"What effect has 'They Say' had on my students' writing? They are finally They say / I say the moves that matrer in academic writing/Gerald Graff, Cathy. “They say / I say”: the Moves that Matter in Academic Writing / Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Both of the University of Illinois at Chicago.—Third Edition. pages. They Say/I Say Templates. Why Templates? Academic writing requires presenting your sources and your ideas effectively to readers. According to Graff and.
|Language:||English, Indonesian, Japanese|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||21.46 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.36 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
They Say I Say Graff kinconsdegrabook.ga - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf) or read book online. to set the stage for what he himself wants to say. A similar “they say /I say” exchange opens an essay about. American patriotism by the social critic Katha Pollitt. Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say I Say: The Moves That Matter In Academic Writing. 1. New York: WW Norton and Company, Print.
By explaining, interpreting, evaluating, and synthesizing these diverse perspectives from linguistics and language learning, the text offers a comprehensive and versatile approach for teaching speaking. Different types of learning tasks are explained and illustrated with examples, and each chapter includes short tasks and ends with a number of tasks that enable readers to extend their ideas. The edited collection includes chapters from prominent experts on various fields of Arabic linguistics.
The contributors provide overviews of the state of the art in their field and specifically focus on ideas and issues. Not simply an overview of the field, this handbook explores subjects in great depth and from multiple perspectives. In addition to the traditional areas of Arabic linguistics, the handbook covers computational approaches to Arabic, Arabic in the diaspora, neurolinguistic approaches to Arabic, and Arabic as a global language.
On one hand, argues. On the other hand, contends.
Documents Similar To They Say I Say Graff Birkenstein.pdf
Others even maintain. When it comes to the topic of , most of us will readily agree that. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of. Whereas some are convinced that , others maintain that. X complains that. New York: W. On the one hand, she argues. But on the other hand, she also says. By focusing on , X overlooks the deeper problem of. X is right that , but she seems on more dubious ground when she claims that.
You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you.
They Say I Say Graff Birkenstein.pdf
The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress. The central piece of advice in this book—that we listen carefully to others, including those who disagree with us, and then engage with them thoughtfully and respectfully—can help us see beyond our own pet beliefs, which may not be shared by everyone.
Exercises 1. Read the following paragraph from an essay by Emily Poe, a student at Furman University. Disregarding for the moment what Poe says, focus your attention on the phrases she uses to structure what she says italicized here. On the contrary, many of these supposedly brainwashed people are actu- ally independent thinkers, concerned citizens, and compassionate human beings.
For the truth is that there are many very good reasons for giving up meat. Write a short essay in which you first summarize our rationale for the templates in this book and then articulate your own position in response. If you want, you can use the template below to organize your paragraphs, expanding and modifying it as necessary to fit what you want to say.
Specifically, Graff and Birkenstein argue that the types of writing templates they offer. In sum, then, their view is that. In my view, the types of templates that the authors recommend. For instance,. In addition,. Some might object, of course, on the grounds that. Yet I would argue that. Overall, then, I believe —an important point to make given. X—had done very good work in a number of areas of the discipline. The speaker proceeded to illustrate his thesis by referring extensively and in great detail to various books and articles by Dr.
X and by quoting long pas- sages from them. The speaker was obviously both learned and impassioned, but as we listened to his talk we found ourselves somewhat puzzled: Did anyone dispute it? Since the speaker gave no hint of an answer to any of these questions, we could only wonder why he was going on and on about X.
It The hypo- thetical was only after the speaker finished and took questions audience in from the audience that we got a clue: This story illustrates an important lesson: Because our speaker failed to mention what others had said about Dr.
Perhaps the point was clear to other sociologists in the audience who were more familiar with the debates over Dr. Delaying this explanation for more than one or two paragraphs in a very short essay or blog entry, three or four pages in a longer work, or more than ten or so pages in a book reverses the natural order in which readers process material—and in which writers think and develop ideas.
After all, it seems very unlikely that our conference speaker first developed his defense of Dr. X and only later came across Dr. As someone knowledgeable in his field, the speaker surely encountered the criticisms first and only then was compelled to respond and, as he saw it, set the record straight.
