Kaleigh Tharrington

Dual Enrollment

Ms. Wellens

June 13, 2010

English 112 Final Exam


This year in Dual Enrollment there were a lot of argument papers assigned.

The factors that are necessary to establish a sound argument have become very clear. To have a convincing argument, one needs to make a clear and specific claim. The claim is to tell the reader where one’s position is on the issue. The best and easiest way to state a claim is to do it in a strong thesis early in the essay. This can help keep an argumentative paper on track! One needs to avoid a general or unqualified statement; the claim will be more convincing if it is limited. Along with making a clear and understood claim, there has to be reasons for making the claim in the first place. Reasons are needed to explain why one has an opinion about the issue. Choosing reasons and evidence that appeals to the audience also helps. The evidence needs to follow a logical line of reasoning. There are two different types of reasoning: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is often used more frequently than deductive, but both are a good way to go. Lastly, a huge thing to remember is that a great argument recognizes opposing views and points them out. If one acknowledges the opposing view and using a turning word like “however” one can show how the opposite side is not as appealing as the side being presented. The benefits to these techniques are that they can present an argument in a clean and organized way. The only drawback to these is that it can get a little too “robot-like” so that’s something to watch. All in all these tips are great for building a sound argument and they are always great to lean back on if one is stuck or doesn’t know where to begin.


When writing an analysis for an argument piece, the paper needs to be precise and organized. The paper needs to have a clear view of the writer’s thesis. A paper cannot be analyzed without having a clear understanding on the claim. The writer’s assumptions need to be put into thought as to whether they are acceptable or not. To back up the beginning of the critical analysis, there needs to be evidence pointed out from the writer’s piece. If there are examples that are relevant and accurate statistics then that’s a great sign that this writer has done the research. Thirdly, an important thing that needs to be looked at is whether the writer looked at the argument from both sides. Each needs to be presented in the writer’s paper so that it does not have a manipulative effect on the reader. Some comment on the reader’s tone is also a great thing to add. Whether the writer’s tone was appropriate enough for the piece is a good thing that can either be great or a complete disaster.


Marxist criticism – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels read a lot of Shakespeare, as well as modern writings, which are the creators of the Marxist theory.

Marxist Critics are very concerned about the structures of a society. They see a society's economic and social structures as its rock - the foundation on which the social order rests. They love to search for ways where the text shows ideological cruelty of a dominant economic class over inferior classes.

So to sum up Marxist theory in two words – SOCIAL SATUS! Literary criticism works with the study of literature because each theory has a different way of looking at things. The Marxist theory certainly has a totally different view to the Feminist theories. In studying each theory one can learn and notice new things about the text.

5. Hamlet and Laertes each display rash responses when enraged. When

Laertes finds out his father was murdered, he automatically presumes the killer is Claudius. As the product of Laertes's guesswork he instinctively figures out how to retaliate to Polonius's death. He wants to avenge his father’s death at any cost. Hamlet does the same by acting on his feeling toward the kind (his uncle). Hamlet and Laertes share the common trait to act quickly without thinking. This comes to be a bad thing in the play. Hamlet assumes the person listening in on his conversation with his mother is

Claudius. Consumed with anger Hamlet instinctively drives out a knife to kill

Claudius but instead kills Polonius. Hamlet and Laertes's irresponsible dealings are provoked by anger and irritation. Sudden fury tantrums prompt both Hamlet and Laertes to act impulsively, giving little or no thought on the penalties of their choices. The contrast is that Hamlet acts on his thoughts, feelings, and anger when Laertes simply just speaks about them (all bark no bite). I think that Laertes has slightly stronger morals because he never actually acts on his anger until the end of the book with the sword fight.

Hamlet acts on his feelings throughout the entire play and cares for no one’s feelings.