Quality and effort don't always align, especially when it comes to writing!

I would recommend easing up on your use of semicolons.

Maybe more carefully consider your phrasing choices:

--the effort I expended failed to result in a satisfactory grade OR --the grades I received failed to correlate with the effort I expended

Discuss coherence: fear of getting things wrong; obsession with getting As; linked to self-esteem

Sentence ideas don't neatly line up

Maybe drop the semicolon.

The results tend to hit more personally than they do in other classes, as I consider my writing a representation of my intelligence, personality, and likeability.

Whether you wish to identify a single event, several events, or like Twain, apply concepts like circumstance and temperament to a series of events, you'll inevitably reflect on beliefs, opinions, and ambitions.

Honing in on a handful of moments, episodes, etc., would be fine. I would avoiding chronicling your life story.

See my first note above.

We're looking at the question of relevance in a slightly different way given our broader objective to write for a popular publication read by a general audience. Replace "a particular course or academic subject" with "the publication in which you imagine your piece appearing." For instance, if you image your piece appearing in a publication like Vox, which declares its commitment to "never ... [losing] sight of the fact that major events impact real people’s lives," you want to emphasis the parts of your narrative that "real people" can relate to. That would likely mean more real-world, experience-oriented examples and much less jardon or theory.

More summary of Reese's argument. Here, Reiderer shows that while Reese makes arguments re: attitudes about meat consumption, ultimately he's more interested in the maintainability of current methods of meat production--the meat industry, and animals generally, are "inefficient producers of flesh."

Here, not only does Scutts show readers how Longworth begins her book, she shows how Longworth initiates a conversation about the role women's views about other women play in our perceptions of men's actions.

Reiderer concedes that she didn't find what she was looking for in Reese's book.

It's never a good sign when a reviewer recommends another, better book!

Here Reiderer describes how Reese distances himself from nutrition advocates like Michael Pollan. He may single out Polan because of his stance on lab-grown or created foods generally (he objects to them in favor of real foods.)

Reiderer suggests that Reese's dispassionate, highly clinical approach to his topic is unlikely to inspire readers.

Here we see Reiderer begin to lean in to her critique of Reese's book.

Here Reiderer paraphrases Reese's claim that eating lab-grown meat isn't any more "unnatural" than eating animal-based meat.

Praise of Reese's treatment of this counterargument (that eating meat is "necessary" for good health).

Sums up power dynamics of 30s and 40s Hollywood.

Underscores one of the book's main arguments.

Scutts provides an example of a high-profile relationship portrayed in Longworth's book.

Discussion of Ida Lupino helps contextualize the era the book covers. To assume power, women had to downplay it.

Scutts situates Longworth's book very much in relation to Scorsese's film, which she probably assumes informs most people's view of Hughes. She also subtly begins to tie the book to the #MeToo movement.

Here, Scutts's introduces an outside source, Scorsese's film about Hughes's, as an example of the contemporary public's exposure to him.

Third paragraph concludes Scutts's brief overview of Hughes's life.

2nd paragraph jumps directly to summary of early Hughes's biography (presumably extracted from Scutts's book); depicts him as ruthless from an early age.

This sentence gives us a good sense of where this review is going. With words like clear-eyed and incisive, it seems likely to be a positive review.

We also learn Scutts's understanding of the book's objective: to cast in bold relief the way history burnishes the reputations of men at the expense of women.

This paragraph summarizes one of Reese's major points.

The first hint we get of the political lens through which Reese views his advocacy (center right).

After a criticism, this paragraph concedes that the issue Reese raises is important.

Center-right, business-friendly animal rights advocacy. It's becoming clear that the reviewer is highly skeptical of Reese's high opinion of entrepreneurs as solvers of ethical problems.

This paragraph gives a brief overview of Reese's background, and describes how he has gone about establishing his animal rights bona fides. There's just a hint of sarcasm that comes through primarily in the sentence about Reese's pet chickens.

These details, as well as Scutter's tone, constitute the first hint we get that this may not be an all together favorable review.

Stressing Wu's thesis, anti-trust seeks to address the danger consolidated economic power poses to democracy.

The review's one criticism: that Wu omits the role of the courts from his analysis.

Louis Brandies (November 13, 1856 – October 5, 1941): staunchly anti-trust supreme court justice.

This passage summarizes Wu's central position; namely, that a narrow understanding of anti-trust is wrong. Anti-trust, Wu argues, has always "included preserving conditions for democracy."

This paragraph clearly puts Wu at odds with Bork, the Chicago School, etc.

Gives a sense of what the book is and isn't. And provides a helpful way of thinking about its argument/approach.

Also, this paragraph helps open up the book's potential readership. It's "neither an academic book nor a policy brief."

Notice how the first three paragraphs work: P1 establishes conglomerate dominance, P2 shows that economic thinking of the 1970s played a huge role in setting the playing field for the rise of conglomerates, and P3 shows how more recent thinking has emerged by way of the neo-Brandeisians.

This goes to Sitaraman's efforts to situate Wu's book. We're living in a moment of conglomerate dominance-- monopolies are everywhere.

P9 and 10 show how monopolies were linked to authoritarianism, and that New Dealers had a role in shaping post-war European views on Anti-Trust.

The book's major failing is its dispassionate approach. Note how Riederer directs readers to another, better book on the same subject.

Another concession.

First concrete criticism: the book's tone is too cold and mathematical to appeal to an audience.

Marketing--persuading people to eat meatless meat or lab-grown meat.

A brief overview of tissue culturing, presumably drawn from Reese's book.

This paragraph shows how Reese's advocacy fits into the larger context of meatless tech as a response to concerns about meat production.

The end of this paragraph succinctly sums up Reese's argument: the future of meat production will not involve harming animals.

This sentence ties the opening anecdote to the argument of Reese's book.

Note how review begins with an anecdote re: lab-grown meat, rather than soy-based meatless meat.

We've talked about the importance of anticipating objections when writing all three of our previous assignments. WP2-B is no exception. Addressing likely objections helps you rhetorically, as it shows you're paying attention to what others say, not just to what you happen to think.

I would prefer the word "persuade" to "inform." When informing readers, one doesn't necessarily have to make an argument. But op-eds are all about argument. So, aim to do more than inform. Persuade your readers to accept your argument.

This! Please avoid turning your op-ed into a rant. Be civil, and give credit where it's due. Pointing out how stupid you think other people are isn't exactly a surefire way to cultivate credibility.