Citation:
"Hydraulic Fracturing Should Be Banned." Fracking. Ed. Tamara Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracturing." Vol. iv. 2012. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article starts out as a basic overview of what fracking is. It explains the process of drilling into shale formations beneath the earth and using water and chemicals under high pressure to expose the natural gas that is trapped within it. However, it goes on to get into the authors opinion that fracking should be banned by going into detail about how fracking has been proven to pollute the earth and the aquifer beneath the earth that supplies water to nearby neighborhoods.
My opinion is similar to that of the author because I believe that the amount of pollution that fracking causes is unacceptable and isn't worth the potential profits that could be made from exposing the natural gas. I think having fresh water is more important than a little bit of money.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&zid=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010861204
Monday, October 21, 2013
Source Write Up #9
Citation:
Gang, Duane W. "Friction over 'fracking' grows across South." USA Today 2 Oct. 2013: 06A. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article is talking about how the practice of fracking is starting to move to the south, and the hesitance of residence in the areas. Recently in Tennessee, a proposal to provide funding for fracking was denied by the government, providing a small victory for environmentalists in the south. However, there are more proposals in southern states such as Alabama where national parks are up on the auction block for oil companies to buy and use as they want (which will most likely be fracking).
My opinion still stands that fracking should not occur anywhere, and especially in national parks. The whole point of national parks is to preserve nature and the natural beauty of the area. If they were to conduct fracking in the area, that would effectively destroy the nature in the area.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344520751
Gang, Duane W. "Friction over 'fracking' grows across South." USA Today 2 Oct. 2013: 06A. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article is talking about how the practice of fracking is starting to move to the south, and the hesitance of residence in the areas. Recently in Tennessee, a proposal to provide funding for fracking was denied by the government, providing a small victory for environmentalists in the south. However, there are more proposals in southern states such as Alabama where national parks are up on the auction block for oil companies to buy and use as they want (which will most likely be fracking).
My opinion still stands that fracking should not occur anywhere, and especially in national parks. The whole point of national parks is to preserve nature and the natural beauty of the area. If they were to conduct fracking in the area, that would effectively destroy the nature in the area.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344520751
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
My Fracking Topic Proposal
In recent discussions of hydrofracking, a key issue is whether it can be conducted safely or if the risks to the environment are too high to attempt it. On the one hand, some argue that the rewards we could earn from conducting hydrofracking outweigh the risks and we should do it wherever there is a shale bed. From this perspective, being able to sell natural gas and other resources obtained from fracking is more important than the small potential of contaminating the aquifers where they are being worked on. On the other hand, others argue that the risks of hydrofracking far outweigh the potential rewards we could earn. From this perspective, damaging an entire communities water supply is not worth the potential financial rewards.
My own view is that the risks are way to high to consider fracking nationwide. Also, I don't believe that there have been enough tests done to determine if this process can be done safely in any way or not. While I do agree that the financial payoffs could be very helpful, especially to rising fuel prices, I still feel that it isn't worth the risks of losing all potential fresh water for a community. For example in Pennsylvania, where fracking is pretty widespread, there are some cases where entire towns have no way to get fresh water because it is all contaminated due to the fracking. The issue is important because oil companies want to start this process as soon as possible to try and make profits, but I think the government needs to put an end to it.
My own view is that the risks are way to high to consider fracking nationwide. Also, I don't believe that there have been enough tests done to determine if this process can be done safely in any way or not. While I do agree that the financial payoffs could be very helpful, especially to rising fuel prices, I still feel that it isn't worth the risks of losing all potential fresh water for a community. For example in Pennsylvania, where fracking is pretty widespread, there are some cases where entire towns have no way to get fresh water because it is all contaminated due to the fracking. The issue is important because oil companies want to start this process as soon as possible to try and make profits, but I think the government needs to put an end to it.
Rogarian Rhetoric
After reading the article "Rogerian Rhetoric" by Douglas Brent, I have a much better understanding of how to use this tool (and what it is). Rogerian Rhetoric to me seems like a much more passive way of arguing a topic. Instead of coming out with your opinion and why the other opinion is wrong, it is more of acknowledging the opposing viewpoint and with truthful facts and analysis, say why you have your own viewpoint. The author breaks it down into four things to be considered Rogerian Rhetoric.
