LTW 11/4

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)  

I like Post-its.  I use them to remind myself of things I need to do, or ideas I need to internalize, or people I need to contact.  They are especially useful when beginning new habits.  A Post-it stating "Make your bed!" or something similar jogs me out of my default routine and challenges me to develop a better one.

The format of the LTW basic persuasive essay is like a series of Post-its.  When I wrote my own essay, I began to see the point of repeating the thesis in every paragraph. I had discovered so many interesting things during the research process that I kept abandoning my purpose and writing about something else.  Restating (and restating and restating) the thesis forced me to notice when my proofs and supports did not follow.

I was tempted to relax the requirement for my kids before I went through the essay-writing process myself.  Now I think I will let the requirement stand.  It is necessary in order to building better writing habits.

Here is my essay so you can see what I mean.

STANDARD OIL (Essay 3)

If you build a better mousetrap, will the regulators beat a path to your door?  John D. Rockefeller and his business partners experienced this very thing.

The Supreme Court should not have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust for three reasons.  The oil market regulated Standard Oil, the U.S. Government misunderstood the situation, and the Sherman Act contained vague terms.

The first reason the Supreme Court should not have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust is that the oil market regulated Standard Oil.  In 1882, more than 250 oil companies competed for business. Standard Oil gained market share and became wildly successful due to superior products and technology.  But by 1911, after forming the Trust, Standard Oil’s market share had fallen from 90% to 65%: it was in the process of losing its monopoly.

The second reason the Supreme Court should not have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust is that the U.S. Government misunderstood the situation.  Rockefeller and his partners formed the first ever holding company.  The government criminalized a business practice it did not understand.  After decades of observation and analysis, today’s antitrust experts believe that vertical integration usually does not damage competition. 

The third reason the Supreme Court should not have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust is that the Sherman Act contained vague terminology.  Congress did not define key terms like “exclusionary practice” and “restraint of trade”.  Congress meant for the Act to regulate business owners rather than workers, but President Grover Cleveland  invoked it against the American Railway Union to end the Pullman Strike of 1894.  The Supreme Court decision more narrowly defined the terms of the legislation, but it also introduced another vague term:  “rule of reason”.

The U.S. Supreme Court should not have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust.  The oil market regulated Standard Oil, the U.S. Government misunderstood the situation, and the Sherman Act contained vague terms.