EXAMPLES OF POOR, MEDIOCRE, AND GOOD WRITING

The following examples are all written reasonably well
in terms of their sentence structure.  There are no
non-sentences.  There are few convoluted sentences.
There are few sentences where the tenses of the verbs
do not match.

Instead, the following paragraphs vary primarily in their
depth, thoughtfulness, logic, and clarity.

Adequate (B)
     In 1960, Prothro & Grigg performed a study examining
consensus and consistency in people's support for democratic
principles.  They found that most people support broad
principles of democracy.  However, they also showed that
those same people did not necessarily believe that those
principles actually should be applied in particular instances.
For example, although over 90% of their respondents agreed
that every person should have an equal chance to influence
government decisions, about 80% also believed that only
taxpayers should be allowed to vote in a referendum involving
taxes.

     Although American society is in some ways very
different than in 1959, there is little reason to expect this
pattern to have changed.  America's democratic institutions are
essentially the same; and there has been little public
discussion regarding democracy per se.  Therefore, we
hypothesized that we would replicate Prothro & Grigg's (1960)
findings -- we would find a broad consensus of support for
democratic principles, but little consensus in support of
democracy in concrete instances.

Analysis: These paragraphs present some rationale
for why results should replicate those of P&G.
This is good.  That rationale, however, is pretty superficial.
Specifically, the entire rationale is presented in a
single sentence (the one that begins "America's democratic
institutions...").  This is not so good.
 

Weak (D+)
     In 1983, Smith performed a study of impression
management.  This study showed that, when people have a
goal of impressing someone, they do not necessarily act on
their beliefs.  So people's beliefs are not always consistent
with their behavior.
     In 1960, Prothro & Grigg performed a study examining
consensus and consistency in people's support for democratic
principles.  They found that most people support broad
principles of democracy.  However, they also showed that
those same people did not necessarily believe that those
principles actually should be applied in particular instances.
For example, although over 90% of their respondents agreed
that every person should have an equal chance to influence
government decisions, about 80% also believed that only
taxpayers should be allowed to vote in a referendum involving
taxes.
     Next we must justify our hypotheses.  We performed two
studies attempting to replicate their findings.  We administered
questionnaires much like their's to our Research Methods in
Psychology Class and to a sample of people in the New
Brunswick area.  We predicted that we would replicate their
results.
     Now we will summarize our hypotheses.  We would find
a strong consensus of support for democratic principles in the
abstract and little consensus of support for concrete instances
of democratic principles in operation.

Analysis: This piece is disorganized, disjointed, and amateurish.
The "Next we must/Now we must" sentences are unnecessary
-- they repeat the nature of the assignment, but they do not
provide any information about the research.  Your papers do not
need to describe your assignment.

The paragraphs are also unconnected.  One could
completely change the order without doing any further
damage to the ideas.  This is because each paragraph
provides almost no information relevant to the next.
 
 

Adequate (B-)
     People do not always hold consistent beliefs.  They
engage in behaviors that do not reflect their attitudes; they
hold contradictory attitudes and beliefs; and they may even
hold two beliefs that conflict with each other.  In this paper, I
examine whether people hold consistent beliefs about
democracy.

Analysis: There is some rationale here, but not much.
That people sometimes hold inconsistent beliefs is
relevant, but it is not a particularly profound insight
or thoughtful point.

Very Poor (D-)
     The inconsistency of consensus is an important topic.
American government is supposedly based on democratic
principles, but one can question whether people really believe
in them, or whether they only believe in them when it suits
them.  Perhaps people do not apply democratic principles
when applying their ideas, and instead base their action on
their own attitudes, which may cause their beliefs to be
inconsistent.

Analysis: This paragraph is almost incoherent.
 

Weak (C)
     America is a democracy.  Our form of government was
founded on the basis of majority rule and minority rights.
Although only a very small proportion of adults could vote
when the Constitution was first adopted, more and more
groups have received the right to vote in the last 200 years, so
that now almost every adult over 18 can vote.  Democracy is
govt for the people, by the people, and of the people.

Analysis: Everything here is true, but not relevant
to the paper.
 

Weak (C)
     According to Smith & Jones (1966) "Democracy is a
system of government in which most government officials are
chosen by majority vote, most adults have the right to vote,
and rights of minorities are protected."  However, do
Americans really support democracy?  If they do not, then our
government will not work properly.

Analysis: Its in the ballpark, but the research has
nothing to do with whether our govt works properly.
 

Strong (A)
     America is a democracy.  But how much do people really
believe in democracy?  One might think that a democratic
system of government requires strong support from the people.
After all, democracy is government for and by the people.
Without strong support from the people, it is hard to imagine
how our system of government could have lasted over 200
years.
     However, even though most of are taught to believe in
the broad principles of democracy, few of us have much
experience attempting to apply those principles in real life.
Therefore, it is not clear that most people would support
applying abstract democratic principles (e.g., majority rule,
free speech, minority rights, etc.) when applied to concrete
issues (e.g., when the majority elects an "offensive" candidate;
or when a minority harshly criticizes the majority's most
cherished beliefs).

Analysis: This section is not perfect, but it is very good.
The first paragraph is a nice broad intro.  It is relevant
because it discusses not only democracy, which is
tangential, but **support** for democracy, which is
exactly what the study is about.  The second paragraph
provides a pretty interesting rationale for why people might
have trouble applying broad principles of democracy --
they have little experience doing so!
Note: This section has some flaws.  The rationale could
be expanded to be clearer and more thorough.  Also,
the very last sentence borders on a run-on and is
a bit convoluted.

The point is that an A paper has to be very good, but
not perfect.
 

Very Poor (D)
Our study was limited because the sample size was small.
With a larger sample, the results would be more valid.

