Blog #7: Contemplation

After looking over the first draft and making corrections, I thought that I had created a pretty good piece of work. However, when I took some time off, read the comments by Paul, and re-evaluated what I thought of as a masterpiece, I realized that there were considerable improvements needed. Firstly, my introduction did a relatively poor job at introducing exactly what I was going to be discussing, whether I thought the argument accomplished its goal, or adequately outlined my analysis of the article I chose. In the final draft, I feel that I really did a great job of hooking the reader into the paper and allowing for them to really envision the advertisement. Also, I feel that in the first and second drafts, I had a pretty weak conclusion that didn’t restate my thesis or review my main ideas. The third draft’s conclusion wasn’t much longer in wordage, but I feel that it struck home my thesis and main points very effectively. My explanation of the author’s use of logos, ethos, and pathos was also much more detailed in the third draft and I feel that I actually put more thought into how the author used this in my most recent revision of the paper. Finally, I feel that throughout my writing of this paper I did an excellent job of explaining the targeted audience and the constraints associated with that audience. I am very proud of how I looked into the desired audience of the authors and researching their new power in marketing and how they are changing the face of advertising. I think that the explanation of constraint is pivotal in my analysis to prove my reasoning. If I did not explain this, then my readers might be confused as to why it was important for the author to explain the uniqueness of such great benefits on a car insurance premium.