I don't think this was a final, final draft, but it shows you what the paper should look like. There were major formatting issues when I copied into this blog, so disregard those. I fixed it the best I could. Use this primarily to see how this kind of paper should be set up.
The Case Against Human Genetic Enhancement
With the Advent of many technological advancements in the late twentieth century, many moral and ethical questions have arisen as to how technology should affect humanity. One of the mostcontroversial issues that has come about, is the question as to whether or not humanity should permititself to, through the use of technology, genetically manipulate and alter the human genome. While this issue is broad, and the arguments are many, genetic enhancement and cloning of Humans should be
prohibited because it destroys the individuality of a person, it is scientifically not feasible, and it is ethically wrong to do so.
DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUALITY THROUGH ENHANCEMENT OR CLONING
Support
In the 1920's, a book was published that raised several questions as to the possible future of selective genetics, specifically, the topic that will be focused on is the issue of individuality. This book was called “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley. It is set in the twenty-sixth century where at this point in time, technology has allowed for the continuation of the human race to be done completely through the genetic creation of human beings. Natural procreation is regarded as a cultural taboo, and not spoken of in public. Individuals are trained from the beginning of their life to accept one style of living. They are bred and expected to occupy only one type of job in the workforce.
Humanity is also divided into five castes in this time, with the lower castes being purposely manipulated to have inferior traits, thus ensuring domination by the higher castes. While this is entirely a work of fiction, it raises some very crucial questions that must be answered if we as a society are to pursue genetic modification of the human race. One of those questions, should be for example, in the issue of cloning, how such an act would affect an individual's identity. According to a paper published
by bioethicists David Resnik and Daniel Vorhaus in the journal of Philosophy, Ethics, and the Humanities in Medicine, in which they quote the President's Council On Bioethics regarding cloning, “Cloning-to-produce-children could create serious problems of identity and individuality…Personal identity is, we would emphasize, a complex and subtle psychological phenomenon, shaped ultimately by the interaction of many diverse factors. But it does seem reasonably clear that cloning would at the
very least present a unique and possibly disabling challenge to the formation of individual identity…our genetic uniqueness is an important source of our sense of who we are and how we regard ourselves.
It is an emblem of independence and individuality. It endows us with a sense of life as a never-before-enacted possibility.” (Resnik, Vorhaus 25) The individuality of who we are in the human race, helps define us. The process of directly changing an individual's basic genetic traits, irrevocably alters their uniqueness and individuality. Clearly, genetic modification changes a person's sense of identity.
Opposition
With regard to Aldous Huxley's book “Brave New World” and the ensuing roles that
individuals are almost destined to play in life, bioethicists refer to this as the “Puppet critique” regarding genetic enhancement. The idea that individuals will be expected to fulfill a certain type of
lifestyle, simply because they are genetically gifted in those areas is viewed as problematic by some critics. Referencing this theory known as the “Puppet Critique,” which is the idea that a geneticallyenhanced individual could be pulled or coerced into living a certain lifestyle due simply to their genetics, Doctors Resnik and Vorhaus assert in their paper that “ The most genetically gifted musician might nevertheless forgo a career as a musician or composer, favoring life as an accountant, or an attorney instead... At its most basic level, the puppet critique relies on misstatements of scientific reality, and plays on the public's worst fears about the powers of genetics.” (Resnik, Vorhaus 16)Proponents of Genetic Enhancement believe that an individual's identity will not be adversely affected by the genetic gifts he or she has if they are designed in such a fashion.
On the underlying issue of the implications of cloning, Fritz Allhoff in an article published in The American Journal of Bioethics, debates a key point of cloning. “So, we could ask, does cloning harm the clone? If so, the clone would have to have been better off had cloning not taken place. However, this condition can obviously not be met; had cloning not taken place, the clone would not exist at all, much less have a higher level of overall welfare. Therefore, cloning cannot harm the clone.” (Allhoff, 5, 6) This idea basically states that it would be better to clone an individual, who could liveat least, than it would to simply have not granted him life in the first place. If society does not pursue cloning, then we will have to ask some questions as to if we are denying potential individuals a chance at life by prohibiting the practice of cloning.
Rebuttal
While there is a point to be made in Mr. Parfit’s claim, the evidence and research conducted by many in the field of medicine and biotechnology clearly show that the damage of cloning outweighs the benefits. The technology to clone currently exists, but many countries have decided not to utilize it due to, among its many ethical implications, the effect it would have on the individual, possibly prompting an identity crisis in their lifetime. A report done by the American Medical Association that was published in 1999, explores the potential identity problems of cloning. “Foregoing choice in learning one’s genetic predispositions may seem trivial compared to the concerns about identity raised with human cloning… Having insight into one’s potential may cause enormous pressures to live up to expectations (or inappropriately relieve pressure to do so) even more than those generally experienced by children” (AMA Ethics Of Cloning, 5) The American Medical Association’s ultimate recommendation to the professional medical field was to abandon the effort or practice of human cloning, because of the multiple scientific, societal, and ethical concerns.
In response to the argument that not pursuing the practice of cloning, or otherwise prohibiting it leads to a denial of life for cloned individuals, this point has almost a paradoxical quality to it. In the same paper, Allhoff references bioethicist Laura Purdy, who’s views on cloning are that it is immoral if the individual does not lead a minimum standard of life. Due to the current inadequacies of technology in the field of cloning, a cloned individual would age at a much faster rate than normal humans. While there is validity in Allhoff’s claims that it would be better to live a shortened life, than no life at all, it is impossible to argue from this point, as the individual never existed, and even though the technology exists to create a clone, there are many facets of the human mind and, it may be said,soul that we do not understand. So, while a cloned individual should have the same chance and right to life that we do, it would be dangerous, and irresponsible to pursue cloning from the standpoint that we should grant individuals who would, through no natural means exist, a life because there are many potential ramifications that researchers cannot possibly understand about cloning.
SCIENTIFIC DIFFICULTIES OF GENETIC ENGINEERING AND ENHANCEMENT
Support
There are several types of research in the genetics field that have developed recently. The main point that will be discussed will be the topic of stem cell research. There are at least two major types of stem cell research. embryonic, and adult. Embryonic research is a very controversial method of acquiring stem cells, and the evidence presented here will prove that not only is it more ethically problematic, but it is also scientifically inferior to adult stem cell efforts.
Recently, there have been several breakthroughs in the field of adult stem cell research. Recently,an article was published on Providence College's website, by a student reporting another article. Researchers at the University of Kyoto and the University of Wisconsin have developed what are called “Induced pluripotent stem cells” that can “...take on a variety of tissue types. Like embryonic and adult stem cells, these reprogrammed skin cells can be used to regenerate heart tissue, brain cells,
and could even treat spinal injuries.” (Sparks, par. 1) These cells are reprogrammed skin cells taken from the individual who needs the cells in question. They can be changed to take on as shown above, a variety of tissue types. Since these cells are from the donor, there is no chance of rejection, as there could be with embryonic stem cells. Furthermore, by using adult stem cells, as opposed to embryonic stem cells in this scenario, the cost effectiveness of the treatment is much better, than using embryonic tem cells, and there are no ethical complications with that treatment.
