Assignment 2

You are given ten real cold emails. For each one, you explain what is wrong with it and why, using what the course has taught so far. This tests whether you can spot the problems yourself, not just fix ones you are handed.

Due: 10 May 2027

What this assignment tests#

This assignment tests two separate skills. The first is diagnosis: can you say, in your own words, exactly what is wrong with a cold email. Point at the specific line or structural choice causing the problem. Don’t just say “it’s too pushy” or “it doesn’t feel personal”.

The second is repair. Can you turn that diagnosis into a redrafted email that actually resolves it. A correct diagnosis with no working redraft is only half the assignment. A redraft that reads better without fixing what you diagnosed is not a pass either.

There is no fixed formula here. Each of the ten emails fails for its own reasons. The redraft has to answer those specific reasons, not apply a generic template.

What you submit#

Ten entries, one per email. Each entry must contain, in this order:

1. The original email, redacted, reproduced in full.
2. A diagnosis of what’s wrong with it. For every problem you identify, point at the specific line or structural choice responsible, not a general impression of the email’s tone or intent.
3. A fix for each problem, plus a brief justification of why that fix works, tied to something the course has taught (not just an assertion that it’s “better”).
4. A full redraft of the email that applies every fix from point 3 at once. The redraft must be a complete, sendable email, not a bullet list of changes or a partial rewrite of one sentence.

Submitted through Canvas under the Assignments page. There is no fixed word count for the diagnosis or justification: write enough to make the reasoning clear and stop. As a rough guide, most entries will run to a few sentences of diagnosis and justification per problem identified, plus the redrafted email itself.

How to approach it#

Read each email as its recipient would, in the first few seconds, before you write anything down. Point the diagnosis at the email’s own words, not at cold email in general. Quote or closely paraphrase the specific phrase or structural choice you’re objecting to.

Before you submit an entry, check the redraft against your own diagnosis, line by line. If you named three problems, the redraft needs to fix all three. Two out of three plus a general tidy-up is not enough.

What a good submission looks like#

One entry done well looks like this.

Original email:

Diagnosis: the second sentence asks for an open-ended call. It doesn’t say what the call is about or how long it would take. The reader has to define the ask themselves before they can even agree to it. There is also no stated reason for contacting this particular person. The email reads as one of many identical requests rather than something written for them.

Fix and justification: name the specific question and cap the time. This moves the cost of defining the meeting from the reader to the sender, which is the sender’s job. Naming a concrete reason for contacting this person gives the reader something to weigh the request against.

Redraft:

That redraft resolves both problems named in the diagnosis: the ask is now specific and time-boxed, and the reason for contacting this person is stated rather than implied.