- Introducing the problem and the opposing viewpoint
- Say when the opposing viewpoint may be valid or correct
- Introducing your own viewpoint
- How the opposing viewpoint would be made better by your own viewpoint.
Source Write Up #8
Citation:
Campbell, Jon. "Politics on the Hudson." Politics on the Hudson RSS. N.p., 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article touches on the political side of the fracking argument by talking about what governor Cuomo is deciding about what to do in the state of New York. However, the problem for Cuomo is that the facts aren't all straight for him, so it is difficult for him to make a decision about whether fracking will be beneficial or hurtful. He is getting information from both sides of the argument and doesn't know who to believe in this situation.
I think he needs to make a decision as soon as possible to put the debate to end at least in New York State. I think it's a pretty basic decision. He can take the profits and not care about the needs of the household, or he can give up a little money and help out the people who can't exactly help themselves.
Link: http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/10/10/cuomo-on-fracking-i-think-were-doing-a-good-job-on-it/
Campbell, Jon. "Politics on the Hudson." Politics on the Hudson RSS. N.p., 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article touches on the political side of the fracking argument by talking about what governor Cuomo is deciding about what to do in the state of New York. However, the problem for Cuomo is that the facts aren't all straight for him, so it is difficult for him to make a decision about whether fracking will be beneficial or hurtful. He is getting information from both sides of the argument and doesn't know who to believe in this situation.
I think he needs to make a decision as soon as possible to put the debate to end at least in New York State. I think it's a pretty basic decision. He can take the profits and not care about the needs of the household, or he can give up a little money and help out the people who can't exactly help themselves.
Link: http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/10/10/cuomo-on-fracking-i-think-were-doing-a-good-job-on-it/
Source Write Up #7
Citation:
Spotts, Pete. "Fracking wastewater contaminated Pennsylvania streambeds, study finds." Christian Science Monitor 2 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article talks about how contaminated water is being discovered all across Pennsylvania. In some spots, the water is so contaminated that the radium 226 is water (not good) is 200 percent more than it should be. This is happening because the companies that are fracking in the area aren't taking the time to do it safely and it ends up causing harm to the community.
Again, this is just an example of the negative effects of fracking. I don't know about you, but I'll take fresh water flowing to my house then 30 cents off of gas prices. I just don't see how the rewards add up here.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344528600
Spotts, Pete. "Fracking wastewater contaminated Pennsylvania streambeds, study finds." Christian Science Monitor 2 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article talks about how contaminated water is being discovered all across Pennsylvania. In some spots, the water is so contaminated that the radium 226 is water (not good) is 200 percent more than it should be. This is happening because the companies that are fracking in the area aren't taking the time to do it safely and it ends up causing harm to the community.
Again, this is just an example of the negative effects of fracking. I don't know about you, but I'll take fresh water flowing to my house then 30 cents off of gas prices. I just don't see how the rewards add up here.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344528600
Source Write Up #6
Citation:
"Radioactive discharges from Marcellus shale fracking observed in Indiana County." Pittsburgh Tribune-Review [Pittsburgh, PA] 3 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
In this article, state environmental regulators found that water in Indiana county had an alarming level of radiation in it. This is thought to be because of the fracking on the nearby shale formation called Marcellus. The chemicals used for fracking are thought to have leaked out during the fracking process and contaminated the aquifer nearby that supplies water to the nearby households.
This is just an example to support my opinion on fracking. If it gets any bigger, this will start to happen in more towns which will cause major problems for a ton of people in the northeast. Considering that is where I live, I have an issue with this.
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344524426
"Radioactive discharges from Marcellus shale fracking observed in Indiana County." Pittsburgh Tribune-Review [Pittsburgh, PA] 3 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
In this article, state environmental regulators found that water in Indiana county had an alarming level of radiation in it. This is thought to be because of the fracking on the nearby shale formation called Marcellus. The chemicals used for fracking are thought to have leaked out during the fracking process and contaminated the aquifer nearby that supplies water to the nearby households.
This is just an example to support my opinion on fracking. If it gets any bigger, this will start to happen in more towns which will cause major problems for a ton of people in the northeast. Considering that is where I live, I have an issue with this.