A separate paper written by former director of the National Institutes of Health Dr. Bernadine Healy, who was once a proud supporter of embryonic stem cell research, even more ardently argues the case against the research.. Dr. Healy references a report published by Israeli medical researchers, in which a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease received embryonic stem cell treatment. The following is a quote from her article. “The report describes a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia, who was treated with embryonic stem cells. Within four years, he developed headaches and was found to have multiple tumors in his brain and spinal cord that genetically matched the female embryos used in his therapy.” (Healy, par. 2) In these cases, Dr. Healy continues to say that many doctors fear this type of reaction from embryonic stem cell treatments, due to the nature of embryonic stem cells in that they are cells in a rapid state of growth and therefore unreliable and unpredictable.
Opposition
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that the technology and breakthroughs of the research are current, and visible. An article published on Science Daily, a website compiling recent medical data and research, references some of those breakthroughs carried out by the I-Stem team, a group of researchers working on multiple embryonic stem cell projects. This report states the success of the team in creating an entire epidermis from embryonic stem cells. The article asserts that Human embryonic stem cells have “...a capacity for unlimited proliferation and pluripotency, i.e. the capacity to differentiate into all the cell types in the human body.” (Science Daily, par. 6) The report continues to trumpet the possibilities of embryonic stem cells in treatments. Another section from the article states “...These 'ready to use' cells will be proposed to produce epidermal cells for the treatments of third degree burn victims and also other skin diseases such as genodermatoses or ulcerations which
complicate diabetes in a very large number of patients.” (Science Daily, par. 12) Yet more evidence that embryonic stem cells carry potential is found at the National Institutes of Health website. In their site, there are several articles and links of research and studies that show the potential for embryonic stem cells. One of these pages states “ Diseases that might be treated by transplanting cells generated from human embryonic stem cells include Parkinson's disease, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury,Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and vision and hearing loss.” (National Institutes of Health, par. 15) The capacity and promise of embryonic stem cells to cure any number of ailments and diseases has long been a hope of medical researchers, one that might have finally begun to be realized.
Rebuttal
While many medical researchers admit that embryonic stem cells have promise, adult stem cells are, on the other hand, readily available, easily created, cost effective, and ethically neutral. A revolutionary medical surgery performed by researchers and surgeons from Britain, Italy, and Spain was published in The London Times. Patient Claudia Castillo, who was thirty years old at the time of surgery, was stricken with a tuberculosis infection that destroyed her airways. Her trachea (also known as the windpipe) collapsed at the point it entered her left lung. Researchers took a donated section of trachea, stripped it of cells to the point that it was simply a brown section of cartilage, and then began work on it. This is a section of the article. “ Stem cells were taken from Ms. Castillo's bone marrow, and grown in Professor Birchall's laboratory. Stem cells can develop into different kinds of tissue, given the right chemical instructions, enabling researchers to cultivate cartilage and epithelial
cells to cover the 7 cm graft.” (Rose, par. 9) The ensuing implantation of the trachea was a complete success, and Ms. Castillo went back to living a normal life. Four months later, there were no signs of rejection. This is only one of many surgeries that have been performed successfully with adult stem cells. These and other events have led highly educated individuals like Dr. Healy to assert that “In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are
obsolete.” (Healy, par. 1) Science has shown us which method is more viable, and ethics have determined which is right. The only course left to follow in this field, is to embrace the future of adult stem cells, and endeavor without ceasing to explore the full potential of this process to cure manyof humanity's worst afflictions.
ETHICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF GENETIC ENHACEMENT
Support
So far, the issues of cloning, and stem cell research have been addressed. The next issue of human genetic enhancement will first be addressed, by providing a background of previous efforts in history to genetically enhance the human race, and create the ideal person. Forced sterilizations were a major issue in the early twentieth century. . At first, many countries welcomed the advent of some basic forms of genetic manipulation. One of the most widely used forms during this time was the sterilization of individuals who were not considered “Desirable.” In 1927, the Supreme Court case of
Buck v. Bell led to a ruling that legitimized the forced sterilization of mentally retarded patients at a Virginia home for the mentally ill. The majority opinion was written by justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and in it, he uttered the now infamous words “It is better for all the world, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent
those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” (Lombardo, par. 7) These ideas were encouraged by a theory that was published years earlier by an individual named Harry Laughlin. Laughlin's law proposed that “Socially inadequate” (Lombardo par. 2) individuals should be forcibly sterilized. This proposal led to forced sterilization laws in 12 states, and after the Supreme court case of Buck v. Bell, more than eight thousand people in the state of Virginia alone were sterilized. Nazi Germany later adopted Laughlin's law in their own format, and led for the legal basis of the sterilization of 350,000 people. Harry
Laughlin was later presented with an award by a German university for his furthering of the “science of racial cleansing.” (Lombardo par. 9) These efforts, were aimed at eliminating what was perceived as weaknesses in the human genome, and attempting to create the model human being. In our own history,attempts to genetically improve the human race have met with devastating consequences.
In Science, there are two major types of genetic manipulation that are dominant in theory and discussion. There is what is called “Positive Genetic Enhancement” which seeks to improve the human genome, and there is “Negative genetic enhancement” which aims to eliminate debilitating diseases such as Down Syndrome, or other forms of Muscular Dystrophy. Negative genetic enhancement could provide a great deal of promise to individuals who live an otherwise compromised lifestyle. While any kind of genetic modification opens up a veritable Pandora's box of ethical issues, gene therapy would be far more preferable to how most other babies with down syndrome are treated.
According to an article published on Newsweek, ninety percent of all fetuses that are detected with Down Syndrome are aborted. Negative Genetic Enhancement could hold the key to removing the set of genes responsible for the development of these disorders. While this is not a simple ethical issue by any standard, it is far more preferable that ethical questions should be raised by changing the human genome, rather than the ethical tsunami of concerns about preventing these individuals from ever existing. Positive genetic enhancements seek to improve the human genome, and create a superior
being. This type of engineering should be completely banned, as in history, these attempts have always resulted in tragedy and will continue to do so.
Opposition
Several groups and individuals have argued in favor of positive genetic enhancement. One of the movements that supports this trend is referred to as “Trans-humanism.” Essentially, these groups believe that humanity is something to be surpassed, and that we should embrace technology to further advance the human race physically, and mentally. In an extensive article published on USA Today, Bernard Gert asserts that “No one has yet provided a strong argument demonstrating that genetic engineering to produce enhanced size, strength, intelligence, or increased resistance to toxic substances is morally problematic.” (Gert, par. 6) Another example of transhumanistic thought could be expressed, by Doctor Max More, is a clear definition of trans-humanism. “Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a post human condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life, rather than in some supernatural 'afterlife.' Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies such as neuroscience neuropharmacology, life extension, nanotechnology, artificial ultraintelligence, and space habitation, combing with a rational philosophy and value system.” (more, par. 4) This system of thought seeks to cast down the limiting factors of values or morality, in favor of completely embracing
technological advancements to improve the human race. These groups view, among other things, positive genetic enhancement as something to be embraced to completely explore the potential of human capabilities. They argue that human life can be dramatically improved by the use of these new technologies.
