P3+JWachman

A. Thesis statement and essay unity.


 * __Unfortunately, as time has passed it is obvious that Hobbes' view is too simple and leaves out many variables of what humans are capable of. Therefore, Machiavelli's more complex view of human nature, as it incorperates multiple factors and variables, is more accurately expressed in today's society.__**

(Please copy your thesis from your essay here. Please bold face and italicize your thesis.)

Does the thesis statement I have written at the end of the essay really express the main point that I make in the essay? (TS 2)
 * I was unable to write a conclusion. I decided that it was more important to write a third body paragraph to complete the thoughts expressed in my thesis.

Does the thesis statement reflect everything in the essay? Does the essay develop everything in the thesis statement? (TS 3)
 * The thesis statement does reflect everything in the essay. The three body paragraphs discuss various factors and variables of today’s society. The essay does in fact express everything in the thesis statement.

Does the thesis statement make a positive statement rather than a negative one? (TS 5)
 * My thesis statement makes a positive statement rather than a negative one because it says how Machiavelli’s view of human nature is, “more accurately expressed” than Hobbes idea.

Does your thesis posit an argument that is actually worth arguing? What is that argument?
 * I believe that my thesis is worth arguing. The argument is that the view of human nature made by Machiavelli is better suited to today’s society rather than Hobbs’.

Is every clause in the thesis statement in the active voice? (TS 6) (List the subjects and verbs of each clause in your thesis statement below to illustrate your answer.)

I am unable to determine whether or not every clause in the thesis statement is in the active voice due to the verbs that I used. Subjects: Verbs:
 * time, view, humans, view, factors and variables, view (understood)
 * passed, is, are, is, incorporates, is

Does your thesis statement answer the questions "why?" and "how?" to the satisfaction of a doubting reader? Your thesis statement, of course, will not support or explain or provide evidence of why or how, but it should state the reasons why it is true if these will be discussed in the essay. (TS 4) Is your thesis statement clear (TS 7), precise and limited (TS 8), controversial or informative (TS 9), and defensible (TS 10)?


 * My thesis answers the questions of “why” and “how” for the doubting reader because it states why Hobbes’ view doesn’t work in today’s society and how Machiavelli’s views are in fact still appearing in today’s society. My thesis is clear because isn’t fluffed up with complicated language. It is precise and limited because it doesn’t give specific examples while instead states how it is. It is controversial, informative, and defensible because it compares two admired thinkers of the past and puts one against the other. Some could disagree at first, but would reconsider what they think once they read the evidence.

B. Introduction and conclusion.

(Please copy your introduction and conclusion from your essay here, labeling each. Please bold face and italicize your thesis.)


 * __Introduction:__**


 * Throughout the centuries people have explained their views on how society and mankind function and the complex workings of the two. Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbs present similar views of mankind but radically different suggestions on how to manage it. In Hobbes view human beings are “machines”. He views their thoughts and emotions as simple actions and reactions. He goes on to say that the result is a society operating as a machine according to the laws governing motion and collision. **//Unfortunately, as time has passed it is obvious that Hobbes’ view is too simple and leaves out many variables of what humans are capable of. Therefore, Machiavelli’s more complex view of human nature, as it incorporates multiple factors and variables, is more accurately expressed in today’s society.//**
 * __**Conclusion:**__**Conclusion:**Conclusion: I ran out of time and was unable to write a conclusion.

Is your first paragraph interesting? Does it provide concrete and specific material that is likely to catch the reader’s attention and focus it on your topic? (2d) Do you make a clear contract with the reader? Please summarize what you believe your contract is. Does the conclusion of your essay satisfy your contract with the reader? How? (2d)


 * My first paragraph is interesting because it compares humans with technology. The specific material that it uses is from Hobbes’ point of view. It draws the reader in but isn’t talked about during the rest of the essay. The main topic of the essay focuses on Machiavelli. I make a clear contract with the reader promising that I will show how Machiavelli’s view of society holds truer in contemporary times than Hobbes’. My nonexistent conclusion does not satisfy my contract with the reader, it keeps them wanting more.

C. Body

(Please copy your topic sentences and your best and worst paragraphs here, labeling each.)


 * __Topic Sentences:__**
 * Machiavelli’s ideas on free will have been shown from his time up until today.
 * Machiavelli makes a strong point with his views on good will and hatred of the people towards their leader.
 * Machiavelli poses a very strong argument for the relationship between statesmanship and warcraft.


