Importance of Evidence for Claims, Stylistic Preferences and Diction

Looking back on my diagnostic essay, several things come to mind. Claims unsupported by authoritative evidence tend to seem more biased, colloquial and less convincing. Generic examples can be convincing so long as the arguments are universally comprehensible, but with authoritative evidence or specific quotes you can often build up a strong case without having to argue as much - let your sources' own influence speak for itself. The lack of definitive evidence seemed to make my argument, which made some broad, sweeping generalizations about power, much less authoritative. It was interesting to read my essay because it talked about a lot of the things Mann discusses, but much less convincingly. I think my examples were fairly good examples, but they weren't scholarly.

I also notice that I have a very specific style in writing and my logic sometimes doesn't always come out as clearly as it seems in my head; I often think backwards from the claim to the evidence, which can work fine, but the way I write it out sometimes is a bit rough or long winded. I also use the same words over and over in my essays and I hope that as I continue to write my vocabulary improves. Lastly, two pages double space is really a short amount of space to say anything, so it would be great to improve in being more concise.