English101Blog

Introduction

Looking back over this semester, I realize my relationship with writing has changed more than I expected. I’ve always thought of myself as someone who could communicate clearly in everyday conversation, but putting thoughts down on paper was sometimes harder than I imagined. I’ve never liked writing just for the sake of writing; it had to feel meaningful or connected to my experiences. At the beginning of the semester, in my Writer’s Autobiography, I reflected on this and admitted that I often avoided essays that required abstract thinking or research I wasn’t personally invested in. I also noticed that I tended to focus more on telling a story than analyzing ideas, which sometimes made my writing less structured or persuasive than I wanted it to be. Over the past few months, I’ve learned to balance my personal voice with research, argumentation, and clear organization. This portfolio is a reflection of that growth.

I chose these four essays because each represents a different way I explored writing and thinking critically about justice, memory, and fairness. Essay 1, my reflection on growing up with a dad who worked as a probation officer, allowed me to combine personal experience with observation. Essay 2, my analysis of Brandon Garrett’s “Judging Eyewitness Evidence,” challenged me to read carefully, summarize complex ideas, and connect them to real-world consequences. Essay 3, interpreting Ben Shahn’s photograph of the Sacco and Vanzetti case, pushed me to think about visual media as a way of understanding history and justice. Finally, Essay 4, my argumentative essay on predictive policing, forced me to research, construct a clear argument, and defend a position using evidence. Each essay shows not only my ability to write in different modes—personal reflection, analysis, and argument—but also the ways my thinking and writing process have evolved this semester.

Essay 1: Growing Up Around Justice

This essay reflects my personal experiences and allowed me to draw on memories I had long overlooked. Writing about my dad’s work as a probation officer challenged me to turn real-life observations into structured narrative. One part I think shows my growth is the scene where I describe waiting in the car while my dad visited someone’s home. I used details like the thumping windshield wipers and the tense quiet to show both the seriousness of the situation and my own perspective as a child. That level of attention to detail and reflection is something I’ve improved on this semester. It shows my ability to focus on specific moments, develop them, and organize them so they contribute to the essay’s larger theme: how justice is personal and complex. Writing this piece also reminded me that my own voice is a strength; I don’t have to make my writing abstract or distant to make it meaningful. I could rely on observation and experience to guide the essay.

Essay 2: Judging Eyewitness Evidence

For this essay, I had to summarize Brandon Garrett’s ideas while connecting them to my understanding of justice. I started by reading the article carefully and taking notes on the examples he gave, such as the Manson v. Brathwaite case and the importance of lineup procedures. Then, I reflected on how these ideas related to my own life, particularly my experiences with my dad. One aspect of the essay that demonstrates my ability to develop and organize ideas is the section where I explain how confidence can grow over time even as accuracy declines. I used this point as a bridge between Garrett’s research and my own observations about fairness and responsibility. This essay helped me strengthen my analytical skills, showing that I could take outside sources, summarize them accurately, and connect them meaningfully to my own perspective. I also worked on using transitions and clear paragraph structure so that each idea flowed logically to the next, which is something I had struggled with earlier in the semester.

Essay 3: The Passion of Sacco and Vanzetti

Analyzing Ben Shahn’s photograph of him working on the Sacco and Vanzetti case pushed me to think about justice in a different way. Rather than focusing solely on facts, I had to interpret visual cues and connect them to historical context. My writing process for this essay involved several steps: I first brainstormed questions about justice, bias, and memory—asking myself what the photo made me notice and wonder. I then prewrote by listing details in the image, such as Shahn’s sketches, his focused expression, and the way the subjects of his work were portrayed. Drafting was a challenge because I had to balance description with interpretation, making sure I explained why the image mattered rather than just narrating what I saw. Receiving feedback on this draft helped me clarify some sentences and organize my paragraphs so that each question I asked flowed naturally into the next. One part I’m particularly proud of is where I describe Shahn giving the subjects fairness that the courts did not. This phrasing reflects my style and shows my ability to express personal insight while analyzing visual and historical material.

