1

Amanda M. Labrado

Engl 100

Prof. Webb

5/27/10

Cover Letter

Dear Professor Webb,

You had the most interesting lectures, and I learned a very handy amount about how to

write in different formats, most importantly APA and MLA, which I will definitely use in the

future. English 100 was difficult, but during my time in your class, my writing improved greatly,

and most significantly I learned how to better address a specified audience, and I learned how to

write different types of essays. At the beginning of the semester, I felt that my writing was

satisfactory: I was good at grammar and punctuation, but I needed to use my punctuation more

often, learn more about structure for different types of essays, learn to hold my audience’s

attention, learn to write to a certain audience, learn to write more comprehensive conclusions,

and learn to use my sources better, i.e. introduce them and give background to them. I also

needed to explain my ideas, and use my “voice” more often, instead of using a monotone.

Toward the middle of the semester, formulating a thesis became easier, and I became more

comfortable with creating structures and outlines for my essays, but I still felt that I was either

lacking organization, or that something was missing from my essays; now that I think about it,

perhaps a conclusion. In addition, I needed to learn to make my ideas more concise as to prevent

creating run-on sentences. Around the end of the semester, I felt that my organization and

structure were good, but that I could include more background information on the topic I was

covering. Each of my paragraphs seemed good in every essay, but I considered my transitions to

be insufficient. For my portfolio, I chose to revise my rhetorical analysis, my argument, and my

researched essay.
 Labrado 2

As I read over my first rhetorical analysis, it seems unsatisfactory compared to my

revised one. My first analysis does not seem to give enough information on the background of

the narrative I am analyzing, nor does it have a very strong or comprehensible thesis. The

original analysis also does not explain a lot of my ideas, or the author’s; it seems to be lacking

examples of the author’s use of rhetoric, and of how the author’s rhetoric can be interpreted by

the reader. When I wrote my rhetorical analysis, I believed I had good structure and organization,

except for the listing part – because I thought that lists were not effective when used in a

persuasive argument, nor are they very interesting. My revised analysis of rhetoric seems to be a

lot better than the original because it can be understood by my audience; I have provided more

background on the topic of Sizer’s narrative. I also rewrote my thesis in the hope that I might

explain what I wish to prove more understandably. I was not sure what you wanted me to include

in ym rhetorical analysis so I included how the author uses rhetoric – ethos, pathos, logos – and

what he means when he says certain things, because I thought they might relate to how the

audience perceives his argument and his overall credibility. In my new analysis, I corrected my

listing by putting it into paragraph form, and I made it more appealing to my audience by adding

commentary on the author’s diction and tone, and how they affected his credibility. What I

believe to be the best example of my commentary is on page 6. Overall, I feel that I did okay on

my analysis revision, but I know that I need to organize my ideas a bit more, write a better, and I

think I may need better structure. I did well analyzing, but I wish my thesis were better, and that

my conclusion was longer and more inclusive of all that I wrote about.

In my creation of an argument essay, I tried my best to use emotion in place of facts, but

my essay did not seem sufficient to me when I was done. In my original Rogerian argument

essay, I was too supportive of the benefits of legalizing marijuana, I listed too much, and I

thought that I did not know enough about my topic to be able to write an effective argument on
 Labrado 3

it. In my revised Rogerian essay, I made sure to be as unbiased as possible in my introduction as

to persuade my audience into agreeing with me. In my introduction, I also provided more

examples of what I was talking about, such as the propaganda and what hemp was used for. I

also rewrote my thesis so that both sides of the legalization issue would be presented to my

audience. I corrected my listing issue by elaborating more on the positives and negatives of

legalization and by providing evidence to support each argument. I also added background to

why marijuana is illegal today. I think I did well on this essay, but I feel that it needs to be better

organized. It also seems that I may be rambling in this essay. I also think that sometimes in this

essay, my paragraphs seems to digress from their topics; as I said earlier, I need better

organizational skills still.

The problem with my research essay, was that it only presented one side: the beneficial

side. So, in my revision, I made sure to add a negative effect of the legalization of marijuana to

each paragraph. I think I examined the issue better in my revised essay as you asked. What I

dislike about my research essay, is that it has a very long introduction paragraph that I feel

overloads the audience with information, and distracts from my thesis; my thesis is on the

beginning of the first page! In my revised essay, I tried to make every other paragraph present a

negative effect of legalization, as to eliminate bias. Furthermore, I tried to make my essay more

formal by eliminating any first or second person pronouns. I added a concise conclusion because

I noticed I never had one before. I feel that this essay also needs to be better organized, or maybe

I am just worrying too much? My favorite part of this essay – and the part that I think I did the

best on – begins on the bottom of page three.

This year we wrote four essays. The one I enjoyed writing the most was the research

essay. The one I disliked writing was the Rogerian argument, but only because I was not given

any outline, or structure to emulate. I liked the fact that you gave us each essay in a manner that
 Labrado 4

allowed us to use the knowledge we gained from the previous one; what I learned was more

apparent to me that way. My experience writing the first narrative-essay was good because I had

never used my writing skills that way for academic purposes, and it was nice to start out the year

writing like that. The narrative essay came easy to me, and I revised and lengthened it by re-

reading it and adding the details I recalled each time I read it. The rhetorical analysis was a bit

harder to write because I had never analyzed rhetoric; in high school, we read books, and wrote

essays on themes and why the author included something in a scene, or portrayed a character a

certain way. I think the rhetorical analysis would have been easier to write if we had been given

a lesson about different rhetorical device usages. I enjoyed interpreting what the author’s

intentions were though! The rogerian argument was difficult to write, but it was nice to get away

from the traditional three point thesis argument. I thought my rogerian argument came out awful

because I am not good at using emotional examples to persuade an audience. The researched

essay was enjoyable to write because I learned a lot writing it, and I felt that the skills used to

write a researched essay are good ones to practice since they present both sides of an argument,

and can be used in the future. I loved that we were only allowed to use scholarly sources because

then I did not to have to check questionable website information with other websites’.

Over the course of this semester, I have developed as a writer because I am better at

creating structure when it is needed; I know how to write in a manner that appeals to a certain

audience; I am better at providing examples to prove my points, and I know how to correct lists

that distract from an essay. The main noticeable change in my writing is my frequent use of

semi-colons, and dashes. My use of formal language has also become prevalent in my writing.

My sentences have also become longer, and more complex; which may or may not be a good

thing. Finally, the number one areas of my writing that I need to work on, are preventing run-

ons, using more punctuation, practicing organization, and writing better theses.
Labrado 5