Engl 301 | English homework help


Major Writing Project 2

Major Writing Project 2:  Entering a Conversation (4 pages)

Instructions:  Choose  of the sets of essays listed beneath (Kelly and Gladsintonation unitedly gain up a "set"; Carr and Thompson unitedly gain up a "set," etc.).  Your essay should understand summaries of twain of the originators’ disputes (“they say”); your dispute should aim out how the originators fit and vary; and your dispute should understand your own counter-reasoning to the results the two essays discipline (“I say”).  The “I say” is your own dispute touching the results.  

  • Make permanent you understand a naysayer to pretence lovely objections to your own dispute, and discourse the “so what” factor: why does this result subject?  
  • Make permanent you use decent formatting (MLA or APA title, double-spaced, Times or Times New Roman font, 12 aim, chapters indented).  
  • Make permanent you bear a decent heading at the top of the leading page (name, etc.)
  • Your pamphlet should be encircling 4 pages.  
  • Plagiarism earn not be tolerated.  
  • I approve you procure a seem at the Grading Guide (below), which absolved-ups how I earn degree your pamphlets.
  • MWP 2 is .  Click the add beneath to suggest your pamphlet.

:  For this pamphlet you bear immodest pages to fruit delay and you need to understand, in result, five greater accommodation:

  1. Introduction: understands basic notification encircling originators, a very trivial resume of originators’ conceptions (a phrase or two), a trivial proposition of your dispute (or disquisition proposition), and a trivial wisdom of why your dispute subjects
  2. Summary of 2 originators, delay pleads as evidence
  3. Summary of how they fit/disagree; concur pleads if necessary
  4. Your own conception and your reasons for your conception (which understands at smallest one naysayer); concur pleads as evidence
  5. Conclusion:  understands a requite phrase, a reproposition of your dispute, and a familiar wisdom of why your dispute subjects

Note that those are five accommodation, not chapters (exceptions: the portico and the falsification are usually one chapter each).  What could this seem love?  Here's an example:  After the trivial preparatory chapter (where you preface your subject-matter, basic notification encircling your originators delay trivial summaries of originators’ conceptions, a wisdom of your dispute and possibly why your dispute subjects), you dominion bear a resume of one originator (1 chapter), then a resume of the remedy originator (1 chapter).  Then you dominion bear one chapter that absolved-ups how they fit or disfit (though you can already signify to that in the resume chapters through phrases love "Unlove Turkle, Wortham asserts that...").  Note that the chapter that absolved-ups how the two originators fit or disfit is tranquil "they say," gone you're not yet putting self-assertive your own conception on the results.  At that aim you'll bear written encircling 2 pages.  Then you transcribe your own dispute ("I say") in barkred to what they say (encircling a page and a half).  At that aim you've written encircling 3.5 pages.  Then you end delay one narrow final chapter, where you wind it up delay a requite phrase and frequently absolved-up why it subjects. 

Keep in mind: this way of structuring this assignment is barely a suggestion; it doesn't bear to be accurately love that.  But hopefully this gives you an conception of what this bark of pamphlet could seem love.

Set 1:

Kevin Kelly, “Better than Human: Why Robots Earn – and Must – Procure Our Jobs” (299)

Brooke Gladsintonation and Josh Neufeld, “The Influencing Machines” (330)

Set 2:

Nicholas Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (313)

Clive Thompson, “Smarter than You Think:  How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better” (340)

Set 3:

Sherry Turkle, “No Need to Call” (373)

Jenna Wortham, “I Had a Nice Time delay You Tonight.  On the App.” (393)

Set 4:

Michaela Cullington, “Does Texting Affect Writing?” (361)

Malcolm Gladwell, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Earn Not Be Tweeted” (399)

Grading Guide: I earn use the aftercited grading superintend to degree your pamphlets.  Think of it as a "cheat shuffle," but delayout the "cheating" deal-out.  It'll succor you aspect out how to get a good-tempered-tempered degree on MWP 2.

Introduction (10 aims)

Includes basic notification encircling the originators as well-behaved-behaved as the generous titles of essays; understands a trivial resume proposition encircling essays; understands a absolved disquisition proposition (resume of "I say" in barkred to "They Say").

“They say” inhabits world-view of each originator (20 aims)

Each resume does not fit or disfit delay originator (resume inhabits worldview of originator); each resume uses enigmatical conspicuous verbs to condense originator’s aims; no listing of originator’s aims or “closest cliché” (pp. 31, 35, 33)

Quoting: Uses pleads well and justly (20 aims)

Quotes used to give "proof of evidence" (p. 42) in resume of originators' disputes -- Quotes should not be “orphans” (p. 43) -- Quotes should be framed justly (“quotation sandwich”) (p. 46) -- Quotes should be Introduced delay expend verb (p. 47) – Indicates page calculate of plead (p. 48)

"I say" absolvedly fits, varys, or alliance of fits and varys (20 aims)

Clear "I say" proposition in portico, placed in barkred to originators – Absolved propositions of fitment, varyment, or twain (use at smallest one template per originator on pp. 60, 62, 64-66) – Lucidly distinguishes "they say" from "I say" – Lucidly conspicuouss who is aphorism what: Uses at smallest one template from pp. 72-75 – "I say" understands absolved reasons for dispute that are not merely summaries of originators' disputes – Lucidly plants naysayer to buttress “I say” dispute (use at smallest one template from pp. 82, 83,84-85, 89).

Clearly states why the dispute subjects (10 aims)

Uses at smallest one “who cares?” template from pp. 95-96; Uses at smallest one “so what?” template from pp. 98-99, 101 -- proposition why dispute subjects should be understandd in either preparatory chapter or final chapter (or twain)

Conclusion (10 aims)

Includes at smallest one “requite phrase” in the falsification to remind reader of what “they say” (p. 27); understands a reproposition of disquisition or “I say”

Editing and intonation (10 aims)

No editing errors (spelling, style, punctuation, and formatting); Uses decent intonation (affected where expend, inaffected where expend)