Fluent Essays

Week 3 Discussion: Introductions with Peer ReviewDiscussion Weight: 5\% Learning Objectives: 1, 3, 5 Review the Week 3 Discussion Rubric hereMAIN POSTFirst, complete the following reading:The Norton Field Guide Chapter 35 (pp. 373-385) Cengages handout entitled 15 Ways to Start an Introduction   The Writing Center @ University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - Introductions Twenty-One Commonly Committed Fallacies For this discussion, review the resources above, then compose two Introductions for your Researched Argumentative Essay. The introductions should demonstrate different approaches, using different words and phrasing. Only the thesis statement will remain similar. Then, in a third paragraph, share your thoughts about which introduction you are most likely to use and why.A few reminders: Paragraph 1 will  be your first possible introduction. Paragraph 2 will be your second possible introduction. Paragraph 3 will be your commentary on both introductions. Write only in 3rd person point of view (No direct address – “You would be shocked at the waste of edible foods!”). Do not announce the topic (Example: This paper will discuss the importance of donkey farming to nomad societies in Northern Africa; In this essay, or, In this essay, I will...). PEER REPLIES (2)Respond to two peers main posts with replies of 150 -200 words each by answering each of the following questions. What two approaches of introductions were used?  Which of the introductions is more effective? Why? Does the introduction provide enough information about the topic and direction of the essay? Is the position the writer is taking clear? Is the thesis statement complete, clear, and well-composed? What do you like most about the introduction? Offer a suggestion to make the introduction stronger. Be sure to take a moment to check into your own thread. Reply to your instructor and some peers who offer insights into your writing.REQUIREMENTS If you use a source in your introduction, such as for a statistic, you should cite it and reference the material. You must create your own thread first before you will be able to see others threads. You are encouraged to submit your initial post (minimum 2 paragraphs, 250+ words) by Wednesday at 11:59 PM Eastern. You must reply to at least two peers main threads. In addition to replying to two peers threads, to earn full credit, you should also respond to comments within your thread. You must participate on three separate days to earn full credit.As you read the following sample introductions, note that most combine more than one technique. Also, note that the information gets narrower and narrower until it con- nects to the thesis. Your goal is to introduce your thesis in a manner that is meaningful, engaging, and appropriate to your audience and purpose. 1. Analogy Artists are to their studios as scientists are to their labs. Artists experiment with color, texture, and medium to discern the different effects these elements have on the eye and mind. Sometimes their experiments are fantastic successes; sometimes they fail terribly, just as scientists might. Rather than thinking of artists as visionaries driven by pain and inspiration, we should think of them as hardworking risk takers, willing to experiment until they solve the aesthetic problems they have set themselves to examine. (Adapted from the Virgil Undergraduate Writing Center Web site) 2. Anecdote On seeing another child fall and hurt himself, Hope, just 9 months old, stared, tears welling up in her eyes, and crawled to her mother to be comforted—as though she had been hurt and not her friend. When 15-month-old Michael saw his friend Paul crying, Michael fetched his own teddy bear and offered it to Paul; when that didn’t stop Paul’s tears, Michael brought Paul’s security blanket from another room. Such small acts of sympathy and caring, observed in scientifi c studies, are leading researchers to trace the roots of empathy—the ability to share another’s emotions—to infancy, contradicting a longstanding assumption that infants and toddlers are incapable of these feelings. (From “Researchers Trace Empathy’s Roots to Infancy” by Daniel Goleman) A P P E N D I X B 15 Ways to Write Your Introduction 31188_31_App-B_p009-016.indd 931188_31_App-B_p009-016.indd 9 1/7/09 3:47:23 PM1/7/09 3:47:23 PM Appendix BA-10 3. Background Information In his essay, fi rst published in the New York Times in 1979, “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” James Baldwin attempts to legitimize black English as a unique language. He argues that black English is a valid lan- guage because of the role it plays in the lives of black Americans; it serves as a means for blacks to control their own circumstances, defi ne themselves, and obtain power. Baldwin justifi es black English by applying George Orwell’s argument that language is “a political instrument, means, and proof of power” to the black experi- ence (Orwell 436). Like black Americans, Chicanos have developed a language all their own—Spanglish. Just as black English plays a vital role for black people, Chicano speech serves an important purpose for Chicanos. Purpose, Baldwin argues, validates and makes language authentic. It is then the social, cultural, and political signifi cance of Spanglish in the lives of Chicanos that legitimizes it as a language. (From “‘Spanglish’: The Language of Chicanos” by Rosa María Jiménez) 4. Brief DescTwenty-One Commonly Committed Fallacies Adapted from Lindsey Wilson College’s Writing Center 1. Ad hominem This trick, literally translated as “to the man,” subtly or overtly distorts a persons character, destroying their credibility no matter how valid their argument is. I was surprised you agreed with her. Shes kind of an extremist. 2. Faulty use of authority Traditionally called Argumentum ad Verecundiam or Appeal to Authority. Its the brand Oprah uses. People often listen to someone famous or powerful, even to a celebrity who has no connection with whats being endorsed. 3. Appeal to fear This trick causes your audience to fear others and seek your protection. Politician X will take away your freedom of speech! 4. Appeal to pity (or sympathy) I know I made a poor decision. But lets just look at how hard my job is. This allows manipulators to avoid responsibility for something. 5. Appeal to popular passions Traditionally called Argumentum ad Populum. This trick implies that the manipulator shares the same views as the audience. I know youll all agree with this, ladies and gentlemen. 6. Begging the question Traditionally called Petitio Principii, this fallacy leans on an argument that may not be true in the first place. I avoid those meetings; I dont want to be brainwashed. 7. Disinformation Manipulators know that merely launching a rumor is sometimes enough to discredit a person. Well I dont know for sure whether she votes that way, but she does hang out with people who do. 8. False dilemma, False dichotomy (either/or) Either you agree with me or you hate me. A false dilemma assumes that only two options exist. 9. False analogy All I did was take a candy bar. Stop looking at me as if I started a war. This trick uses misleading comparisons to make the arguer seem right. 10. Faulty statistics This involves manipulating numbers or quoting statistics from questionable sources to gain the perception of validity. A clinical study showed kids who had a filling breakfast of cereal X improved their attentiveness by nearly 20 percent! What were not told, however, is that this unpublished study was funded by the company that makes cereal X, and that the attentiveness of the kids who ate the cereal was measured against that of kids given nothing but water. Twenty-One Commonly Committed Fallacies Adapted from Lindsey Wilson College’s Writing Center 11. Hasty generalization This means rushing to conclusions based on incomplete information. “The traditional family is not a safe and viable foundation for society. After all, consider the Menendez brothers, Lorena Bobbitt, and other prominent cases we read about in the media involving violence in the traditional family.” 12. Ignoring the evidence Traditionally called apiorism. We often ignore things we dont want to consider for fear they will produce more work or further