C&p Essay Critique 119

Paper Critiqued: 119 Critiqued By: 106 A4 2/1/2009 This essay was frustrating to read, particularly because the underlying point of the paper became so apparent but only blossomed in the last paragraph. To start, the intro did not address the author along with the title of the novel, something that could easily have been added. The thesis did not directly address the “moral ambiguity” of the selected character, and I felt that by connecting “the battle throughout the novel of Raskolnikov’s character” to the prompt would have made the rest of the paper easier and more concise for the writer. The introduction also contained an incomplete sentence that was a little confusing and threw the flow of the intro out of balance. The body of the essay developed an overall strong ideal relating to Raskolnikov’s interaction and involvement with the EMT and the development of his lies, but I think the body could have been strengthened by addressing the exact relationship with these concepts and directly tying them to how they made Raskolnikov morally ambiguous. There are a ton of claim sentences that would have been perfect for additional commentary, but because they did not have any further explanation, they tended to weaken the overall concept of the paragraph and made it seem like there was only a simplistic amount of analysis. I think if this writer were to ask themselves questions about their claims as they write, and try to answer them after they are introduced to the paper, the paper would be significantly more analytical persuasive. In regards to addressing the prompt, it is apparent that the writer was a little bit

intimidated by all the aspects it said they needed to address. The concept of good/evil was thrown into the essay in hope to connect to the prompt, rather than the essay itself. There were great rhetorical questions that showed insight, however they would have been stronger if the writer picked one or two of them to fully explore in a paragraph. Overall, if I were to score this paper I would give it a lenient 5. The writer attempted to respond to the assigned task, but because much of the essay was plot summary and claim statement, they were only able to show simplistic analysis of Raskolnikov’s character. They discussed Raskolnikov’s moral ambiguity in a limited matter and did not fully develop the idea it seems like they initially set off to develop. The essay itself it ambiguous, and is open to multiple interpretations as to what idea they wished to develop from their thesis, and later what they were trying to prove in the rest of the essay.