What I really am hoping to hear back on is if my essay is following all of the logical steps in order for my conclusion to be reached. First off, I need to know if the claim I am making is substantial enough at all – I feel like I am walking a very thin line between addressing who should rule and addressing whether Locke or Hobbes’ overall argument carries more weight. I want to know if I am leaving any points out or if I need to be more specific and not gloss over issues as much. I want to be told this because I want my argument to be very substantial, dense and to the point. If there is a point in which I am repeating I need to take it out. If there is too much filler I want to be told so that it can be removed; the more densely filled my paper is with information, it seems to follow that it would be more densely filled with concrete details and be more substantial in the sense of containing merit and correctness. I’d rather hear back on specific problematic parts of my essay rather than an issue with the overall larger theme. I am very interested in hearing if I am being too one-sided in my issue. It should be clear that Hobbes’ is more compelling in what he asserts compared to Locke, but not because I am not giving Locke a fair chance. Rather it should be because my own analysis is so clear that the only plausible conclusion is to accept the Leviathan over a legislature.
Pingback: Alexander Ong
Pingback: Olivia Long
Pingback: eegger