Evaluating the two essays from classmates Kevin Wang and Kally Chan Liang, I will start with Kevin Wang’s essay titled ‘Medical Inflation and its Critical Implications for Recovery’. As much as they are both talking about the same issue, they both vary in their ways of expressing and detailing. From my point of view, Kevin is a much-detailed person in his writing and he writes down every necessary detail that should be known by any reader. Kevin brings out his ideas in a much-organized manner whereby, he writes as he gives us examples of every explanation. Kevin lets his readers understand every statement he makes and he makes it easier by giving time and period. For instance, the time salaries were raised or medical care costs went up, among other examples. He brings out all his estimation of percentages of those salary increments in comparison with other increments or decrements such as those of inflation (Rog, 2007).
He is not brief hence, being able to bring out a wide range of explanations regarding the issues he discusses. He is, therefore, able to capture the reader as his style makes one want to read more andunderstand everything in the document. I would say he is simple in his explanation. The reader is able to understand easily what the content is and he has strength of being specific when it comes to details of what he is trying to say. For example, he wants the reader to understand the exact difference he is implying by giving a table showing the differences of the percentages of incomes in different years and the inflation growth differences. I think Kevin has many ideas to talk about but lacks good grammar. He is a little bit plain and not very creative. Needs good vocabulary and grammar for him to be able to communicate efficiently and earn high grades.
On the other hand, Kally Chan Liang, comments on the same issue but in a much different style. He is some how brief in that, he does not go deep into explaining every detail about the issue. He is just going straight to his points on the drug expenses issue. He is too specific on one particular issue, which is the cost of drugs and does not go on to talk about the side effects. He uses good vocabulary with short and precise sentences. He is clear and the story flows hence, giving a much appealing article. Has a goood start and good ending (Montague, 1990).
Apart from all that, I think Kally does not bring out everything the reader may have expected to know. He does not leave the reader much satisfied, since he does not give many details. He is centered around just one same topic all the way, making it sound like he is repeating himself. Looks like he is a bit impatient since his article is too short compared to Kevin’s hence, making it not quiet satisfying for a reader. He also uses words, which are too complex. This may interfere with the reader’s understanding of the article. The grammar and language used should be good but simple enough for everyone to understand (Rog, 2007).
After evaluating these two writers, I realize that every writer has his/her own way of writing, in that they all have a variety of talents and at the same time, each one of them has weakpoints. Some will need to be improved, and that will be done successfully and may be for some weaknesses, the writers may have to cope with them. Generally, every writer has weakness and strengths in their writing careers. These can be improved to some level if taken seriously (Montague, 1990).