William Cannon

Revision Summary
The first paper I revised was my position argument, which debated the practicality
of beginning photography with an all-manual film camera over a digital camera. My
approach to this revision was to rewrite the paper in its entirety. I felt this was my best
option, because scattered throughout the paper were weak claims that distracted or even
weakened my argument as a whole. My first step was to rewrite the title in order to take a
more concise tone from the beginning. Overall the main points I decided to leave out in
my revision were arguments in regards to price and convenience. I avoided these because
they are weak talking points in arguing the benefits of film over digital. Discussing cost
was an obvious mistake that dawned on me during the creation of my first paper,
however I was too wrapped up in other arguments to want to disrupt the flow of my
paper. This is where the revision process has proven truly beneficial to my writing. It
allowed my to go through my paper and see the strength certain arguments held above
others, as well as how to write my paper in a way that flows much more smoothly with a
more decisive argument. This was my approach in rewriting the entire paper, to make a
far more concise and stronger argument. I feel this was achieved to a far greater extent in
my revision with the benefit of having the research completed and the general concepts
written down in the original paper.
The second paper I revised was my evaluation paper regarding a hike to Fifth
Water Hot Springs. For my revision I decided to keep the overall framework of the paper
while editing the content. I used this approach here because of the emotion and voice
present in the paper. It provided a very vivid recount of the events as it was written days
after the hike. I wanted to keep this tone in the paper while provided more serious insight

William Cannon
and comparison based on clarified criteria. To accomplish this, I went through and
shortened sentences wherever possible while still keeping the overall tone present in the
paper. Then I clarified the criteria I based my judgments of the hike on in my
introduction. Throughout the story of my experience I related experience to other hikes in
relation to my criteria while trying to be as unobtrusive to the original plot as possible.
The drive and hike were judged in a group separate from the hot springs in relation to my
previous experiences with both categories individually. This is partially due to my past
experiences of hot springs not requiring hiking of any sort to access them. I also wanted
to judge the hike separate from the hot springs in order to categorize my response to the
separate events. I feel that my revision approach of keeping the overall voice of the paper
best suited the objective of this assignment, which was to get and maintain viewer
attention while expressing an opinion on an experience.