Development His support base is snowballing and in equal measure, his controversies are rising sharply. This is the kind of statement that might be a good candidate (as it were) for development, something that could allow you to expand and focus more tightly on your topic. Rather than simply conceiving of your topic as “the rise of Donald Trump” you might conceive of it as “the strange equation in which his controversies and support rise in equal measure.” It’s an intriguing idea and one that could easily take center stage in your essay. Here is the most important piece of advice I will give: Generally speaking, this does not read as an argument paper, but as a summary of bad things (or, at least, to our minds, they are bad) that Trump has done. There is little sense of analysis or argumentation about how to understand these incidents, or claims about what should happen next. It feels much more as though you are reporting information than using that information to build an argument. Citation Remember to lead in to teach outside source with a signal phrase, something like According to Author X, ___________. This alerts your reader to the fact that you are about to bring in somebody else’s ideas. But also, bear in mind that outside sources are meant to provide original arguments or the results of studies and research. It always feels like a bit of a waste to use a source in order to cite what is essentially common knowledge. For instance: The United States is a superpower nation that most countries in the world regard as a role model. It is a state which enjoys the best ranking regarding the economy, military, diversity and democracy performance across the world (Solimano 15). Not only does this citation not include a signal phrase – and thus, I didn’t know you were citing an outside source until I got to the parenthetical – but this hardly seems like a claim that requires a paraphrased outside source. It’s undisputable common knowledge that the US has been a superpower in these areas basically since WWII, so this comes across as citing an outside source more or less just for its own sake. Paragraphs The United States as a superpower nation is supposed to be hospitable and have favorable immigration policies I’m not sure this topic sentence makes sense, at least not the cause-and-effect you’re suggesting. Are superpower nations necessarily known for having favorable immigration policies? What does “favorable” even mean in this instance? Sentences Clarity/Preciseness It’s important that your sentences have a clear and specific meaning, as opposed to containing adjectives that could be read in many different ways. For instance: The Republicans have been taken aback, but the domination of Donald Trump is indomitable. He is the most contested presidential hopeful, probably among all the presidential candidates the United States has ever had. I understand what you mean by him being “indomitable” but other elements of this sentence are actually deeply ambiguous. What do you mean that he is the “most contested”? Can one quantify contentedness? Or, what do you mean that the Republicans have been “taken aback”? This is a common phrase, but it’s not at all clear what idea you’re communicating with it in this instance. Keep it Simple Far too often, your phrasing takes on an effect of sounding “fancier” than it needs to be, and this has the opposite effect of what you intend: It actually distracts and makes your meaning less clear, rather than sharp and incisive. A few examples: At the center, is a candidate whose blunt speak has left every tongue wagging. He does not mince his words, but he does not take offense for his wrongs. He ruffles many feathers with any folk who takes a jibe at him I appreciate the attempt at writing stylishly, but it comes across as unnatural here. The first sentence makes sense to me, but I honestly don’t know what you mean by the following two. The idiom “mincing words” is clear enough, but when you say he doesn’t take offense for his wrongs…do you mean he won’t apologize for the offensive things he says? The last sentence makes no sense to me at all. WRAP-UP There is a lot of interesting information here. But there is little in the way of an argumentative structure or careful analysis of the ideas you present. Overall, this feels like a collection of the facts and conventional wisdom that we have all been hearing about Trump for the past year or so…it doesn’t seem to add YOUR unique perspective to things.