BENCHMARK 4According to the materials that was given out on the Critical Thinking model andthe Paper Writing model, I think Meg Greenfield's essay, "In Defense of theAnimals" is better than Lou Marano's essay, "Arms and the Women: Would aSexually Mixed U.S. Army Lose its Wars." I believe Greenfield's essay is betterorganized because she has a clear and do-able thesis statement and logicallydistinct arguments that match the thesis, while Marano has an unclear thesisstatement and arguments that lack doability. I also believe that Greenfield'sessay is better developed because her paper contains specific backgroundinformation as well as detailed examples that supports her arguments, whileMarano's essay contain insufficient background information and biasedexamples.I believe Greenfield wrote a better argumentative paper than Marano in terms oforganization. Our CT/PW models state that in order for an essay to beconsidered to have good organization it must contain two things: a clear thesisstatement and logically distinct arguments that matches the thesis. Greenfieldsucceeded in fulfilling these two requirements. She presented a clear thesisstatement in her first paragraph. Her thesis statement was "Although I still don'tsupport all of what animal rights activist stand for, I have to admit that they havebegun to get to me and I have changed some of my former belief andprejudices." Because she used "I" in her thesis, this made her thesis less biasedand more specific towards the topic that she wants to address. And because sheis only expressing her opinions, her essay is do-able. By presenting herthesisstatement early in the essay and using clean transitions throughout her paper,she is making apparent the direction that the article will be going so that heraudience can easily follow it.Greenfield also presented logically distinct arguments that match her thesis. Herarguments match her thesis because she gives examples of how the animal rightactivists succeeded in changing her views on animal testing. For example, herfirst argument says that as patronizing as it may sound, zealots are requiredearly on in any movement if it is to succeed in altering the sensibility oftheleaden masses. For this argument, she explains how the animal right activistshave succeeded in getting her attention and begun to affect her previous beliefs.This definitely supports her thesis. Her second argument is that justifiablepurposes such as medical research are shamelessly used as a cover forotheractivities that are wanton. This logically supports her thesis because this is whatshe believes now after listening to those who are against animals testing.Animals are in fact used for many commercial purposes, not just for the sake ofmedical research. Her third argument is that people tend to be sentimentaltoward animals in their fictional form, yet are indifferent to them in reality. In thisargument, she tries to explain that though most people are sentimental towardanimals, she is not one of them. This supports her thesis in that this is anotherone of her beliefs. Her fourth argument is that she has the right to holdcontradictory views. Though it may sound contradictory, she is arguingthat it isokay to believe that it is alright to kill animals for some purposes, but not to hurtthem gratuitously or make them suffer horribly for one's own trivial whims. Again,this supports her thesis because this is another one of her opinions. Looking atall of her arguments, it is easy to see that these four arguments are very differentfrom each other and that they do in fact match the thesis. This relationshipbetween the thesis and supporting arguments is what our CT/PW models statesas the critical determining factor for good organization. This is the reason why Ithink Greenfield has the better essay.In Marano's essay, however, the organization is very poor. First of all, his thesisstatement seems a little broad and unclear. His thesis is that he basically thinksthat expanding the role for women in the U.S. armed force is demonstrably a badidea. Here he fails to indicate what types of women he is talking about.Thismakes me wonder whether he is discussing women in general or a particulargroup of women based upon different ages or different ethnic backgrounds. Healso failed to define the word "expanded role". I am not sure whether he is talkingabout an expanded role in all aspect of the army or just when the women are inactual combat. Secondly, he failed to present logically distinct arguments. Hemixes his supporting arguments up so badly that it is very hard to tell where onestarts and another begins. This caused such a problem for me that it made iteven made it hard to tell how many arguments there actually were in his paper.For example, in paragraph seven, he presented his first argument, which wasthat men fight better than women. He gave an example of how womencouldhave not done better than men in their ability to carry ammunition crates andsandbags. In the sentence that immediately follows, he begins his new argumentwhich is men generally fight better when women are not there to distract them.There was not a hint of a transition where the audience can easily say that hereis where a new argument begins. As I said before, the key to good organizationaccording to our CT/PW models is whether or not the arguments matchthethesis. Because of Marano's tendency to "run" arguments into oneanother, itwas very difficult to separate his arguments. And if we are not sure of what hisarguments are, there is no way possible for us to see if his arguments actuallymatch his thesis statement. Finally, given his thesis and background, hisarguments are not do-able. Our models state that arguments should bedo-ablegiven the writer's expertise and background as well as time/space available in theessay. Because of the author's lack expertise in this subject matter andbecausethere is limited time and space in the paper, it is clear that there is no way forMarano to "prove" to a degree of factual certainty that an expanded role forwomen in the U.S. armed forces is a bad idea. For these reasons, Maranocannot be considered to have a better argumentative paper than Greenfield interms of organization.I believe that Greenfield's essay is also better developed than Marano'sessay.Our CT/PW models state that development consists of two importantcomponents: background information and presentation of evidence. Backgroundinformation is any information that enables the
View Full Document
Unlocking...