Central Claim: "Perhaps she's a star because that breakneck energy and interjection-riddled vocabulary are genuinely appealing...I prefer to believe she's made it despite the relentless ebullience, that she connects because she understands that for a whole lot of people, getting dinner on the table is a major accomplishment." p. 370
My Central Claim: "[Williams] argues in her article, Rachael Ray, My Dinner Hooker, that even with such an irritating demeanor, Rachael Ray's message to mother's and wives everywhere is still valid and applicable and even helpful." p. 1
My Conclusion: "she argues very convincingly to give the reader good reason why Ray is not as bad as most people think and by the end of the editorial, it leaves the reader wondering if Williams ever actually hated Rachael Ray in the first place." p. 4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The claim that is made at the beginning of the paper is done very well. It brings in what is necessary for the paper to be successful. The first two paragraphs after the introduction are good backround and summary. At first it was a little unclear in the direction that you were heading but after reading both paragraphs it begins to become clear and make sense. Your paper includes many good, well-developed claims that support your original claim. You include a good counterpoint which is also very effective. There are, at times, where you could be a little more clear in your wording so that your argument is stronger. Also, your conclusion seems to be a little too much summary, but it seems like it could head in a very successful direction.
Post a Comment