Rebuttal
Doctor Francis Fukuyama stated about transhumanism, that it is one of the world's most
dangerous ideas. He argues that “The first victim of transhumanism might be equality.”
(Fukuyama, par. 5) Dr. Fukuyama continues in his article, warning about the dangers of
transhumanism, and the desire to alter the human race. He compares the environmental movement,which aims to present a sense of humility and preservation about the environment, to the preservationof the status of the human race. He states “We need to have a similar humility concerning our human nature. If we do not develop it soon, we may unwittingly invite the transhumanists to deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls.” (Fukuyama, par. 8) Clearly, transhumanism not only seeks to redefine human abilities, but irrevocably alter human nature as well.
The movement of transhumanism is one of reckless, disturbing proportions that threatens to destroy not only unique individuality through genetic manipulation, but to change what it is to be human.
Conclusion.
The issue of genetics in humanity is one that has only recently developed. However, it
represents an issue that can have far lasting effects on how we define our lives. Genetically altering the human race to change the definition of what it is to be human has been tried before, and it led to the deaths of millions in German concentration camps, and the sterilization of thousands of individuals in America. While negative engineering could hold some keys to creating a life for those who would not have one, we must be cautious. All too soon, we could be traveling down the path of defining what we view as a model human. If society becomes complacent, and accepts such an ideology, then the question we will have to ask ourselves, is not if we will recognize Hitler’s disturbing,twisted dream of a master race. The question we will have to ask ourselves, is when.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
CA 1 Outline Activity
Complete the following and submit via Turnitin BEFORE class on Friday.
Attention Getter
Thesis Statement
Reason #1
Position
Opposition
Rebuttal
Reason #2
Position
Opposition
Rebuttal
Reason #3
Position
Opposition
Rebuttal
Thought Provoking Ending
Attention Getter
Thesis Statement
Reason #1
Position
Opposition
Rebuttal
Reason #2
Position
Opposition
Rebuttal
Reason #3
Position
Opposition
Rebuttal
Thought Provoking Ending
Classical Argument
Chapter 14
Writing a Classical Argument Essay
Write a position paper that takes a stand on a controversial issue. Your introduction should present your issue, provide background, and state the claim you intend to support [thesis]. The body of your argument will present reasons and evidence in support of your own position as well as summarize and respond to opposing views. You need to choose whether you want to summarize and refute opposing views before or after you have made your own case. End the essay with your strongest argument.
Chapter 14: Writing a Classical Argument discusses the following items that you need to include:
• Creating an Argument Frame: A Claim with Reasons
• Articulating Reasons
• Articulating Unstated Assumptions
• Using Evidence Effectively
• Addressing Objections and Counterarguments
• Responding to Objections, counterarguments, and Alternative Views
Length and Technical Issues: 6-10 pages double-spaced with one-inch margins—the works cited does NOT count as a page. Word-processed in Times New Roman and size 12.
Format:
Introduction
Attention Getter
Presentation of Issue
Background Information
Claim—Thesis Statement
Body
Para 1-
Position
Opposition
Rebuttal
Para 2- Etc
Para 3-Etc
Conclusion
Summarize all the reasons (points) for the position
Bring essay to closure
May relate topic to larger body of issues
Document Design
Use headings to separate sections of argument
Source Guidelines
• All sources used within the text of the paper must be cited on the Works Cited page according to MLA
• Sources must be used and formatted correctly—parenthetical or in-text references (attributive phrases used in order to differentiate between student voice and those of the referenced sources i.e. According to Author.
• A minimum of 8 sources must be cited in the text of your paper.
• You must have a variety of sources—both print and non (EBSCO, LexisNexis, Proquest, newspapers, books, periodicals, interviews, etc.)
• Your sources should include the journal articles you analyzed for the Strong Response and Comparison of Sources papers.
• ONE of your sources may be from a search engine other than databases from HCC
Topic:
Remember, you will be using the same topic that you had for your Strong Response and Comparison of Sources papers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation Checklist for an A
Format (100 pts)
Introduction
- Attention getter
- Presentation of Issue
- Background Information
- Thesis Statement—Position and Forecast of Argument Frame
Body Content
- Creates an Argument Frame: A Claim with Reasons
- Articulates reasons
- Uses evidence effectively
- Addresses objections and counterarguments
- Responds to objections, counterarguments, and alternative views (rebuttal)
- Remains focused on thesis
- Is clearly intended for a specific audience
- Uses an appropriate balance of ethos, pathos, and logos appeals
Body Organization—Writer’s Choice*
- Summary of student writer’s position
- Summary of opposing view
- Presentation of Writer’s Position
- Reasons of evidence in support of position*
o All supporting reasons/evidence in separate sections (use HEADINGS to indicate this
o Opposing reasons and evidence followed by evidence in its own section (match organization to support sections)
Cites credentials of sources when appropriate
- Uses HEADINGS to separate sections
- Organization is consistent throughout
Conclusion
- Summarizes all the reasons (points) for the position
- Brings essay to closure
- May relate topic to larger body of issues
Source Guidelines (30 pts)
- A minimum of eight sources are cited
- All sources used within the text of the paper are cited on the Works Cited page according to MLA
- Sources are formatted correctly—parenthetical or in-text references (attributive phrases used in order to differentiate between student voice and those of the referenced sources i.e. According to Author)
- There is a variety of sources (EBSCOhost, Lexis Nexis, Proquest, NewsBank, newspapers, books, periodicals, interview, etc.)
- Annotations are thoughtful and clearly written in complete sentences
Length and Technical Issues (5 pts)
- 7-10 pages double-spaced with one-inch margins
- Headings and subheadings are correctly formatted
Style Issues (15 pts)
- Is free of excess words
- Uses transitions effectively
- Is free of serious G.U.M.P. errors—less than two per typed page
Writing a Classical Argument Essay
Write a position paper that takes a stand on a controversial issue. Your introduction should present your issue, provide background, and state the claim you intend to support [thesis]. The body of your argument will present reasons and evidence in support of your own position as well as summarize and respond to opposing views. You need to choose whether you want to summarize and refute opposing views before or after you have made your own case. End the essay with your strongest argument.
Chapter 14: Writing a Classical Argument discusses the following items that you need to include:
• Creating an Argument Frame: A Claim with Reasons
• Articulating Reasons
• Articulating Unstated Assumptions
• Using Evidence Effectively
• Addressing Objections and Counterarguments
• Responding to Objections, counterarguments, and Alternative Views
Length and Technical Issues: 6-10 pages double-spaced with one-inch margins—the works cited does NOT count as a page. Word-processed in Times New Roman and size 12.