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344524426
Source Write Up #5
Citation:
Clayton, Mark. "Natural gas 'fracking' has flipped US energy map, study says." Christian Science Monitor 9 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013
Summary:
The main focus of this article is that the demand for natural gas is shifting from the northeast to the southeast. Therefore there is a push in the northeast to develop natural gas refineries and export it to the south. This would require fracking in two major shale beds, Marcellus and Utica in the northeast region. This would create huge profits for northeast companies and also a drop in gas prices in the northeast.
I agree with this article that the rewards would be very beneficial to all and also these goals are obtainable. However, I disagree with their methodology. If they were to totally spend all of there resources on fracking these two deposits, it would run a serious risk of affecting all of the members of the community near these deposits. I don't think I agree that the rewards are worth the risks in this case.
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA345205788
Clayton, Mark. "Natural gas 'fracking' has flipped US energy map, study says." Christian Science Monitor 9 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013
Summary:
The main focus of this article is that the demand for natural gas is shifting from the northeast to the southeast. Therefore there is a push in the northeast to develop natural gas refineries and export it to the south. This would require fracking in two major shale beds, Marcellus and Utica in the northeast region. This would create huge profits for northeast companies and also a drop in gas prices in the northeast.
I agree with this article that the rewards would be very beneficial to all and also these goals are obtainable. However, I disagree with their methodology. If they were to totally spend all of there resources on fracking these two deposits, it would run a serious risk of affecting all of the members of the community near these deposits. I don't think I agree that the rewards are worth the risks in this case.
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA345205788
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Source Write Up #4
Citation:
Hydraulic Fracturing Can Be Done Responsibly." Fracking. Ed. Tamara Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Hydraulic Fracturing." 2012. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article supports the point that the rewards of hydrofracking outweigh the risks and that in can be done safely and not harm the environment. The main argument in this article brings up Exxon Mobile, a company that specializes in the refining and distribution of natural gas. They say that even though fracking has gotten a lot of negative publicity as of late from the media, Exxon has been safely doing the practice since 1940.
I'm not entirely sure if this is true, but if it is, then why would fracking be a problem? My suggestion would be that companies who want to frack have to get a certain license and they can only obtain this if they can prove that they can frack consistently without harming the environment. However if this can't truly be done, then my opinion still stands that fracking should be banned
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&zid=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010861203&userGroupName=bingul&jsid=6d975985f3536289131aa5f0bc964b2a
Hydraulic Fracturing Can Be Done Responsibly." Fracking. Ed. Tamara Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Hydraulic Fracturing." 2012. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article supports the point that the rewards of hydrofracking outweigh the risks and that in can be done safely and not harm the environment. The main argument in this article brings up Exxon Mobile, a company that specializes in the refining and distribution of natural gas. They say that even though fracking has gotten a lot of negative publicity as of late from the media, Exxon has been safely doing the practice since 1940.
I'm not entirely sure if this is true, but if it is, then why would fracking be a problem? My suggestion would be that companies who want to frack have to get a certain license and they can only obtain this if they can prove that they can frack consistently without harming the environment. However if this can't truly be done, then my opinion still stands that fracking should be banned
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&zid=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010861203&userGroupName=bingul&jsid=6d975985f3536289131aa5f0bc964b2a
Source Wite Up #3
Citation:
"To frack or not to frack." Age [Melbourne, Australia] 14 Oct. 2013: 23. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
In this article, the author talks about the obvious risks and rewards of hydrofracking. Although some would say that the rewards outweigh the risks, but this author doesn't seem to be one of them. The author elaborates on the fact that this type of fracking would be harmful to the Australian environment where it is being done. The main problem the author has with it is that they are trying to dispose of the harmful wastes in a clean water source that provides fresh water to the surrounding households.
However, there are rewards that the author mentions as well. The amount of natural gas that we could find by hydrofracking would be extremely helpful to the pollution problem we currently have with fossil fuels. However, my opinion tends to be the same as the authors in that the risks right now are too high to attempt this worldwide.
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA345490234
"To frack or not to frack." Age [Melbourne, Australia] 14 Oct. 2013: 23. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
In this article, the author talks about the obvious risks and rewards of hydrofracking. Although some would say that the rewards outweigh the risks, but this author doesn't seem to be one of them. The author elaborates on the fact that this type of fracking would be harmful to the Australian environment where it is being done. The main problem the author has with it is that they are trying to dispose of the harmful wastes in a clean water source that provides fresh water to the surrounding households.
