I decided to analyze a piece I wrote last year in an English class I took at Hunter College. The assignment was to analyze how my writing improved as the semester progressed. The way I worked through this task was by examining my works from the beginning of the semester with my final paper. A lot more attention was applied to my final paper, and that was really what separated it from my other assignments in that class. From an Ethos perspective, I wrote the paper from the perspective of a student analyzing the progression of my skill. I did not aim to denote myself to a higher respect, however I did firmly state the ways I progressed my writing whether it be mechanics or fluidity. I cannot really see how Pathos would fit into my assignment, at no time did the tone become dramatic enough to evoke an emotional response from my audience. Logos would fit into my assignment because I reasoned with myself on how I improved as a writer, specifically in noticing what changed about my writing as the semester progressed. In using the Toulmin method, I claimed that my writing improved throughout the semester. The warranting reason for this was that I had seen improvement in my work from the beginning to the end of the semester. The grounds for the warrant were that I improved my writing in specific aspects such as improving my mechanics and fluidity. My backing of the warrant was that I got better grades as I noticed these flaws in my writing and sought to improve them by paying more attention to them as they occurred. What qualifies me to make this claim is that I spent time on improving my writing skills in specific areas and my grades improved. My rebuttal to this statement would be that while I was paying more attention to not making mistakes as a writer, ultimately it may have taken away from the quality of my commentary as I was focused less on the commentary and more on writing a “clean” paper.