Format:
Introduction
Attention Getter
Presentation of Issue
Background Information
Claim—Thesis Statement
Body
Para 1-
Position
Opposition
Rebuttal
Para 2- Etc
Para 3-Etc
Conclusion
Summarize all the reasons (points) for the position
Bring essay to closure
May relate topic to larger body of issues
Document Design
Use headings to separate sections of argument
Source Guidelines
• All sources used within the text of the paper must be cited on the Works Cited page according to MLA
• Sources must be used and formatted correctly—parenthetical or in-text references (attributive phrases used in order to differentiate between student voice and those of the referenced sources i.e. According to Author.
• A minimum of 8 sources must be cited in the text of your paper.
• You must have a variety of sources—both print and non (EBSCO, LexisNexis, Proquest, newspapers, books, periodicals, interviews, etc.)
• Your sources should include the journal articles you analyzed for the Strong Response and Comparison of Sources papers.
• ONE of your sources may be from a search engine other than databases from HCC
Topic:
Remember, you will be using the same topic that you had for your Strong Response and Comparison of Sources papers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation Checklist for an A
Format (100 pts)
Introduction
- Attention getter
- Presentation of Issue
- Background Information
- Thesis Statement—Position and Forecast of Argument Frame
Body Content
- Creates an Argument Frame: A Claim with Reasons
- Articulates reasons
- Uses evidence effectively
- Addresses objections and counterarguments
- Responds to objections, counterarguments, and alternative views (rebuttal)
- Remains focused on thesis
- Is clearly intended for a specific audience
- Uses an appropriate balance of ethos, pathos, and logos appeals
Body Organization—Writer’s Choice*
- Summary of student writer’s position
- Summary of opposing view
- Presentation of Writer’s Position
- Reasons of evidence in support of position*
o All supporting reasons/evidence in separate sections (use HEADINGS to indicate this
o Opposing reasons and evidence followed by evidence in its own section (match organization to support sections)
Cites credentials of sources when appropriate
- Uses HEADINGS to separate sections
- Organization is consistent throughout
Conclusion
- Summarizes all the reasons (points) for the position
- Brings essay to closure
- May relate topic to larger body of issues
Source Guidelines (30 pts)
- A minimum of eight sources are cited
- All sources used within the text of the paper are cited on the Works Cited page according to MLA
- Sources are formatted correctly—parenthetical or in-text references (attributive phrases used in order to differentiate between student voice and those of the referenced sources i.e. According to Author)
- There is a variety of sources (EBSCOhost, Lexis Nexis, Proquest, NewsBank, newspapers, books, periodicals, interview, etc.)
- Annotations are thoughtful and clearly written in complete sentences
Length and Technical Issues (5 pts)
- 7-10 pages double-spaced with one-inch margins
- Headings and subheadings are correctly formatted
Style Issues (15 pts)
- Is free of excess words
- Uses transitions effectively
- Is free of serious G.U.M.P. errors—less than two per typed page
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Thesis Statements
"I do not agree with the idea of designer babies and believe that we are taking to much of an advantage of our new technologies."
Donation had become a positive technology
Egg donation allows unable families to have children and also helps people who are in need of money. By evaluating each advantage, egg
Donating sperm is a pretense, once a father, always a father, and the child will never understand their origins.
Donating sperm is a pretense, once a father, always a father, and the child will never understand their origins.
I do not agree with the idea of designer babies and I believe that our society is taking too much of an advantage of our new technologies.
The article is very opinionated and described the bias of eugenics today, though I thought the authors’ hatred towards eugenicists was too strong.
While Bohlin is credible and uses logical information and emotional appeal, the fact that he is the director of Probe ministries brings his entire argument into question.
Darnovsky makes a strong argument by relying heavily on Silver’s logical realism to create fear of the unsettling vision of our future, but she relies too much on her position as the Associate Executive Director at the Center for Genetics and Society and fails to include credible sources in her paper.
Akudo is very good at using pathos to make you feel for infertile people, logos to get the facts straight, but is not a credible source.
Credible authors McLachlan and Swales propose their argument using many logical examples to persuade their audience, and a little bit of emotional appeal to keep them involved, but their incomplete thoughts take away from the overall effectiveness.
With the use of ethical, logical, and emotional appeals Dr. Eric Fiedler explains why fertility doctors and the facilities that perform these procedures need to be more regulated.
Lorraine Brown uses logical reasoning, a ray of emotion, and credibility to help us understand the psychological factors that are found in infertile couples.
The idea of egg donations has opened a whole new world for people around the world, but is it really worth the price?
Mark bush uses credible facts, emotional appeal, and logical advice in his article
payment for eggs should not be considered a donation but more as an exchange of eggs for money.
Is it ethical to choose everything about your baby is it even your choice or are you playing God?
money is power You will find that money tends to follows power.
Donation had become a positive technology
Egg donation allows unable families to have children and also helps people who are in need of money. By evaluating each advantage, egg
Donating sperm is a pretense, once a father, always a father, and the child will never understand their origins.
Donating sperm is a pretense, once a father, always a father, and the child will never understand their origins.
I do not agree with the idea of designer babies and I believe that our society is taking too much of an advantage of our new technologies.
The article is very opinionated and described the bias of eugenics today, though I thought the authors’ hatred towards eugenicists was too strong.
While Bohlin is credible and uses logical information and emotional appeal, the fact that he is the director of Probe ministries brings his entire argument into question.
Darnovsky makes a strong argument by relying heavily on Silver’s logical realism to create fear of the unsettling vision of our future, but she relies too much on her position as the Associate Executive Director at the Center for Genetics and Society and fails to include credible sources in her paper.
Akudo is very good at using pathos to make you feel for infertile people, logos to get the facts straight, but is not a credible source.
Credible authors McLachlan and Swales propose their argument using many logical examples to persuade their audience, and a little bit of emotional appeal to keep them involved, but their incomplete thoughts take away from the overall effectiveness.
With the use of ethical, logical, and emotional appeals Dr. Eric Fiedler explains why fertility doctors and the facilities that perform these procedures need to be more regulated.
Lorraine Brown uses logical reasoning, a ray of emotion, and credibility to help us understand the psychological factors that are found in infertile couples.
The idea of egg donations has opened a whole new world for people around the world, but is it really worth the price?
Mark bush uses credible facts, emotional appeal, and logical advice in his article
payment for eggs should not be considered a donation but more as an exchange of eggs for money.
Is it ethical to choose everything about your baby is it even your choice or are you playing God?
money is power You will find that money tends to follows power.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Sample SSR
Is health care reform truly bureaucracy? Or is that statement just an opinion? In an op-ed posted by former Governor, and Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in a Wall Street journal opinion section,"Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care", Ms. Palin asserts that President Obama's proposals at health care reform will create an enormous, inefficient, and ethically questionable bureaucracy. Does her opinion have evidence? Or is it strictly argument? While Ms. Palin makes a potent argument for her side on Health care, using appeals to emotion, logic, and ethics, makes a strong case for her beliefs. however, in the interest of promoting those beliefs, she takes a very emotional approach, and sometimes colors the evidence to suit those views.
