Alex’s paper is an exceptionally well-written one. It very clearly addresses the topic, there
is no question as to what this paper is about, and that Alex is firmly on the side of POs
being overprescribed. I think the main strength of this paper is how it is so incredibly
focused. Alex hones in on what she wants to talk about in the introduction, and then very
succinctly and effectively backs up everything she said in her thesis with phenomenal body
paragraphs. Her thesis is that opiates are overprescribed and discusses how and why by
examining the scheduling process of drugs, prescribing opiates, opiate abuse in and of
itself, pharmaceutical and cultural influences, policies and regulations, as well as risks
associated with opiates. Her body paragraphs follow that that exact order outlined in the
thesis, and they flow very well and very logically together. Her arguments are all very
compelling, and overall this is an excellent paper.
Evaluation)
Alex’s title specifically and succinctly indicate what the paper was about. It clearly refers
to the debate question, however, it does not specifically indicate what side (pro or con) of
the debate argued in the paper. The only words utilized here are “an analysis of the over
prescription of opiates”. She does infer here that opiates are overprescribed, but the
vagueness of “an analysis of” doesn’t specify whether or not she is in agreement with the
assumption that they are over prescribed. I think that Alex’s introduction is absolutely
perfect. I know we are supposed to offer constructive criticism but I genuinely do not think
