preview

A Scarcity Of Charity Analysis

Decent Essays

I conducted the review of the sample essay, A Scarcity of Charity, using the requirements in the official peer review rubric. This rubric takes focus, organization, development, language, syntax, and general grammar/mechanics into consideration. As a whole, the sample essay does an adequate job in fulfilling the requirements outlined in the rubric. But a few key errors take what would have been an excellent paper and turn it into an average one. The author of the sample essay does well in regards to focus and organization. She has a main thesis that is a debatable opinion rather than an indisputable fact. The rest of the paper, as guided by the subtopic thesis statements, is geared toward proving the author’s opinion. The subtopic …show more content…

Her strong suit is seamlessly blending evidence from the text into the content of the essay. She provides interpretation of the evidence when it is necessary so her readers can see how the evidence applies. Her in text documentation of the evidence is flawless and follows the MLA formatting. She made a slight error on the “Works Cited” page when she did not indent the second line of the source. Unfortunately, the evidence that is documented does not always support her thesis and subtopic thesis statements. The women’s argument does not show how Marian was unprepared for her “charity” visit, yet the author used it anyway. Another error in development comes when she uses the phrase “untouched by an emotional vacuum” to describe Marian after she gets on the bus. According to the sample essay, eating an apple after refusing to give the old woman a nickel is proof that the girl feels nothing for the women. While this does seem to be the case, the phrase itself is confusing and causes readers to stop. The author offers little interpretation in this area of the paper, which forces her readers to sort out for themselves what the author …show more content…

The author does very well in this section. The language of the paper is formal and is third person. She uses vocabulary that is appropriate for the audience. There are a few punctuation errors, but they do not detract from the paper or lead to run-on/fragmented sentences. The sentences are varied and well written. Also, the author did a decent job in proofreading her paper. There is only one exception to this. The author wrote “things” when she meant “thinks” in the sentence:
“During her brief stay at the Home, Marian things of the first old woman as a bird and the second as a sheep.”
This is one instance where the author failed to detect a grammatical

Get Access