Reflection of the paper

Your full October 9, Reflection Paper Your claim is that Wasserstrom has not explained the effects of globalization in a logical manner. You are addressing the problem that the author has been biased when he discussed globalization, and that he only discussed the negative points while suggesting the reader that globalization is a bad thing. You claim that the author needed to discuss both the sides of the picture, while silently convincing the reader to believe his opinion, and not bluntly pulling the reader in one direction. Your claim logically flows from your common ground, because you have first told how the author has backed his arguments, which is preceded by your stating some good aspects of globalization. The reader agrees with your standpoint because the structure of the essay is comprehendible and flows well.
2. One thing that is praiseworthy is how you first convinced the reader that the author was wrong in his suggestions, and how he should have done it. You have really convinced the reader by giving some very good examples why globalization is good. You have quoted examples from the author’s writing while stating your view. Without those examples, it would not have been very clear why you are saying he is wrong.
3. You should highlight your thesis statement like this: This paper takes the stand that Wasserstrom has only highlighted the negative points while ignoring the fact the globalization is mostly beneficial. You can italicize it or write it in bold so that the reader grabs your main point easily.