Academic Writing Analysis Example

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 275
  • Published : July 24, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
The essay aims to persuade the audience (i.e. tutor) against human cloning and

expresses the author’s lack of competency in presenting his arguments. Based on the channel

chosen to convey his message, the essay is, to a large extent, an ineffective piece of academic

writing upon evaluation of its content, language and organization of arguments. This essay

critique analyses and evaluates the above points.

One of the essay problems includes the poorly developed thesis statement at the end

of the 1st paragraph. The thesis statement did not provide a prelude of the specific arguments

that are in the essay. Instead, the two points presented in the thesis, which are the high risks

and costs involved in human cloning, were not substantiated and elaborated on in his essay.

Content wise, the essay presents several weak claims and supporting details indicating

a failed attempt at utilizing a Toulmin-Warrant model. While the author may have included

his own insights, his arguments are generally weakly substantiated as a result of the lack of

evidences, examples and citations. In paragraph 7 for instance, the writer made an attempt to

incorporate surveys but the lack of citations and proper statistics makes it a weak claim.

Another example occurred in paragraph 4. The author used Adolf Hitler as a case

study; however, he failed to relate his example to the topic of human cloning. The supporting

detail here was poorly developed. Moreover, the argument is a weak claim because it

is substantiated by the author’s assumptions only. As a result, the argument appears

unconvincing to readers.

Irrelevant sentences are found throughout the essay that might result in noise that

decreases accuracy in getting the main idea across. Sentence 4 in paragraph 2, “..Would

probably benefit from human cloning”, contradicts the argument that human cloning will

damage balance of nature and exceed the world’s carrying capacity, which is a disadvantage

of human cloning. Furthermore, there is no explanation provided on how human cloning

benefits humans. Hence, it is an irrelevant supporting detail. At the end of the paragraph,

yet another irrelevant detail was found. It was mentioned that the price of oil is decreasing

slightly. This is redundant as the current oil prices are not directly related to human cloning.

There appears to be fallacies in his essay. The slippery slope fallacy, for example,

is reflected paragraph 3. It is said that cloning will change family dynamics and result in

single parenting of clones; thus, the society will be divided into two distinct groups that will

ultimately give rise to discrimination between them before possibly causing a big war. There

is no evidence to believe that one event will lead to the other. Moreover, in paragraph 6,

claims such as “most people would agree that” are not supported by sufficient evidence or

statistics. This is characteristic of a hasty generalization when a conclusion is made about a

population based on an insufficient sample size.

One of the essay’s main problems stems from the red herring fallacy. In paragraph 6,

the author discussed about the advantages of cloning animals. The essay was diverted from

its original main idea. This is a form of noise that disrupts the audience’s train of thoughts.

As a result, the purpose of the essay became unclear towards the end of the essay when a new

discussion was introduced; thus, failing to achieve essay unity.

Moreover, there is usage of unsuitable language that does not serve the purpose

of the essay. Firstly, there was an excessive usage of personal pronouns such as “I” and

“My”. Secondly, certain sentences, like “I think...”, are in the active voice. Thirdly, several

contractions (i.e. I’d, can’t and wouldn’t) were found throughout the essay. Lastly, the usage

of colloquial words and expressions (i.e. “that’s not the point”...
tracking img