Therefore, when it comes to constructing an argument whether orally or in writing , we offer you the following advice: This is not to say that you must start with a detailed list of everyone who has written on your subject before you offer your own ideas.
Had our conference speaker gone to the opposite extreme and spent most of his talk summarizing Dr. The point is to give your readers a quick preview of what is motivating your argument, not to drown them in details right away. Our civiliza- tion is decadent and our language—so the argument runs—must inevitably share in the general collapse. Modern English. But I say we can. In opening this chapter, for example, we devote the first para- graph to an anecdote about the conference speaker and then move quickly at the start of the second paragraph to the miscon- ception about writing exemplified by the speaker.
In the follow- ing opening, from an opinion piece in the New York Times Book Review, Christina Nehring also moves quickly from an anecdote illustrating something she dislikes to her own claim—that book lovers think too highly of themselves. Instead, I mumbled something apologetic and melted into the crowd.
Here are some standard templates that we would have recommended to our conference speaker. These templates are popular because they provide a quick and efficient way to perform one of the most common moves that writers make: These are templates that can help you think analytically—to look beyond what others say explicitly and to consider their unstated assumptions, as well as the implications of their views.
Furthermore, opening with a summary of a debate can help you explore the issue you are writing about before declar- ing your own view. In this way, you can use the writing process itself to help you discover where you stand instead of having to commit to a position before you are ready to do so.
Here is a basic template for opening with a debate. On the one hand, argues. On the other hand, contends. Others even maintain.
My own view is. The cognitive scientist Mark Aronoff uses this kind of template in an essay on the workings of the human brain. One, rationalism, sees the human mind as coming into this world more or less fully formed— preprogrammed, in modern terms.
The other, empiricism, sees the mind of the newborn as largely unstructured, a blank slate. Whereas some are convinced that , others maintain that. The political writer Thomas Frank uses a variation on this move.
That we are a nation divided is an almost universal lament of this bitter election year. However, the exact property that divides us—elemental though it is said to be—remains a matter of some controversy. Their assertion that is contradicted by their claim that. We ourselves use such return sentences at every opportunity in this book to remind you of the view of writing that our book questions—that good writing means making true or smart or logical statements about a given subject with little or no refer- ence to what others say about it.
The difference is huge. Like the speaker in the cartoon on page 4 who declares that The Sopranos presents complex characters, these one-sided arguments fail to explain what view they are responding to—what view, in effect, they are trying to correct, add to, qualify, complicate, and so forth. Your job in this exercise is to provide each argument with such a counterview. Feel free to use any of the templates in this chapter that you find helpful.
Our experiments suggest that there are dangerous levels of chemical X in the Ohio groundwater. Material forces drive history. Male students often dominate class discussions. The film is about the problems of romantic relationships. Use the template to structure a passage on a topic of your own choosing.
Your first step here should be to find an idea that you support that others not only disagree with but actually find laughable or, as Zinczenko puts it, worthy of a Jay Leno monologue. You might write about one of the topics listed in the previous exercise the environment, gender relations, the meaning of a book or movie or any other topic that interests you.
If ever there was an idea custom-made for a Jay Leno monologue, this was it: Whatever hap- pened to? I happen to sympathize with , though, perhaps because. Because writers who make strong claims need to map their claims relative to those of other people, it is important to know how to summarize effectively what those other people say.
At the opposite extreme are those who do nothing but summarize. Generally speaking, a summary must at once be true to what the original author says while also emphasizing those aspects of what the author says that interest you, the writer. Strik- ing this delicate balance can be tricky, since it means facing two ways at once: As a writer, when you play the believing game well, readers should not be able to tell whether you agree or disagree with the ideas you are summarizing.
Consider the following summary. I disagree because these companies have to make money. If you review what Zinczenko actually says pp. So eager is this writer to disagree that he not only caricatures what Zinczenko says but also gives the article a hasty, super- ficial reading. Granted, there are many writing situations in which, because of matters of proportion, a one- or two-sentence summary is precisely what you want.
