The writer was not keen on following all the instructions as they were given. He/she did not highlight important points in the essay, important elements are also missing in the draft. The draft is eight pages long. The length is good enough, this is to enable the writer to tackle all the important points in-depth and comfortably.
The title and the introduction should be as short as possible, interesting and catchy. However the introduction used is not detailed, it is plain and straight to the point. The introduction begins with rhetorical questions, this literary device is used to invoke the reader to think and remember situations that are in relation to the topic of discussion. The introduction brings our focus to the point of discussion. It therefore establishes a context for the essay.
The peer is not clear as to whether they support or do not support the use of the cochlear. In some instances in the essay he/she encourages the use of the cochlear while in other instances the confidence in the cochlear is withdrawn.
The author keenly looks at the advantages and the disadvantages of the cochlear. The side effects that come with the use of that device are also highlighted; meningitis is given as one of the detrimental side effects. Statistics for victims of meningitis have also been provided.
Some points are not fully developed, the writer should have looked into the successes stories of the patients that have used the ocochealer. Statistics should have been provided and a comparison between the success and failure created. This I believe would have shed more light on the effectiveness of the device.
The counterclaim has not been discussed objectively; there are some aspects that have been left out. The author can also not credibly account for the sources in which the counterclaims are drawn from. Thus the counterclaim is not portrayed fairly and has not been completed.
The rebuttal has not been fully developed as required; response to the counter argument is not focused on. The author has used contradicting arguments for example; he/she sheds light on the importance of having the cochlear at a tender age and the advantages that come with that. The contradicting argument is that peer emphasizes on the need to have the child make their own decision in regards to whether to have the cochlear or not. By the time the child I of the age to make rational decisions, it might be too late and the child might end up going through the side effects.
The draft has not been arranged well. Ideas are not flowing as required, some paragraphs are too brief and one cannot make a lot of sense from them. Adding relevant information would help the reader make more sense of the essay. From the counterclaim to the rebuttal one cannot easily transit. The author did not create a smooth transition from the counterclaim to the rebuttal.
The conclusion is effective in that it has opened a reflection on the availability of other options to help the deaf other than use of the cochlear. The connection between the introduction and the conclusion is also evident.
The author has should re arrange the paragraphs and build on them a little to 0faciitate the flow of ideas from one paragraph to another. Research skills should be worked on, the author has not used the required number of academic sources. In-text citations have been used but not following the MLA format which should have the authors last name and the page number. The page number was omitted in this case. The work cited page has not been done well according to the MLA 7th edition style. The work cited page is disorganized and not well done.
Cite this page
Peer's Essay Analysis Example. (2019, Sep 30). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/cochlear-implants-for-children
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal: