Help Me Check This Essay?

[Satan's Asshole]

I have to submit it later and Im being paranoid xD if you don't mind, can u just check it for me and tell me about any spelling/grammar mistakes or if anything sounds retarded xD ?

 

 

 Firoozeh Dumas talks about her family’s immigration to America and how locals treated her because of her foreign name in “The F Word†and Ninos P. Malek talks about, exactly as the title of his essay states: “Fast Food and Personal Responsibilityâ€. They both establish ethos through the use of bits and pieces of their personal experience which strikes relatability with the readers but while Malik supports his standpoint even more by mentioning reliable sources that agree with his opinion, Dumas uses occasional humor to drive her essay away from being too critical and harsh.

 

Dumas starts her essay with a powerful standpoint. To empathize how Americans have degraded her and her family’s names, she explains what the names mean in her language and the nicknames Americans gave them. “Greatness†becomes “Farthead†and “Beloved†becomes “Fartshitâ€. This isn’t a good start because it confuses the reader on what the purpose of the essay is: Dumas’ cultural shock or criticism of Americans’ welcoming to foreigners. As for Malek, he uses his personal experience in a better way to establish ethos. “I have seen nutrition-content posters at several fast-food establishments†to prove the fact that nutritional information is available to fast food restaurant costumers in a more personal way. “But even if the restaurant provided no information, it is easy enough to learn from books, the Internet, television, and radios that certain foods can promote heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure.†Including this quote is an excellent indication of strong use of ethos. We, as people exposed to fast food media, can all relate to this from our experience of coming across articles and reports that talk about the dangers of fast food. Our familiarity with this sort of experience enables us to trust Malek’s statements and opinions because we can relate to him.

 

Malek’s ethos falls down at the statement “If you smoke let me ask you this: did an employee from one of the tobacco companies put a gun to your head and make you smoke a cigarette? I didn’t think soâ€. It might deliver his point of customer’s freedom to choose by striking up a good example but it also comes off as too harsh and negative, specifically at “put a gun to your headâ€. It isn’t persuasive because it includes sarcasm and breaks the reader’s trust on the author’s moral character. “People who are dying because of smoke-related diseases have nobody to blame but themselves†is another example of poor moral character. “Dying†is a word with one of the strongest negative connotations yet here it is associated with the phrase “have nobody to blame but themselves.†It sounds almost as if the author is saying, “you killed yourself by yourself†which is a too harsh and aggressive use of words. Dumas also establishes poor ethos as she progresses with the essay. “And have Americans ever realized the great scope of guttural sounds they’re missing?†and “this land of Joes and Marys†sound like criticism. I find it ironic because Dumas criticizes Americans for the very thing she herself is suffering: cultural differences.  Dumas complains that Americans treat her name as too exotic and different from their culture but she herself talks of English names as too plain and different from her own culture. This confusion and overly critical way of writing prevents the reader from seeing her moral character.

 

 In the sixth paragraph of Malek’s essay, he takes advantage of the names of two authors and their book to illustrate his next point. This makes his opinions sound more reliable as it is backed up by a good source. However, the quotation marks on the word “expert†in the phrase “public experts†has a sarcastic tone to it and indicates that he does not view them as such which is slightly offensive. The entire phrase “are not so concentered about health politics and their social agenda†sounds like a rant at the government, which is inappropriately placed in this essay. His point could have been illustrated in a more professional and focused manner. Dumas, on the other hand, does not include any sources in her essay but what she does do to appeal to the reader is use is a little bit of humor everywhere from “to whom lentils described a type of burger†to “had I had a special affinity for poodles or been considering a career in prostitution.†These scattered jokes break away the tension of long intensive paragraphs and connect to the reader in a friendly, light-hearted manner.

 

Once again, Malek burrows an extract from a text as well as an example of a television series for the same reasons I mentioned above – stating a reliable source makes your opinions seem reliable. He even ends the essay in this way. By stating a quote along with it’s source, he ends his essay with a trustworthy note. Dumas, on the other hand, uses humor again to end her essay light-heartedly. She compares exotic names to exotic foods and says that Americans are becoming more open-minded about both.

 

In conclusion, there is a striking similarity in the way both Dumas and Malek use stories of their personal experience to strike familiarity with their readers but their main difference is that when it comes to establishing ethos, Dumas relies on character and humor while Malek relies on logical reasoning. I prefer Malek’s method to Dumas’. One can say that Dumas is like a comedian, her jokes sometimes offensive and sometimes likeable while Malek is like a lecturer, his points delivered with logical reasoning and facts, allowing the readers to view his character as authoritative and trustworthy.  Firoozeh Dumas talks about her family’s immigration to America and how locals treated her because of her foreign name in “The F Word†and Ninos P. Malek talks about, exactly as the title of his essay states: “Fast Food and Personal Responsibilityâ€. They both establish ethos through the use of bits and pieces of their personal experience which strikes relatability with the readers but while Malik supports his standpoint even more by mentioning reliable sources that agree with his opinion, Dumas uses occasional humor to drive her essay away from being too critical and harsh.

 

Dumas starts her essay with a powerful standpoint. To empathize how Americans have degraded her and her family’s names, she explains what the names mean in her language and the nicknames Americans gave them. “Greatness†becomes “Farthead†and “Beloved†becomes “Fartshitâ€. This isn’t a good start because it confuses the reader on what the purpose of the essay is: Dumas’ cultural shock or criticism of Americans’ welcoming to foreigners. As for Malek, he uses his personal experience in a better way to establish ethos. “I have seen nutrition-content posters at several fast-food establishments†to prove the fact that nutritional information is available to fast food restaurant costumers in a more personal way. “But even if the restaurant provided no information, it is easy enough to learn from books, the Internet, television, and radios that certain foods can promote heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure.†Including this quote is an excellent indication of strong use of ethos. We, as people exposed to fast food media, can all relate to this from our experience of coming across articles and reports that talk about the dangers of fast food. Our familiarity with this sort of experience enables us to trust Malek’s statements and opinions because we can relate to him.

 

Malek’s ethos falls down at the statement “If you smoke let me ask you this: did an employee from one of the tobacco companies put a gun to your head and make you smoke a cigarette? I didn’t think soâ€. It might deliver his point of customer’s freedom to choose by striking up a good example but it also comes off as too harsh and negative, specifically at “put a gun to your headâ€. It isn’t persuasive because it includes sarcasm and breaks the reader’s trust on the author’s moral character. “People who are dying because of smoke-related diseases have nobody to blame but themselves†is another example of poor moral character. “Dying†is a word with one of the strongest negative connotations yet here it is associated with the phrase “have nobody to blame but themselves.†It sounds almost as if the author is saying, “you killed yourself by yourself†which is a too harsh and aggressive use of words. Dumas also establishes poor ethos as she progresses with the essay. “And have Americans ever realized the great scope of guttural sounds they’re missing?†and “this land of Joes and Marys†sound like criticism. I find it ironic because Dumas criticizes Americans for the very thing she herself is suffering: cultural differences.  Dumas complains that Americans treat her name as too exotic and different from their culture but she herself talks of English names as too plain and different from her own culture. This confusion and overly critical way of writing prevents the reader from seeing her moral character.

 

 In the sixth paragraph of Malek’s essay, he takes advantage of the names of two authors and their book to illustrate his next point. This makes his opinions sound more reliable as it is backed up by a good source. However, the quotation marks on the word “expert†in the phrase “public experts†has a sarcastic tone to it and indicates that he does not view them as such which is slightly offensive. The entire phrase “are not so concentered about health politics and their social agenda†sounds like a rant at the government, which is inappropriately placed in this essay. His point could have been illustrated in a more professional and focused manner. Dumas, on the other hand, does not include any sources in her essay but what she does do to appeal to the reader is use is a little bit of humor everywhere from “to whom lentils described a type of burger†to “had I had a special affinity for poodles or been considering a career in prostitution.†These scattered jokes break away the tension of long intensive paragraphs and connect to the reader in a friendly, light-hearted manner.

