Monthly Archives: April 2014

Document Analysis Paper

Posted on by

The introduction of this paper sets up a complex analysis of the primary documents because it links the documents through change over time between the two rulers.  The thesis statement is clear and direct, summarizing the most important aspects of the documents as a whole.

The topic sentences of each body paragraph are also easily identifiable and have the ability to be discussed from multiple viewpoints.  Within the paragraphs, the author uses specific aspect of each document to illustrate the point of the topic sentence.  For example, the Table of Ranks discusses the fines and articles written into the document.  It answers all of the contextual information about the document in a way that also provides analysis.  Also, when direct quotation of the document is used, it is accompanied with an explanation of the quote, which furthers its use as a supplement to the factual discussion.

The sentence structure throughout the entire paper varies between complex and simple sentence, creating a paper that is both easy to read and sophisticated.  There are no glaring grammar or spelling errors, which show careful paper construction and an attention to detail mirrored throughout the intellectual discussion as well.  The analytic interpretations come across with as much confidence as the factual information.

By the end of this paper, I felt like (had I not know this subject) I had a complex knowledge of the topic.  It was also useful how the conclusion incorporated secondary source material that corroborated the thesis statement and gave further validity to the argument taken in the paper.  However, the best part of the paper was that it did not have to rely on secondary source materials, and I really got the sense that all of the points came directly from the person that wrote this paper and that they understood all of the facts that enhanced their argument.

The paper also adhered to all of the “Tips on Writing for Me,” which definitely kept this paper at the level it deserved.  Good job and congratulations!

3-2-1 Fascism

Posted on by

3 Points

1: Fascism does not believe in the possibility or the practicality of peace. Those who repudiate peace and have courage to rise up to face war and have the courage to fight, are “stamped with nobility”.

2: Fascism is the complete opposite of Marxist Socialism. Fascism propagates holiness and heroism, therefore, in actions that are not influenced by economic motive. UNlike Marxist Socialism, Fascism does not believe that class wars are the main force in the transformation and change in society.

3: Fascism goes against democracy and rejects its idea that having a majority in numbers means that that majority should direct society. It believes in the inequality of all mankind and denies the “truth” of political equality, the myth of happiness, and the possibility for society to have indefinite progress.

2 Questions:

In what way does fascism have a similar view to imperialism?

How do the principles of Fascism support what the Italian people wanted after WWI?

1 Observation:

Fascism used some of the same theories and terminology that socialism uses, but instead of focusing on class wars, it put the focus on conflict between nations and races.

Document Analysis 2 Paper Review

Posted on by

This document analysis, which discussed the reforms of Peter I and Catherine II, deserved the A it received. The writer included necessary contextual information for their audience, ensuring that readers would understand the topic. The writing itself is very concise, with each sentence aiding in proving the analysis’s thesis. When absolutely necessary, the author chose to use quotes to prove their point, but mostly paraphrased the historical documents in order to further his argument.

The topic sentences are controvertible and relate directly back to the thesis statement of the document analysis. Making these statements controvertible rather than factual is one of the many reasons that this paper is deemed an ‘A’. The sentences within each paragraph all stay within the constraints of the topic sentence and work towards the ultimate goal of proving the thesis.

In particular, the first body paragraph about Peter’s Table of Ranks incorporates all of the features necessary for receiving an exemplary grade. The paragraph concisely explains the Table of Ranks (providing the “what?” and “how?”) and discusses some of Peter the Great’s motivations for penning the document (providing the “why?”). Direct quotations are completely absent from the paragraph, as the author instead decided to paraphrase information from the document.

Overall, the document analysis provides a well thought out, logical argument, which answers the prompt given. The progression of the analysis is also logical, as the author chose to first discuss Peter I’s reforms and then transition to the reforms of Catherine II. The discussion of Catherine II’s reforms makes the transition seamless because the author first discusses those reforms which were similar to Peter the Great’s, and then continues on to discuss the reforms which were different from those of Peter the Great.

In regards to mechanics, the author correctly cites documents within footnotes on each page. The paper is written using active (rather than passive) voice, which is an important component of any papers written discussing history. Aside from a few grammatical errors and a few spelling errors, the document analysis is completely free from mechanical error.

Document Analysis Paper Review

Posted on by

This paper deserved an A because aside from a perfect spelling and punctuation, the author’s writing was to the point. The paper had no superfluous statements, and each sentences worked toward answering the thesis. In addition, the author does a great job at contextualizing his topic thus making it accessible to any readers.  The usage of quotes followed the same pattern: quotations from the text were only given to illustrate his point while additional references were simply paraphrases.

