8 May 2014

Dr. Leslie Bruce

Department of English, Comparative Literature, and Linguistics
California State University, Fullerton
P.O. Box 34080
Fullerton, CA 92834-9480

Dear Dr. Bruce,
Student learning outcomes, we have six of them. You will find on my Weebly web page
that I have included a critique that I have given to one of my peers for his argument paper. I have
also included a critique I received from a classmate for my argument paper. I have done this so
you can see that I have complied with SLO #1 and SLO #6, Rhetorical Focus and Collaboration.
I know that receiving critiques has helped me along the way and I hope that my critiques have
helped others.
Though there isnt the room to include all the work that I have done in this class, I feel
that if I could, you would clearly see that my ability to meet SLO #2, Ethical Citations, has
improved since we first met way back in January. My first project, the rhetorical analysis had
issues, such as properly presenting and citing sources. Those issues started to clear up while
working on the group profile paper. This was due to the fact that I had others to help stumble
through and figure out how to meet SLO #2. I feel that my revised argument paper shows the
culmination of this process. For example, if you compare the first paragraph in the original draft
of my argument paper with my revised paper under the Why We Should Dry Farm section,
you can clearly see the difference. As a side note, finding the area on the library research website
that actually gives you the citation in the style you are using made the work sited section a
breeze.
In my argument paper I have a section called Obstacles. This particular section
demonstrates that I have developed the ability to present, objectively look at, and rebut opposing
arguments, meeting SLO #3, Balanced Arguments. I think that if you compare any of these
arguments from the original draft of my argument paper to the revised paper, you will see that
the arguments against dry farming and my rebuttals are easier to read and more to the point.
Hopefully, helping the reader to understand that dry farming is a good thing and although there
may be obstacles, they can be overcome.
My revised argument paper has a clear pattern throughout. It is organized with titled
sections that prompt the reader as to what is being address in that section. My argument paper
starts with, an introduction, and my thesis. Next I explain what dry farming is, and define the
process because Im sure that most people have no idea what dry farming means. I then present
why we should dry farm, followed with reasons that could be argued against dry farming,
along with my rebuttals. I wrap things up with a conclusion that restates why dry farming is so
important. This demonstrates that I have met SLO #4, Organization and Persuasion.
As far as SLO #5, Effective Sentences is concerned; I think it is clear that I do not use
any language in my writing that could be considered insensitive to any gender, race or culture.
When I was in the military, it was beaten into me that there is no black, white, yellow, or brown,
only camouflage, nothing else. Not that I needed it. But I will never forget it.
Reflecting back, I will admit that I had knots in my stomach, feelings of dread, had bouts
with writing induced procrastination, and at times, I just hoped that I would pass this class so that
I would never have to do this again. Regardless, I can honestly say that I feel that I have
definitely improved as a researcher, a critical thinker, and a writer. Im confident that my revised
argument paper is proof of this.
I will conclude by saying thank you for your time and help throughout the semester, it
was greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Malcolm Sims