For me as an engineer I like to compare things to something else in my life, so the use of analogies would really appeal to me. The author used an analogy that I saw and I really liked that he included at least one in his article. Koelsch compared how learning to write is like learning to ice skate or learning to do karate, I thought this was a good way for me to see what he meant by learning to write just through the experience of simply writing. On the one occasion Koelsch used analogies it was very effective, I just feel he could have used them more to try to convince the reader that writing and communication skills are important. For example, he might have said that the ability to write and communicate is as important for engineers as studying a playbook is for a football player. If a footballer wants to be successful he must study the playbook, because even if he is a very strong athlete, if he doesn't know the plays he won't be successful; just like if an engineer is very strong in the technical side of engineering but very poor in the communication and writing side, that person will not develop their skills