Ms. Palin in her op-ed "Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care", makes several arguments against current health proposals. At first, she acknowledges the need of a society to care for the elderly and sick, and indicates this as a responsibility of the people.
Ms. Palin appeals to the conservative base of her party by stating the President's proposals for health care reform as "Bureaucratic" in nature. Her opposition fits in with many of her Conservative colleagues' beliefs against the current health care reform attempts by Democrats in Congress. Many of her fellow conservatives in Congress, have spoken out against and continue to speak out against the current health care reform proposals.
She then acknowledges the "crippling expenses of health care." She also states that allowing government health care spending to continue unabated will add to the federal budget deficit, and that the current medicare and medicaid programs are wrought with waste and inefficiency. Ms. Palin then cites an article from the Congressional budget office that indicates that the current legislation in congress will do little to deter federal health spending. She also states that the legislation creates an independent advisory council that is "unelected, and largely unaccountable" that is given the task of reducing costs. She refers to such a council as a "death Panel" in her op-ed article.
After making several notable points against the health care reform, such as the aforementioned "Bureaucracy" and "Death panels" she summarizes her thoughts in the last few paragraphs. She states that the health care reform will lead to lower wages for American workers, unwanted influence of government power in ordinary citizen's lives, uncontrollable deficits, and take the individual power of medical choice out of the hands of Americans.
Now, these points about health care having been made Sarah Palin does have credibility to her argument. She lists several studies done by other groups, such as the Congressional Budget Office, and the Cato Institute. Also, having her article published in the Wall street journal gives her some more credibility, with millions of average Americans, as well as millions of businessmen and women. However, She does intermingle a good deal of fact, with opinion.For example, the Medicare advisory council, that Ms. Palin asserts is a completely new entity that would bring about "rationing of care" and "death panels" is not a new entity at all. In a published letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer on page 3, the director of the congressional budget office states that the individuals, who would have to be physicians, or specialists in health care, would be appointed by the president, and only approved of if the Senate passes them. Furthermore, any actions proposed by the Medicare advisory council, would have to be approved by the secretary of health and human services, and the President. Also, on page four of the letter, the CBO also states that the council would not have a set target of budget cuts, and there would not be a requirement to deny care due to budget circumstances.
The next fact that Sarah Palin asserts is a quote from the congressional budget office that the current health care proposals will not generate much savings. According to the Director Elmendorf and his staff's research, this is correct. In a letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer from Director Elmendorf, he states that the current proposal would not bring about much in the way of cost savings.
Ms. Palin also takes information provided by the Cato institute to make her argument that such health care reform would result in lower wages. This is a debatable subject, and given that the Cato institute has sided with conservatives on many issues, including taxation, foreign events, and financial regulation (see Cato.org) individuals should consider the probability that they are not completely un-biased.
In all, Ms. Palin's article does contain some fact, and some strict argument and opinion. Throughout her article, she uses various methods of connecting with the audience. Some of these methods include appealing to emotion, logic and reasoning, and ethical arguments.
At the onset of her article, Ms. Palin quotes former President Reagan on the need to ensure that everyone can get medical care. She then proceeds to make the argument for the responsibility of society to care for the sick and the elderly, and those who cannot care for themselves. This kind of argument will appeal to those people who feel that there is a moral duty of society to care for these groups of people. This is a strong appeal to the Evangelical base of her party, and is a recurring theme with many of the Evangelical-Christians in the party base.
Ms. Palin also makes an appeal to logical reasoning here, by citing examples from the Congressional budget office, and the Cato institute studies done on health care. She could be trying to appeal to moderates and independents that are on the sidelines of the health care debate by using independent sources that aren't directly affiliated with either party.
Perhaps her most potent argument now, comes from the emotional side of the issue. Many members of her party base have a distrust of the government. If not a distrust, then at least a deep skepticism on the ability, and competency of the government to operate. She appeals to this base again with the statements that while insurance companies can be unaccountable, the federal government is perhaps even more so. Now, this part of her article involves much opinion, and contention. However, it is most probably very effective for the base of her party that questions the efficiency, and even honesty of the federal government. She continues to claim in the article that many of the proposals from the democrats will increase the deficit, decrease the earnings of everyday Americans through inflation, and "increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats". Again, all of this is more opinion then fact. Independent agencies and fact check organizations have not verified these claims with any certainty, so they should be taken at best with a grain of salt.
At the end of her article, Ms. Palin states that despite President Obama's promise to the contrary, the current health reforms will not provide more stability to American families and individuals. Again, this could be a very debatable subject here, depending on the audience receiving it. There are legitimate points to her article, she uses some credible evidence to support her argument, and makes a strong emotional and ethical appeal. However, all of these facts may become clouded by the simple reality that her description of the "death panels" does little to appeal to logic, due to it being untrue, and does not broaden her appeal to audiences beyond the base.
As an audience member, I appreciate the appeal to logic by using findings from independent groups, however they were too few and far between to be an effective argument on the subject for me. Also, due to the fact that her claims about the Medicare advisory panels were inaccurate, I have not been swayed by this article to her position.
It is my conclusion that Ms. Palin makes several arguments in her paper that are swayed by emotion, rather than logic. Her appeals to pathos are the strongest. While her uses of logos were effective, they were, in some of the cases in her article, either biased with Ms. Palin on the subject, or an incomplete analysis of the facts at hand that present her case in a better light.
Now, from reading Ms. Palin's article, can one make the determination if health care reform is truly creating bueraucracy? Or will the reader decide it is just Ms. Palin's opinion on the issue? You are the reader, it is up to you to decide.
Ms. Palin in her op-ed "Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care", makes several arguments against current health proposals. At first, she acknowledges the need of a society to care for the elderly and sick, and indicates this as a responsibility of the people.
Ms. Palin appeals to the conservative base of her party by stating the President's proposals for health care reform as "Bureaucratic" in nature. Her opposition fits in with many of her Conservative colleagues' beliefs against the current health care reform attempts by Democrats in Congress. Many of her fellow conservatives in Congress, have spoken out against and continue to speak out against the current health care reform proposals.
She then acknowledges the "crippling expenses of health care." She also states that allowing government health care spending to continue unabated will add to the federal budget deficit, and that the current medicare and medicaid programs are wrought with waste and inefficiency. Ms. Palin then cites an article from the Congressional budget office that indicates that the current legislation in congress will do little to deter federal health spending. She also states that the legislation creates an independent advisory council that is "unelected, and largely unaccountable" that is given the task of reducing costs. She refers to such a council as a "death Panel" in her op-ed article.
After making several notable points against the health care reform, such as the aforementioned "Bureaucracy" and "Death panels" she summarizes her thoughts in the last few paragraphs. She states that the health care reform will lead to lower wages for American workers, unwanted influence of government power in ordinary citizen's lives, uncontrollable deficits, and take the individual power of medical choice out of the hands of Americans.
