Essay critique, Day 2 - C for Cecilia

Out of the three essays that I read, the best one, was without a doubt, C for Cecilia.  First off, it is important to take note of the first thing that the reader takes note of, the title.  The title has the possibility of having a profound effect on the reader that can lure him in right from the get-go.  The title of C for Cecilia  is Not Knowing Anything Can Mean Something: How Not Giving Characters Any Initial Context Can Affect How We See Them.  This title is an example that lures the reader right from the beginning, and makes him or her intrigued to find out what the author's interesting argument may be.  Furthermore, the next topic of interest that stood out to me in this essay was the topic sentence of the intro.  While this sentence is simple, it allots the reader the ability to agree or disagree with the author right from the beginning.  Thus, because Cecilia has already lured the reader with a strong title and a strong first sentence, she has set high standards off the bat for the reader, which are often better than starting with low standards.  In terms of the context and grammar of the paper, they are fair.  Cecilia poses a strong and what seems to be original argument that is interesting.  However, a turnoff to any reader, and maybe even an insult to a teacher is that Cecilia has clearly forgotten to proof read her paper and has left some small, but, noticeable mistakes.  Lastly, the essay has fluidity, but also lacks some depth at some points.  While the quotes are meaningful, and well placed, they could be analyzed a little more to create a stronger argument.  In all, I would give the essay a B+ because it posed a good argument, enticed the reader from the get-go, and was very fluid; however, the essay wouldn't receive and A because it has some grammatical errors at at times lacks depth.