Essay 4: Should the United States Ban Predictive Policing Technology?

For this argumentative essay, I followed a full writing process that illustrates the development of my skills. I began brainstorming by listing topics related to justice and technology. I considered several options, such as the use of surveillance cameras or facial recognition software, but I chose predictive policing because it combined my interest in fairness, bias, and real-world consequences. During prewriting, I collected information from sources like The Markup and the Brennan Center for Justice, and I wrote notes on the strengths and weaknesses of predictive policing. Drafting was done over a few sittings; I started with the introduction and worked through each argument step by step. The first draft was rough—I struggled to balance explanation with argument—but after receiving feedback from my instructor, I revised to clarify points, improve transitions, and strengthen evidence. I also focused on refining my conclusion to clearly articulate why predictive policing should be banned.

One part of this essay that demonstrates my growth is the paragraph analyzing bias in predictive policing. I not only explained the problem, but I also connected it to broader issues of fairness and justice, showing my ability to develop an argument logically while maintaining my own voice. This essay required me to integrate research, apply critical thinking, and structure an argument persuasively, all skills I’ve developed over the semester.

Conclusion

This semester has been a period of significant growth for me as a writer. I’ve learned to balance personal reflection with analysis and argumentation, to organize essays logically, and to pay attention to the development of ideas as well as style. Each essay in this portfolio demonstrates a different aspect of my learning: personal narrative, analysis of source material, interpretation of visual media, and argumentative writing. I’ve also learned the value of revision, feedback, and reflection on my own process. Moving forward, I want to continue strengthening my research integration, refining transitions between ideas, and exploring ways to make my voice clear while meeting academic expectations. Overall, this portfolio shows that I can engage thoughtfully with complex topics, develop ideas fully, and communicate them clearly, all while staying true to my perspective and experience.

Works Cited

Garrett, Brandon L. Judging Eyewitness Evidence. Harvard University Press, 2011.

The Markup. “How Predictive Policing Systems Can Reinforce Bias.” The Markup, 2024, www.themarkup.org
.

Brennan Center for Justice. “Algorithmic Policing and Bias.” Brennan Center for Justice, 2023, www.brennancenter.org
.

Shahn, Ben. The Passion of Sacco and Vanzetti. 1931–1932, Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Associated Press. “Cities Abandon Predictive Policing Programs Amid Public Outcry.” Associated Press, 2023.

Predictive policing is a tool that uses computer algorithms to guess where crime will happen or who might commit it. Police departments across the country have been experimenting with it because it promises faster and more efficient crime prevention. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. The country has a long history of trying new technology to improve public safety. But once you look into how predictive policing actually works, it becomes clear that it raises serious questions about fairness, accuracy, and justice. My position is that the United States should ban predictive policing technology because it relies on biased data, damages trust between police and communities, and does not prove itself to be effective in reducing crime.

To understand why predictive policing is controversial, you first need to understand what it is built on. The Markup, an investigative journalism organization, explains that predictive policing depends on past crime data collected by police departments. This means the technology is trained using information shaped by years of human decisions. If police historically patrolled certain neighborhoods more than others, those areas will naturally have higher numbers of recorded incidents. The algorithm then takes that data and claims those neighborhoods are more likely to have crime again. As a result, police return to those same areas, collect more data, and confirm the algorithm’s prediction. This is a cycle. It does not prove that crime is actually happening more in those places. It only proves that police looked there more often. Because of this, the system repeats old patterns instead of measuring real risk.

Bias in the justice system is already a problem, and predictive policing makes it worse. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that algorithmic tools cannot remove bias if the data itself is biased. Many communities of color have faced over-policing for decades. Their arrests, stops, and police reports end up in the data that predictive systems use. So when the algorithm predicts future crime, it is really predicting where police have historically focused their attention. This causes neighborhoods to be labeled as high risk even when the actual crime rate does not support the label. It becomes harder for residents to feel like the system treats them fairly. If an algorithm marks a place as dangerous, it can influence everything from patrol decisions to how officers approach people. Instead of improving justice, it strengthens unequal treatment.