However, there are rewards that the author mentions as well. The amount of natural gas that we could find by hydrofracking would be extremely helpful to the pollution problem we currently have with fossil fuels. However, my opinion tends to be the same as the authors in that the risks right now are too high to attempt this worldwide.
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA345490234
Source Write Up #2
Citation:
Nearing, Brian. "Water Concerns a Focus of Report." Times Union. N.p., 4 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
A national environmental group, Environment America, released a report on Thursday, October 3rd showing statistics and negative affects of hydrofracking. This was big news as New York State is still deciding on the issue of whether they should allow hydrofracking in the state or not. The mian concerns in the article were with environmental damage done and contamination of water. Some of the statistics are,
Link: http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Water-concerns-a-focus-of-report-4867618.php
Nearing, Brian. "Water Concerns a Focus of Report." Times Union. N.p., 4 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
A national environmental group, Environment America, released a report on Thursday, October 3rd showing statistics and negative affects of hydrofracking. This was big news as New York State is still deciding on the issue of whether they should allow hydrofracking in the state or not. The mian concerns in the article were with environmental damage done and contamination of water. Some of the statistics are,
- In 2012, 280 billion gallons of contaminated water returned from hydrofracking and had to be treated and disposed of in a safe way. This cost an extremely unnecessary amount of money.
- About 2 billion gallons of chemicals required for fracking have been pumped into the ground, and a lot of them are toxic.
- 450,000 tons of air pollution are released per year through the wells used for hydrofracking.
Link: http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Water-concerns-a-focus-of-report-4867618.php
Source Write Up #1
Citation:
Jolly, David. "French Court Upholds Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing." New York Times 12 Oct. 2013: B2(L). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
On October 11th, the highest court in France upheld their ban of Hydrofracking in the nation. Hydrofracking is the process of blasting highly concentrated water, sand, and chemicals deep into the ground to penetrate shale formations and release the natural gas trapped inside them. However, there are many environmental concerns with the process, the main one being that there is a chance that the water near the affected area can be contaminated by the gas and would ruin the flow of fresh water to homes in the area.
The company who challenged the law, Schuebach Energy, is a Dallas based company that claimed that the French law unfairly singled out fracking and it was against the French constitution. These claims were rejected by the court, and fracking is still banned in France.
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA345423549
Jolly, David. "French Court Upholds Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing." New York Times 12 Oct. 2013: B2(L). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
On October 11th, the highest court in France upheld their ban of Hydrofracking in the nation. Hydrofracking is the process of blasting highly concentrated water, sand, and chemicals deep into the ground to penetrate shale formations and release the natural gas trapped inside them. However, there are many environmental concerns with the process, the main one being that there is a chance that the water near the affected area can be contaminated by the gas and would ruin the flow of fresh water to homes in the area.
The company who challenged the law, Schuebach Energy, is a Dallas based company that claimed that the French law unfairly singled out fracking and it was against the French constitution. These claims were rejected by the court, and fracking is still banned in France.
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA345423549
Monday, October 14, 2013
Analyzing Editorial and Opinion Pieces
In this article, a lot of points were made about how to separate extreme bias and actual reasoning when you are reading and writing editorials. This is very important because you can't write an effective essay if you hold a personal bias on the subject. If you do this, your essay will come off somewhat childish and not very informative. Also, this essay talks about how to use the three appeals (logos, pathos, and ethos) effectively in an editorial. This will make the piece more appealing to the reader.
After reading the three of these articles, I am still confused about how to do one thing in this piece. I am confused about how to make the tone formal enough so that it fits the genre but still can appeal to readers. I feel like it can't be too informal because then it won't serve the correct purpose, but it wouldn't serve the purpose if it was too formal either. The struggle is real.
After reading the three of these articles, I am still confused about how to do one thing in this piece. I am confused about how to make the tone formal enough so that it fits the genre but still can appeal to readers. I feel like it can't be too informal because then it won't serve the correct purpose, but it wouldn't serve the purpose if it was too formal either. The struggle is real.
