Cover Letter Content on STAR - Assignment Example

Cover Letter Content on STAR I am writing to submit the assignment on STAR where I evaluated the paragraphs given according to STAR strategies and revised them accordingly based on their claim statements. I derived great deal of learning and understanding from this assignment regarding identifying weak claims and how to correct them and got training to apply the STAR method. One strength of my assignment is that I managed to search solid sources and applied them to improve my claim statements. These improved the efficacy and quality of my claims and gave them more credibility. They also gave me a strong platform to base my thinking on. Another strength is that I focused a lot of time to identify varying weak points in the paragraphs and corrected them and improved the paragraphs a great deal, both in expression and content. I also cited my sources properly using the MLA system. A weakness that I picked out in my assignment was that I could not find a lot of statistics to support my claim and even if I did I could not find a suitable way to put them in. I also had difficulty keeping my composition less wordy The limitation of copying the claim word to word put me in the difficulty of having only a small choice of revisions of paragraphs. I also had to spend a lot of time to verify and find examples. A future strategy that can help me improve my work is to be more efficient with the sort of examples I come in and put in a more focused search method. Paragraph 1 The claim is “Unfortunately, because of all the advancements, the internet seems to favor the technologically elite.” The writer uses the topic sentence to open a window into the claim where he/she is trying to establish that despite the improvements computer technology and internet is bringing, it remains restricted to only a set group of people, which is of those who are mentally and financially equipped with using it. The claim appears to be very weak. Firstly, it is backed by a personal example that runs the risk of being subjective and therefore not strong enough. Secondly, a more relevant and typical example would have been to point out someone who dealt with technology on a daily basis but could not keep pace due to rapid advancements. Also, the story of an eighty-four year old is too anomalous an example. Thirdly, there is no way to establish that the evidence given is true or not and is not supported by any further explanation than the vague one given. Fourthly, the relevance is very low and redundancy occurs when discussing her favorite newspaper and recliner. Many broad generalizations are used at the one pointing to the retirees. A good way to improve on such a claim is to introduce very strong examples drawn from reliable sources, to elaborate them and to link them to the claim. A better topic sentence would also help. An improvement would be as follows: Computer technology has made breakthroughs and continues to grow rapidly. However, it remains that the growth favors only a selected group. Unfortunately, because of all the advancements, the internet seems to favor the technologically elite. Only those who have the acumen to grasp the rapidly changing and improving technology or the access to it can really benefit from it. A small farmer would not have the means or the know-how to use the latest technology to assist his crop production or keep his accounts. IBM also accounts for this by stating that the simpler the technology is to use, the more productive it will be for farmers to use (“IBM”). Moreover, the systems to support advanced technology may not be present as identified by John Fox when he discusses this in the context of clinical comouting and asserts that “after the introduction of a computer system, service is inferior and more expensive than before” (2010). So, not everyone may have resources to use latest technology. Also, computer technology is not easy to use for all ages and all sorts of people as described by Julie and Andrew in their book and that it requires more training if the skills are more advanced ("The human-computer interaction handbook"). This puts elderly people, retirees and those with minimum education in the disadvantaged bracket. "Cutting edge tech for all from Indian labs (Business Standard)." IBM. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct 2010. . "The human-computer interaction handbook." Google Books. Web. 18 Oct 2010. . Fox, John. "Development of hospital computing." n. pag. Web. 18 Oct 2010. . Paragraph 2 The claim of this paragraph is “Sometimes, however, this might not work” In this claim, it is being said that commercials use different strategies to coax or intimidate the consumer into buying their product but this may not always work. The strategy used is to present the counter and attack that in the end by saying how this may not work. It is a very weak claim. There is no sufficient evidence for it and no statistics, arguments or examples are presented. The counter evidence they used is quite typical to the claim but it would only have been effective had it been connected to the claim to prove that the counter is weak and so would have lend strength to the claim. There is nothing to support the truth of statements like “they are appealing to a particular audience”. The claim is not even relevant to the counter evidence but it is so vague and general as well as ambiguous that there seems to be little connection to withdraw. It is a good way to start with the counter but the best strategy would have been to attack it strongly after or while introducing the claim. Then the claim should be supported by solid data and arguments. An example is as follows. Commercial all are aimed towards intimidating the consumers into buying the product by using a mix of strategies. These include targeting consumers as per their needs and either use humour or sense of need or both. Sometimes, however, this might not work. This is mainly when advertising agencies fail to identify the right and focused consumer base for the message they are trying to send. This usually happens when companies want to become market leaders and jump into bigger markets before venturing and testing the smaller ones. It also might not work if the features are highlighted but it is not explained how they might benefit the consumers. An interesting example would be to say a car has anti-lock brakes but it is useless until it is communicated to consumer how it is better for him that is, by giving him greater security. Another reason is when the marketing is not done on a consistent and repeated basis. Statistics show that about at all times only 1-3% of the market actually buys at the moment that the message is received and rest purchase sometimes in the future. If people do not see advertisements repeatedly, the benefits stated by you will not be fresh in the minds of the consumers who purchase in the future. It is for these reasons that commercials sometimes are not successful in hooking the customers (Geisheker). Geisheker, Peter. "The 3 most common reasons why marketing fails." n. pag. Web. 18 Oct 2010. . Paragraph 3 The claim can be re-written as “If one is cloned, the clone may not be exactly like its mother”. The purpose is to question the definition of the ‘similarity’ by saying that clones look similar physically but not so when analyzed in the context of personality traits. The claim is weak because it should be a statement and not a question. It should also not be the first sentence but should be preceded by a topic sentence. Also, examples should be presented more coherently and strongly to support the statement. An improved version is as follow: Research shows that clones share the same physical features as the mothers. However, this is relevant to only the external physical features and is not true for the personality traits and character. (Then) If one is cloned, the clone may not be exactly like its mother. Several researchers support this claim by arguing that “ we are not reducible..to our genes” (Mccarthy). This is identified by the example of identical twins where they are genetically and physically alike, they remain to be two distinct human beings with different personalities. Donors and clones also share very different environments as they are often born years apart and therefore they end up with different charcters and traits. Segal confirms this by stating that “Donors and clones would share neither intrauterine environments nor prenatal events” (2006). These researchers reiterate that clones are nothing like their mothers. Mccarthy, Anthony. "Cloning ." n. pag. Web. 18 Oct 2010. . Segal, Nancy L. "Psychological Features of Human Reproductive Cloning: A Twin-Based Perspective ." (2006): n. pag. Web. 18 Oct 2010. Read More