Shelbi Provence
Ms. Lehmann
English 2-1B
3 December 2019
“Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey Connect” Review
John Green once said “the marks humans leave are too often scars.” The idea of human connection has fascinated many writers over the years including Frans de Waal. De Waal wrote the short article “Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey Connect.” De waal uses a very conversational tone in this article to persuade readers. This was a good article based on the way it’s detailed, but the author had was missing other sources. I would recommend this article just because it’s very informative..
De Waal is qualified to write about the way humans connect with one another. He received his degree in biology and works at the Yerkes Primate Center. It is clear that this article is written to inform readers about the ways in which humans and primates connect to one another socially and biologically. De Waal uses a conversational writing style to connect with readers by using first person pronouns like “me,” “my,” and “I” in his article. He also makes references to popular culture and common experiences. While De Waal has a good deal of education on the subject of the study of animals, specifically monkeys, he lacks outside research in his article. This means that this would be a good resource for learning about the wildlife of monkeys, but is not strong enough for in-depth research.
The formatting of this article is organized. De Waal does not use section titles, which makes the article smoother to read. His introduction does not state the main claim for his article, but it is not at the very beginning. Instead, De Waal eases readers into the subject slowly, saving the main claim for later in the introduction. Once readers are given the main claim, De Waal supports it well with examples from his own work and his training as a biologist. The article is well organized. I think it’s well organized because he gives details about his work and what he does.
Perhaps the most relevant factor when considering whether to read the article or not is content. De Waal’s introduction lays out his main claim that primates and humans have evolved to be quite connected to one another. His conclusion revisits the main claim briefly. De Waal writes about a variety of subjects, all working together to show that animals and people learn skills like empathy from our biological connections to one another. While his claim is worthwhile, he lacks outside research that could strengthen his article. This makes the article too weak for research purposes.
Ultimately, De Waal’s article “Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey Connect” is not worth your time. The author is qualified to talk about his subject and does so in a conversational tone. He organized his ideas ineffectively. What’s more, the subject matter is relevant, but confusing. All of this means that the article would be more useful if he explained more about his article, and you should not pick it up today.
1. Explain the process you went through to write this paper. Please be specific.
I read along with the class, typed up a paper about it, then revised it.
2. What qualifies this paper as an informative essay? What are the requirements for a review and how did you meet them?
I'm informing readers on the article so they can decide wether to read it or not.
3. What one piece of advice would you give someone writing a review for the first time? Why?
To read the article or essay more than once, be detailed, give a well description. It helps you later on throughout your writing.
Ms. Lehmann
English 2-1B
3 December 2019
“Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey Connect” Review
John Green once said “the marks humans leave are too often scars.” The idea of human connection has fascinated many writers over the years including Frans de Waal. De Waal wrote the short article “Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey Connect.” De waal uses a very conversational tone in this article to persuade readers. This was a good article based on the way it’s detailed, but the author had was missing other sources. I would recommend this article just because it’s very informative..
De Waal is qualified to write about the way humans connect with one another. He received his degree in biology and works at the Yerkes Primate Center. It is clear that this article is written to inform readers about the ways in which humans and primates connect to one another socially and biologically. De Waal uses a conversational writing style to connect with readers by using first person pronouns like “me,” “my,” and “I” in his article. He also makes references to popular culture and common experiences. While De Waal has a good deal of education on the subject of the study of animals, specifically monkeys, he lacks outside research in his article. This means that this would be a good resource for learning about the wildlife of monkeys, but is not strong enough for in-depth research.
The formatting of this article is organized. De Waal does not use section titles, which makes the article smoother to read. His introduction does not state the main claim for his article, but it is not at the very beginning. Instead, De Waal eases readers into the subject slowly, saving the main claim for later in the introduction. Once readers are given the main claim, De Waal supports it well with examples from his own work and his training as a biologist. The article is well organized. I think it’s well organized because he gives details about his work and what he does.
Perhaps the most relevant factor when considering whether to read the article or not is content. De Waal’s introduction lays out his main claim that primates and humans have evolved to be quite connected to one another. His conclusion revisits the main claim briefly. De Waal writes about a variety of subjects, all working together to show that animals and people learn skills like empathy from our biological connections to one another. While his claim is worthwhile, he lacks outside research that could strengthen his article. This makes the article too weak for research purposes.
Ultimately, De Waal’s article “Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey Connect” is not worth your time. The author is qualified to talk about his subject and does so in a conversational tone. He organized his ideas ineffectively. What’s more, the subject matter is relevant, but confusing. All of this means that the article would be more useful if he explained more about his article, and you should not pick it up today.
1. Explain the process you went through to write this paper. Please be specific.
I read along with the class, typed up a paper about it, then revised it.
2. What qualifies this paper as an informative essay? What are the requirements for a review and how did you meet them?
I'm informing readers on the article so they can decide wether to read it or not.
3. What one piece of advice would you give someone writing a review for the first time? Why?
To read the article or essay more than once, be detailed, give a well description. It helps you later on throughout your writing.