A second problem with predictive policing is that it damages public trust. Communities already struggle with feeling like police only show up to assume the worst about them. Using an algorithm to justify sending even more officers into certain neighborhoods sends a message that people living there are automatically connected to crime. The Associated Press has reported on cities that decided to stop using predictive policing because residents viewed the technology as unfair and harmful. When a community knows a computer program is watching them or labeling them, it creates distance between residents and law enforcement. Good policing depends on communication and trust, not just tools. If people do not trust the police, they are less likely to report crimes or cooperate in investigations. This makes everyone less safe in the long run.

Even when you put fairness and bias aside, predictive policing still has another major problem: there is no solid evidence that it actually reduces crime. Supporters say it saves time and helps officers be more efficient, but efficiency does not matter if the results are inaccurate. Several cities, including Santa Cruz, California, tested predictive policing and eventually banned it because nothing improved. Police departments that used the tools found that predictions were often vague, repetitive, or simply incorrect. Some predictions pointed officers to places where nothing ever happened. Others were so broad that they were not useful. A tool that is supposed to prevent crime should at least show clear results, but so far, it has not. Without proof that it works, there is no reason to accept the risks that come with it.

Supporters of predictive policing argue that the technology is neutral and removes human emotion from policing. They say a computer cannot be racist or biased. But a computer can only use the information it is given. If that information carries years of unequal policing practices, the algorithm becomes biased in a different way. It does not think through the consequences. It does not question whether a neighborhood is being targeted because of real crime or because the system has been unfair in the past. Humans still have to make decisions, and those decisions can only be as fair as the tools they are given. Treating predictive policing as neutral gives it too much power and makes it harder for people to question its results.

There is also a question of responsibility. When police make decisions based on an algorithm, who is held accountable if something goes wrong? If an officer patrols an area only because a computer said so, does that remove responsibility from the department or the officer? Policing requires judgment and awareness of the community. Relying on technology to direct those decisions creates confusion about who is making choices and who should be blamed when mistakes happen. A justice system only works if responsibility is clear and decisions can be reviewed fairly.

Because of these issues, I believe the United States should ban predictive policing technology. The risks are too high and the benefits are too weak. A justice system should focus on fairness, transparency, and human judgment supported by real evidence. Predictive policing does the opposite. It hides decision making behind a mathematical process that most people cannot understand or challenge. It takes old problems and turns them into new ones. It damages relationships between police and communities that already need rebuilding. And it does not prove it can reduce crime in a safe or effective way.

Predictive policing promises a shortcut to solving crime, but shortcuts rarely build real justice. The country needs solutions that deal with the root causes of crime, not tools that recycle the same problems. Until technology can truly remove bias and show clear evidence that it works, it does not belong in the justice system. A ban would protect communities, encourage better policing, and keep fairness at the center of the law. That is why predictive policing should not be used in the United States.






Citation:
Associated Press. “Cities Scrap Predictive Policing Tools After Accuracy, Bias Concerns.” AP News, https://apnews.com/hub/criminal-justice

Brennan Center for Justice. “Algorithmic Policing.” Brennan Center for Justice, https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/justice-reform/policing/algorithmic-predictive-policing

The Markup. “Predictive Policing.” The Markup, https://themarkup.org/predictive-policing

Research Question:
Should the United States ban predictive policing technology because of its impact on fairness and justice?

Where I Got the Idea:
I got the idea from reading articles about how police departments use algorithms to predict where crimes will happen or who might commit them. I saw a segment on John Oliver a while back where he talked about how these systems can be biased without people noticing. Since I have already been writing about justice, this felt like something that fits naturally with my theme.

What I Already Know About the Issue:
I know predictive policing uses data from past arrests or reported crimes to make predictions about future crime. I also know critics say the systems can repeat old biases and target certain neighborhoods more than others. Supporters think it helps police use their time more efficiently. I am not completely sure which position I will take yet, but I am leaning toward arguing that the technology causes more harm than good, especially with fairness and discrimination. It interests me because it raises questions about how much we should let technology have power inside the justice system.