Now, these points about health care having been made Sarah Palin does have credibility to her argument. She lists several studies done by other groups, such as the Congressional Budget Office, and the Cato Institute. Also, having her article published in the Wall street journal gives her some more credibility, with millions of average Americans, as well as millions of businessmen and women. However, She does intermingle a good deal of fact, with opinion.For example, the Medicare advisory council, that Ms. Palin asserts is a completely new entity that would bring about "rationing of care" and "death panels" is not a new entity at all. In a published letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer on page 3, the director of the congressional budget office states that the individuals, who would have to be physicians, or specialists in health care, would be appointed by the president, and only approved of if the Senate passes them. Furthermore, any actions proposed by the Medicare advisory council, would have to be approved by the secretary of health and human services, and the President. Also, on page four of the letter, the CBO also states that the council would not have a set target of budget cuts, and there would not be a requirement to deny care due to budget circumstances.
The next fact that Sarah Palin asserts is a quote from the congressional budget office that the current health care proposals will not generate much savings. According to the Director Elmendorf and his staff's research, this is correct. In a letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer from Director Elmendorf, he states that the current proposal would not bring about much in the way of cost savings.
Ms. Palin also takes information provided by the Cato institute to make her argument that such health care reform would result in lower wages. This is a debatable subject, and given that the Cato institute has sided with conservatives on many issues, including taxation, foreign events, and financial regulation (see Cato.org) individuals should consider the probability that they are not completely un-biased.
In all, Ms. Palin's article does contain some fact, and some strict argument and opinion. Throughout her article, she uses various methods of connecting with the audience. Some of these methods include appealing to emotion, logic and reasoning, and ethical arguments.
At the onset of her article, Ms. Palin quotes former President Reagan on the need to ensure that everyone can get medical care. She then proceeds to make the argument for the responsibility of society to care for the sick and the elderly, and those who cannot care for themselves. This kind of argument will appeal to those people who feel that there is a moral duty of society to care for these groups of people. This is a strong appeal to the Evangelical base of her party, and is a recurring theme with many of the Evangelical-Christians in the party base.
Ms. Palin also makes an appeal to logical reasoning here, by citing examples from the Congressional budget office, and the Cato institute studies done on health care. She could be trying to appeal to moderates and independents that are on the sidelines of the health care debate by using independent sources that aren't directly affiliated with either party.
Perhaps her most potent argument now, comes from the emotional side of the issue. Many members of her party base have a distrust of the government. If not a distrust, then at least a deep skepticism on the ability, and competency of the government to operate. She appeals to this base again with the statements that while insurance companies can be unaccountable, the federal government is perhaps even more so. Now, this part of her article involves much opinion, and contention. However, it is most probably very effective for the base of her party that questions the efficiency, and even honesty of the federal government. She continues to claim in the article that many of the proposals from the democrats will increase the deficit, decrease the earnings of everyday Americans through inflation, and "increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats". Again, all of this is more opinion then fact. Independent agencies and fact check organizations have not verified these claims with any certainty, so they should be taken at best with a grain of salt.
At the end of her article, Ms. Palin states that despite President Obama's promise to the contrary, the current health reforms will not provide more stability to American families and individuals. Again, this could be a very debatable subject here, depending on the audience receiving it. There are legitimate points to her article, she uses some credible evidence to support her argument, and makes a strong emotional and ethical appeal. However, all of these facts may become clouded by the simple reality that her description of the "death panels" does little to appeal to logic, due to it being untrue, and does not broaden her appeal to audiences beyond the base.
As an audience member, I appreciate the appeal to logic by using findings from independent groups, however they were too few and far between to be an effective argument on the subject for me. Also, due to the fact that her claims about the Medicare advisory panels were inaccurate, I have not been swayed by this article to her position.
It is my conclusion that Ms. Palin makes several arguments in her paper that are swayed by emotion, rather than logic. Her appeals to pathos are the strongest. While her uses of logos were effective, they were, in some of the cases in her article, either biased with Ms. Palin on the subject, or an incomplete analysis of the facts at hand that present her case in a better light.
Now, from reading Ms. Palin's article, can one make the determination if health care reform is truly creating bueraucracy? Or will the reader decide it is just Ms. Palin's opinion on the issue? You are the reader, it is up to you to decide.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Articles
"Is This Egg Worth $50,000?"
http://www.aperfectmatch.com/articles.html
"The Other Jesus"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/83479
http://www.aperfectmatch.com/articles.html
"The Other Jesus"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/83479
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Notes
Reflection on Comp I: challenges, accomplishments
Expectations for Comp II:
Ch. 1
Writing:
-Is critical thinking
-Helps develop questioning, analyzing, and arguing skills, which are transferable to vast areas of life
-Exercises your curiosity, creativity, and problem solving ability
-Connects you to others and helps you discover and express ideas you may otherwise never think or say
-Gives you time to think deep and long about an idea
-Isn’t just a way to express a thought but a way to do the thinking itself
-Stimulates, challenges, and strengthens your mental powers, and when done well, is extremely satisfying
Good writers are question askers and problem posers rather than followers of rigidly prescribed rules and must work out answers to two sorts of questions: questions about their subject matter and questions about their audience and purpose.
Closed vs. Open Form
Ch. 2
Rhetoric: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing
“Wallow in Complexity”
-wrestle with problems by applying concepts, data, and thought processes
-Critical Thinking Skills Needed for “Wallowing in Complexity”
-The ability to pose problematic questions
-The ability to analyze a problem in all its dimensions—to define its key terms, determine its causes, understand its history, appreciate its human dimension and its connection to one’s own personal experience, and appreciate what makes it problematic or complex.
-The ability (and determination) to find, gather, and interpret facts, data, and other information relevant to the problem (often involving library, Internet, or field research)
-The ability to imagine alternative solutions to the problem, to see different ways in which the question might be answered and different perspectives for viewing it
-The ability to analyze competing approaches and answers, to construct arguments for and against alternatives, and to choose the best solution in light of values, objectives, and other criteria that you determine and articulate.
-The ability to write an effective argument justifying your choice while acknowledging counterarguments
Critical thinkers are actively engaged with life…They appreciate creativity, they are innovators, and they exude a sense that life is full of possibilities.”
Good writers use exploratory strategies to think critically about subject-matter questions
-Freewriting
-Focused Freewriting
-Idea Mapping
-Dialectic Talk
-Playing the Believing and Doubting Game (Ch. 2 p. 37)
What is a good argument?
What is a good thesis?
A strong thesis statement surprises readers with something new or challenging
You're trying to change your readers view of your subject
New: Don’t tell us something we already know: if it’s common knowledge, why are you writing about it?
True: Can you prove it?
Important: Why is this topic worth writing about?
One Sentence
Clear
Concise
“So What?”
Use because clauses to help revise your thesis (p. 383)
Ch. 3
Angle of Vision:
What influences your angle?
How do you construct your angle based on audience, purpose, and genre?
