Case Study: Revision

The topic of revision has been brought up in class now, so I have decided to offer my opinion yet analyze my first paper as well. Before meeting with Stephanie, felt I had a pretty decent paper. I didn't feel as if anything needed to be changed, save a few minute details. Thank God I met with her though. Once, I was able to take a closer look at my paper with Stephanie's comments to guide me, I realized what I thought was a good paper was a good paper. I just had a conflict with the wording I was using. I also found out I was supplying a false statement on accident because I was lead to believe by inductive reasoning that ICC had a campus-wide attendance policy. Not a big deal on the large scale, unless you consider who I was addressing the paper to.
I felt I had my audience figured out to a "T" and in a way I did because it worked with how I wrote my paper. Unfortunately, because I was wrong about one of my support points in the paper, I was also wrong about who I was addressing. If I kept the audience how it was, my paper would have been useless because the audience had little authority on the matter. That being said, my audience has shifted from ICC administration to ICC teachers.
The final issue in this paper was the wording which affected my purpose. I had the idea that attendance policies were more of a guideline. Meaning they could state what they wanted, so long as there were certain stipulations that were followed: good or bad. However, policy and punishment often go hand-in-hand which is what was happening in this instance. Because I had this wrong, it translated into me stating that attendance policies needed changing instead of stating the correct statement of, "There should be NO attendance policies period."
All-in-all, my support works to bring down the idea of attendance policies, but my opinions were off a little, which threw off my focus, and in the end corrupted the paper entirely. It's not that the paper was crap, in the end it was that the paper was addressing the issues incorrectly. If I listened to Stephanie correctly, then my next draft will qualify as strong with minimal effort.
Thanks Stephanie.