Intro to my research paper

[Doom103]

I just started

Critique and Comments? (CnC)

Our 44th president Barrack Obama was inaugurated into office on January 20th 2009. The progression of this nation is astounding, electing an African American into the highest possible position in our government, when a mere 40 years ago a minority couldn’t even sit in a half decent bus seat. The exponential evolution of the United States was made possible by its prodigious changes made by its astonishing presidents, but what defines a great president? Foreign policy? A strong and effective military? Or perhaps a balanced yet stable economy? As our 44th president said “In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned.” and Frankin D Rosevelt has earned the title of the greatest president of the United States of America.

[Fox]

...and Frankin D Rosevelt has earned the title of the greatest president of the United States of America.

Bwuh!? What? Where the hell did that come from? You can't state your freaking thesis by starting a sentence with "and." Also, that sentence came out of nowhere. Try to maintain a level of consistency, for the sake of readability. If your thesis is "Roosevelt was the greatest president in America's history [sic]," then your intro needs to have much more focus on that statement.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

Also, watch the sentence structure...

[Fox]

Also, watch the sentence structure...

Funny how that's not an issue.

Another thing you need to work on is avoiding so many unnecessary adjectives. You have about fifty percent content and fifty percent fluff.

[Intoner Two]

the last sentence of that snippet you have shared with us confuses me simply as a general reader trying to figure out what you're trying to say; I see that you're discussing our presidents yes but I'm a little unsure of what point you're going to make due to the two specifics that you mention only briefly (Barrack and FDR), the sentences in between made the most sense to me but maybe I'm just dense and semi-ignorant to the subject

[Fox]

Our 44th president Barrack Obama was inaugurated into office on January 20th 2009.

This is a research paper, you can't use words like "our."

The progression of this nation is astounding, electing an African American into the highest possible position in our government, when a mere 40 years ago a minority couldn’t even sit in a half decent bus seat.

Uh no, a lot of minorities could sit wherever the hell they wanted on the bus. Black people were made to sit in the back. Don't confuse the two.

The exponential...

This is just stupid. If you insist on keeping this, at least add something like "seemingly" in front of exponential. Since, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass, which it's pretty evident you're doing anyway.

... evolution of the United States was made possible by its prodigious changes made by its astonishing presidents, but what defines a great president?

"Prodigious changes?" Get ye to a dictionary. Also, attributing America's social progress solely to its leaders is laughable. Lastly, "but what defines a great president?" does not belong in this sentence, since it is a very different line of thought from the prior statement.

Foreign policy? A strong and effective military? Or perhaps a balanced yet stable economy? As our 44th president said “In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned.”

You fail to answer your own question in quoting Obama here, or at least, you leave it to the reader to make their own opinions, which is bad bad bad bad bad.

and Frankin D Rosevelt has earned the title of the greatest president of the United States of America.

lol

[Doom103]

This is a research paper, you can't use words like "our."

Uh no, a lot of minorities could sit wherever the hell they wanted on the bus. Black people were made to sit in the back. Don't confuse the two.

This is just stupid. If you insist on keeping this, at least add something like "seemingly" in front of exponential. Since, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass, which it's pretty evident you're doing anyway.

"Prodigious changes?" Get ye to a dictionary. Also, attributing America's social progress solely to its leaders is laughable. Lastly, "but what defines a great president?" does not belong in this sentence, since it is a very different line of thought from the prior statement.

You fail to answer your own question in quoting Obama here, or at least, you leave it to the reader to make their own opinions, which is bad bad bad bad bad.

lol

Ok........

I used prodigious changes correctly.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Doom_Dragon_103

[Bohemund]

Need to work on some grammar. In research papers you don't use first person, which includes we, our, my, and I, unless your teacher says otherwise. Do not use contractions (ex: "didn't" should always be written as "did not"). You need a comma after president and 20th in the first sentence.

The two parts,

but what defines a great president?

and

and Frankin D Rosevelt has earned the title of the greatest president of the United States of America.

each should be their own sentence.

Lastly, I don't know how everyone else was taught, but all numbers under 100 should be written out. There is probably more, but I only did a scan.

If you'd want more of my help, PM me.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Bohemund

[Wist]

Nothing I suggest here has been revised and I don't know any details about the rest of your paper. If I say something that doesn't fit, then it probably doesn't. I'm also sure that some people will disagree with or have superior suggestions to some of what I've said, just go with whatever you think makes the most sense.

I agree with the sentiment that your introduction feels a bit scattered, the duality with Obama and FDR makes it not entirely clear where you're headed. The paper isn't really about Obama so I'd If you want to keep the contrast between the past and present by using Obama, I'd strike out the first sentence. It states a fact, but it doesn't make enough of an interesting claim to make the reader want to proceed to your thesis statement.

If you want to open up with a good lead into the seat of the presidency, you could alter the second sentence like this. Obama could be used as a suitable reference in the second sentence. My second example sentence doesn't sound good, but you get the idea.

"The social progress experienced by the United States is evidenced by changes which extend into its highest seat in government. President Obama, a man whose ethnicity would have barred him from sitting in the front half of a bus forty (fifty?) years ago, is a clear indicator of this change."

If you don't want to diminish the impact of referencing Obama as a symbol of progress, you can still lead into your topic with something like this. Either path you take, you're using Obama to evidence your claim.

"The election of President Barrack Obama, a man whose ethnicity would have him relegated to the back of any public bus fifty years ago, is a testament to the social progress experienced by the United States over the past forty (fifty?) years."

After this, you can still work with what you have, but I agree with Fox that you might want to clear out a few of the adjectives. I don't know how your paper does/will address them, but I would probably combine them into a single sentence. Once you set yourself up to ask the questions (through your current third sentence with whatever alterations you see fit). I made slight alterations so that the questions imply causality as a result of a particular president being in power. You could say (I know this sentence is stylistically weird...):

"But what defines a great president? Is it the adoption of more successful foreign policy, the maintenance a strong and effective military, the strengthening of the national economy, or is it the harmonious orchestration of multiple key elements?"

Or you could change the questions in sentences:

"But what defines a great president? Anyone hoping to answer this question must weigh the successes of various important policies as they apply to foreign relations, the military, the economy, and whatever else you think you want to discuss in your paper."

I agree with Fox and Bohemund that you're better off making the "But what defines..." question it's own sentence, it brings more attention to that single idea which I think is important to your essay.

Your last sentence functions as a thesis statement, but I think you could tie it into the rest of your introduction more succinctly. You can still do this with Obama's quote if you want.

"President Obama once stated "greatness is never a given, it must be earned," and this is absolutely applicable to designating the greatest president. It is thanks to his successes in office and whatever else you might want to say [i don't know much of anything about US presidents] that Franklin D. Roosevelt has earned the title of the greatest president of the United States of America [or the greatest president the United States of America has ever had, whatever suits your fancy if you choose to use a conclusion like this]."

However you choose to approach this I wouldn't put the quotation or a reference to the quotation in the last sentence, but feel free to do so if you can make a solid statement whilst doing. Overall I mostly reworked what you had already written. I hope my suggestions are concise enough (maybe I didn't put enough emphasis on the lead into FDR as your choice of greatest president), but obviously anyone else can comment on anything they disagree with.

Good luck with your essay. I hope that picking and choosing from this thread helps you to consolidate your thoughts and create a more solid introduction.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Wist

[Doom103]

Nothing I suggest here has been revised and I don't know any details about the rest of your paper. If I say something that doesn't fit, then it probably doesn't. I'm also sure that some people will disagree with or have superior suggestions to some of what I've said, just go with whatever you think makes the most sense.

I agree with the sentiment that your introduction feels a bit scattered, the duality with Obama and FDR makes it not entirely clear where you're headed. The paper isn't really about Obama so I'd If you want to keep the contrast between the past and present by using Obama, I'd strike out the first sentence. It states a fact, but it doesn't make enough of an interesting claim to make the reader want to proceed to your thesis statement.

If you want to open up with a good lead into the seat of the presidency, you could alter the second sentence like this. Obama could be used as a suitable reference in the second sentence. My second example sentence doesn't sound good, but you get the idea.

"The social progress experienced by the United States is evidenced by changes which extend into its highest seat in government. President Obama, a man whose ethnicity would have barred him from sitting in the front half of a bus forty (fifty?) years ago, is a clear indicator of this change."

If you don't want to diminish the impact of referencing Obama as a symbol of progress, you can still lead into your topic with something like this. Either path you take, you're using Obama to evidence your claim.

"The election of President Barrack Obama, a man whose ethnicity would have him relegated to the back of any public bus fifty years ago, is a testament to the social progress experienced by the United States over the past forty (fifty?) years."

After this, you can still work with what you have, but I agree with Fox that you might want to clear out a few of the adjectives. I don't know how your paper does/will address them, but I would probably combine them into a single sentence. Once you set yourself up to ask the questions (through your current third sentence with whatever alterations you see fit). I made slight alterations so that the questions imply causality as a result of a particular president being in power. You could say (I know this sentence is stylistically weird...):

"But what defines a great president? Is it the adoption of more successful foreign policy, the maintenance a strong and effective military, the strengthening of the national economy, or is it the harmonious orchestration of multiple key elements?"

Or you could change the questions in sentences:

"But what defines a great president? Anyone hoping to answer this question must weigh the successes of various important policies as they apply to foreign relations, the military, the economy, and whatever else you think you want to discuss in your paper."

I agree with Fox and Bohemund that you're better off making the "But what defines..." question it's own sentence, it brings more attention to that single idea which I think is important to your essay.

Your last sentence functions as a thesis statement, but I think you could tie it into the rest of your introduction more succinctly. You can still do this with Obama's quote if you want.

"President Obama once stated "greatness is never a given, it must be earned," and this is absolutely applicable to designating the greatest president. It is thanks to his successes in office and whatever else you might want to say [i don't know much of anything about US presidents] that Franklin D. Roosevelt has earned the title of the greatest president of the United States of America [or the greatest president the United States of America has ever had, whatever suits your fancy if you choose to use a conclusion like this]."

However you choose to approach this I wouldn't put the quotation or a reference to the quotation in the last sentence, but feel free to do so if you can make a solid statement whilst doing. Overall I mostly reworked what you had already written. I hope my suggestions are concise enough (maybe I didn't put enough emphasis on the lead into FDR as your choice of greatest president), but obviously anyone else can comment on anything they disagree with.

Good luck with your essay. I hope that picking and choosing from this thread helps you to consolidate your thoughts and create a more solid introduction.

Wow Wist

Thanks so much I'll look at it and keep that in mind

Do you mind if I use parts of those sentences?

[Esau of Isaac]

Uh no, a lot of minorities could sit wherever the hell they wanted on the bus. Black people were made to sit in the back. Don't confuse the two.

To be fair, the sentence does still have the meaning of one minority with "a", but it leaves it open to others with it as well, since it works both ways. Of course, he probably meant all of them.

I'd give suggestions, but it seems that Fox and Wist already did quite well.

[Metal Rabbit]

If the essay's about Roosevelt, mention him more in the intro. And it's not fair to compare Obama and Roosevelt when the man hasn't been in office for 10 days.