Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now
All you have to do is review a paper and here are the requirements.
Since you’re reviewing an outline here, your concerns will be much different than reviewing a paper. You won’t be seeing all the supporting pieces of evidence that back up claims; instead, you’ll be looking at how well all the points fit and flow together, and how they relate to the thesis. Here are some guidelines for you:
I. How well does the introduction set up the paper? Does it provide defining terms, historical background, context, etc. What do you need to hear more of? Does it provide an attention-grabber, that gives you a reason to read on?
II. Is the thesis focused, and does it suggest a direction and point-of-view on the topic? Does it suggest an “investigative edge” ( from Lester’s thesis checklist) and point to a conclusion?
III.Look at the major sections (the roman numerals). How well do they reflect the thesis? Do they show a logical progression and organization? For example, if the thesis is presenting a causal analysis of a problem, does the outline clearly focus on, and spend the most time on that cause?
IV. Are the points of the outline parallel? That means, do similar sections cover similar things? For example, if 2 diseases are being compared, are similar issues of causes, symptoms, and treatment discussed?
V. Are the points of the outline properly balanced? “Balance” refers to proper weight given to important ideas. The important parts of the thesis should receive the most coverage in the outline. If the thesis focuses on the effects of global warming, for example, but the outline has the largest section dealing with causes, there is a problem with balance. Instead, the section on effects should take up the greatest space in the outline.
VI. Is there a logical progression of the major sections and their subpoints? For example in the section below about causes of global warming, you’ll see a logical progression of causes, from very specific (individual production) to general (national production):
I. Causes of global warming
A. individual production of CO2: use of gasoline, heat, etc.(very specific; on the individual level)
B. corporate production of CO2 (less specific; getting broader)
C. National production (much more general)
If this section of the outline instead began with corporation production, then individual production, and then national production, it wouldn’t have a logical progression. Points can use various patterns: from specific to general, as above; from least important to most important; from tangible to intangible. Whatever that pattern is, it should be apparent and “make sense.”
VII . How is the conclusion? Does it look like it will wrap up the paper well?
I attached the paper to review.
