Individual Memo

Dear Author,

It was a pleasure that I achieve a chance to read your fascinating argument toward the “Issue –Two”, a law recently suggested in the assembly of Ohio State.

Even though you timely present the issue and make me feel compelled while I read the paper, I think it’s not effective enough to be displayed on the Commonplace. Therefore, I want to leave some comments on the paper to support you to revise the some of the parts and resubmit the paper.

Your general discussion is that Ohio State now holds “Issue-Two” law, a political Legislature that reduces and limits public servants’ benefits, such as wages and rewards, for good remuneration on their favor. You reflect negative opinion toward the issue because you think public servants, fire fighters and teachers, are significant in our society; therefore, you emphasized, they have rights to be rewarded.

About your opinion toward the sensational issue, I have several proposals and questions to improve and reinforce your claims.

1. On the second paragraph, you questioned that why the public servants don’t have a right for good logistics, good wages and good health care benefits; you said it is a “cheat”. As evidence, you mentioned the number of criminals and drug addicts, who are doubled annually. To be honest, I don’t catch any relationship between the reason that public servants have to obtain rewards and the increase rate of criminals. The claim and the evidence are not relevant. I think, your claim would be much better if you more specifically explain that ‘why’ the number of criminals are closely related to the public servants’ prizes; is it because the public servants, such as policeman and fire fighters have to contribute their efforts more to bring peace in the societies? Or is it because the number of public servants are too little compared to the number of criminals, therefore, the government should construct more reward to public servants to stimulate more people to be a public servant?

2. On the third paragraph, you do mention the rate of youth applying for the public servants would decrease, which results old people to stay in the position longer. I don’t understand why the old people keep their careers, as public servants would be unproductive and less attractive to youth. Of course, there are cons and pros that the old people keep their careers. You should clearly explain your claim and make it relevant to your evidences according to make your arguments more flow. I think the claim would be better if you stick to your original claim, the number of victims of public servants are increased, but the rewards and prizes for them are too unattractive to manifest people applying in public servants, and add evidence showing the number of people applying for the job are actually decreased.

3. On the third paragraph, you also suggest a solution, which doesn’t limit the public servants’ benefits but limit other wasteful expenses, such as increase taxation in buying cigarettes and liquors. I think you should separate the paragraph according to Stand out your suggestion more effectively. Furthermore, I gently suggest you to generate more than one solution, which makes the paper more compelling toward the audiences of the paper.

As I mention before, the argument of the paper is really good. I feel appreciated that I have chance to experience in reading compelling paper like this. Your paper would be more timely, compelling and relevant if you reinforce some of the points that I’ve suggested, and be displayed on the Commonplace.

Sincerely,

So-Young Park