In this Writing Proficiency Elements (WPE), I did everything I can to follow correctly most, if not all, instructions in order to have a passing grade. I started with a lead-in sentence in my introduction about money and happiness. I only not presented a balanced perspective about the issue that “money doesn’t buy happiness,” but also agreed that “money does keep most of us happy as well.” I cited previous essays, articles or research findings and I also admitted that happiness is a complicated idea, concept and construct. I set an example on how such is the case. I then worked on the context of the paper, that is, using Kesebir and Diener’s review, Easterlin’s (1973), and Lane’s (1993) essays on happiness (well-being) and wealth. I then elaborated on their works paragraph by paragraph. Key to my understanding of the said context is also an examination and analysis of all the three essays by Kesebir and Diener, Easterlin and Lane in association to the question whether “money doesn’t buy happiness” is actually true or not (and I also establish whether they are exactly related or not). Moreover, I tried my best first to define and explain the nature of happiness, as well as, what contributes to it.
Not only did I accurately define and explain the key terms (e.g., subjective well-being or SWB, positive and negative affects, and suchlike) in all the three essays; but also discuss other important matters. Within the context, I correctly summarized and cited important passages (as evidence) from my readings of Easterlin’s paradox, Lane’s re-visitation and revision of the said paradox, and all three essays concerning rich and poor people’s happiness. I mentioned how Kesebir and Diener’s SWB and happiness are interconnected, and argued, using other literature and studies, how “wealth alone doesn’t bring happiness” unless individuals make wise use of it. In the succeeding paragraphs of my essay, I further examined Kesebir and Diener’s article on “In pursuit of happiness” and their review of McMahon’s book on Happiness: A History. In all that I did, I also quoted, paraphrased, and worked directly with all the three major sources of my paper. As I discussed my central arguments, I guided my readers on the centrality of my arguments by employing and defining along the way key terms to have a successfully delivered topic of what happiness and wealth are, and their relationship. Hence, I strongly believe that I understood and complied with the criteria and issues raised by the readers’ report.
Considering the analysis both of my writing and the criteria, I hope that I will be able to convince the appeal committee that my writing is proficient. I have applied my understanding of critical thinking, reading, and writing. There was no instance that I have not followed through and through the Elements of Writing Proficiency, answered the question based on the context, and discussed the reading set. Moreover, all throughout my writing, I used a balanced view by having given support to my argument and counterargument. I never deviated from my central idea or thesis, but even supported it with claims and counterclaims from various authors on the subject. By doing so, I arrived at my own conclusions about the connection of various authors’ writing. I was able to infer, using my in-depth analysis of the essays, that some authors used more persuasive evidence than others, though they come from their respective perspective. Yet, in all those things, the authors proposed and evaluated alternative ways of understanding about happiness and wealth. There were other ways in which I correctly articulated the relationship among the articles, as I synthesized them around my thesis. Thus, should I desire to change my paper to make it better, I have to use another point of reference or perspective so that I may, as well, not miss a single key point or two in my analysis, interpretation, and discussion. Thank you!