Logos: reason; logic
Ethos: credibility; ethics--trustworthy, thoughtful, fair
Pathos: emotional appeal, persuasion (passion)
How does the author logically present his/her view, support with credible sources, and persuade with emotional appeal?
Q: How do visual images make implicit arguments (logos) while also appealing to our values and emotions (pathos) and causing us to respond favorably or unfavorably to the artist (ethos)?
(Think of advertisements to help guide you in this process)
Ch. 6
Listen carefully to the text, recognize parts and functions, summarize ideas
Formulate strong response by interacting with text through agreement, interrogation, or opposition.
-Play Devil's Advocate
Reading WITH the Grain
• Listen to the text, read with the author, and withhold judgments.
• Extend and support the author’s thesis with your own points and examples.
• Apply the author’s argument in new ways.
o see world through author's perspective
o open yourself to the argument
o apply insights to new contexts
o connect to your own experiences and knowledge
Reading AGAINST the Grain
• Challenge, question, and resist the author’s ideas.
• Rebut the author’s ideas with counterreasoning and counterexamples.
• Point out what the author has left out or overlooked, and note what the author has not said.
o resist ideas by questioning points
o raise doubts
o analyze limits of perspective
o refute argument
Read Rhetorically
o Be aware of the effect a text is intended to have on you
o Critically consider that effect
o Enter into or challenge intentions
Strong Response
Rhetorical Critique: analyzes a text's rhetorical strategies and evaluates how effectively the author achieves his/her own goals; focus on how text is constructed, rhetorical strategies, effectiveness of appeals to logs, ethos, and pathos; closely analyze the text itself; read both with and against the grain and discuss what is effective and ineffective
Ideas Critique: focuses on the ideas; treat as a voice in a conversation you are involved in; one perspective on an issue, how does it compare with your own and others; RESEARCH is key, combined with personal experiences and critical thinking; challenge ideas, point out flaws, provide research to refute and extend argument; speak back to the text
Reflection: avoid this one for now as you primary focus; too open-ended, too abstract; better once you are further into the argument; WOULD work with a blend, but it should be a very small part
Strong Response should be written on a Single Source but you must consult many before making your final selection; I want to see at least three highlighted and noted sources at your conference and would expect you to read many abstracts before making your final selection.
General Notes:
Single Source/Summary Response/Strong Response: These are all the same thing; different versions of the text have just given them different names.
Analyze the article and the methods the author uses to prove his/her argument. This paper is merely an analytical piece. Not a debate with the author or the issue.
Break down the facts, break down the argument, look at logos, ethos, and pathos, evaluate bias and credibility. You can 100% disagree with a source but that doesn't make it a bad source.
Your thesis then becomes what you are going to say about the article. For example, "Smith's credibility and strong factual backing are weakened by his empty emotional appeals and overshadowing bias."
"Lebo's bias and questionable expertise is eliminated by her well-balanced use of logos, ethos, and pathos and the credibility of her sources."
STEPS:
o Read the article
o Take vigorous notes: question, challenge, agree and complain
o Use those notes to formulate an outline
o Compare the outline with the checklist
o Formulate a response
o Use that response as your working thesis
o Begin writing
Also ask yourself this, if someone else reads your essay, would they have an understanding about what the piece is about? If not, you are too embedded in the argument and have not offered enough analysis or proper summary of the piece.
Ch. 13 Notes
Synthesis: a way of seeing or coming to terms with complexities, is a counterpart to analysis. When you analyze something, you break it down into its parts to see relationships among them. When you synthesize, you take one more step, putting parts together in some new fashion.
Synthesis as a dialectical process…posing a significant question that often forces you to encounter clashing or contradictory ideas.
The synthesis essay, which moves beyond analysis to show how a writer interacts with a group of texts, explores their alternative perspectives on an issue, and presents a new, enlarged perspective on his or her own.
You use synthesis to carve out your own thinking space on a research question while shifting through the writings of others.
The synthesis or focusing question directs you to look for ways that a group of texts are connected and ways that they differ in their approaches to a particular problem or issue.
Your goal is to achieve your own informed view on that question.
Use both with-the-grain and against-the-grain thinking; listen carefully to the text; critique both the rhetorical features and ideas; begin your own independent thinking based on the synthesis question that ties your texts together.
To consider the text rhetorically:
To whom is the author writing and why? Do you see how the genre of each text influences some of the author’s choices about language and structure? What angle of vision shapes each text and accounts for what is included and excluded? Do you share the values of the author or his or her intended audience?
Questions over text:
• What main ideas or themes related to your synthesis question do you see in each text?
• What similarities and differences do you see in the way the authors choose to frame the issues they are writing about? How do their theses (either implied or stated) differ?
• What are the main similarities and differences in their angles of vision?
• What commonalities and intersections related to your synthesis question do you see in their ideas? What contradictions and clashes do you see in their ideas?
• What similarities and differences do you see in the authors’ underlying values and assumptions?
• What overlap, if any, is there in these authors’ examples and uses of terms?
• On what subject of your synthesis question, how would Author A respond to Author B?
Developing your own views:
• What do I agree with and disagree with in the texts I have analyzed?
• How have these texts changed my perception and understanding of an issue, question, or problem?
• What do I see or think now that I didn’t see or think before I read these texts?
• Related to my synthesis question, what new, significant questions do these texts raise for me?
• What do I see now as the main controversies?
• What is my current view on the focusing question that connects my texts and that all my texts explore?
• How would I position myself in the conversation of the texts?
• If I find one author’s perspective more valid, accurate, interesting, or useful than another’s, why is that?
• What discoveries have I made after much thought?
• What are the most important insights I have gotten from these readings?
• What is my intellectual or personal investment with the synthesis question at this point?
• Where can I step out on my own, even take a risk, in my thinking about the ideas discussed in these texts?
• What new perspective do I want to share with my readers?
Expectations for Comp II:
Ch. 1
Writing:
-Is critical thinking
-Helps develop questioning, analyzing, and arguing skills, which are transferable to vast areas of life
-Exercises your curiosity, creativity, and problem solving ability
-Connects you to others and helps you discover and express ideas you may otherwise never think or say
-Gives you time to think deep and long about an idea
-Isn’t just a way to express a thought but a way to do the thinking itself
-Stimulates, challenges, and strengthens your mental powers, and when done well, is extremely satisfying
Good writers are question askers and problem posers rather than followers of rigidly prescribed rules and must work out answers to two sorts of questions: questions about their subject matter and questions about their audience and purpose.
Closed vs. Open Form
Ch. 2
Rhetoric: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing
“Wallow in Complexity”
-wrestle with problems by applying concepts, data, and thought processes
-Critical Thinking Skills Needed for “Wallowing in Complexity”
-The ability to pose problematic questions
-The ability to analyze a problem in all its dimensions—to define its key terms, determine its causes, understand its history, appreciate its human dimension and its connection to one’s own personal experience, and appreciate what makes it problematic or complex.
