Human Organs for Sale

During my evaluation of the two essays responding to "Human Organs for Sale?", I saw a clear pattern. Both arguments said that this was a persuasive argument like the writer had intended it to be. I think the second essay was better put together and met more of the evaluation criteria.

While reading the first essay, I found some places where the evaluation criteria were not met. According to the criteria, the essay must have a precise focus, which this essay did not do very well. The writer of essay 1 didn't give any of his own ideals or elaboration in his body paragraphs; he simply placed direct quotes into his essay, one after another. This essay was organized in the classical structure and followed it pretty well. The author didn't have a hook in his paper, which did not draw me in to read it. The flaws in this argument were: no elaboration after quotes in the body, he didn't really develop a conclusion that ties back to the introduction, and the introduction wasn't very background or detail oriented.

The second essay was much better to read and evaluate. It was accurate in all of its quoting and the quotes seemed to fit logically where they were placed. This author also follows the classic argument structure by connecting the introduction to the conclusion and also by listing out the authors evidences for the reasoning on how each piece of evidence supports the topic sentences and thesis. This author used much better grammar. Although the author states that the argument is persuasive to the website views, the author says that it isn't going to be accepted by any Christians. By including this, I feel that the author specifies how it appeals or doesn't appeal to viewers. In the second essay's conclusion, the author lists out that "...who take a compassionate view of the sacredness of human life..". This makes her conclusion and paper in general seem unfair and biased to an opinion created about the readers.

 I preferred the second piece over the first because it was better written and had fewer errors overall.