Summary Of Fatalist Attraction By Jane Doe
Critique of Jane Doe's Essay One
January 28, 2003
Critique of "Response to Fatalist Attraction'"
I think you make clear that you agree with Virginia Postrel's point in the essay "Fatalist Attraction" that so-called experts should not be allowed to make medical choices that affect ordinary people, based on the notion that it is wrong for humans to try to change the course of nature. I can tell that you have strong feelings about this topic when you talk about the example of your own family members. But I also like that you are willing to keep an open mind as we learn more about biotechnology and especially about human cloning.
In the first paragraph, I think you provide a good summary of the article and then you end the paragraph with your thesis sentence. It is easy for the reader to understand the main point that you want to make in this sentence. But I think that the first paragraph is a little …show more content…
long and complicated and maybe the reader could follow the summary more easily if you divided that first paragraph into two or three smaller paragraphs. That way your introduction and summary would be several paragraphs instead of just one paragraph but I think that is okay for this kind of essay.
I think that the second paragraph is the best paragraph in the essay because you use a personal example that shows what you mean when you write about ordinary people who benefit from the advancements of science.
I have members of my own family who might benefit from advancements in biotechnology and I don't want anyone to take the opportunity for a longer or better life from them.
The third paragraph is a little harder to understand. I am not sure what you are talking about when you mention the "doctors in their morning coats." What is a morning coat? I suggest you add some more to this paragraph to make your meaning clearer to the reader.
The last paragraph is good because it acknowledges that more research has occurred since the article was written. I think you need to be more specific about what has happened. Also, I don't think you really do anything to refute the points made by people who are against cloning. Instead you just agree with the author Postrel. Maybe you could write about new developments that prove that those "pundits" are
wrong.
Good luck on revising your essay. I think you have done most of the work and just need to add a few more details and improve the argument a little bit. Although I am not really sure that I agree with Postrel or with you, you have done a good job of presenting your point of view that we should keep trying to improve nature and not just accept whatever comes our way.
January 28, 2003
Critique of "Response to Fatalist Attraction'"
I think you make clear that you agree with Virginia Postrel's point in the essay "Fatalist Attraction" that so-called experts should not be allowed to make medical choices that affect ordinary people, based on the notion that it is wrong for humans to try to change the course of nature. I can tell that you have strong feelings about this topic when you talk about the example of your own family members. But I also like that you are willing to keep an open mind as we learn more about biotechnology and especially about human cloning.
In the first paragraph, I think you provide a good summary of the article and then you end the paragraph with your thesis sentence. It is easy for the reader to understand the main point that you want to make in this sentence. But I think that the first paragraph is a little …show more content…
long and complicated and maybe the reader could follow the summary more easily if you divided that first paragraph into two or three smaller paragraphs. That way your introduction and summary would be several paragraphs instead of just one paragraph but I think that is okay for this kind of essay.
I think that the second paragraph is the best paragraph in the essay because you use a personal example that shows what you mean when you write about ordinary people who benefit from the advancements of science.
I have members of my own family who might benefit from advancements in biotechnology and I don't want anyone to take the opportunity for a longer or better life from them.
The third paragraph is a little harder to understand. I am not sure what you are talking about when you mention the "doctors in their morning coats." What is a morning coat? I suggest you add some more to this paragraph to make your meaning clearer to the reader.
The last paragraph is good because it acknowledges that more research has occurred since the article was written. I think you need to be more specific about what has happened. Also, I don't think you really do anything to refute the points made by people who are against cloning. Instead you just agree with the author Postrel. Maybe you could write about new developments that prove that those "pundits" are
wrong.
Good luck on revising your essay. I think you have done most of the work and just need to add a few more details and improve the argument a little bit. Although I am not really sure that I agree with Postrel or with you, you have done a good job of presenting your point of view that we should keep trying to improve nature and not just accept whatever comes our way.