Chorebanian 1

Tyler Chorebanian

Ms. Michko

E Block

6/7/24

Nature vs Nurture Q3 Revision Reflection

To start my task of revising my Nature vs Nurture Q3 essay I carefully read the essay and

circled any parts of it that needed improvement. This, along with Ms. Michko’s comments

helped a lot in highlighting the weak points of my essay. The main thing I focused on improving

in this revision was my commentary and topic sentences, but I also put some time into refining

my evidence and thesis. My commentary, in most body paragraphs, lacked details and specificity

of how my evidence directly supported my claim. Additionally, my commentary was somewhat

unorganized and this took away from my argument. In order to improve my analysis, and make it

more specific, I tried to focus on explaining why Tacko Fall’s lack of success supports that

nature is not as impactful as nurture. In my original essay, I simply said “The evidence supports

my claim.” This is very vague and leaves whoever is reading my essay with lots of questions

regarding my statement. Similarly, I revised my commentary for my Spud Webb evidence by

clearly stating how his small stature did not stop him from making it to the NBA. “It is important

to note that being tall in the NBA is one of the greatest advantages someone can have; however,

Webb's career supports that hard work (nurture) outweighs height (nature).” I felt that this was a

strong step up from my original commentary where, for the most part, I just described Webb’s

lack of height and how that didn’t stop him from being a good player. My original lack was

directly related to my claim regarding nature versus nurture.

 Chorebanian 2

Furthermore, the topic sentence in my second body paragraph was unclear and somewhat

difficult to understand and support. To change this, I made sure to specifically state the two sides

of the argument, and which one impacted success more so. Instead of the confusing original topic

sentence, “Additionally, the situation in which one is born will affect their success in life more

than their natural appearance or race.” Although my topic sentence was not all that complex, I

feel that it did the job of pushing forward my claim. Also, in my second body paragraph, my

original analysis was unspecific and did not directly follow and support my topic sentence. This,

along with the new changes to my topic sentence made for a lot of change in my commentary.

Similar to my last paragraph, this analysis lacked specificity, as I did not describe what my

evidence was supporting. In my revised commentary I wrote, “This supports that nurture is more

important than nature because taking on a debt can be credited to the financial situation one is in

growing up, or, their nurture.” What changed from my original essay was the direct description

of what my evidence did to support my claim that nurture left more of an impact on an individual

than nature.

I enjoyed this revision process quite a bit. I was able to learn ways to improve my writing

overall, as I feel that often my commentary lacks specificity. Going through and editing

everything, leaves me knowing, for future writing assignments, what will make my essays better.