Indeed, as writing profes- sor Karen Lunsford whose own research focuses on argument theory points out, it is standard in the natural and social sci- ences to summarize the work of others quickly, in one pithy sentence or phrase, as in the following example. Several studies Crackle, ; Pop, ; Snap, suggest that these policies are harmless; moreover, other studies Dick, ; Harry, ; Tom, argue that they even have benefits.
So, for example, Martin Luther King Jr. Whenever you enter into a conversation with others in your writing, then, it is extremely important that you go back to what those others have said, that you study it very closely, and that you not confuse it with something you already believe. A writer who fails to do this ends up essentially conversing with imaginary others who are really only the products of his or her own biases and preconceptions. Paradoxically, at the same time that summarizing another text requires you to represent fairly what it says, it also requires that your own response exert a quiet influence.
A good summary, in other words, has a focus or spin that allows the summary to fit with your own agenda while still being true to the text you are summarizing. Thus if you are writing in response to the essay by Zinczenko, you should be able to see that an essay on the fast-food industry in general will call for a very different summary than will an essay on parenting, corporate regulation, or warning labels.
To set up this argument, you will probably want to compose a summary that highlights what Zinczenko says about the fast- food industry and parents. Consider this sample. With many parents working long hours and unable to supervise what their children eat, Zinczenko claims, children today are easily victimized by the low-cost, calorie-laden foods that the fast-food chains are all too eager to supply. This advice—to summarize authors in light of your own arguments—may seem painfully obvious.
But writers often summarize a given author on one issue even though their text actually focuses on another. A typical list summary sounds like this. The author says many different things about his subject.
First he says. Then he makes the point that. In addition he says. And then he writes. Also he shows that. And then he says. It may be boring list summaries like this that give summaries in general a bad name and even prompt some instructors to discourage their students from summarizing at all.
On the other hand, even as it does justice to the source, a summary has to have a slant or spin that prepares the way for your own claims. Once a summary enters your text, you should think of it as joint property—reflecting both the source you are summarizing and your own views. Now, however, we want to address one exception to this rule: Despite our previous comments that well-crafted summaries generally strike a balance between heeding what someone else has said and your own independent interests, the satiric mode can at times be a very effective form of critique because it lets the summarized argument condemn itself without overt edito- rializing by you, the writer.
Consider another example. In September , then- President George W.
We suspect that the habit of ignoring the action in what we summarize stems from the mistaken belief we mentioned earlier that writing is about playing it safe and not making waves, a matter of piling up truths and bits of knowledge rather than a dynamic process of doing things to and with other people.
Then write a summary of the position that you actually hold on this topic. Give both summaries to a classmate or two, and see if they can tell which position you endorse. Write the first one for an essay arguing that, contrary to what Zinczenko claims, there are inexpensive and convenient alternatives to fast-food restaurants. Write the second for an essay that questions whether being overweight is a genuine medical problem rather than a problem of cultural stereotypes.
Compare your two summaries: In a sense, then, quotations function as a kind of proof of evidence, saying to readers: She makes this claim and here it is in her exact words. But the main problem with quoting arises when writers assume that quotations speak for themselves.
Because the meaning of a quotation is obvious to them, many writers assume that this meaning will also be obvious to their readers, when often it is not.
In a way, quotations are orphans: This chapter offers two key ways to pro- duce this sort of integration: In fact, sometimes quotations that were initially relevant to your argument, or to a key point in it, become less so as your text changes during the process of writing and revising.
It can be somewhat misleading, then, to speak of finding your thesis and finding relevant quotations as two separate steps, one coming after the other. Since quotations do not speak for themselves, you need to build a frame around them in which you do that speaking for them. Susan Bordo writes about women and dieting. Until television was introduced in , the islands had no reported cases of eating disorders.
In , three years after programs from the United States and Britain began broadcasting there, 62 percent of the girls surveyed reported dieting.
Another point Bordo makes is that. Since this writer fails to introduce the quotation adequately or explain why he finds it worth quoting, readers will have a hard time reconstructing what Bordo argued.
