December 9, 2016
Dear Max Nagano:
Before revising, my Textual Analysis 1 was composed of five main parts; the brief explanation of
Surowiecki’s main idea, his claim and supporting evidence, and conclusion of my analysis. Most
of the parts that needed to be improved were in the introduction. What I have realized with the
comments that you given me is that the overall flow of my paper is not consistent because my
analysis was too summarizing and having multiple claims that are not clear and inconsistent
rather than explaining the argument with strong evidence. Another problem was my word choice
and grammar. Some words did not support or explain how Surowiecki’s idea is related to
American society and how Surowiecki dissolves his positive sense of the con artists throughout
the article. My unclear claim resulted in ambiguity and misunderstanding. Therefore, I tried to
fix some problems such as incoherent and unstructured process of drawing claim, word choice,
and transition.
Therefore, I revised the entire paper based on your feedback, centrally the introduction.
However, unlike its original purpose, my introduction was too difficult to read and catch the
reason why I was talking about Surowiecki’s perspective and “double-sided character’ at the
same time. It is because too many things are dealing with each other discursively. To make it
easier to read, I have separated the logically unstructured introduction into two parts. The first
part is briefly describing the “Do the Hustle”, the second part is the evidences that support my
