Major Writing Project 2
Major Writing Project 2: Entering a Conversation (4 pages)
Instructions: Choose of the sets of essays listed below (Kelly and Gladstone together make up a “set”; Carr and Thompson together make up a “set,” etc.). Your essay should include summaries of both of the authorsâ€™ arguments (â€œthey sayâ€); your argument should point out how the authors agree and disagree; and your argument should include your own response to the issues the two essays raise (â€œI sayâ€). The â€œI sayâ€ is your own argument concerning the issues.
- Make sure you include a naysayer to show possible objections to your own argument, and address the â€œso whatâ€ factor: why does this issue matter?
- Make sure you use proper formatting (MLA or APA style, double-spaced, Times or Times New Roman font, 12 point, paragraphs indented).
- Make sure you have a proper heading at the top of the first page (name, etc.)
- Your paper should be about 4 pages.
- Plagiarism will not be tolerated.
- I recommend you take a look at the Grading Guide (below), which explains how I will grade your papers.
- MWP 2 is . Click the link below to submit your paper.
: For this paper you have four pages to work with and you need to include, in effect, five major parts:
- Introduction: includes basic information about authors, a very brief summary of authorsâ€™ ideas (a sentence or two), a brief statement of your argument (or thesis statement), and a brief explanation of why your argument matters
- Summary of 2 authors, with quotes as evidence
- Summary of how they agree/disagree; provide quotes if necessary
- Your own opinion and your reasons for your opinion (which includes at least one naysayer); provide quotes as evidence
- Conclusion: includes a return sentence, a restatement of your argument, and a developed explanation of why your argument matters
Note that those are five parts, not paragraphs (exceptions: the introduction and the conclusion are usually one paragraph each). What could this look like? Here’s an example: After the brief introductory paragraph (where you introduce your topic, basic information about your authors with brief summaries of authorsâ€™ ideas, a sense of your argument and perhaps why your argument matters), you might have a summary of one author (1 paragraph), then a summary of the second author (1 paragraph). Then you might have one paragraph that explains how they agree or disagree (though you can already allude to that in the summary paragraphs through phrases like “Unlike Turkle, Wortham asserts that…”). Note that the paragraph that explains how the two authors agree or disagree is still “they say,” since you’re not yet putting forward your own opinion on the issues. At that point you’ll have written about 2 pages. Then you write your own argument (“I say”) in relation to what they say (about a page and a half). At that point you’ve written about 3.5 pages. Then you end with one short concluding paragraph, where you wrap it up with a return sentence and again explain why it matters.
Keep in mind: this way of structuring this assignment is only a suggestion; it doesn’t have to be exactly like that. But hopefully this gives you an idea of what this kind of paper could look like.
Kevin Kelly, â€œBetter than Human: Why Robots Will â€“ and Must â€“ Take Our Jobsâ€ (299)
Brooke Gladstone and Josh Neufeld, â€œThe Influencing Machinesâ€ (330)
Nicholas Carr, â€œIs Google Making Us Stupid?â€ (313)
Clive Thompson, â€œSmarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Betterâ€ (340)
Sherry Turkle, â€œNo Need to Callâ€ (373)
Jenna Wortham, â€œI Had a Nice Time with You Tonight. On the App.â€ (393)
Michaela Cullington, â€œDoes Texting Affect Writing?â€ (361)
Malcolm Gladwell, â€œSmall Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweetedâ€ (399)
Grading Guide: I will use the following grading guide to grade your papers. Think of it as a “cheat sheet,” but without the “cheating” part. It’ll help you figure out how to get a good grade on MWP 2.
Introduction (10 points)
Includes basic information about the authors as well as the full titles of essays; includes a brief summary statement about essays; includes a clear thesis statement (summary of “I say” in relation to “They Say”).
â€œThey sayâ€ inhabits world-view of each author (20 points)
Each summary does not agree or disagree with author (summary inhabits worldview of author); each summary uses sophisticated signal verbs to summarize authorâ€™s points; no listing of authorâ€™s points or â€œclosest clichÃ©â€ (pp. 31, 35, 33)
Quoting: Uses quotes correctly and appropriately (20 points)
Quotes used to present “proof of evidence” (p. 42) in summary of authors’ arguments — Quotes should not be â€œorphansâ€ (p. 43) — Quotes should be framed appropriately (â€œquotation sandwichâ€) (p. 46) — Quotes should be Introduced with appropriate verb (p. 47) â€“ Indicates page number of quote (p. 48)
“I say” clearly agrees, disagrees, or combination of agrees and disagrees (20 points)
Clear “I say” statement in introduction, placed in relation to authors â€“ Clear statements of agreement, disagreement, or both (use at least one template per author on pp. 60, 62, 64-66) â€“ Clearly distinguishes “they say” from “I say” â€“ Clearly signals who is saying what: Uses at least one template from pp. 72-75 â€“ “I say” includes clear reasons for argument that are not simply summaries of authors’ arguments â€“ Clearly plants naysayer to support â€œI sayâ€ argument (use at least one template from pp. 82, 83,84-85, 89).
Clearly states why the argument matters (10 points)
Uses at least one â€œwho cares?â€ template from pp. 95-96; Uses at least one â€œso what?â€ template from pp. 98-99, 101 — statement why argument matters should be included in either introductory paragraph or concluding paragraph (or both)
Conclusion (10 points)
Includes at least one â€œreturn sentenceâ€ in the conclusion to remind reader of what â€œthey sayâ€ (p. 27); includes a restatement of thesis or â€œI sayâ€
Editing and tone (10 points)
No editing errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation, and formatting); Uses proper tone (formal where appropriate, informal where appropriate)