Thursday, February 12 2008

Today’s Agenda

Over the last week, you have written the final draft of your précis for “The Oblivious Empire,” and also written an opinionated response to Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard.”

Now that we have completed this work, we are ready to move into the next unit of our course:

Unit Two: Arguments in Action

An Overview of Argumentative Types and Structures

In this unit, we are going to cover a number of issues, including but not limited to:

Oral presentation skills (presenting evidence)

An awareness of logical fallacious reasoning

Critical thinking skills (esp. synthesis)

An awareness of the conventions of essay structure

The ability to perform thesis and paragraph development

Proper documentation of source material (works cited)

Argument as Exploration: Using Argument to Uncover

Our project for this unit is going to be a 3-5 page argument, using a variety of sources as material.  In the argument, you will analyze and evaluate the source material and synthesize it into a coherent whole.

So, let’s begin down that path:

Last time, I asked you about “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard.” Let’s talk about our responses to it:

Let’s consider the following three examples, keeping in mind what the assignment was. The assignment was not “What is your opinion on the freedom of speech.” It was something very different:

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RESPOND TO THIS WRITING BY EITHER AFFIRMING OR CHALLENGING THE AUTHOR’S THESIS. TO DO THIS, I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS HIS MAJOR CLAIMS, AND EXPLAIN WHETHER OR NOT THEY SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT.

However, before we can talk about this, we need to know what the thesis is. In your journal, I want you to identify the thesis, and then explain how you found the thesis.

Ground Discussion

Class Discussion

One reason we may have trouble finding a thesis is that many of us have essentially been pre-programmed to think that all arguments are either “for” or “against” arguments. Thus, when you read this article on the first amendment, you might automatically think that it is either “for” or “against” the first amendment. But this is not what you actually find when you get into it. However, some of us may, regardless of the evidence to the contrary, be continuing to look for that “for” or “against” statement, and this is why you are getting confused.

Major lesson for today: When you encounter facts that suggest REALITY is different than what you expect it to be, it is logical to change your view of reality so that it accounts for the actual facts you are finding. [<-- What does this mean?]

So let’s look at how some of you tackled the writing:

Many of you succeeded with the first part of this, but not the second.

Let’s consider some examples from your writing:

I feel that these students who put up the flags weren’t doing it to prove a point. They weren’t doing it because they believed in the acts those flags represented. No one in their right mind should praise slave masters and concentration camp leaders. No one should give admiration to those who killed millions, oppressed millions and have psychologically caused a disturbance in millions. These kids were doing it to just prove that they can. Maybe a bit of shock humor or lack thereof. The reality of it is, Freedom of Speech is correct in essentials. You should have the power to voice what you want, if you believe in it. The offensive nature or shock value of hanging a symbol of oppression and tyranny is not Freedom of Speech. These kids were trying to be smartasses and should rightfully punished for it.

[The above author is using Bok's article as an opportunity to voice his or her own opinion. In some contexts, that would be fine. But notice that, as the author does this, he or she does not spend time explaining why Bok's major claims and whether or not they support Bok's thesis]

Here’s another example:

Bok believed that the actions of the students were not right, but however, doesn’t think that a particular form of communication should be disapproved. He states that “If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (124). This statement supports his argument, because his trying to say that if this flags are banned, then very soon we start to ban offensive speakers- but just because we find them offensive doesn’t mean everyone else finds them offensive, after all this people are also trying to express themselves which is what the First Amendment is about.

[Notice that the above author has focused on a specific quote from Bok, and then the author goes on to explain how this claim supports Bok's argument.]

On the subject of the flag, Bok states “If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers.”(124). This supports his argument very well. What Bok is getting at with that sentence is if these kids are censored and not allowed to hang up the flags then people speakers speaking out against something might as well be banned too. The flags may be offensive to a lot of people but that doesn’t mean you can take the right of that person away. People can frown on what this person did with the flags and choose not to associate with him, but he did not do anything legally wrong. I am a very opinionated person and if I was not able to voice how I feel about things I would be outraged. On this matter, Bok also says “No community will become humane and caring by restricting what its members can say.”(124)

[The above author is also making sure to focus on specific things that Bok says, and comments on how a quote relates to Bok's thesis]

Keep in mind that giving your opinion and giving your opinion on an article are TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. When we give our opinion on an article, we are responding to what we have written before us, and are thus staying specific to what is in the writing. What do you agree with, what don’t you agree with? And why?

Okay, now that we’ve talk a little about that, let’s focus on what is next, because it relates to what we were just talking about.

We will all be writing a 3-5 page argument, using a variety of sources as material.  In the argument, you will analyze and evaluate the source material and synthesize it into a coherent whole.

Analyze: What does it mean to analyze something?

Analyze: to separate into constituent parts or element. It means to determine the elements or essential features of something. What kinds of analysis have we already done?

We need to EVALUATE materials.

What does it mean to evaluate something?

When we evaluate something, we to judge or determine the significance, worth, or quality of something. Let’s think of some examples of things we might evaluate, and why we might evaluate them.

We EVALUATE an argument by considering how well the claims and evidence an author offers as part of that argument actually support his or her thesis.

Homework:

This week, we are going to begin the process of drafting our 3-5 page argument. This will happen in several steps:

1) We need to find a way to make the material we have already produced useful for this project:

a. Your précis for “The Oblivious Empire” is essentially an analysis of that argument. In the précis, you have determined its essential elements. We did this in our Situation, Issue, and Thesis sections. However, right now, many of you have 3-5 page long précis documents, which is more information than we will need for our argument papers. So we have to figure out how we can further reduce, or shrink, that document, so that it will be useful in our argument.

Your first homework assignment for the week is as follows:

For Monday (5:00 PM) you have to e-mail me two assignments:

You need to CONDENSE your précis into a one or one-and-a-half page document that effectively identifies the essential features of Hertsgaard’s argument and is logically coherent. We will talk about effective strategies for doing this in class.

You are also to submit a one or one-and-a-half page evaluation of the argument. In this document, you will be explaining the significance, worth, or quality of the argument.  You will be determining the worth of the document by considering A) how well Hertsgaard’s claims and evidence support his thesis, and B) the extent to which the order of information in the argument helps to support that same thesis.

I will respond to these assignments by the end of business on Tuesday.

For THURSDAY BEFORE CLASS, you will have to do the following:

Once you have received your analysis and evaluation sections back from me, you will need to find a way to join these two documents into one single document. This will require you to find good transitions between these sections, omit repeated – or redundant – information, and, also, to generally make sure that the entire document flows and is reader-friendly.YOU WILL NEED TO COME TO CLASS WITH THREE PRINTED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT WITH YOU.

Advertisement