My supervisor pointed out that the logic was in fact flawed. Moreover, the essay was underdeveloped in minor ways, and there were only one or two clunky introductions from outside sources. When it came to my second assignment, I was happy to notice that the supervisor had acknowledged the fact that most of my sources were appropriate. Instead of referring to online dictionaries and other unimpressive and unreliable sources as I did in the first paper, I cited appropriately the ideas from a research work by Laurie A Couture, and provided correct bibliographic details in the end. However, some of the flaws still persisted in the second paper as well. It was marked ‘poor’ or two counts – for one or more tasks mismanaged and for being distinctly underdeveloped. There were also occasional gaps in logic or clarity, and there were one or two clunky introductions of outside sources. When I read the paper a second time, I too felt that I could have done better with the development of the paper if I hadn’t confused the notion of injustice by referring to an incident where I was clearly misbehaving and punished as a child, though the immediate cause for punishment could not be strictly attributed to me. I could have chosen a better instance of injustice where one was at the receiving end of ruthlessness or oppression. When compared to the second paper, the first was slightly better in that it did develop the tasks reasonably well, and was underdeveloped only in minor ways. However, I will make sure that the improvement I made with regard to the sources and logical arguments. In the future, I hope to focus more on my areas of weakness in order to make faster improvement and achieve more clarity by better research and organization of thoughts.
I haven’t made much progress with regard to the organization of thoughts. In the first paper, I was marked average for mostly coherent paragraphs, and