 * __Best Paragraph:__**
 * Machiavelli’s ideas on free will have been shown from his time up until today. Machiavelli believes that fortune controls half of human actions and leaves the other half to free will. He believes that humans have the power to shape their destinies to a degree, but equally believes that human control over events is never absolute. This belief is showing up big time in today’s society. As the 2008 election approaches the candidates are doing all that they can to gain support. Specifically Mitt Romney, a Mormon candidate, has been giving speeches and trying to convince the public that his religion will not govern his presidency. It will become evident as the election passes if all of his campaigning will get him to his goal. Romney’s situation is a perfect reflection of Machiavelli’s idea of free will. Romney is using his free will to campaign for his presidency. However, fortune will decide whether or not he is elected. As Machiavelli said, human control over events is never absolute; this includes Romney.


 * __Worst Paragraph:__**
 * Machiavelli poses a very strong argument for the relationship between statesmanship and warcraft. He states that good laws follow naturally from a good military. He believes a successful war will demonstrate a military’s power, develop the states, and reflect the good laws and strong foundation of a country. In the United States it is expressed in their track record in wars. To date America has taken part in an array of wars. Only the civil war (which was fought against themselves), the American Revolution, and the current Iraq war have resulted in bloodshed on American soil. President Polk’s presidency and the Mexican American war had been shown to have been started on Mexican soil, not American as Polk had initially stated. Also, in all of the wars America has participated in, they have emerged successful. The strong military performance reflects the stability of the nation.

Do the paragraphs of your essay move in a logical direction? Does the reader have the experience of getting someplace, of answering questions and moving toward a point? Or does the essay jump around for no apparent reason? Evaluate the overall organization of your essay briefly, and then point out where you think the transition between paragraphs is strongest and where it is weakest?


 * The paragraphs of my essay move from discussing fortune, goodwill and hatred, to statesmanship and warcraft. This is a logical direction moving in order of importance. The reader is taken on a journey through the thoughts of Machiavelli. It might appear to jump around for no apparent reason a little bit. The transition between paragraphs is strongest by starting and ending with the ideas of Machiavelli.

Evaluate the overall organization of your essay briefly, and then point out where you think the transition between paragraphs is strongest and where it is weakest?


 * The body paragraphs of my essay are organized by starting with Machiavelli’s beliefs, then going into how they are expressed in today’s society, before then going on and restating Machiavelli’s beliefs.

Would your essay be persuasive to someone who doubts your thesis statement? What qualities of evidence or support would make it so? (DIH 2.4) In particular, list your specific examples and clear, vivid cases that illustrate and support your points. Do you write about actual people in the essay? Where could you make the essay more interesting by adding a story, and example, or a more specific explanation? Are there places where you should introduce a source more clearly or fully or where a citation needs to be provided and corrected?


 * My essay would be persuasive to someone who doubts my thesis statement because my evidence on the presidential election, the current president, and the military are all concrete and can’t be argued. The connections are what could be argued but only to a limited extent. I specifically mention Mitt Romney and President George W. Bush in my essay. I could make the essay more interesting by adding a story into the paragraph about George W. Bush about one way hatred toward him is shown. In the final paragraph about military and conquests citations are absent completely.

In the essay, do you answer the question "How do you know?" of every claim you make in such a way that a doubting reader would be satisfied? Evaluate the overall quality of the evidence you use in the essay, then comment on where you think your evidence is strongest and where you think it is weakest. (DIH 2.4)


 * I answer the question on every claim that I make so a doubting reader would be satisfied by giving quality modern day evidence that cannot be argued due to statistics and historical facts.

Is the evidence introduced and explained clearly and cited correctly, when necessary, in accordance with MLA citation and list of works cited format? (DIH 2.4, 31a 1 and 3) Does each sentence in each paragraph lead to or from the central point (the topic sentence)? (2a) What is your most coherent paragraph? What your least?


 * The evidence introduced and explained is cited correctly some of the time. Each sentence in each paragraph leads to or from the topic sentence. My most coherent paragraph is my first body paragraph. My least coherent paragraph is my last body paragraph because it is all over the place.

Is every paragraph fully developed? (2c) Which are and which aren’t? What is your best developed paragraph and what your worst? Is this essay clearly written and relatively free of errors in grammar, spelling, and usage? (5d) What are your most frequent errors?


 * All paragraphs except the final one are fully developed. My best paragraph is my first body paragraph. My worst paragraph is my final paragraph. The essay has a few grammar and spelling errors here and there. I misspell Machiavelli the most.

Overall:

How interesting is this essay? To what kinds of readers would it be more interesting? To what kinds of readers less interesting? What parts are most and what least interesting? Are there parts where readers will be bored or confused? How effective an essay do you believe this is. That is, how successful would this essay be a persuading the other members of the class to believe your thesis statement? Why?
 * The essay is interesting because it clearly connects the ideas of the past with the ways of the present. This would be more interesting to politically involved readers. It would be less interesting to readers out of this country. Readers will be bored or confused when reading the final paragraph because they won’t be able to find it. I believe it is a somewhat effective essay despite missing a conclusion. I trust my classmates would believe my thesis because most of them have basic political and historical knowledge.

analysis