How could I write an essay response to "The Principles of Poor Writing" by Paul W. Merrill?

This article is written to an academic audience of scientists or scientific researchers, evident by the journal in which it was published. The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about the elements of good writing. In doing so, the Merrill uses the rhetorical strategy of presenting the elements of poor writing so the reader might avoid those pitfalls in their own writing. When Merrill says to "ignore the reader," he is using humor to make the article more interesting and to prove a point. Everyone will agree that it is unwise to ignore their audience.
Merrill also says to be "verbose, vague, and pompous." This, of course, is another example of poor writing, and his examples of writers using unclear and confusing language contrasted with writers who are simply stating what they mean in a concise way serves to illustrate that point.
Merrill concludes with an admonition not to revise anything. He uses humor to convey the idea that the writer most definitely should revise. He says that if one revises there is danger that the writing will improve. His last joke asks that you not read his sources, another clue that this article is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the elements of good writing.