Why It Interests Me:
It connects to what I have already been thinking about in other essays: who gets treated fairly, how bias enters the system, and what actually counts as justice. I also like that there are real arguments on both sides. Some people believe these tools reduce crime. Others think they make inequality worse. I want to dig into it and see where I land.

Possible Sources I Might Use:

1. The Markup – Investigative reporting on how predictive policing works and the problems behind it
   https://themarkup.org/predictive-policing
2. The Brennan Center for Justice – Analysis of risks and policy concerns with algorithmic policing
   https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/justice-reform/policing/algorithmic-predictive-policing
3. Associated Press News – Articles covering cities that have banned or suspended predictive policing
   https://apnews.com/hub/criminal-justice

So after reading your essay, I think your questions have pretty good range. You talk about culture, money, government programs, gender roles, burnout, and the future. That shows you actually thought about the topic from different angles. If you wanted to widen the range even more, you could add something about how caregiving affects someone’s job or school, or maybe how new tech might change caregiving, but overall your questions are solid.
For the paragraphs, most of them stay focused on one idea and flow pretty well. The only one that felt like it could be tighter is the gender roles paragraph. It explains how women end up as caregivers, but it could connect that idea to the bigger picture a little more just so it lines up with the rest of the essay. The other paragraphs make sense and follow logically.
Your depth of info is good too. You used real programs, real studies, and actual sources, not just common knowledge. The socioeconomic one and the government program one have the strongest detail. The gender roles one is the only one that could use maybe one more fact or example just to make it heavier. Your sources are legit though, especially the ACL and the peer reviewed study.
The MLA part is the main thing you should fix. The in text citations shouldn’t say “(acl.gov)”. MLA wants the author or organization name to match the Works Cited, not the website. So it should look like “(Administration for Community Living)” or whatever the entry starts with. Also every paragraph that uses info from a source should have a citation at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Your Works Cited is basically right but will probably need hanging indents and maybe tiny format changes.
Overall your essay is good. You explain everything clearly, the research is strong, and you only need to clean up the MLA and maybe add a little more depth to one paragraph.

When I look at this photograph of Ben Shahn working on the Sacco and Vanzetti case, it pulls me into one of the biggest justice failures in American history. Instead of seeing a police officer or a courtroom, the image focuses on an artist trying to understand what went wrong. That already says something about how crime and justice are not just legal systems. They are also stories people tell, and sometimes artists tell them better than anyone else. The photo shows Shahn surrounded by sketches of two men who were convicted of murder, even though many people believed they did not get a fair trial. Seeing him work on the drawings makes me think about how much injustice can happen when a system does not treat people equally.

The first question this photo raises for me is how bias affects the justice system. Sacco and Vanzetti were immigrants and anarchists, and because of that, they were treated like they were guilty before the trial even started. When I look at the sketches behind Shahn, the expressions on the men’s faces seem calm and serious. They do not look like the dangerous criminals the public was told they were. It makes me wonder how many cases today still get influenced by who someone is instead of what evidence shows. The drawing becomes a statement that justice is not only about laws, but also about whether people enter the system with judgment already on them.

Another question I have is about who gets remembered and who gets forgotten. The court system closed the case with an execution, but Shahn kept the story alive. His artwork made people think again about what happened. In the photo, he looks focused, like he feels responsible for getting the truth right, even if the courts did not. It makes me think about how artists, writers, and journalists sometimes do more for justice than the actual justice system. They make people look closer, question decisions, and understand the human side of what happened.

The third question the image brings up is what justice even means when it is too late. The trial happened, the verdict happened, and the punishment already happened by the time Shahn was making this piece. That makes the picture feel heavier. He is trying to correct something that cannot actually be reversed. You can see how seriously he is studying the faces, almost like he wants to give them the fairness they did not get during their lives. It makes me think about how the system sometimes admits mistakes only after everything is over. It raises the question of whether justice should include better ways to prevent mistakes before they ruin someone’s life.

