To Garrison Taylor:

Your first paragraph seems to contradict itself. You say that you have never had problems expressing yourself but then go on to say that you cannot effectively get your point across. It is also a bit repetitive. I would suggest (for conciseness) that you consider cutting this paragraph down and work on clearly explaining what you are intending to express.

Orriginal:
"But even more importantly, I wish that I could convey my own philosophical themes with the clarity that Matthews achieves."

This is a bit wordy. Here is my revision:
"More importantly, I aspire to be able to express my world-view with the surprising clarity of Matthews music."

To Rachel Mueller:

I thought that you could cut down the paragraph starting:
"Many other traits that I find heroic in Saint Columba do not align with the more specific Oxford English Dictionary definitions of hero which includes attributes such as "superhuman strength": "extraordinary valour," "illustrious warrior," and "partial achievements." These noble characteristics lacking in Saint Columba are replaced by qualities I find more important in a hero."

To me this seems a bit wordy and confusing. Perhaps you could use a more concise way of saying this such as:

Despite not having ¿superhuman strength," "extraordinary valor," or "martial achievements" (definitive traits of heroism as defined by the OED), Saint Columbia exemplifies heroism through his"

As far as your tone, I think you could work on the last paragraph to allow it to flow better and have some awesome parallelisms between the subsequent sentences.

To Brad Barry:

As far as cutting, I would recommend you cut the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph. Saying that ¿music does this¿ is a poor connector because on its own it does not make any contribution. If you replaced this to make some sort of statement that does not depend on the previous paragraph to explain its meaning (instead of using the word ¿this¿), it might be better, but I am in favor of cutting the sentence in its entirety.

As far as tone and diction I would revise the first sentence:
¿Through the readings in this class I have come to realize that in order to achieve anything in this world, we must all come together and embrace our sympathetic imagination¿

to just:
¿In order to achieve anything in this world, we must all come together and embrace our sympathetic imagination¿

This is more concise and makes a firm statement. It gets rid of yourself from the sentence and makes it a declaration you can then expand on. I also don¿t like the tone you create by talking about ¿this class.¿ It is a bit informal and makes the assumption that the reader is in our class.

To Eric Hui:

Cut ¿according to the OED.¿ Just define it.

I REALLY like how you open the paper.

I do not care for the tone created by talking about your passion paper. I would suggest explaining your passion, but not in terms of the paper. Just talk about your passion without mentioning your paper.

As for cutting, consider combining sentences and thoughts. It will help it become less choppy and flow better. And it will create a more sophisticated method of expressing the thoughts you presented. For example these three sentences could be combined into one AWESOME sentence: ¿Like Gates, I have a passion for success in business and for compassion. Instilled in me since I was young, compassion is second nature to me. It is a ¿reflex.¿¿

Yours:
¿However, after reading Ram Dass¿ How Can I Help?, I feel that being a philanthropist is not a role for me to accept, but rather, a social calling to do good for the sake of doing good. I came across this conclusion by mixing my passion for business with my passion for compassion¿

Mine:
¿Upon reading Ram Dass¿ How Can I Help?, my passion for philanthropy evolved into a social calling to do good simply for the sake of doing good¿mixing compassion with business for the sake of humanity.¿

I think that this is more concise and more appropriate for the tone of the paper.

To Law Tsai:

ut this sentence: ¿With Roosevelt, one should not view him in one light over the other.¿ It doesn¿t say anything that is not said in subsequent sentences. It is purely fluff that serves little purpose.

I would suggest you combine and revise these sentences:
¿If you were to analyze him from his compassionate side, his dutiful side would be compromised and underestimated. And if you were to analyze his dutiful side, the same would happen to the other. If both sides were merged into one however, one would end up with the same proverb that was mentioned in the beginning: ¿Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.¿

To:
¿Roosevelt is a paradox: he is compassionate yet dutiful. This is exemplified by the proverb, ¿Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.¿

These sentences you had are long and awkward. The word choice and expressive style would be greatly enhanced by bringing the idea together into a shorter explanation.

Mary Dauterman:

I really like the opening question!

Altogether concise. There are a few sentences where little is said (not many) but you might want to consider revising these to make sure that every sentence makes a clear contribution to the overall paper.

Yours:
These places are guides to remind us of his message.

Mine:
His places remind us of his message of ¿¿

Ass to this in order to say more and remind the reader exactly what his message is. It will give this sentence more meaning.

To Pallavi Shankar:

I would revise the opening paragraph. Mention Oprah in the first sentence and then talk about how you envision a meaningful life in reference to her and her life.

In order to cut and improve style, combine sentences. Instead of two sentences which overlap in meaning, create a joined sentence that gets the same point across and cuts down on ¿fluff.¿ This will make your thoughts more complex, add to the sophistication of your word choice, and most importantly create an added conciseness.

Yours:
Oprah is an inspiration to countless people all over the world. Her story is a miracle that inspires the fearful, desperate and hopeless to find the strength to overcome the struggles in their lives.

Mine:
Oprah¿s inspirational life story inspires the world to overcome their fears and desperation and find the strength to prevail over strife and adversity.

To Prianka Singapura:

The first full paragraph gets jumpy and wordy. Try condensing and reordering thoughts.

The word choice in the following sentence gets too informal. Consider revising it to not say ¿in this paper.¿ I understand the purpose of saying this but it is poor for the overall style of the paper.

Yours:
¿In this paper, I will refer to her as Shobha because she is much more than just a mom; she is a humanist and my role model¿

Mine:
¿I refer to her by name instead of as my mother because she is much more than just a mom: she is a humanist and my role model.¿

I think this gets the same point across while improving the diction.