The first paragraph does a good job of stating your proposal and making your stance on the issue clear. If I were to summarize your thesis: Modern technologies should be utilized instead of the archaic and unreliable torture methods. I had trouble understanding the specifics of your proposal; perhaps you could elaborate further and mention more details regarding your plan.
The second paragraph explains how modern intelligence equipment has been successful in the raid on Osama bin Laden. Your claim was restated nicely and is followed by a couple of supporting claims. The background information regarding the technologies is nicely laid out and flows smoothly. The part about describing flexibility should be changed though because it is hard to follow. One line regarding the flexibility was really confusing and should be revised: “either limiting others’ usage or let suspects electronic devices serve for us”. Some outside evidence could also be used to strengthen your argument.
The third paragraph continues to explain how surveillance and monitoring was employed which led to the raid on Osama bin Laden. The first sentence really does seem out of place and should probably be merged into the first paragraph to give it outside evidence and also reduce repetitiveness. It then describes how the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) played a key role in supporting the raid on Osama bin Laden. The outside evidence works however, the recycled example of the raid on Osama bin Laden makes your argument appear more repetitive and less effective. The first and second paragraphs seem very similar however their reasons are slightly different.
The fourth paragraph starts out by explaining the amount of CIA employees killed in the line of duty. It effectively gets the point across that the amount of causalities can be reduced through the use of unmanned drones and other technology. Your outside evidence from Fenwick should be replaced. Remember, the prompt is about torture in the United States, not the United Kingdom. The paragraph proves how the technology is flexible, however it doesn’t mention how unmanned drones are a replacement for torture. You should try to prove how the technology can get reliable information from suspected terrorists as opposed to torture, not how they reduce causalities.
The fifth and sixth paragraphs should probably be merged because they both include possible objections. The paragraphs don’t mention alternative ways to solve the problem either which makes them even more related. The first objection addressed acknowledges that the effectiveness of the technologies mentioned lacks decisive evidence to prove that they really work. The next objection involves an event in 2011 which outlined the event of a drone being shot down and captured. It is also mentioned how they can be hacked and it is proposed that software could be improved to make them safer. The rapid change of technology has improved as opposed to dated torture methods was also mentioned.
The conclusion does a good job of summarizing your argument. It doesn’t seem to call readers to action or end with something memorable though as mentioned in the Organization Plan on page 328 of Writing Arguments. The thesis statement should probably be revised because I don’t really see how your reasons supporting your claim tie into it. I also failed to see how information obtained through technology is equivalent to the information obtained from the torture of a suspected terrorist. I kept wondering how the intelligence gathered is comparable. I also think it would be better if the thesis was revised and perhaps some paragraphs are changed to make your stance clearer. I can clearly see that you are against torture methods; your reasons could do a better job of proving your stance though. Aside from the suggestions I made, I think your argument could use more supportive evidence and better conform to the Organization Plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment