 |
GRADING
|
| Sample Papers |
| Sample #1 Sample #2 Sample #3 |
It can be helpful to practice commenting on papers. There are three examples linked below (and in the menu to the left). The instructions for each are different, and your comments should serve different purposes. Try to adhere to the instructions, keeping in mind the purpose of your comments.
Your comments will not be right or wrong. If you would like to share your comments with others, please e-mail us a copy (you will find a link at the bottom of each essay). We can add them to our website with or without your name attached--please indicate your preference.
Comment on this paper as a first draft of an essay. The essay assignment was to gather data about some aspect of food habits, and to compare the findings to some aspect of the book Good to Eat by anthropologist Marvin Harris. Write comments that will help the student reformulate this essay for another revision. In your comments, focus on 1) the argument structure, 2) the claims and their support, especially the integration of quotations, and 3) the overall organization of the paper.
Does travel influence what's good to eat and bad to eat?
Every culture has food taboos. Some, of course, have more than others. Asian countries such as China, Japan, and Thailand, for example, tend to have a more diverse cultural diet than do European countries. I conducted a survey to see how a country's food taboos correlate with the personal eating habits of those who have traveled there. I found that people who have traveled to Asian countries tend to have less food taboos than do those who have traveled to Europe. In fact, people who have traveled to Asia often could not cite one food that they refuse to eat. Everyone who has been to Europe on the other hand, could name at least one food that they personally consider to be inedible. I believe that the reason for this disparity can be found in the economic differences between the East and the West, and also, in the personal reasons people have for traveling to either Europe or Asia.
Southeast Asians lack specific food types they refuse to eat. Besides the more conventional meats, i.e., beef, pork, poultry, they also eat dogs, cats, dingoes, and insects. An explanation for this can be traced to historical, ecological, and economical aspects of Southeast Asia. Marvin Harris, anthropologist and author of Good to Eat explores this specific field, and says the following about one of the unconventional meat eating trends in Southeast Asia. "Dog-eating cultures generally lack an abundance of alternative sources of animal foods, and the services which dogs can render alive far outweigh the value of their flesh and carcass. In China, where perennial shortages of meat and the absence of dairying have produced a long-standing pattern of involuntary vegetarianism, dogflesh eating is the rule, not the exception." (Harris, 179). Basically, types of meat people in the West have stereotypes against are good to eat in other cultures depending on "how it fits within a culture's overall system for producing food and other goods and services." (Harris, 179) Because the benefits of eating dogflesh and other pet meat outweigh the costs, the inhabitants of Southeast Asia eat this type of meat. However, in regions like the United States, where beef and chicken are the ruling meat industries, one rarely goes to a supermarket to ask for dog meat.
Insect eating can also be traced to economic factors. "Europeans never acquired a taste for locusts." (Harris, 171) By analyzing the costs and benefits of eating insects, it can be shown that although insects are abundant, "they are nonetheless inherently among the least efficient and least reliable sources of these nutrients [protein and fats] in the entire animal kingdom." (Harris, 165) Consequently, one must understand this cost benefit relationship (from a time and energy costs per-harvested unit standpoint) in order to fully comprehend why "insects are sometimes avoided and sometimes preferred…" (Harris, 165) On the other hand, "since locusts are responsible for devouring crops and natural pasture, they alter the availability of higher-ranked items-crops and domesticated animal products-and assure themselves a place in the optimal diet." (Harris, 170) Basically they follow the "eating the eaters" principle. This is precisely what has happened in Southeast Asia, which has caused many people to eat insects. Because of this vast availability, utilization, and consumption of insects in Southeast Asia over history, people who travel there, may have to eat insects in order to survive. Moreover, one may have to eat insects, dogflesh, and other forms of meat that are taboos in the West (as described earlier as also an accepted good to eat food), in order to fit into Asian culture. Most of the subjects who had traveled to Southeast Asia didn't refuse to eat these unconventional types of meat, while subjects who had traveled to Europe had more occurrences where they refused to eat insects, dogflesh, or another type of food. The duration of travel was not mentioned in the survey, however it is not of importance here.
The second factor that needs to be taken into consideration when examining a correlation between travel and food choice is reasons for travel. Because of experimental limitations, the personal reasons for travel were not known, however a plausible schema could be drawn out. Europe is known to be more of a "cultured," and perhaps a safer place to travel. Americans can go to Europe without leaving the comforts of Western society. Travelers looking for a more exotic trip, on the other hand, may choose to go to Asia. These people may be more adventurous by nature, and thus more inclined to try new things, such as eating insects or dog meat. Such travelers, once they have gotten over the taboo, may have acquired a taste for insects. Of course, it is difficult to show data that could examine the validity of this statement. However, the idea of what type of person the traveler is greatly depends upon where that person will travel, and what he/she will eat.
Furthermore, it's important to note that 65% of the subjects, who had traveled to countries in Southeast Asia, said they ate to survive. On the other hand, only 29% of subjects who traveled to somewhere in Europe said they eat to survive. In this category of travelers, almost all of the other subjects said they ate because they love food. This shows the significance of eating as a means of survival for people who have experienced Thailand or China. For example, my uncle who happens to be a very outgoing and adventurous person travels to Thailand every year. Here, he eats a variety of bugs and insects. He savors these little creatures, and when he comes back to Los Angeles, he describes the crunchiness of a grasshopper. Before he traveled to Thailand, he had never even come close to a bug, much less ate one. In fact, in my culture this is seen as an "abnormal" behavior. When his trip is over and he returns to the states, he doesn't really crave insects. But every year when he travels to Southeast Asia, he eats it as not only a means of survival, but also because he's grown fond of eating bugs. I interviewed him for this study, and he said, "They're [bugs] actually very tasty. Why wouldn't I eat them? Everyone else there seemed to be enjoying them." Everyone else eating it makes it more acceptable and "good to eat," not to mention the fact that my uncle's a very open-minded person. I guess if he wasn't he wouldn't go to Thailand every year.
Europe is a different story. Imagine someone walking into an Italian restaurant and getting mad that they don't serve fried spiders or ants. First, everyone would look at this person like she escaped a mental asylum. And second, it's a pretty accepted view that Italy (or other countries in Europe) is famous for other types of food, such as pasta, pastries, bread, rather than insects.
Where one travels tells a lot about a person. In addition, what one eats reveals aspects of a person. These two factors, although seemingly distant from one another, are actually closely related. Because of the economic situation of counties in Southeast Asia, where people eat insects as a viable source of protein, travelers of Southeast Asia also eat insects. On the other hand, a person traveling to London not only refuses to eat insects, but also tofu. With globalization and everyone being connected, it's strange that food isn't really globalized. The fact remains that, what's good to eat in one part of the world is bad to eat in another.
Reference
Harris, M. (1986). Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture. Simon and Schuster.
Grade and comment on this paper, which is a final draft of an essay examining a theme found in the novel The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. The student chose the theme and developed it in consultation with you and with classmates. In your comments, focus on 1) which elements of the paper support the grade it was given, 2) the development and support of the student's chosen theme, 3) the use and integration of quotations as support, and 4) issues in grammar and usage.
Dehumanization in Laissez-Faire Capitalist World
In Upton Sinclair's turn-of-the-century novel, The Jungle, human lives parallel with animals and commodities. Sinclair uses vivid descriptions and metaphor to create a space in which people are driven by laissez-faire capitalism to compete for survival. Sinclair uses various types of metaphor to dehumanize the working class people and develop a ruthless Darwinism world in order to promote his belief-Socialism. The poor working people use every bit of strength in order to carry on; however, their effort is not always responded. By describing the depressing life of Jurgis, the protagonist of this novel, and his family, Sinclair reveals the ugly side of capitalism. According to Darwin's theory, "survival of the fittest" is the principle of animal evolution. In The Jungle, these working-class people associate with animals for they endlessly compete and fight for living. Their living and working conditions, in the readers' eyes, are considered awful; they work slavishly like animals, yet are even unable to achieve what they dream of. Living appears to be a luxury for these poor workers; their American dream is deformed.
To make the capitalist society into a competitive and ruthless Darwinism jungle, the most often used metaphor in The Jungle is animal. Sinclair parallels the workers with weak creatures or rough beasts to dehumanize them and make the readers treat them with extra sympathy. "… … he [Jurgis] lived like a dumb beast of burden, knowing only the moment in which he was"(140). "Then Jurgis fought like a wild beast … …"(202). "Jurgis lifted up his head and began to sniff the air like a startled animal-scenting the far-off odor of home"(174). By associating Jurgis with beast, Sinclair takes away humanity from this character and makes Jurgis become merely a struggling creature that uses its primitive instincts to live. On the other hand, dehumanization functions to show these poor people's struggling and persistence in this merciless world.
Elzbieta was one of the primitive creatures: like the angleworm, which goes on living though cut in half; like a hen, which, deprived of her chickens one by one, will mother the last that is left her. She did this because it was her nature-she asked no questions about the justice of it, nor the worthwhileness of life in which destruction and death ran riot(193).
Elzbieta survives and persists like an angleworm or a hen that accepts the torturous reality without questioning the meaning of life nor speaking for her dignity. Sinclair associates these characters with inhuman activities; here, he shows a depressed aspect of their lives that the only element left is the hope to carry on. In addition to being like animals, these characters are sometimes even lower than ordinary animals as Sinclair describes. "And now here he [Old Antanas] was, worn out in soul and body, and with no more place in the world than a sick dog"(58). By comparing Old Antanas, Jurgis' father, with a sick dog, Sinclair portrays a scene of a pathetic old man with no strength and ability who has merely the value of a sick dog in this capitalist system.
Over and above being nonhuman, these people are trapped, and preys of strong and powerful ones in the capitalist society. "They were like rats in a trap, that was the truth; and more of them were piling in every day"(66). Immigrating to the United States, these people believe in American dream; nevertheless, by coming here, they on the contrary become trapped and helpless in this capitalist nation. "All of these things had worked together for the company that had marked them for its prey and was waiting for its chance"(178). Wild animals in the jungle probably have more rights and opportunities than the characters in The Jungle; these poor working people are trapped, unable to move, and waiting for the predators to consume them. Their situation is even inferior to the wild animals' for the workers are not capable to govern their own lives and be the masters of themselves. Sinclair portrays a merciless meat-packing industry for both the slaughtered animals and people working there. Similar to the animals killed and sale in Packingtown, the people working there have no control over their own happiness, choices, and even their lives. Hardworking does not promise them a comfort life or even survival; they simply have no power over what they deserve for the price they pay.
In addition to all their physical hardships, there was thus a constant strain upon their minds; they were harried all day and nearly all night by worry and fear. This was in truth not living; it was scarcely even existing, and they felt that it was too little for the price they paid. They were willing to work all the time; and when people did their best, ought not to be able to keep alive(100)?
Existing appears to be a luxury for them, and some of them do not even achieve this simple dream by having done their best. Sinclair depicts the sense of helpless among these workers with the intention to lead the readers to believe the flaws in capitalism; furthermore, the advantage of socialism.
In this merciless world Sinclair describes, the working people's lives are vulnerable and always depended upon stronger and more powerful ones. Resembling Darwin's theory-survival of the fittest-animal evolution root in cruel competition and the adaptation to the environment. Sinclair uses the analogy of trees in the forest to suggest an unkind force of nature that eliminate the unfit ones.
Now, the dreadful winter was come upon them. In the forests, all summer long, the branches of the trees do battle for light, and some of them lose and die; and then come the raging blasts, and the storms of snow and hail, and strew the ground with these weaker branshes. Just so it was in Packingtown; the whole district braced itself for the struggle that was an agony, and those whose time was come died off in hordes(78).
According to the "stern system of nature"(218), the weaker ones fail the trials given by the capitalist society and "die off of cold and hunger"(218). Sinclair shows a ruthless law of the jungle where the weak are the prey of the strong; the intentional effects of this inhuman world he creates link to Sinclair's belief of socialism again. For socialism provides each person equal opportunity to work and pursuit desires, Sinclair reveals the ugliest side of laissez-faire capitalism to lead the readers away from what he objects.
The workers in Sinclair's The Jungle are creatures forced to a stage that they become numb and ask for nothing except existing. The intensive cruel world take away sentiments, feelings, or humanity from these characters, and what left are physical bodies, which still need constant working in exchange of existing. Sinclair sometimes no longer compares the workers in this novel to living beings; instead, they resemble objects, machines, commodities. "… … watched the men on the killing beds, marveling at their speed and power as if they had been wonderful machines" (56). The men working on the killing beds operate within an assembly line as screws to a machine; their lack of identity and dignity does not affect the efficiency of job performing because any stronger person can replace any one of them immediately when somebody leaves this mechanism. "She [Elzbieta] was part of the machine she tended, and every faculty that was not needed for the machine was doomed to be crushed out of existence"(135). As Sinclair tries to show here, the society resembles a huge industry and humans' values equate to how suitable they can perform as a machine; the world will obliterate the existence of any unneeded or malfunctioned parts.
… but now he [Jurgis] was second-hand, a damaged article, so to speak, and they did not want him. They had got the best of him-they had worn him out, with their speeding-up and their carelessness, and now they had thrown his away! … … The vast majority, however, were simply the worn-out parts of the great merciless packing machine; they had toiled there, and kept up with the pace, some of them for ten or twenty years, until finally the time had come when they could not keep up with it any more (124).
People are exhausted and used up in this system;
… .. women's bodies and men's souls, were for sale in the marketplace, and human beings writhed and fought and fell upon each other like wolves in a pit; in which lusts were raging fires, and men were fuel, and humanity was festering and stewing and wallowing in its own corruption(165).
Humans turn into commodities that may be for sale, exchange, and discard in the marketplace. In this city described in The Jungle, humanity is abolished to facilitate the self-interested system of capitalist world. Sinclair carves capitalism as practicality and utilitarianism in which the frail ones become unsuitable to exist in this scheme.
In the middle of this novel, Sinclair makes the characters conscious of the dehumanization when Jurgis and Ona struggle to provide their baby "human possibility" in this world.
It was such a responsibility-they must not have the baby grow up to suffer as they had. And this indeed had been the first thing that Jurgis had though of himself-he had clenched his hands and braced himself anew for the struggle, for the sake of that tiny mite of human possibility(108).
As the readers become conscious along with the characters, Sinclair conveys clear message that capitalism allows dehumanization of these poor people. When the protagonist, Jurgis, develops into a socialism devotee at the end of this novel, Sinclair intends to have the readers accompany Jurgis and share his passion. Capitalism and socialism always oppose each other and cannot coexist. With the purpose of promoting socialism, Sinclair uses two-third of this novel to portray the awful condition of Packingtown workers whose American dream is deformed, and socialism becomes the only promising way to help them out. Combing the faithful description on the reality of these workers' situation and the expression of the author's personal grief, Sinclair gradually leads the readers to disprove capitalism and support what he believes-Socialism.
Assess the following essay as a one page response to the first topic (Parmenedies) on a first paper assignment. Make your comments fall clearly under one of the following three headings: clarity of expression; understanding of material; quality of argumentation. Avoid one-word comments (if you think that something's good or vague explain why in concrete terms). Over or under-commenting (saying too much and saying to little) are also unhelpful; focus on the important points and convey to the student how he or she might improve next time around.
Parmenedies
Parmenedies of Elea was one of the most important presocratic philosophers. He wrote a poem called "On Nature" in which a goddess instructs him. The Goddess tells him about truth and things that exist and don't exist. The truth is what is whole, complete and unchanging. Mortal beliefs are based on sense experience and are not trustworthy because they cannot be genuinely known. Parmenedies' ideas are hard to understand because he thinks that the changing world is not metaphysical and gives a cosmology.
In fragment 2, Parmenedies says "the only ways of inquiry there are for thinking: the one, the it is and that it is not possible for it not to be, is the path of Persuasion (for it attends upon truth), the other that it is not and that it is necessary for it not to be, this I point out to you to be a path completely unlearnable, for neither may you know that which is not (for it is not to be accomplished) nor may you declare it." This is the first premise that Parmenedies uses when he comes to talk about what is and what is not in fragment 8. Parmenedies also says that it is not possible for what is not to be spoken about of thought of. He begins by drawing a distinction between things and states of affairs. He then argues by a perception analogy that because it is not possible to see things that do not exist, it is not possible to speak about things that do not exist. He does not argue that it is not possible for states of affairs not to be spoken about and this is a flaw in his argument. He also forgets to argue that things cannot be thought of.
Parmenedies thinks that what is has the following features. First, it is ungenerated and imperishable. Secondly, it is indivisible and continuous. Third, it is unchanging and immovable. Fourth, it is one. Fifth, it is like a sphere.
He argues that what is must be ungenerated because it must cannot come into existence from what is not. This is because of the perception analogy. It also cannot come into being from what is because it is already what is and there is no reason for it to come into being. This is because of the principle of sufficient reason. One problem with this argument is that Parmenedies does not distinguish between the different types of existence. This undermines his argument. Another problem with this argument is that the perception analogy fails because thinking is not like perceiving.
Parmenedies was a great philosopher so it is a pity that his ideas are wrong. What he says about what is is not in accordance with common sense. However, he made a significant contribution to Philosophy because what he says is very original and lots of other philosophers reacted to it.