Analysis:  Sample size has very little to do with validity.
Large samples can be less representative than small ones.
This seems to be a common knee-jerk, relatively mindless
and superficial criticism that untrained novices come up with.
 

Very Poor (D)
Our study was limited because it was not random. Maybe
results would be different if we had a random sample.

Analysis: True but very superficial.  Again, it comes across
as a sort of mindless knee-jerk discussion of limitation.
How might the results have been different?
 

Adequate (B)
The sample based on our class had a very small sample size
(15).  However, essentially the same results were obtained in
the other samples, which had a much larger sample size (81).
Neither study, however, obtained a random sample, so that we
do not know whether our results would be replicated among
Americans in general.

Analysis: Nice point that the results did not depend on
sample size.  True that none were random.  But there
is no discussion of why or how our results might
have deviated from those of Americans in general.

Strong (A)
     Although the date from our class was based on a very
small sample, essentially the same results were obtained in the
other two samples.  This argues against the idea that the lack
of support for specific examples of democracy resulted from a
small sample size.
     Neither sample, however, was selected at random.
Sample One was restricted to students in our Methods class.
Even the groups, however, were a haphazard sample rather
than a random sample.  People who did not happen to be there
at the time the students were there had no chance of being
selected.  Perhaps the people who were not there to be
sampled held systematically different beliefs regarding
democracy than those who were sampled.  If so, then our
results may not generalize to Americans at large.
     How likely is it that other Americans hold different
beliefs about democracy?  Not likely at all.  Four samples,
collected in very different ways, over a period of 40 years,
have all yielded essentially the same pattern.  Prothro & Grigg
(1960) found the same pattern in Northern and Southern
samples; we found the same pattern among college students
and among adults haphazardly sampled in middle New Jersey.
It seems extraordinarily unlikely that there actually is a group
of Americans among whom there exists greater consensus of
support for specific instances of democratic principles.

Analysis: This is a very thoughtful analysis of both
the unimportant effects of sample size and the
unlikelihood that results would have been much
different had a random sample been obtained.

Do NOT write things without justifying them.  E.g.:

     "Our results show that there are likely to be problems for
     the govt."

This might be true, but without explanation there is no
reason to believe it.
 

Do NOT write things that are false.  E.g.:

     "Our results show that democracy in America is in
     trouble."

Our results do not show that.  Even if democracy
is in trouble (which seems false to me), our results
do not demonstrate this.

Contrast with:

     "As surprising as it may seem (it was certainly surprising
     to me), apparently, American democracy can function
     well in the complete absence of consensus regarding how
     to apply democratic principles.  Since 1960, there have
     been no revolutions, no serious fascist movements, and
     no dictatorships in the U.S.  In fact, since 1960, the U.S.
     has passed massive civil rights legislation that removed
     barriers to voting among African-Americans, the vote has
     been extended to 18 year olds, and basic freedoms, such
     as freedom of speech and religion have not eroded at all."

This is an excellent analysis of one possible
implication of the results.

Strong (A+)
[Note: This is not the entire intro.  It does not have a broad general background].

     Almost 40 years ago, Prothro & Grigg (1960) showed that most people support broad principles of democracy.  However, they also showed that those same people did not necessarily believe that those principles actually should be applied in particular instances.  For example, although over 90% of their respondents agreed that every person should have an equal chance to influence government decisions, about 80% also believed that only taxpayers should be allowed to vote in a referendum involving taxes.
At first glance, this pattern might appear surprising for two very different reasons.
First, many people may assume that the enduring power and success of American democracy is based on a strong foundation of popular support.  However, popular support may not be as important as once believed.  American institutions (the Constitution, separation of govt powers, elected representatives), rather than individual Americans' beliefs, may be the cornerstone of democracy (Prothro & Grigg, 1960).
     There is also another reason why such belief inconsistency may seem surprising. Much research shows that people find it extremely unpleasant to hold two inconsistent beliefs or cognitions (e.g., Aronson & Carlsmith, 1959), so that one might wonder how people could hold such inconsistent beliefs about democracy.  According to, for example, cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1959), people should be motivated to resolve the inconsistency, by either adopting less democratic principles, or becoming more supportive of democracy in concrete instances.
     So why were so many people able to hold such inconsistent beliefs about democracy? One likely possibility is that they never became aware of the inconsistency.  When people do not realize they hold inconsistent beliefs, there is no reason for them to feel uncomfortable (they will not experience dissonance).  If they do not feel uncomfortable, they have no reason to eliminate the inconsistency.
     In America, democracy is not a controversial subject.  Most of us are taught (some might say "brainwashed") from early grade school to believe that we have the greatest country and system of government on earth.  The American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution are widely respected and even revered.  It seems likely, therefore, that most people would strongly support broad principles of democracy.
     This perspective suggests that many people have developed a belief in democracy because that is what they have been taught to revere, rather than because they have arrived at a thoughtful and considered judgment of alternatives.  Furthermore, people probably think far less about democracy than about many other personal and political issues.  If they rarely think about it, they are not likely to be able to apply democratic principles to particular instances very well.  Because democracy is not a salient or controversial issue, they are not likely to become aware of the inconsistency of their beliefs.  They are not likely to experience dissonance, and, therefore, can readily maintain inconsistency between beliefs about democracy in the abstract versus concrete.
     In this respect, little has changed in the last 40 years.  Then, as now, children are taught that democracy is the best form of government.   Democracy was not controversial in 1959; it is not controversial now.  Therefore, we suspected that people in 1996 are just as likely as their 1959 counterparts to have given little thought to democracy.  As a result, we predicted that our study would replicate Prothro & Grigg's (1960) findings: We expected to find a strong consensus of support for democratic principles in the abstract, but little consensus of support for democratic principles in concrete instances.