The Starting Line

I had to research more about the history of the chocolate chip cookie, where it originated and the recipe. I thought it was interesting and helped me write my introduction. The first draft was difficult because I had difficulty attracting the reader. As I worked on the draft I enjoyed the topic and comparing so many different cookies. I enjoyed seeing peoples reactions and incorporating that into my draft. The part that frustrated me the most was that I felt as if I was repeating myself. And I think that it's not very interesting(the first draft). I used comparison as a technique to develop this paper. The specific technique that I used was point by point. This gave me the chance to give each individual brand that I was comparing its own paragraph to talk about each aspect that made them similar or the same to others. This draft has some good things that will be kept but there is still some editing to be done.

When I first re-read my draft today I really liked the amount of background information I gave especially in the introduction. If I could make changes I would make the paper and introduction more intriguing to grab the reader into the paper, and make them want to read more. I also need to add a title since I forgot one on the first draft.

My partner Dan, liked my introduction it just needed to grab the reader more. This was the most helpful feedback because it will really make my paper something that people will want to read. He also said that I should combine the introduction from three different paragraphs into one so that all of the background information needed for the paper is in one place. Dan helped me pick a title, Thought to be good... This was interesting because I wouldn’t have picked it and he said it made him want to read the paper more so I am going to use this title. The peer feedback was helpful in my reflection and outlook of the first draft.

I plan to revise my introduction combining the three paragraphs and making it more intriguing for the reader. I plan on using the new title Thought to be good... , which my partner Dan help me pick out from the list I created. In the body paragraphs with the comparisons I plan on making my comparisons more in depth and interesting to reader by giving more detail. I think the last sentence in the conclusion is a great ending, but the first couple of sentences in the conclusion need some work. I think I want the conclusion to be much longer and really overview the comparisons and be more like the introduction.



Kate Denhoff
Chocolate Chip Cookies

My interpretation of the perfect chocolate chip cookie. A warm, soft, cookie with different types of chocolate; chocolate chunks chocolate chips, and mini chocolate chips. But is that really what they are, do they really taste that way…
The chocolate chip cookies. A typical dessert for the average American for a number of years. It’s often described as a soft, golden, warm, baked cookie with many chocolate chips. That’s what the cookie companies want you to believe but is that what they really taste like? Or is the original chocolate chip cookie by toll house the best.The chocolate chip cookie originated in the United States, in Whitman, Massachusetts. Ruth Wakefield invented the Toll House brand of chocolate chip cookies, the first chocolate chip cookie ever created. The main ingredients in a chocolate chip cookie include flour, sugar, brown sugar, butter, chocolate chips, eggs, vanilla, baking soda, and salt.
Different cookie brands were tasted. First was Keebler, cookies deluxe. We thought that this cookie would taste the worst. In fact it was the best of all. Dry but very chocolatety, the smell was very chocolatey. The packaging was attractive to the consumer having a logo and the Keebler advertising elf; the package had many colors and was attractive to kids. “Chocolate in every bite” is there motto and it seems to compare well to what they truly taste like.
Another brand was Murray sugar free cookies, were some of the worst. Tasteless and dry but the people I observed said they weren’t has bad as they thought they were going to be. The package was white and blue very bland… a lot like the cookie. “Taste so great you’ll never know they are sugar free,” not the case for this motto. The bland taste was definitely not reflective of the motto.
The Chips Ahoy, a classic with the classic blue packaging was medium in the taste range. Not soft with chocolate chunks not chips and didn’t hit the spot like expect. These cookies had a resalable package with the Chips Ahoy cookie on it. They are advertised as “Real chocolate chip cookies,” and this cookie was a median for all the cookies so it seems like a pretty good motto for this cookie.
Wegmans. The Grocery store we all know and love has their own brand for most products including chocolate chip cookies. These cookies were bigger in circumference and were softer than the cookies earlier they had a clear package to display the actual product. No other products did not have any sort of clear packaging. “Old fashion, soft cookies,” their cookies were soft, but not so good, maybe that means old fashioned.
The Peppridge farm chocolate chip cookies that everyone thought were going to be the best. It wasn’t it tasted weird, with a weird after taste and didn’t look like any of the other cookies. It was a real let down. The package was white and sophisticated. That’s how Peppridge farm advertises and what they want you to see. “Soft baked, improved taste, and soft texture,” the taste can’t be improved if it was really bad.
Archway also didn’t home for anyone in the group. Weird smell and very similar to the soft texture of Wegmans chocolate chip cookies. Even though they advertise it to be “Just like Homemade”, a classic chocolate chip cookie that really didn’t come to be.
The typical chocolate chip cookie, at least the store bought ones didn’t really stand up to the original homemade Toll house ones, I wonder if we tried Toll house today would it have been better than these cookies? These cookies are very far from the true definition of a good, chocolate chip cookie.