Reflection on Papers 2 & 3.

     The process for writing the two papers felt significantly different. The ad analysis paper involved less research than the position paper. In the ad analysis paper I was required to analyze the components of a set of picture ads that had a product or concept in common. In analyzing the ads the majority of the information on the ads were primarily based on observations and themes found in common. In essence it was my opinion and interpretation of each ad. The paper required little if any outside opinion other than my own to be addressed.

     The ad analysis paper I felt was a great lead-in to the final position paper. The process of learning to create a bibliography for the ads used was a good preparation for learning to cite works in my position paper. I had to learn to keep track of my sources as opposed to absorbing the information and writing of my own stance/understanding of the subject. The ad analysis also helped prepare for the position paper in the sense that I was already learning to make an argument by making a claim or stating a position about what the ads were saying.               
   
     The third paper was more difficult for me than the previous 2 papers. This paper not only involved more research on the subject but also required me to more specifically consider the credibility of my sources. I also had to consider other opinions on the subject and address them. One of my biggest limitations was having to condense the information and focus the subject. In the beginning I found many different ways to tackle the subject and had a hard time focusing it to fit in a 1,200 -1,500 word paper. I did not feel I could cover all of the aspects I would have like to address to make the argument. Eventually I found a way to focus the paper and limited it to one aspect of the subject (teaching meditation in schools) having to do with managing stress. I feel the focus on the one aspect allowed for me to make an argument without having to get lost in the number of directions it could take and make for a better argument by not overloading the reader with information.