Response on Storm-Larsen Discussion Paper Example

For any scholarly document to be considered to be of good quality, it must portray certain aspects. For instance, it must have an introduction explaining what the paper is about. Secondly, it must have a body. This is where all the information and explanations regarding the topic in question ought to be. Lastly, the document should have a conclusion that summarises the contents of the written document. This paper, therefore, seeks to provide my personal opinion on two discussions by William Lopez and Chelsea Storm-Larsen.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

First and foremost, Storm-Larsen executes a proper introduction to her discussion. She begins by explaining the producers of the film in question and explaining its significance. Secondly, she properly cites her work by properly including in-text citations, that is; (Name, year) this makes her work more appealing to the eye as the reader can associate the content to the source (Ferris & Roberts, 2001). Thirdly, Larsen further shows organization in her work by providing examples and definitions to words that may be new to her readers. Nonetheless, her paragraphs appear to be too long instead of the standard paragraphs with 4-7 lines (Ferris & Roberts, 2001).

Regarding the quality of Storm-Larsen's discussion, I believe she has done a good job in explaining the causes of US federal budget deficits. For instance, she mentions several causes such as decisions by lawmakers and personal finances and further goes on to explain how these have brought about the deficit. Also, she clearly explains the effects that these issues will have in the future such as increased spending on Medicaid, Medicare, and social security.

On the other hand, Lopez work portrays some issues ranging from grammar and spelling issues to poor citations and vague explanations. To begin with, her work does not quite flow due to an improper combination of words (Grenville, 2001). Secondly, she does not provide her ideas in an understandable name and to some extent even misses the question. For instance, for the first question, she explains the consequences of federal budget deficits instead of mentioning their causes. Lastly, her work has not been properly cited, as she uses the title of the reference instead of the name of the author and the year of production (Grenville, 2001). Regarding the quality of her work, I would say that her ideas have not been chronologically arranged and thus any reader reading this document would easily get bored. Also, she has not explained how Medicare and Medicaid will be affected despite mentioning them in her response to the first question, thus leaving the readers asking themselves multiple questions.

References

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 161-184.

Grenville, K. (2001). Writing from Start to finish a six-step guide. Griffin Press.