In this essay I believe his main goal was to decide whether it is more important for a town to have a booming economy or does it need to preserve its open space. It also seems that he is interested in finding out the trade offs of being in a town that enforces preserving public space. In the middle of his argument I started to get a little confused as to why he was making certain points. For instance when he goes into detail about the different semiotics of the OSI sign I got a little lost as to its relevance. I believe if this were my paper I would definitely want to reference the sign and analyze it however it got into too much detail and I started to loose interest, especially because this particular sign is so boring and simplistic. I believe he makes his message clear towards the end of the paper however in the middle I feel he could have emphasized it a bit more. I found myself wondering what the reason was for some of his facts about the semiotics of the sign.  I believed his thesis statement was “But all the talk about economy this and economy that, does the need for a growing economy overrule the need for public space?” This evolves throughout the essay and he gives good evidence towards the end of the essay. I think he is making a valid point but I think if he re- read his essay a few more times he would see that his topic jump a bit from paragraph too paragraph. When he started to analyze the sign I lost track of what he was arguing or even if this was an argumentative essay. He has good evidence to support his theories, which is why it worked for me as the reader. However I felt there could have been more primary research because from what I could tell, without a work cited, his research came from text rather then actual encounters with people. I think if he were able to get a response from the president of OSI that would be a compelling piece of evidence for his paper. However I know he wanted to talk to the president about the reasoning behind the meaning of the sign and I think that’s getting a bit off topic again. He should interview the president and focus on the organizations goals and find out more about his main thesis he is trying to prove. By dwelling any further on the semiotics of the sign I think he will start to make his paper confusing and loose his overall message. I feel this paper needs more input from people who live in this area every day. I understand he is from this town but I have learned that interviewing people in different age groups can vary the information you receive. I wonder what an older man who owned one of the large farms would have to say about the OSI program. I wonder if his input would vary because of his different experiences of being in the farming trade. I also wonder what people who live next to this preserved land think about it. I am sure they have their own opinions about whether they would like to see it prosper or remain the same.  He has many secondary sources and for the most part I feel that they are incorporated smoothly. However like I state previously a lot of the citing from our class textbook seemed a bit too much for me personally. I don’t think it is all-necessary. Overall I feel this paper could be a bit more interesting with different perspectives from people within this area or possibly even outside the area in Saratoga. I think with more primary research it could have made a more compelling argument especially since you go back and forth a lot from thinking its better for the economy to not use the land and then you use sources that say it actually doesn’t make all that much of an impact as far as taxes go. I feel that the author should examine the placement of paragraphs and even his main point. If I were writing this paper I think I would want to make the overall concept that you’re trying to prove a bit more forceful to the reader. By the end of this essay I was a little shocked that he had decided OSI was in fact a good thing for this town. He kind of contradicts himself in the last paragraph by saying, “ And for my successful neighborhood you keep thriving.” Originally in the beginning of the paper he made it seems as though this program was holding his town back from prospering like other near by towns. He makes good point on both sides of the argument but it gets confusing as to which direction is dominant. Overall this paper has a meaningful topic.

Advertisement