The introductory or lead-in claims should explain who is speaking and set up what the quotation says; the follow-up statements should explain why you consider the quotation to be important and what you take it to say. When offering such explanations, it is important to use lan- guage that accurately reflects the spirit of the quoted passage. Consider, for example, how the earlier passage on Bordo might be revised using some of these moves.
Orbach, Susie. "Fat as a Feminist Issue." They Say I Say with ...
Her basic complaint is that increasing numbers of women across the globe are being led to see themselves as fat and in need of a diet. Ultimately, Bordo complains, the culture of dieting will find you, regardless of where you live.
But is it possible to overexplain a quotation? After all, not all quotations require the same amount of explan- atory framing, and there are no hard-and-fast rules for knowing how much explanation any quotation needs. As a general rule, the most explanatory framing is needed for quotations that may be hard for readers to process: And yet, though the particular situation usually dictates when and how much to explain a quotation, we will still offer one piece of advice: It is better to risk being overly explicit about what you take a quotation to mean than to leave the quotation dangling and your readers in doubt.
Indeed, we encourage you to provide such explanatory framing even when writing to an audience that you know to be familiar with the author being quoted and able to interpret your quotations on their own. The templates in this book will help you avoid such mis- takes. How has he or she introduced the quota- tion, and what, if anything, has the writer said to explain it and tie it to his or her own text?
Look at something you have written for one of your classes. Have you quoted any sources? If so, how have you integrated the quotation into your own text?
How have you introduced it? Explained what it means? Indicated how it relates to your text?
Perhaps had I studied the situation longer I could have come up with a similar argument. Although each way of responding is open to endless variation, we focus on these three because readers come to any text needing to learn fairly quickly where the writer stands, and they do this by placing the writer on a mental map consisting of a few familiar options: Is he for what this other person has said, against it, or what?
We would argue, however, that the more complex and subtle your argument is, and the more it departs from the conventional ways people think, the more your readers will need to be able to place it on their mental map in order to process the complex details you present.
It is always a good tactic to begin your response not by launching directly into a mass of details but by stating clearly whether you agree, disagree, or both, using a direct, no-nonsense formula such as: I agree that , but I cannot agree that. In fact, there would be no reason to offer an interpretation of a work of literature or art unless you were responding to the interpre- tations or possible interpretations of others.
Even when you point out features or qualities of an artistic work that others have not noticed, you are implicitly disagreeing with what those interpreters have said by pointing out that they missed or overlooked something that, in your view, is important.
Disagreeing can also be the easiest way to generate an essay: But disagreement in fact poses hidden challenges. You need to do more than simply assert that you disagree with a particular view; you also have to offer persuasive reasons why you disagree. To turn it into an argument, you need to give reasons to support what you say: To move the conversation forward and, indeed, to justify your very act of writing , you need to demonstrate that you have something to contribute.
Here is an example of such a move, used to open an essay on the state of American schools. On the one hand, she argues. On the other hand, she also says. For example: X argues for stricter gun control legislation, saying that the crime rate is on the rise and that we need to restrict the circulation of guns.
We need to own guns to protect ourselves against criminals. One of these reasons may in fact explain why the conference speaker we described at the start of Chapter 1 avoided mentioning the disagreement he had with other scholars until he was provoked to do so in the discussion that followed his talk. As much as we understand such fears of conflict and have experienced them ourselves, we nevertheless believe it is better to state our disagreements in frank yet considerate ways than to deny them.
Nevertheless, disagreements do not need to take the form of personal put-downs. You can single out for criticism only those aspects of what someone else has said that are troubling, and then agree with the rest—although such an approach, as we will see later in this chapter, leads to the somewhat more complicated terrain of both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.
Just as you need to avoid simply contradicting views you disagree with, you also need to do more than simply echo views you agree with. You may cite some corroborating personal experience, or a situation not mentioned by X that her views help readers understand.
In other words, your text can usefully contribute to the conversation simply by pointing out unnoticed implications or explaining something that needs to be better understood. Some writers avoid the practice of agreeing almost as much as others avoid disagreeing. It is hard to align yourself with one position without at least implicitly positioning yourself against others.