Easy Writer "Research"
In the book, "Easy Writer" by Andrea A. Lunsford, there is a chapter devoted to research and how to effectively conduct it. It gives you various tips on resources that are good to use for a research paper and also how to read them and effectively evaluate them so you can effectively use the information in them.
The first main point that the chapter talks about is how to effectively conduct research. The main idea is to pick a topic, narrow it down, and then identify the central issue surrounding the topic. An example that is given in the book is the topic of farming, which is chosen by the author as the more broad or general topic. Then, she narrows it down to small farming families in the United States, and then identifies the issue is how they can make a living in the United States today with mega food distribution companies. This allows the author to break down the topic and analyze it better.
The chapter then switches to how to evaluate sources. The main thing you want to think about when analyzing a source is how this source relates to your overall hypothesis for your paper. If you can't find any relevant connections between the text you are reading and your topic for the paper, then it might be a good idea to look for a different source.
The first main point that the chapter talks about is how to effectively conduct research. The main idea is to pick a topic, narrow it down, and then identify the central issue surrounding the topic. An example that is given in the book is the topic of farming, which is chosen by the author as the more broad or general topic. Then, she narrows it down to small farming families in the United States, and then identifies the issue is how they can make a living in the United States today with mega food distribution companies. This allows the author to break down the topic and analyze it better.
The chapter then switches to how to evaluate sources. The main thing you want to think about when analyzing a source is how this source relates to your overall hypothesis for your paper. If you can't find any relevant connections between the text you are reading and your topic for the paper, then it might be a good idea to look for a different source.
How to say what "They Say"
For this post, I will be analyzing the first three chapters of the book, "They Say, I Say" by Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst.
In chapter one, the book discusses the idea of including what "they say" into your own writing. This basically means if you are writing a paper about your opinion on a certain topic, you should try and include some of the thoughts of people with opposing views on the same subject. This will give your paper substance with a reader because they will be able to see why exactly you decided to voice your opinion on a certain topic.
In chapter two, the book talks about summarizing an opposing view in your paper as a way to display the opposing opinion. Summarizing is basically taking the general idea of another pice of writing and condensing it down into a paragraph or so. They stress the use of summarizing because it is an effective and somewhat simple way to elaborate on the opposite view points on your topic. However, when using these summaries, you need to find a way to connect it back to your own view on the topic or it won't be as effective.
The third chapter of the book is all about quoting other authors and how that can enhance your piece. The book argues that in an argument piece, you have to take quotes from authors who have an opposing view point from yours. You should do this because it allows the reader to actually see what the other side of the argument is instead of having to guess what it is that you are arguing against. It also urges you to introduce the quotes and explain them so that the reader doesn't have to guess at what they are trying to get at.
This is my analysis of how to say what, "they say" in your own writing pieces.
In chapter one, the book discusses the idea of including what "they say" into your own writing. This basically means if you are writing a paper about your opinion on a certain topic, you should try and include some of the thoughts of people with opposing views on the same subject. This will give your paper substance with a reader because they will be able to see why exactly you decided to voice your opinion on a certain topic.
In chapter two, the book talks about summarizing an opposing view in your paper as a way to display the opposing opinion. Summarizing is basically taking the general idea of another pice of writing and condensing it down into a paragraph or so. They stress the use of summarizing because it is an effective and somewhat simple way to elaborate on the opposite view points on your topic. However, when using these summaries, you need to find a way to connect it back to your own view on the topic or it won't be as effective.
The third chapter of the book is all about quoting other authors and how that can enhance your piece. The book argues that in an argument piece, you have to take quotes from authors who have an opposing view point from yours. You should do this because it allows the reader to actually see what the other side of the argument is instead of having to guess what it is that you are arguing against. It also urges you to introduce the quotes and explain them so that the reader doesn't have to guess at what they are trying to get at.
This is my analysis of how to say what, "they say" in your own writing pieces.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
About Me
My name is Patrick Verrelli, I am an 18 year old student at Binghamton University. I am studying in the School of Management with a concentration in Marketing. I am from Albany, New York and I graduated from Guilderland High School in 2013. In high school, I played football and baseball. At Binghamton, I live in Marcy hall with a suite of 5 other people. Feel free to leave comments on my blog about whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)