Reflect On Your Previous Essay And Respond To The Following ✓ Solved

Reflect on your previous essay and respond to the following:

What do you feel the strengths of your essay are? Include at least three strengths and explain each.

If you had this assignment (Essay #2) to do again, what would you do differently and why?

Essay #3 is a Literary Analysis of short stories: do you enjoy reading literature, or do you read it only when asked? What kinds of texts do you read most often for school, work, or personal enjoyment?

What is your favorite book, short story, poem, song, or speech, and why does it appeal to you? You may discuss more than one favorite.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This reflection addresses four prompts: (1) the primary strengths of my Essay #2, (2) changes I would make if I could revise that essay, (3) my relationship to reading literature and the types of texts I read most often, and (4) my favorite works and why they appeal to me. The following discussion blends concrete examples from my essay with principles of effective writing and reading from established sources (Graff & Birkenstein, 2016; Bean, 2011).

Strengths of Essay #2

Strength 1 — Clear thesis and framing: The essay presented a focused, arguable thesis that framed the subsequent analysis. A clear thesis functions as a roadmap for readers and anchors each paragraph to a central claim (Hacker & Sommers, 2016). In my essay the thesis not only stated my position but set up the criteria for evaluation, which helped maintain coherence throughout the body paragraphs (Graff & Birkenstein, 2016).

Strength 2 — Effective use of textual evidence and explanation: I supported claims with specific evidence (quotations and paraphrase) and paired each piece of evidence with explicit analysis showing its relevance to my thesis. This practice aligns with best practices in academic writing: integrate evidence, explain its significance, and link back to the central claim (Bean, 2011). Doing so strengthened the persuasiveness of my argument and reduced gaps where readers might question the logic.

Strength 3 — Organization and transitions: The essay used intentional paragraph sequencing and transition sentences that created logical progression. Good organization increases reader comprehension and makes the argument feel cumulative rather than repetitive (Elbow, 1998). In particular, I used topic sentences that previewed each paragraph’s purpose and concluding sentences that tied points back to the thesis, enhancing flow and argumentative momentum.

Additional strength — Voice and engagement: Although formal, the essay retained an active voice and a measured personal perspective when appropriate, making the writing more engaging while preserving academic tone (Graff & Birkenstein, 2016). This balance helped the essay avoid sounding either overly casual or needlessly dense.

What I Would Do Differently

Revision focus 1 — Deepen contextualization and secondary sources: If I could redo Essay #2, I would broaden my use of reputable secondary sources to deepen the contextual frame and demonstrate awareness of scholarly conversation (Booth, 1983). Adding a couple of targeted critical sources would have positioned my claim within an ongoing debate, increasing credibility (Culler, 2000).

Revision focus 2 — Stronger counterargument engagement: I would incorporate and rebut a more developed counterargument. Presenting and responding to counterviews shows intellectual fairness and strengthens persuasion by anticipating objections (Graff & Birkenstein, 2016).

Revision focus 3 — More iterative revision and peer feedback: I would adopt a more iterative revision process with structured peer reviews and delayed editing. Research and writing pedagogy suggest that multiple revisions, especially those informed by peer critique, lead to clearer and more polished prose (Elbow, 1998; Bean, 2011). Practically, I would schedule dedicated revision sessions: one focused on argument structure, one on evidence and analysis, and a final pass on diction and mechanics.

Reading Literature: Enjoyment and Habits

Do I enjoy reading literature? Yes — I generally enjoy reading literature and approach it as both aesthetic experience and intellectual practice. Literature rewards multiple readings and fosters empathy, critical thinking, and the ability to interpret ambiguous meanings (Mar & Oatley, 2008).

Types of texts I read most often: For school, I read academic articles, critical essays, and short stories; for professional development I read pedagogy and communication texts; for personal enjoyment I read contemporary fiction, classic short stories, and occasional poetry. Reading across genres helps sharpen analytical skills and exposes me to diverse rhetorical strategies (Wolf, 2007).

Favorite Texts and Why They Appeal

Short story — "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson: This story appeals because of its compact but powerful structure, tension between ordinary setting and terrifying conclusion, and its social critique delivered through dramatic irony. Jackson’s economy and shock value make it a model for concise, meaningful storytelling (Culler, 2000).

Novel — To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee: I value this novel for its moral clarity combined with complex social context, memorable characterization, and narrative voice that balances innocence and ethical insight. It serves as an example of how fiction can shape readers’ moral imagination (Bloom, 1994).

Poetry and speech — Selected poems and speeches: I often return to poems and speeches for their rhetorical density. A well-crafted poem or speech condenses argument and emotion into memorable lines, which is instructive for learning how to write with precision and persuasion (Booth, 1983).

Conclusion

In sum, Essay #2 succeeded because of a clear thesis, solid evidence with analysis, and coherent organization; these are core components of effective academic writing (Hacker & Sommers, 2016; Graff & Birkenstein, 2016). If given the chance to revise, I would deepen contextual scholarship, engage counterarguments more fully, and increase revision cycles with peer feedback to strengthen clarity and authority (Bean, 2011; Elbow, 1998). My engagement with literature is genuine and varied: I read for insight, empathy, and craft, and my favorite works illustrate how narrative economy and rhetorical skill can produce lasting intellectual and emotional effects (Mar & Oatley, 2008; Bloom, 1994).

References

• Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
• Bloom, H. (1994). How to read and why. Scribner.
• Booth, W. C. (1983). The rhetoric of fiction. University of Chicago Press.
• Culler, J. (2000). Literary theory: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. Oxford University Press.
• Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2016). They say / I say: The moves that matter in academic writing. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Hacker, D., & Sommers, N. (2016). A writer's reference. Bedford/St. Martin's.
• Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173–192.
• Purdue Online Writing Lab. (n.d.). Purdue OWL. https://owl.purdue.edu
• Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. Harper.