These findings join a growing convergence of evidence across the human sciences leading to a revolutionary shift in consciousness. If cooperation, typically associated with altruism and self- sacrifice, sets off the same signals of delight as pleasures commonly associated with hedonism and self-indulgence; if the opposition between selfish and selfless, self vs. Basically, what Gilligan says could be boiled down to a template.
What such templates allow you to do, then, is to agree with one view while challenging another—a move that leads into the domain of agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously. Another aspect we like about this option is that it can be tipped subtly toward agreement or disagreement, depending on where you lay your stress.
If you want to stress the disagreement end of the spectrum, you would use a template like the one below. Conversely, if you want to stress your agreement more than your disagreement, you would use a template like this one. Other versions include the following. This move can be especially useful if you are responding to new or particularly challenging work and are as yet unsure where you stand. But again, as we suggest earlier, whether you are agreeing, disagreeing, or both agreeing and disagreeing, you need to be as clear as pos- sible, and making a frank statement that you are ambivalent is one way to be clear.
Nevertheless, writers often have as many concerns about expressing ambivalence as they do about expressing disagree- ment or agreement. Some worry that by expressing ambivalence they will come across as evasive, wishy-washy, or unsure of themselves. Others worry that their ambivalence will end up confusing readers who require decisive clear-cut conclusions. At times ambivalence can frustrate readers, leaving them with the feeling that you failed in your obligation to offer the guidance they expect from writers.
At other times, however, acknowledging that a clear-cut resolution of an issue is impos- sible can demonstrate your sophistication as a writer.
In an academic culture that values complex thought, forthrightly declaring that you have mixed feelings can be impressive, especially after having ruled out the one-dimensional positions on your issue taken by others in the conversation.
Read one of the essays in the back of this book or on theysayiblog. Write an essay responding in some way to the essay that you worked with in the preceding exercise.
This chapter takes up the problem of moving from what they say to what you say without confusing readers about who is saying what. Especially with texts that pres- ent a true dialogue of perspectives, readers need to be alert to the often subtle markers that indicate whose voice the writer is speaking in. Our national con- sciousness, as shaped in large part by the media and our political leadership, provides us with a picture of ourselves as a nation of prosperity and opportunity with an ever expanding middle-class life-style.
As a result, our class differences are muted and our col- lective character is homogenized. Yet class divisions are real and arguably the most significant factor in determining both our very being in the world and the nature of the society we live in.
The Politics and Economics of Class in the U. Mantsios also places this opening view in quotation marks to signal that it is not his own. Hence, even before Mantsios has declared his own position in the second para- graph, readers can get a pretty solid sense of where he probably stands. To see how important such voice markers are, consider what the Mantsios passage looks like if we remove them. We are all middle-class. We are a nation of prosperity and opportunity with an ever expanding middle-class life-style.
Class divisions are real and arguably the most significant factor in determining both our very being in the world and the nature of the society we live in. To do so, you can use as voice-identifying devices many of the templates presented in previous chapters.
For us, well-supported argu- ments are grounded in persuasive reasons and evidence, not in the use or nonuse of any particular pronouns. Furthermore, if you consistently avoid the first person in your writing, you will probably have trouble making the key move addressed in this chapter: See for yourself how freely the first person is used by the writers quoted in this book, and by the writers assigned in your courses.
I think. On the whole, however, academic writing today, See pp.
Hence, instead of writing: Liberals believe that cultural differences need to be respected. I have a problem with this view, however. I have a problem with what liberals call cultural differences.
They Say I Say.pdf - Page 1 of 4 Useful Templates Need help...
There is a major problem with the liberal doctrine of so-called cultural differences. You can also embed references to something you yourself have previously said.
So instead of writing two cumbersome sen- tences like: Embedded references like these allow you to economize your train of thought and refer to other perspectives without any major interruption. When readers cannot tell if you are summarizing your own views or endorsing a certain phrase or label, they have to stop and think: I thought the author disagreed with this claim.