The argument itself was well constructed: The author’s interpretation of the reign of Peter the Great and Catherine II were correct and logical. Furthermore, the author’s analysis of the documents was used as a mean to both analyze the continuation of the reformist ideals throughout the century, but also changes within reigns, particularly that of Catherine II, thus providing solidity and depth to the argument. Such analysis of the sources allows the author to both give context and prove the thesis.

The structure of the paper was also interesting. In the case of Peter, the author started the argument through a description of the table of ranks, only referring to Peter to articulate that Russia was in need of centralization, therefore making a good usage of topic sentences. Following this brief description, the author then explained Peter’s aim behind the table of ranks as well as the consequences it had on Russia. In the case of Catherine II, this time the author first focused on the environment in which Catherine was at the beginning of her reign, period in which the Charter to the nobility was written. Then proceeded to explain why this environment caused her to create the Charter to the towns. While such method permitted the author to emphasize on Catherine’s reign, it also allowed tying the two periods in a manner that solidified the argument. In other words, the structure of the paper is organized well enough so that it eases the flow of the argument.

Document Analysis Paper

Posted on by

From the start, this paper was well written and conveyed a strong understanding of the material. The intro paragraph was clear and set an important path for the thesis. The thesis was clear and was original and thought provoking. The guidelines for an ‘A’ thesis state that it must be clearly in focus and must be an original or well-developed perspective. The thesis is kept clearly in focus throughout the paper. Each paragraph alludes to and promotes the general understanding of the thesis itself.

Throughout the paper, the logical argument is strong. Each paragraph looks at a few perspectives brought up in the topic sentence. Each paragraph allows the reader to gain a better understanding of the material without reading the sources for themselves. This is shown specifically in the paragraph that describes Catherine the Great’s reform policy before and after Pugachev’s Rebellion and how that affected the choices she made regarding foreign and domestic policies in the eighteenth century. This paragraph explains clearly to the reader what this rebellion was and how detrimental it was to Russia during Catherine’s reign. Each paragraph is organized in a logical way that provides a lot of evidence to prove the thesis.

The writing of this paper is clear, concise and the sentence structure is well formatted and constructed. “The Table of Ranks thus strived to create harmony within the nobility, which, in turn, would help to uphold a more general deference for rankings and thus establish Peter’s power as absolute and nonnegotiable.” This particular sentence not only ends the first paragraph clearly, but also refers back to the thesis and aids to prove it.  This paper does not read as a first draft and definitely sufficiently analyzes the documents “Table of Ranks”, “Statute on Provincial Administration”, “Charter to the Nobility” and “Charter to the Towns”.

The final paragraph concludes the paper extremely efficiently. It summarizes the entire analysis without being too repetitive. It also introduced new ideas that incorporated the thesis without coming off as something that needed an entire paragraph to explain. The paper as a whole was formatted properly, was very informative without being dry or repetitive, and is well deserving of an ‘A’ based off the paper’s formatting, structure and understanding of the material.

Peter I, Catherine II paper review

Posted on by

This paper I an A ranked paper for several reasons. It possesses all of the normal trimmings that are needed to insure that it can function as an academic piece; citations, indentations, correct spelling. It also includes the equally or even more important characteristic of being a well written essay. It has a clear statement of the characters that it will discuss (Peter I, Catherin I) fallowed by a brief statement of the timeframe they lived and worked. Fallowing that is the ever important evidence and a clear and concise thesis contained in one solid sentence. The thesis focuses on the actions that the paper is discussing, in this case the stratified and expanded government roles. The intentions of Peter the Great and Catherin II with their motivations for their actions. Later in the paper the author brings into the argument the evidence listed before the thesis. In order to do this a small amount of historical motivation is always included, often with some quotes. For example when discussing Peter the Great and the “Table of Ranks” the author mentions Peter’s affinity for the westernization of Russia and how that would be a significant motivator.

Once the Author has finished discussing Peter the Great they move on to Catherin II. They completely skip over any mention of the intervening monarchs deciding to spend more of their time properly explaining the relevance of Peter and Catherin. The transition from one monarchs to the next is seamless with a brief interlude discussing both monarchs for context. Thankfully at the beginning of the Catherin there is a much needed interlude explaining the context for Catherin’s actions and her legislation. The author tells us about the Pugachev rebellion in the beginning of her rule which shaped much of her domestic policy.

After explaining and elaborating on the actions and intentions of Catherin II the author turns their attention to what they have just learned. An excerpt from a noted authority starts off the conclusion telling us how the monarchs were perceived by the Russian aristocracy and public. Fallowing that is a brief conclusion stating what the evidence showed the author in their logical argument. There is little to no sugar coating, instead the author tells us that Peter the Great and Catherin II did not truly care about the people. Instead they did what the author believed them to have done and extended government.