Here is an original paragraph. from my essay that was way too long and needed revision:

The EA are an extremely strong willed and persistent group that believe there’s only one way to effectively help those in need. EA stands for effective altruism and is the practice  of selfless concern for the well-being of others. They pride themselves on living by this belief and trying to help those in need as effectively and efficiently as possible. Because of the need or want to be incredibly effective, they reject most other methods of help besides their current strategy of just giving money to those in poverty. They specifically believe in measuring good deeds worth by how effective they are in comparison to just giving money. Southan explains this mentality of the EA by simply paraphrasing, “does your preferred good deed make as much of a difference as simply handing over the money? If not, how good a deed is it really?” This mentality seems very counterproductive because the EA is focusing on criticizing those who are trying to make a difference instead of those who aren’t trying. Also, I believe that there isn’t really a way to justify quantifying those deeds with monetary values. If a deed is truly good and the person is genuinely trying to help, then there is nothing wrong with that. The main point should be that the person wants to help, rather than bashing them for not helping enough. Another important ideology of the EA is the thought that there is no physical difference from helping those around you and those in need anywhere else in the world. One philosopher who heavily talked about this idea is the Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer who brought up this hypothetical situation, “Suppose you saw a child drowning in a pond: would you jump in and rescue her” The overwhelming response to the answer is simply; yes. Singer than goes on to say that anyone who would save the child and not help those in poverty around the world is inconsistent. They believe there is absolutely no difference between the two scenarios and that if you’d save one you should save the other. I beg to differ in this case, because there are some obvious differences that the EA is ignoring in this scenario. One major difference is the difficulty in solving the two scenarios. To save the child you just pull her out of the pond, while stopping poverty and hunger around the world is and incredibly complex problem with no easy answer. There is also a huge difference in the distance of the two scenarios because the child is right in front of you, whereas the people in poverty are thousands of miles away from you so a huge disconnect is formed. The EA are blissfully ignorant in thinking that anyone can help very easily and are ignoring many complications involved. Instead of criticizing those who are doing their best to try and help, maybe they should try and reduce the overwhelming effects of barriers like distance, difficulty and ignorance.

Here is the revised version:

The EA are an extremely strong willed and persistent group that believe there’s only one way to effectively help those in need and while this seems like their intentions are good, their methods aren’t. Effective Altruism is the practice of selfless concern for the well-being of others. They pride themselves on living by this belief and trying to help those in need as effectively and efficiently as possible. Because of the need or want to be incredibly effective, they reject most other methods of help besides their current strategy of just giving money to those in poverty. They specifically believe in measuring good deeds worth by how effective they are in comparison to just giving money. Southan explains this mentality of the EA by simply paraphrasing, “does your preferred good deed make as much of a difference as simply handing over the money? If not, how good a deed is it really?” This mentality seems very counterproductive because the EA is focusing on criticizing those who are trying to make a difference instead of those who aren’t trying. Also, I believe that there isn’t really a way to justify quantifying those deeds with monetary values. If a deed is truly good and the person is genuinely trying to help, then there is nothing wrong with that. The main point should be that the person wants to help, rather than bashing those that are trying for not helping enough. The EA’s intentions of helping are very good, but their method of comparing whose help is most effective is counterproductive.

Another important ideology that the EA take to heart is the thought that there is no physical difference from helping those around you and those in need anywhere else in the world. One philosopher who heavily talked about this idea is the Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer who brought up this hypothetical situation, “Suppose you saw a child drowning in a pond: would you jump in and rescue her” The overwhelming response to the answer is simply, yes. Singer than goes on to say that anyone who would save the child is inconsistent and a hypocrite for not helping those in need around the world suffering from poverty, hunger, or disease. They believe there is absolutely no difference between the two scenarios and that if you’d save the child you should be helping those around the world. I beg to differ in this case, because there are some obvious differences that the EA is ignoring in this scenario. One major difference is the difficulty in simply fixing the two scenarios. To save the child you just pull her out of the pond and she is no longer suffering, while stopping poverty, disease, and hunger around the world is and incredibly complex problem with no easy answer. There’s millions of people suffering and trying to help them from being tormented by poverty, disease, or hunger is a near impossible task. There is also a huge difference in the distance of the two scenarios because the child is right in front of you, whereas the people in poverty are thousands of miles away from you so a huge disconnect is formed. The EA are blissfully ignorant in thinking that anyone can help very easily and are ignoring many complications involved. Instead of criticizing those who are doing their best to try and help, maybe they should try and reduce the overwhelming effects of barriers like distance, difficulty and ignorance.

The methods I used for the revision was first splitting the ginormous paragraph into two to allow an easier read. This also lets me focus in on individual points in each paragraph. I adjusted the introductory statements in each to make them focus on the points in each paragraph. I also specified some of my details by adding in a sentence or two when explaining my points. I also edited some sentences just so that they were worded more clearly.