Has she actually been asserting this view all along? Is she actually endorsing it? To see how one writer signals when she is asserting her own views and when she is summarizing those of someone else, read the following passage by the social historian Julie Charlip. As you do so, identify those spots where Charlip refers to the views of others and the signal phrases she uses to distinguish her views from theirs.
If only that were true, things might be more simple. But in late twentieth-century America, it seems that society is splitting more and more into a plethora of class factions—the working class, the working poor, lower-middle class, upper-middle class, lower uppers, and upper uppers. In my days as a newspaper reporter, I once asked a sociology pro- fessor what he thought about the reported shrinking of the middle class. His definition: How do we define class?
Is it an issue of values, lifestyle, taste? Is it the kind of work you do, your relationship to the means of production? Is it a matter of how much money you earn? Are we allowed to choose? What class do I come from? What class am I in now? As an historian, I seek the answers to these questions in the specificity of my past.
Study a piece of your own writing to see how many perspec- tives you account for and how well you distinguish your own voice from those you are summarizing. Consider the following questions: How many perspectives do you engage?
What other perspectives might you include? How do you distinguish your views from the other views you summarize? Do you use clear voice-signaling phrases? What options are available to you for clarifying who is saying what? Which of these options are best suited for this particular text?
For the first couple of weeks when she sits down to write, things go relatively well. This little story contains an important lesson for all writers, experienced and inexperienced alike.
It suggests that even though most of us are upset at the idea of someone criticizing our work, such criticisms can actually work to our advantage. Here you are, trying to say something that will hold up, and we want you to tell readers all the negative things someone might say against you?
We are urging you to tell readers what others might say against you, but our point is that doing so will actu- ally enhance your credibility, not undermine it. As we argue throughout this book, writing well does not mean piling up uncontroversial truths in a vacuum; it means engaging others in a dialogue or debate—not only by opening your text with a summary of what others have said, as we suggest in Chapter 1, but also by imagining what others might say against your argu- ment as it unfolds.
Once you see writing as an act of entering a conversation, you should also see how opposing arguments can work for you rather than against you. When you entertain a counterargument, you make a kind of preemptive strike, identifying problems with your argument before oth- ers can point them out for you.
In addition, by imagining what others might say against your claims, you come across as a generous, broad-minded person who is confident enough to open himself or herself to debate—like the writer in the figure on the following page.
You might also leave important ques- tions hanging and concerns about your arguments unaddressed. Finally, if you fail to plant a naysayer in your text, you may find that you have very little to say. Planting a naysayer in your text is a relatively simple move, as you can see by looking at the following passage from a book by the writer Kim Chernin.
At this point I would like to raise certain objections that have been inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels that I have been ignoring some of the most common assumptions we all make about our bod- ies and these she wishes to see addressed.
You download new clothes. You look at yourself more eagerly in the mirror. You feel sexier. Admit it. You like yourself better.
Instead, she embraces that voice and writes it into her text. Note too that instead of dispatching this naysaying voice quickly, as many of us would be tempted to do, Chernin stays with it and devotes a full paragraph to it.
She feels that I have been ignoring the complexities of the situation. But the ideas that motivate arguments and objections often can—and, where possible, should—be ascribed to a specific ideology or school of thought for example, liberals, Christian fundamentalists, neopragmatists rather than to anonymous anybodies.
To be sure, some people dislike such labels and may even resent having labels applied to themselves. Some feel that labels put individuals in boxes, stereotyping them and glossing over what makes each of us unique.
But since the life of ideas, includ- ing many of our most private thoughts, is conducted through groups and types rather than solitary individuals, intellectual exchange requires labels to give definition and serve as a convenient shorthand. If you categorically reject all labels, you give up an important resource and even mislead readers by presenting yourself and others as having no connection to anyone else.
You also miss an opportunity to generalize the importance and relevance of your work to some larger con- versation. The way to minimize the problem of stereotyping, then, is not to categorically reject labels but to refine and qualify their use, as the following templates demonstrate. For instance, you can frame objections in the form of questions.