 

Once again, Malek burrows an extract from a text as well as an example of a television series for the same reasons I mentioned above – stating a reliable source makes your opinions seem reliable. He even ends the essay in this way. By stating a quote along with it’s source, he ends his essay with a trustworthy note. Dumas, on the other hand, uses humor again to end her essay light-heartedly. She compares exotic names to exotic foods and says that Americans are becoming more open-minded about both.

 

In conclusion, there is a striking similarity in the way both Dumas and Malek use stories of their personal experience to strike familiarity with their readers but their main difference is that when it comes to establishing ethos, Dumas relies on character and humor while Malek relies on logical reasoning. I prefer Malek’s method to Dumas’. One can say that Dumas is like a comedian, her jokes sometimes offensive and sometimes likable while Malek is like a lecturer, his points delivered with logical reasoning and facts, allowing the readers to view his character as authoritative and trustworthy.  

 

[TIM£]

In the (Novel, biography whatever) â€œThe F Wordâ€, Firoozeh Dumas talks about her family’s immigration to America and how locals treated her because of her foreign name, similarly Ninos P. Malek implies with the title of his essay, “Fast Food and Personal Responsibility†that(then insert what your trying to explain). The authors both establish ethos through the use of  retelling recollections and anecdotes of their personal experience which creates parallels  with the readers from which they can identify with, however while Malik supports his standpoint even more by referencing more credible sources that agree with his opinion, Dumas uses occasional humor and informal language to drive her essay away from being too critical and harsh.

 

 

I'm not sure if that helps at all, sometim£s you use a little too much informal language which will bring your marks down as within essays formal language is essential. Also relatabllity isn't a word and you will lose marks if you continue to use it(hence use identify, able to draw parallels with their life etc)

[TIM£]

In essence conclusion, the striking similarity in the way both Dumas and Malek use stories of their personal experience to strike familiarity with their readers(finish the idea). The main difference is that when it comes to establishing ethos, Dumas relies on character and humour while Malek relies on logical reasoning.  Dumas' use of comedic relief, even though her jokes can sometimes come across as offensive, can be seen as more effective in it's conveying of (whatever the message is)  as it's warm approach is less clinical and more easily identified with, while Malek is more detached, his points delivered with logical reasoning and facts, allowing the readers to view his character as authoritative and trustworthy yet at the same time cold and unapproachable   

 

You should really never use first person, there are some essays where you can but it's still something you should avoid. You should never say you prefer someones approach but that one uses a more effective method etc

 

I can't be bothered to check the middle paragraphs just remember to use more formal language 

[No Heart]

In the (Novel, biography whatever) â€œThe F Wordâ€, Firoozeh Dumas talks about her family’s immigration to America and how locals treated her because of her foreign name, similarly Ninos P. Malek implies with the title of his essay, “Fast Food and Personal Responsibility†that(then insert what your trying to explain). The authors both establish ethos through the use of  retelling recollections and anecdotes of their personal experience which creates parallels  with the readers from which they can identify with, however while Malik supports his standpoint even more by referencing more credible sources that agree with his opinion, Dumas uses occasional humor and informal language to drive her essay away from being too critical and harsh.

 

 

I'm not sure if that helps at all, sometim£s you use a little too much informal language which will bring your marks down as within essays formal language is essential. Also relatabllity isn't a word and you will lose marks if you continue to use it(hence use identify, able to draw parallels with their life etc)

 

When using transitional words or conjunctive adverbs in the middle of a sentence, you are required to use two commas--one before, one after.

 

**...because of her foreign name, similarly, Ninos P. Malek implies...**

**...from which they can identify with, however, while Malek supports...**

 

Although, I do believe using a semi-colon in replacement of the first comma sounds more formal.

 

**...because of her foreign name; similarly, Ninos P. Malek implies...**

**...from which they can identify with; however, while Malek supports...**

 

Anyway, I hate revising essays