From reading your essay, I think your thesis tried to get across quite a few points. If I were to summarize it: Even though “enhanced interrogation” might serve a good purpose, it is still immoral to inflict harsh treatment on humans, it has also been reported that the techniques are ineffective which makes it immoral to continue their use as it is a waste of limited resources. I think your thesis brings up good points; however it is long, wordy and would greatly benefit from being shortened. Also, I noticed that your position was not clearly stated in your thesis which could also be useful in improving it. I like the introductory paragraph because it provides good background information regarding your topic.
The first paragraph starts off with some background about waterboarding. It then makes a reference to the article “Believe Me, It’s Torture” with good supporting information. The second source used in the essay regarding a Washington Post news journal seemed a little off. You stated that: “92 videotapes of CIA prisoners being harshly treated were destroyed by the agency”. The problem I found with the evidence provided is that it wasn’t made clear what number of the 92 tapes actually involved the use of waterboarding. After looking at your quoted source, I found this: “Twelve of them covered the application of the "enhanced interrogation techniques", including waterboarding”. (Taylor) You should make crucial evidence like that clear to your readers instead of making them look up the facts themselves. The whole Washington Post article you cited should probably be disregarded because it appears to weaken your argument. The rest of the paragraph is good and the conclusion nicely ties into your thesis.
The second paragraph begins with why the interrogation of captured terrorists is important and mentions why it is ineffective. Your first source from “Believe Me, It’s Torture” works and brings up the point that unreliable information simply isn’t worth the time, effort and resources. The second source “Dirty Hands, Clean Conscience” addresses how torture is ineffective at getting reliable information and ultimately was not responsible for finding Osama bin Laden. Both sources work great and make your argument appear solid. The conclusion once again effectively ties in with your thesis.
The concluding paragraph starts off by mentioning how the torturing terrorists isn’t justified. The rest of the paragraph seems to keep restating the fact that torture is unethical. A solution to the problem was also proposed at the end of the essay; however it didn’t go into detail as to what “advanced computerized measures” actually means. There is definitely some room for improvement in the concluding paragraph. I enjoyed reading your essay, while there might not be a match for each criteria, it got quite a few things right for a rough draft. If I were to pretend I was skeptical of the issue of torture, I would somewhat agree with your argument. You could definitely strengthen your argument more by providing additional evidence to support your claims. Also, a useful tip would be to indent the start of each paragraph, use the Tab key to your advantage!
The first paragraph starts off with some background about waterboarding. It then makes a reference to the article “Believe Me, It’s Torture” with good supporting information. The second source used in the essay regarding a Washington Post news journal seemed a little off. You stated that: “92 videotapes of CIA prisoners being harshly treated were destroyed by the agency”. The problem I found with the evidence provided is that it wasn’t made clear what number of the 92 tapes actually involved the use of waterboarding. After looking at your quoted source, I found this: “Twelve of them covered the application of the "enhanced interrogation techniques", including waterboarding”. (Taylor) You should make crucial evidence like that clear to your readers instead of making them look up the facts themselves. The whole Washington Post article you cited should probably be disregarded because it appears to weaken your argument. The rest of the paragraph is good and the conclusion nicely ties into your thesis.
The second paragraph begins with why the interrogation of captured terrorists is important and mentions why it is ineffective. Your first source from “Believe Me, It’s Torture” works and brings up the point that unreliable information simply isn’t worth the time, effort and resources. The second source “Dirty Hands, Clean Conscience” addresses how torture is ineffective at getting reliable information and ultimately was not responsible for finding Osama bin Laden. Both sources work great and make your argument appear solid. The conclusion once again effectively ties in with your thesis.
The concluding paragraph starts off by mentioning how the torturing terrorists isn’t justified. The rest of the paragraph seems to keep restating the fact that torture is unethical. A solution to the problem was also proposed at the end of the essay; however it didn’t go into detail as to what “advanced computerized measures” actually means. There is definitely some room for improvement in the concluding paragraph. I enjoyed reading your essay, while there might not be a match for each criteria, it got quite a few things right for a rough draft. If I were to pretend I was skeptical of the issue of torture, I would somewhat agree with your argument. You could definitely strengthen your argument more by providing additional evidence to support your claims. Also, a useful tip would be to indent the start of each paragraph, use the Tab key to your advantage!
No comments:
Post a Comment