be used to stimulate the economy out of its current recession.

You start this paragraph with a quote. What on earth does it mean? What ban is it talking about? A good idea is to always start your paragraph with a topic sentence that relates back to your thesis. This way, you know that you're on the right track and are building onto the point of your paper.

Watch your diction. Saying "Some parents may think that they can stuff whatever food they want down their children’s throat," is not something I would advise. Remember that you are presenting your ideas to an audience, not yourself. So while it's definitely okay to color the paper with your opinions, do it in a manner that helps your paper be stronger. Your audience might be a parent, and, in general, parents usually attempt to get their children to eat healthily, not unhealthily.

This is a concession paragraph, basically, which is good. Ethical appeals to show your credibility can really help. But in it, you present multiple ideas that kind of detract from each other because they are either not properly refuted or not completely acknowledged. One way to change this is by sprinkling your concessions throughout your body paragraphs, so that you can make a concession, then refute it, then build upon why it would be better to do it the way you're supporting.

..........A junk food tax is the most promising method, but there are other ways to publicly fight the consumption of unhealthy food as a nation. School health reforms can be used to thwart beginning of the addiction in kids at a young age. This can be done by decreasing the amount of snack and soda machines on public school campuses, banning the sale of candy in the school lunch lines, and increasing the mandatory number of physical education credits needed to graduate. Another more expensive method would be to increase the school funding for exercise and workout machines, since kids might try to maintain their good physiques by cutting down on unhealthy food, but that is almost an unruly request. It would also help, as stated earlier, if parents would start taking an interest in the type foods they buy their children to eat. Americans have made a habit out of eating foods cooked in grease and fat, which for the most part can be avoided. We could try using solely using low-fat cooking oil, or PAM.

As others have suggested, read each sentence aloud, or get someone to read them aloud. Leave a few seconds before you start your next sentence, and ask your self if the sentence you just heard made sense to you.

Try this one: "Another more expensive method would be to increase the school funding for exercise and workout machines, since kids might try to maintain their good physiques by cutting down on unhealthy food, but that is almost an unruly request."

Also, try to have a source to quote (or paraphrase, etc) from in every paragraph. It makes your argument stronger because your audience can see that others support the same idea.

Again, you're taking a shot at parents as a whole, when many try to do what is the absolute best for their children when you write, "It would also help, as stated earlier, if parents would start taking an interest in the type foods they buy their children to eat."

..........An alternative would be to offer tax reductions to companies for lowering the amount of calories in their products. This would provide an incentive for the junk food companies to use fewer calories in their product, which they could use to produce more and make more sells. Also, a reduction on the price of healthy food, in companion with the tax on junk food would steer consumers away towards healthy food. Cheaper prices would appeal to the mass of the American public.

Again, try to have a source to back up your thoughts. Also, look at the size of this paragraph compared to the others. Make sure that you're including enough information to make a point, with elaboration.

.........Consider this, if tomorrow someone were to invent a cigarette that did no damage to your body, and had no effect on your health, would you think the tobacco companies would make more money? Would cigarettes be more appealing to more people? Possibley. Would their now daily customers continue buying packs and cartons without the risk of disease or death, thus increasing the length of their life and the more times they will buy the product in their lifetime? Definitely. Now apply this same theory to fast food restaurants around the globe; what if, instead of fatty foods, McDonald's were to start selling steam cooked hamburgers, for less fat? Not only would this help improve taste, but it would keep customers coming back, and satisfied. It may even open up a whole new marketing scheme, thus leading to even more money, and possibly more and more customers.

Isn't there an electronic cigarette being developed that's supposed to be much healthier than regular ones? There are lots of rhetorical questions in this paragraph, which can work. Just be careful that you don't overuse the device.

.........All these methods could efficiently help bring the dangers of unhealthy food into the public eye. The individual, with the backing of the United States government, could overcome the temptation caused by such unwholesome foods. Dieters sometimes diet with the companionship of family and friends. Through government regulations, dieters can now follow the leadership of the whole nation, to overcome their obesity problems.

Again, watch your generalizations: "Through government regulations, dieters can now follow the leadership of the whole nation, to overcome their obesity problems." You have to remember that not all of one type of people are the same. Not all dieters have obesity problems.

Reread your paper. When you get to the conclusion, ask yourself, "What did this paper say?" Look at your thesis. Did you make your point? Did you stay on topic? Are you ending with the same thoughts as you began? You should be. But your thoughts should be much more expanded now. Your audience should be able to see the clear progression from your initial idea to the ways you believe your idea can work/is right to your final conclusion. By the end of your paper, your audience should be able to understand your viewpoint.


Edit: Also! If you're interested, you can always implement rhetorical and syntactical devices in your writing. These simply emphasize your point, or add to the emotional, ethical, and logical appeals of the essay! Simply googling "Rhetorical devices" or "Syntactical Devices" should give you lists and definitions of the different ones you could use to ameliorate your essay.

[CezeN]

Thanks for your advice.
I won't lie, I'm not going to take all of it.
But some of it seems very good. Especially the whole add a source in every paragraph one.

[human.]

Haha, sorry if I went just a bit overboard! I was in a "Let's not do homework, but still do something productive until it's time to learn how to play halo!" mood, and I figured it finally let me put to use the knowledge that they pound into us at school (Er, other than when I use it to write essays...)!