This image connects to my theme because it shows how justice is bigger than courts or police. It shows how people respond to injustice and why those responses matter. Crime and justice are not just official processes. They are emotional, political, and public. Shahn’s photo shows an artist trying to make sense of something that did not make sense to the public at the time. It reminds me that justice is not only about rules. It is also about people noticing when something feels wrong and deciding to speak up.

The more I look at the photo, the more I think about how important it is to question the system instead of assuming it always works the way it should. The Sacco and Vanzetti case became famous because people refused to accept an unfair outcome. Shahn helped keep that conversation alive through his art. The picture captures the moment where he is not just drawing, but trying to understand how two men could go from being suspects to symbols of injustice. It shows how art becomes part of the fight for justice. That is why this image stands out to me and why I chose it for this essay.

Essay 3 Proposal: Annotation

Image Chosen:
Photograph of María Luisa Pacheco painting in her studio, around 1960. It is a black and white photograph that shows the Bolivian painter standing in front of a canvas with a brush in her hand. She appears to be in the middle of working on an abstract painting. The studio background is simple and seems to focus attention on her process.
Image link: https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/items/detail/photograph-maria-luisa-pacheco-painting-her-studio-21158

Working Questions (starred questions are the ones I will most likely use):
1. What does this photograph show about how Pacheco physically approached painting and her process as an artist?
2. How did her artistic style change over time, and what art movements influenced her work?
3. How did being a Bolivian woman artist affect her recognition in the art world during the mid 20th century?
4. What does this studio setting suggest about the meaning or importance of an artist’s workspace?
5. How does her work relate to cultural or political conditions in Bolivia during the 1950s and 1960s?
6. What specific materials and techniques was she known for, and can any of that be seen or suggested in the photograph?

7. How was Latin American modern art viewed in the United States during the time she lived in New York?
8. How does the photograph’s black and white format affect how we interpret the scene?
9. What role do museums and archives play in preserving the legacy of women artists like her?
10. How does migration or relocation show up in Pacheco’s work and career path?
11. How have art historians re-evaluated her work in recent years?
12. What does this photo say about art as daily work rather than only inspiration?

Sources I Can Use:

Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. Biography and archival collection for María Luisa Pacheco.
https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/maria-luisa-pacheco-papers-15797

AWARE Women Artists. Artist overview and career context.
https://awarewomenartists.com/en/artiste/maria-luisa-pacheco/

Ramírez, Mari Carmen and Héctor Olea. Inverted Utopias: Avant Garde Art in Latin America. Yale University Press, 2004. (Print source)

Reyes, Carlos. “María Luisa Pacheco and the Transformation of Andean Abstraction.” Latin American Art Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, 2019. (Database or print source)

Most people think that if someone saw a crime happen, their memory must be the truth. It sounds simple, like watching a movie and remembering what you saw. But after reading “Judging Eyewitness Evidence” by Brandon L. Garrett, I learned it’s not that simple. Garrett explains how human memory can be wrong, especially when someone has to identify a person in court. He talks about how juries and even judges often trust eyewitnesses too much, even though science shows our memories can change without us realizing it. Garrett’s article made me realize how unreliable memory can be, and that the justice system needs to change the way it uses eyewitnesses so innocent people aren’t punished for something they didn’t do.

Garrett says that eyewitness evidence is one of the most common types of evidence used in criminal cases, but also one of the most unreliable. He explains that people tend to believe confident witnesses, the ones who point to someone in court and say, “That’s him.” But just because a witness is confident doesn’t mean they’re right. He gives examples of people who were wrongfully convicted because of this and spent years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit. Garrett makes it clear that the problem isn’t only about the witnesses themselves, but also about how the justice system depends too much on their memories.

One part that stood out to me was when he talked about lineups. He says that a witness’s confidence during the first lineup after the crime is way more trustworthy than their confidence months later in a courtroom. In court, everyone already knows who the suspect is, so it almost feels like the answer is being given away. Garrett also points out that memory doesn’t work like a camera. It fades and can even be changed by stress, time, or hearing what other people think they saw. That made me think about how easy it is for people to remember things wrong without even knowing it.

