¶ … littered with grammatical and stylistic errors, which makes it difficult to read.

The following sentence is one example of the poor grammar used throughout the paper. "Our society has a responsibility to educate our youth not to use drugs, provide help for addicts trying to quit, workplace drug testing, and we need to disrupt the market for illicit drugs." Up to the phrase "trying to quit" the sentence is fine. The author should just divide this sentence into two parts or create better parallel phrasing such as: "...trying to quit, and mandate workplace drug testing." Then a separate sentence should contain the phrase "We also need to disrupt the market for illicit drugs."

The paper is actually well-organized. Throughout the first section the author offers the history and reasoning behind workplace drug testing, and also refutes common objections to the practice. Next the author discusses the benefits of testing, including workplace safety and overall drug use reduction. However, the introduction needs some work, as it is choppy, sloppy, and does not adequately engage the reader.

4. The paper is very well presented but simply needs grammar and stylistic corrections. The author obviously has a good grasp of the topic and organized his or her ideas. By cleaning up bad grammar in phrases like "they are a minimum of opinions," this could be a good paper. The use of first person is fine, but the author might have improved that by including anecdotes instead of just making flat statements like "These are also done on near misses sometimes. I have seen both done where I work."

5. The paper is definitely a persuasive essay, and makes a clear argument for workplace drug testing. One of its key strengths is the author's ability to anticipate audience objections and refute those with evidence. Even though readers may not agree with the "war on drugs" launched by Nancy Reagan, the central argument is tenable.