Overview
Hi! I hope you’re doing well. I’m sharing my essay—it’s complete, but it is currently 100% AI-generated, and I need help editing it so it is not AI anymore and so it feels more natural and like my own voice. I don’t want the flow or content changed, just the wording so it sounds genuine, strong, detailed, and analytical without the wording being overly complicated. Please send a Turnitin report afterwards so I have proof of no AI.
Please keep the language clear and not too advanced—I want it to sound like me. I’m also including the comments my teacher wrote on my last essay. I’ve already made revisions based on those, but I’d really appreciate it if you could make sure this version reflects that feedback as well. Here are his comments he made before I made revisions, please:
Hello,
I just read and commented on your final draft of “The Smile that Has to Hold”. It see real promise in this final draft, but it doesn't seem finished. You can do better. I am returning my comments as soon as I finished reading/commenting so, if you want, you can continue revising as soon as possible. I have no doubt that with continued revision this could be a strong essay!
Your prompt challenged you to write an essay to explore your idea-generating argument about whatever intellectual problem arises among your chosen Arbus photo and a second source – and do so while contending with claims about Arbus’s work made by Susan Sontag in “Freak Show”. All of the essaying principles and strategies we engaged in Progression 1 continue to be fundamental to your work here, but you are additionally challenged to locate the occasion for your essaying in a dialectical engagement with an idea-generating argument made by a source your professor (Anthony) is assigning/imposing.
I’m evaluating your Essay 2 with regard to the comprehensiveness of its response to the particular challenges of the prompt and the thoughtfulness of its engagement of key essaying conventions our workshop has focused on – see below. My assessment of your essay’s engagement of conventions will be quantitative:
4 (A) = Exemplary (Meets all expectations and exceeds some)
3 (B) = Good (Meets all or nearly all expectations)
2 (C) = Minimally Satisfactory (Meets some expectations)
1 (D) = Does not meet expectations
0 (F) = Work Submitted Insufficient
Establishing and Engaging Sources: (2) See marginal comments. Other than in the case of the Arbus photo (which you represent well), you haven't fully represented your sources –you’ve barely begun to incorporate direct quotations! So other conventions can't really be met! More evidence, more evidence!
Analyzing Evidence: (2.67) In your engagement of the photo you present compelling evidence and then show some of your logical process of breaking apart and parsing the details of evidence. Reader sees you lingering over the details, approaching the evidence in more than one way and going beneath the surface to get at deeper significance, meaning, or implication of the evidence. That’s the right impulse. You don’t present much evidence from your other sources, so give yourself little chance to analyze that evidence.
Posing and Engaging a Problem: (3) You are clearly motivated by some troubled curiosity throughout this essay but your motivating problem, wondering whether or not the couple is really happy, does not strike the reader as URGENT! As you continue to represent your sources, surfacing and analyzing more of the details, I’ll be looking for you to identify what else is so urgent and conceptually interesting inside (or behind) your question about whether or not the couple in the photo is really happy.
Dialectic (Contending): (3) I see hints of dialectic. This draft pivots on a critical concern you have about the Arbus photo – and I do see you returning repeatedly to re-see the Arbus photo, and that’s great. However, because you haven’t represented your other two sources in substantial detail, you have not chance to involve yourself in a “back and forth” group discussion among your sources, making clear at every step how new evidence and conversation partners lead to new assessments and understanding of your sources AND the problem/idea you are exploring.
Argument/Logic:(2) Because your sources are not fully represented and because the sense of motivating problem/question does not stay in clear focus, your draft does not successfully demonstrate how analysis of the evidence leads to a new idea (a new complex perspective on the problem).
Ending, Articulating the Idea – No False Conclusions: (2) Upon reading your essay your reader does not yet have a clear sense of something worth taking away, some tentative, yet rigorously sought after NEW thinking about the essay’s intellectual problem.
OVERALL GRADE: (C PLUS) Please keep revising! I want to see this essay in its full revised glory.
Thank you so much! Again, I already revised using his comments. I just want to make sure its good enough.