After explaining how memory works, Garrett also looks at how the law handles eyewitness evidence. He talks about a Supreme Court case called Manson v. Brathwaite from 1977. That case made rules for when eyewitness identifications can be used in court. It says judges have to look at whether police used fair methods and whether the identification seems reliable. Garrett argues that those rules are outdated and don’t match what we now know about how memory works. He believes the legal system hasn’t caught up to the science, which shows how slow the courts can be to change even when there’s proof that something isn’t working.

What Garrett really pushes for is reform. He says we should stop doing in-court identifications altogether. Instead, witnesses should only describe what they saw and what happened during the lineup. He also says juries need to be better educated about how memory works, so they understand why a confident witness might still be wrong. Some states have already started making changes by giving new jury instructions and improving lineup procedures, but Garrett says that isn’t enough. He wants the whole system to change so fewer innocent people get convicted.

Reading this article made me think about my dad and his job as a probation officer. He works with people after they’ve already gone through the court system. I’ve seen how the system can change lives, both for better and for worse. When I was younger, I sometimes went with him to his office after school. I remember seeing his desk full of folders, each one about a person with a story. Back then, I didn’t really think about what those stories meant. But after reading Garrett’s article, I started thinking about how easy it is for someone to end up in one of those folders because of something that might not even be completely true. If one person’s memory can put another person in jail, that’s a lot of power and a lot of risk too.

Garrett’s writing made me think about fairness. I’ve always believed that justice should mean getting to the truth, but now I see how tricky the truth can be when it depends on people’s memories. I think about how my dad always told me that choices matter, and how sometimes good people still make mistakes. The same thing can happen in the justice system. Even when people are trying to do the right thing, they can still get it wrong. Garrett’s point that witnesses shouldn’t identify people in court makes sense to me because that part feels the least fair. It’s like pointing at someone when the answer was already decided.

One quote that stuck with me was when Garrett said, “Confidence can grow over time, even as accuracy declines.” That made me stop for a second. I thought about how that happens in real life too, not just in court. People remember things differently the more they tell the story. Sometimes they believe their own version so much that it replaces what actually happened. I think that’s just part of being human, but it shows why courts can’t rely on memory alone.

Overall, I think Garrett’s article is trying to open people’s eyes to how fragile memory really is. He’s not saying witnesses are bad or lying. He’s saying they’re human, and humans make mistakes. What I liked most was that he didn’t just complain about the problem, he gave ideas to fix it. I agree with him that witnesses should only describe what they saw and not identify people in court. It would make things more fair and would stop people from being influenced by the courtroom itself.

After reading this, I feel like I understand the system a little better, but I also see how much work still needs to be done. The justice system is supposed to protect people, not fail them because of errors in memory. Garrett made me realize that even small mistakes can change someone’s whole life. It made me think about my dad again, and how careful he always was with his work. He used to say that everyone deserves to be treated like a person, not just a case file. I think Garrett would agree with that too. Both of them believe in justice that’s fair, even if it takes more time and effort.

Your essay has a clear structure and follows the assignment pretty well. The intro starts strong with that image of the witness pointing in court and it connects good to the theme of crime and justice. The summary covers everything important in Garrett’s article like the part about Manson v. Brathwaite and the lineup process. It’s complete and accurate but maybe could be a little shorter in a few spots where the same point about confidence and accuracy repeats. You handle the source right and the Works Cited looks good, just double check MLA spacing. Each paragraph stays focused and connects to the next one which makes it easy to read. The response part is thoughtful and actually adds something new, not just repeating the article. I like how you talk about justice evolving with science, that’s a really strong idea. You could maybe add one real example to support that. Overall it’s a really solid draft that just needs a little trimming and maybe one more example to back up your point.

I want to focus on crime and justice this semester. It’s a subject I’ve always been curious about, partly because my dad worked as a probation officer, so I grew up with some awareness of how the system operates. Over time I’ve realized how big a role crime and justice play in shaping society, and I’d like to explore it more closely.

