Tighten focus on your critique of Dawkins text. Overall how valuable or worthwhile is it to read this chapter (Chapter 3)? And Why? End your Essay SUMMING UP your answers to these Questions.
*Chapter 3 ONLY
– Finding the RIGHT words to express your thoughts as clearly as possible many phrases here were unclear.
– Explaining how the points you cover fit into the “big picture” of your argument. Regularly connect everything back to your thesis.
*Here is the Structure of the Essay should Be :
2. Summary of the Chapter (Primarily on Chapter 3 of the book) which is already done i just need you to correct it again, and added some sentences.
3. Critique: State why is the book worth to read for other reader (find the points on chapter 3) Is the book worth your time to read Why? Treat this essay as if you are Critiquing a book.
4. Conclusion: Overall assessment/ So what? what do you think of the book? your impression.
note that: Don’t be too bias in judging the book. you only have to concentrate on chapter 3, but still read the other chapter to help you understand more.
* TURNITIN ENABLE (ORIGINAL PAPER PLEASE)
1. I’ve provided the text God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
(Treat this as a reference)
2. Title Photo: Page 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 summary ARE the FIRST DRAFT OF THE ESSAY.
(TIGHTEN THE ESSAY CONCENTRATE ON 1 ARGUMENT IN 1 PARAGRAPH AND PROVIDE A SUPPORTING EVIDENCE about 2 – 3 from the text)
(This is what you have to continue to work)
3. Photo title Page 1,2 and (Page 1 whole page has been edited) edited are the changes that i already made myself which is basically the introduction and summary of chapter 3, the teacher wanted me to make some changes and CONTINUE.. to make changes because he said that the first essay(original draft) is more of a summary essay, NOT a critique essay, Your job is to make changes in this pages AND continue 2 1/2 pages of your critique about this book,
—Why is this book worth your time or other reader to read it?
—What about the arguments (critiques his arguments) valid or invalid?
—Conclusion… therefore, you agree disagree about his theory?