In writing my rhetorical analysis of Benjamin Banneker’s letter to Thomas Jefferson, I would have been more successful and possibly earned a higher score if I would have, gave more elaboration and support within each paragraph, used better structuring of paragraphs and elaborated vocabulary and transitions, and took more time to connect with the prompt. In the opening of my first body paragraph, I gave basic reasoning of how Banneker used emotional diction while writing to Jefferson. I successfully stated my claim and direct evidence from Banneker’s letter, I elaborated very little though. Although I stated Banneker’s point and motive, I did not elaborate appropriately of how it would’ve effectively persuaded Jefferson. What I wrote was “the strategic approach using encompassing words as well as negative connotations was a strategy he used.” I did not appropriately state how that was effective. I wasn’t able to convey why it was used. In the second paragraph, I did successfully state my claim, provided support, and elaboration. It was acceptable, but not extensively detailed which it could’ve been. I could have added much more support by stating how repetition was engaging and explain a much deeper analysis of the connotation of the word “sir”. For example, I wrote, “When using “sir” he uses it in a positive light.” But I could’ve demonstrated how it was used, specifically why, and how it is pleasing to Jefferson. In the third paragraph, I did not get to finish. I wrote my claim, evidence, and elaboration. I did not get to finish elaborating more on the evidence. The third paragraph, in my opinion, was the most successful. Overall, my connection with the prompt and letter was exceptional. I have to work on elaboration and specifically accounting the reasoning behind my claims. While writing my essay, one of the important things that I missed was a good structure, elaborated vocabulary and transitions in my essay. While writing, even though I had supported my claim, evidence, and some support, it was very choppy and much of it was misplaced. For example, in my third paragraph I had detailed what Banneker was trying to achieve, but I had not echoed the specific examples from the letter before I provided the information. That leaves the reader to be confused and not really understand what that applies to. Also, my transitions weren’t very complementary, some weren’t even transitions and I had just started to explain. In the second paragraph, I hopped right into my claim making the essay choppy and not formatted properly. I used ““Sir”, a word that Banneker repeatedly uses, for the most part, in every paragraph.” It made the reading hard to follow, especially if it was being said out loud. It doesn’t transition comfortably. Another problem was that I had not used appropriate or higher vocabulary. If I would have used much more connecting words in explaining, my essay would have made much more sense. For instance, I stated that Banneker used emotional diction when he used word such as “groaning captivity”, “cruel oppression”, but I could’ve used another word that was much more appropriate in describing those words. It is much easier to understand and