For a memoir, I could write about what it was like growing up around someone who worked in that field and how it shaped the way I thought about rules, fairness, and consequences. For an annotation, I might choose an image like a news headline or a mugshot, since both can spark strong reactions and show how people think about crime. For an argument, I’d like to look into whether the system puts more focus on punishment than on rehabilitation, or how new technology might change policing and justice in the future.

This theme connects to me personally through my family background, but it also gives me plenty of room to research and think about larger issues.

Open ai:

When people talk about the best vehicle, everyone has their own opinion, but I think the best vehicle is one that can balance reliability, comfort, and practicality. A truly great vehicle isn’t just about having the most horsepower or the flashiest design. It’s about being something you can depend on every day while also enjoying the time you spend driving it. For many people, that means choosing a car that can handle daily commutes, road trips, and unexpected challenges without giving them constant problems.

Reliability is one of the most important factors. A vehicle that breaks down often or costs too much in repairs is not going to feel like the best, no matter how nice it looks. Comfort is another key part, because no one wants to spend hours in a car that feels cramped or rough to ride in. Features like supportive seats, good suspension, and modern technology all help make the driving experience better.

Practicality also matters. A vehicle with decent gas mileage, enough space for passengers and cargo, and safety features will usually stand out above the rest. That’s why many people lean toward midsize sedans or SUVs, since they tend to cover all of these needs at once In the end, the best vehicle isn’t about one specific model but about how well it fits into your life. The right balance of reliability, comfort, and practicality makes a vehicle truly the best choice for its owner.

1. How would I evaluate or review the essay produced?

I would say that the essay is made very good but its very unspecific and doesn’t go into too many details.

2. Would submitting it in a college classroom constitute plagiarism, and why or shy not?

It could depending on the teacher and the rules in a class if its supposed to be written by you then yes, but if you are just quoting it and using citation then no

3. Could you revise it in some way to make it an acceptable submission, or a better essay? Revise a short portion to demonstrate.

Yes i believe that if you just use some of the grammar that could be fine but overall it could end up taking more time to rewrite it then if u were to write it your self.
demonstration:
Practicality can also matters. A vehicle with enough space for passengers and and large trunk space, safety features and additional supports as long as good gas mileage will usually stand out above other vehicles. That’s why many people go for  midsize sedans and/or SUVs, since they can cover all of the needs at once. Overall, the best vehicle isn’t about a specific model but about how well you can fit it into your life. The right vehicle that can fit all your needs whether it be gas mileage, comfort, safety or practicality you can choose what’s best for yourself.

short essay on: “AI Is to Writing as Calculators Are to Mathematics.”

When people say “AI is to writing as calculators are to mathematics,” I think the comparison makes sense in some ways but also has limits. Both tools are meant to make certain tasks easier and faster. A calculator saves people from having to do long multiplication by hand, and AI can save people from getting stuck on grammar, sentence structure, or even brainstorming ideas. In both cases the tool helps take care of the smaller, time consuming parts so the person can focus on the bigger picture, whether that is solving complex math problems or shaping a clear argument in writing.

At the same time there is a big difference between numbers and words. A calculator is always right if you enter the numbers correctly. Math has clear answers like 7 x 8 will always be 56. Writing does not work that way. There is not always a “right” answer, and that is where AI is not the same as a calculator. AI can write a clean sentence or give you ideas, but it can also get facts wrong or miss the exact tone you are looking for. That makes it less reliable than a calculator, which follows strict rules every time.

Another issue is dependence. Teachers have worried about students relying too much on calculators, and the same thing is happening with AI. If people use it for everything, they might stop practicing the skills themselves. Just like you still need to know basic math even if you have a calculator, you still need to know how to think and write on your own even if you use AI. Otherwise you risk losing the personal style and critical thinking that make writing meaningful.

Overall I think the analogy works if you look at AI as a tool to support writing instead of replacing it. Both calculators and AI can make things easier, but they do not take away the need to understand the process behind the work. The best way to use them is responsibly, as helpers, not crutches.