What are the chances of its actually being adopted? Is it always the case, as I have been suggesting, that? I like a couple of cigarettes or a cigar with a drink, and like many other people, I only smoke in bars or nightclubs. Bartenders who were friends have turned into cops, forcing me outside to shiver in the cold and curse under my breath.
Smokers are being demonized and victim- ized all out of proportion. Health con- sciousness is important, but so are pleasure and freedom of choice. This move works well for Jackson, but See Chapter 5 for more only because he uses quotation marks and other voice advice on markers to make clear at every point whose voice using voice markers. Although it is tempting to give opposing views short shrift, to hurry past them, or even to mock them, doing so is usually counterproductive.
They make readers game. Or would he detect a mocking tone or an oversimplifica- tion of his views? There will always be certain objections, to be sure, that you believe do not deserve to be represented, just as there will be objections that seem so unworthy of respect that they inspire ridicule. After all, when you write objections into a text, you take the risk that readers will find those objections more convincing than the argument you yourself are advancing. In the edito- rial quoted above, for example, Joe Jackson takes the risk that readers will identify more with the anti-smoking view he sum- marizes than with the pro-smoking position he endorses.
This is precisely what Benjamin Franklin describes hap- pening to himself in The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin , when he recalls being converted to Deism a religion that exalts reason over spirituality by reading anti-Deist books.
When he encountered the views of Deists being negatively summarized by authors who opposed them, Franklin explains, he ended up finding the Deist position more persuasive. It is good to address objections in your writing, but only if you are able to overcome them.
Often the best way to overcome an objection is not to try to refute it completely but to agree with part of it while chal- lenging only the part you dispute. Rather than build a difference. Can I deny these things? No woman who has managed to lose weight would wish to argue with this. Most people feel better about themselves when they become slender. And yet, upon reflection, it seems to me that there is something precarious about this well- being.
After all, 98 percent of people who lose weight gain it back. Then, of course, we can no longer bear to look at ourselves in the mirror. Even as she concedes that losing weight feels good in the short run, she argues that in the long run the weight always returns, making the dieter far more miserable.
But they exaggerate when they claim that. But on the other hand, I still insist that. Often the most productive engagements among differing views end with a combined vision that incorporates elements of each one. After all, the goal of writing is not to keep proving that what- ever you initially said is right, but to stretch the limits of your thinking. Some would argue that that is what the academic world is all about.
Read the following passage by the cultural critic Eric Schlosser. Do it for him. Insert a brief paragraph stating an objection to his argument and then responding to the objection as he might. The United States must declare an end to the war on drugs.
It has created a multibillion-dollar black market, enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption of government officials throughout the world. And it has not stemmed the widespread use of illegal drugs.Overhead is the smooth ceiling made by the rock from which the coal has been cut; underneath is the rock again, so that the gallery you are in is only as high as the ledge of coal itself, probably not much more than a yard.
Consider again the opening to the selection by David Zinczenko on p. Does the introduction of a naysayer strengthen your argument? Other templates in this book help students make a host of sophisticated moves that they might not otherwise make: That we are a nation divided is an almost universal lament of this bitter election year.
- ICH DARF NICHT SCHLAFEN EBOOK
- WELT AM SONNTAG KOMPAKT PDF
- JUANITA BYNUM NO MORE SHEETS BOOK
- BUKU KOMUNIKASI ORGANISASI PDF
- SERVSAFE MANAGER 6TH EDITION PDF
- ENGINEERING MATHEMATICS EBOOK BS GREWAL
- TANTRA MANTRA IN HINDI PDF
- THE LIBRARY OF UNREQUITED LOVE PDF
- ENTE TUITION TEACHER PDF
- COMMAND PROMPT TRICKS PDF
- SLEEPING BEAUTY TRILOGY EBOOK
- CONSUMER BEHAVIOR AND MARKETING STRATEGY 9TH EDITION PDF
- GESPENSTER KRIMI EBOOK
- PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS MOVIE SCRIPT PDF
- RANCANGAN PERNIAGAAN KEDAI RUNCIT DOWNLOAD