This is a really well thought out and argued essay outlining the realities of teaching writing. There were quite a few lucid appraisals of students and the skills they lack which keep them from writing a "Real Essay". After reading each one however, I couldn't help but think that the author was in fact generating a very good syllabus for what should actually be the focus of his course.
If students are prone to Ad Hominem arguments for instance, doesn't that suggest that more time should be spent explaining this fallacy?
I totally agree. The author actually did great work in exploring what students need to improve to be able to write the types of essays that pg was talking about. It's too bad the author didn't actually realize that.
I also wish the author had basically eliminated the first two paragraphs. I almost didn't read the rest of it simply because the first part looked to be setting up a trivial "someone's wrong on the Internet"-style post instead of the well-thought-out piece that it actually was.
If students are prone to Ad Hominem arguments for instance, doesn't that suggest that more time should be spent explaining this fallacy?
This was just one of many such examples.