-The ability (and determination) to find, gather, and interpret facts, data, and other information relevant to the problem (often involving library, Internet, or field research)
-The ability to imagine alternative solutions to the problem, to see different ways in which the question might be answered and different perspectives for viewing it
-The ability to analyze competing approaches and answers, to construct arguments for and against alternatives, and to choose the best solution in light of values, objectives, and other criteria that you determine and articulate.
-The ability to write an effective argument justifying your choice while acknowledging counterarguments
Critical thinkers are actively engaged with life…They appreciate creativity, they are innovators, and they exude a sense that life is full of possibilities.”
Good writers use exploratory strategies to think critically about subject-matter questions
-Freewriting
-Focused Freewriting
-Idea Mapping
-Dialectic Talk
-Playing the Believing and Doubting Game (Ch. 2 p. 37)
What is a good argument?
What is a good thesis?
A strong thesis statement surprises readers with something new or challenging
You're trying to change your readers view of your subject
New: Don’t tell us something we already know: if it’s common knowledge, why are you writing about it?
True: Can you prove it?
Important: Why is this topic worth writing about?
One Sentence
Clear
Concise
“So What?”
Use because clauses to help revise your thesis (p. 383)
Ch. 3
Angle of Vision:
What influences your angle?
How do you construct your angle based on audience, purpose, and genre?
Logos: reason; logic
Ethos: credibility; ethics--trustworthy, thoughtful, fair
Pathos: emotional appeal, persuasion (passion)
How does the author logically present his/her view, support with credible sources, and persuade with emotional appeal?
Q: How do visual images make implicit arguments (logos) while also appealing to our values and emotions (pathos) and causing us to respond favorably or unfavorably to the artist (ethos)?
(Think of advertisements to help guide you in this process)
Ch. 6
Listen carefully to the text, recognize parts and functions, summarize ideas
Formulate strong response by interacting with text through agreement, interrogation, or opposition.
-Play Devil's Advocate
Reading WITH the Grain
• Listen to the text, read with the author, and withhold judgments.
• Extend and support the author’s thesis with your own points and examples.
• Apply the author’s argument in new ways.
o see world through author's perspective
o open yourself to the argument
o apply insights to new contexts
o connect to your own experiences and knowledge
Reading AGAINST the Grain
• Challenge, question, and resist the author’s ideas.
• Rebut the author’s ideas with counterreasoning and counterexamples.
• Point out what the author has left out or overlooked, and note what the author has not said.
o resist ideas by questioning points
o raise doubts
o analyze limits of perspective
o refute argument
Read Rhetorically
o Be aware of the effect a text is intended to have on you
o Critically consider that effect
o Enter into or challenge intentions
Strong Response
Rhetorical Critique: analyzes a text's rhetorical strategies and evaluates how effectively the author achieves his/her own goals; focus on how text is constructed, rhetorical strategies, effectiveness of appeals to logs, ethos, and pathos; closely analyze the text itself; read both with and against the grain and discuss what is effective and ineffective
Ideas Critique: focuses on the ideas; treat as a voice in a conversation you are involved in; one perspective on an issue, how does it compare with your own and others; RESEARCH is key, combined with personal experiences and critical thinking; challenge ideas, point out flaws, provide research to refute and extend argument; speak back to the text
Reflection: avoid this one for now as you primary focus; too open-ended, too abstract; better once you are further into the argument; WOULD work with a blend, but it should be a very small part
Strong Response should be written on a Single Source but you must consult many before making your final selection; I want to see at least three highlighted and noted sources at your conference and would expect you to read many abstracts before making your final selection.
General Notes:
Single Source/Summary Response/Strong Response: These are all the same thing; different versions of the text have just given them different names.
Analyze the article and the methods the author uses to prove his/her argument. This paper is merely an analytical piece. Not a debate with the author or the issue.
Break down the facts, break down the argument, look at logos, ethos, and pathos, evaluate bias and credibility. You can 100% disagree with a source but that doesn't make it a bad source.
Your thesis then becomes what you are going to say about the article. For example, "Smith's credibility and strong factual backing are weakened by his empty emotional appeals and overshadowing bias."
"Lebo's bias and questionable expertise is eliminated by her well-balanced use of logos, ethos, and pathos and the credibility of her sources."
STEPS:
o Read the article
o Take vigorous notes: question, challenge, agree and complain
o Use those notes to formulate an outline
o Compare the outline with the checklist
o Formulate a response
o Use that response as your working thesis
o Begin writing
Also ask yourself this, if someone else reads your essay, would they have an understanding about what the piece is about? If not, you are too embedded in the argument and have not offered enough analysis or proper summary of the piece.
Ch. 13 Notes
Synthesis: a way of seeing or coming to terms with complexities, is a counterpart to analysis. When you analyze something, you break it down into its parts to see relationships among them. When you synthesize, you take one more step, putting parts together in some new fashion.
Synthesis as a dialectical process…posing a significant question that often forces you to encounter clashing or contradictory ideas.
The synthesis essay, which moves beyond analysis to show how a writer interacts with a group of texts, explores their alternative perspectives on an issue, and presents a new, enlarged perspective on his or her own.
You use synthesis to carve out your own thinking space on a research question while shifting through the writings of others.
The synthesis or focusing question directs you to look for ways that a group of texts are connected and ways that they differ in their approaches to a particular problem or issue.
Your goal is to achieve your own informed view on that question.
Use both with-the-grain and against-the-grain thinking; listen carefully to the text; critique both the rhetorical features and ideas; begin your own independent thinking based on the synthesis question that ties your texts together.
To consider the text rhetorically:
To whom is the author writing and why? Do you see how the genre of each text influences some of the author’s choices about language and structure? What angle of vision shapes each text and accounts for what is included and excluded? Do you share the values of the author or his or her intended audience?
Questions over text:
• What main ideas or themes related to your synthesis question do you see in each text?
• What similarities and differences do you see in the way the authors choose to frame the issues they are writing about? How do their theses (either implied or stated) differ?
• What are the main similarities and differences in their angles of vision?
• What commonalities and intersections related to your synthesis question do you see in their ideas? What contradictions and clashes do you see in their ideas?
• What similarities and differences do you see in the authors’ underlying values and assumptions?
• What overlap, if any, is there in these authors’ examples and uses of terms?
• On what subject of your synthesis question, how would Author A respond to Author B?
Developing your own views:
• What do I agree with and disagree with in the texts I have analyzed?
• How have these texts changed my perception and understanding of an issue, question, or problem?
• What do I see or think now that I didn’t see or think before I read these texts?
• Related to my synthesis question, what new, significant questions do these texts raise for me?
• What do I see now as the main controversies?
• What is my current view on the focusing question that connects my texts and that all my texts explore?
• How would I position myself in the conversation of the texts?
• If I find one author’s perspective more valid, accurate, interesting, or useful than another’s, why is that?
• What discoveries have I made after much thought?
• What are the most important insights I have gotten from these readings?
• What is my intellectual or personal investment with the synthesis question at this point?
• Where can I step out on my own, even take a risk, in my thinking about the ideas discussed in these texts?
• What new perspective do I want to share with my readers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)